WTF happened to PC gaming? (FPS)

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by devious742 (3924 posts) -

[QUOTE="liffi"]

And you don't know about dragon age? It is a great game and sure there isn't much rpg out but there have never been that many rpg on pc anyway.

ChiliDragon

I don't think Dragon Age counts as a PC exclusive... ;)

its the best version ;)

Dragon age PC 9.5

Dragon age PS3 9.0

Dragon age 360 8.5

#52 Posted by TerrorRizzing (4185 posts) -
[QUOTE="dakan45"]Its not just on pc, if you take a look at the upcoming games you will see that the once leading fps genre is now surrounded by third person shooters and rpgs or sandbox games. Basicly fps are too generic for toways standards.

Singularity's the next big FPS. I can't wait to play it.... But I expect it to be a monstrous sales flop and Raven's last title - a massive shame since Raven always nails FPS gameplay.

Baranga
That for example which is a game i am looking forward, wont be that much, just a mix of wolfenstein and timeshift. It will sell poorly and wont me a very impressive game because simply average fps dont sell that much anymore. You gotta be sony or ms and make a fps with a huge budget in order to sell or amazing graphics like crysis and crysis 2 go for. Anyway those are my thoughts.

the stalker games sell pretty decent.
#53 Posted by TerrorRizzing (4185 posts) -

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="liffi"]

And you don't know about dragon age? It is a great game and sure there isn't much rpg out but there have never been that many rpg on pc anyway.

devious742

I don't think Dragon Age counts as a PC exclusive... ;)

its the best version ;)

Dragon age PC 9.5

Dragon age PS3 9.0

Dragon age 360 8.5

oh please dont bring up reviews. The ps3 version is really the worst version, pretty much unplayable right now actually.

#54 Posted by dakan45 (18614 posts) -
[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"][QUOTE="dakan45"]Its not just on pc, if you take a look at the upcoming games you will see that the once leading fps genre is now surrounded by third person shooters and rpgs or sandbox games. Basicly fps are too generic for toways standards.

Singularity's the next big FPS. I can't wait to play it.... But I expect it to be a monstrous sales flop and Raven's last title - a massive shame since Raven always nails FPS gameplay.

Baranga
That for example which is a game i am looking forward, wont be that much, just a mix of wolfenstein and timeshift. It will sell poorly and wont me a very impressive game because simply average fps dont sell that much anymore. You gotta be sony or ms and make a fps with a huge budget in order to sell or amazing graphics like crysis and crysis 2 go for. Anyway those are my thoughts.

the stalker games sell pretty decent.

Yeah but most of the sales are in regions like Russia, Ukraine, etc,etc In other words where most of the piracy is locared. Thq didnt like the region that stalker soc sold 2 millions and stopped publishing the game. Game deveopers/publishers either are weird or they dont like the way pc is heading, i dont know what to think anymore. They sold well in those regions and they didnt like that because they did not sell well in uk and Us, seriously what the hell?
#55 Posted by Birdy09 (4775 posts) -

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="liffi"]

And you don't know about dragon age? It is a great game and sure there isn't much rpg out but there have never been that many rpg on pc anyway.

devious742

I don't think Dragon Age counts as a PC exclusive... ;)

its the best version ;)

Dragon age PC 9.5

Dragon age PS3 9.0

Dragon age 360 8.5

So? Its still the same game... not largely better, coming from someone whos played the PC and PS3 versions.

#56 Posted by Ghost_702 (7405 posts) -
If only we could solve this pirate issue....I honestly blame them for a vast majority of entertainment problems. Good for nothing thieves. That's not to say that if the millions of pirates stopped pirating, the amount and quality of pc games would go up. However, that would equate to a lot more money going to the studios that would be able to better finance their future endeavors and actually give them a reason to make more games for the pc.
#57 Posted by ChiliDragon (8467 posts) -

its the best version ;)

Dragon age PC 9.5

Dragon age PS3 9.0

Dragon age 360 8.5

devious742
I'm going to take that smiley to mean that you're saying that tongue in cheek, I think... after all, everyone knows reviewers don't know what they're talking about. They can't even make music by rubbing their legs together. :P
#59 Posted by VeryBumpy (1718 posts) -

PC gaming turned into console gaming, that's what happened. And that is bad, mmmkkkyyy. I don't mind console games on the PC, I actually am glad we have them for better and more choices but......

developers don't make the proper PC adjustments to the games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Improper widescreen, no widescreen, crap mouse control, no FSAA, no gamepad support, only 360pad support, vendor specific only features, can't rebind keys, no video options, list goes on and on, etc, etc, etc

#60 Posted by TerrorRizzing (4185 posts) -

PC gaming turned into console gaming, that's what happened. And that is bad, mmmkkkyyy. I don't mind console games on the PC, I actually am glad we have them for better and more choices but......

developers don't make the proper PC adjustments to the games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Improper widescreen, no widescreen, crap mouse control, no FSAA, no gamepad support, only 360pad support, vendor specific only features, can't rebind keys, no video options, list goes on and on, etc, etc, etc

VeryBumpy
ya, if you want to concentrate only on the crappy ports and ignore the great games that we do get.
#61 Posted by haberman13 (2414 posts) -

Consoles are dumbing down the potential of gaming, especially now when PC hardware is so far advanced beyond the consoles, but developers need to make a multiplat game to turn a profit so we are stuck with old engines/features ported onto the PC.

Sad, really, especially considering how superior PC gaming is; if only more people knew that!

#62 Posted by trigun3232 (60 posts) -

sux that pc is being more like FPS games only this days... we need more RPG not Crappy MMORPG with the same old point and click system and Lame Fps games with very short singleplayer with a not so good multiplayer.... all RPGs are coming out for the console... that sucks... pc gamers also want to play good RPG with good story lines...

#63 Posted by snared04 (455 posts) -

I do believe most of us are missing the point. What happened to PC FPS games? Consoles happened.

I don't think I should even try to start a list of PC First Person Shooters that were ruined because the developers dumbed them down because they were releasing them on mulitple platforms. Unfortunately the list doesn't stop there, and for the same reason. Games like Oblivion and Star Wars: Force Unleashed also get ruined by their multi-platform ways.

It would be nice to see some FPS games that were geared towards PC's, with consoles as an after thought, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately, the trend towards "accessible gaming" aka "console people" has been getting more prevalent, and worse. Take a look at games like Borderlands, sadly one of the bigger FPS releases in the last couple of years. First clue was zilch mouse support in menus, poor graphics options, etc. Many PC ports don't include graphics options at all!

It was nice when the markets were seperate, with consoles enjoying Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, and eventually Halo while PC gamers thrived on Doom, Half Life, Doom 3, etc. But now developers insist on invading both markets. Unfortunately this seems to have come, in my opinion, at the cost of quality in both worlds.

But you're right, MMO's and RPG's have been doing better, not to mention _some_ RTS games on the PC. I'm glad Blizzard is sticking to it's guns and just saying "NO" to console gaming.

The other problem is that FPS games have, in many ways and according to many peoples' opinions, "done all that can be done." People are unwilling to stray from the standards and formulas by which games are made, so we get the same, uninspired crap that we always have.

There does seem to be, however, a few rays of hope. The trend of making campaigns cooperative, instead of only having online head-to-head death match type multiplayer is great. I can't even think of how many times I wished I had my buddy(ies) along with me while going through Half-Life 1/2. I realize there were mods for such things, but I think developers are starting to realize the enormous demand for this as more of a standard feature rather than something you have to download a mod and be proficient with the console to make work.

I also think the modern trend of incorporating RPG elements into FPS games is pretty much a must. If we want to be innovative and look beyond our tired formulas, we need to look in other directions.

#64 Posted by RobertBowen (4094 posts) -

It's so easy to use consoles as a scapegoat for all PC gaming woes, these days. Sure, they have had some negative impacts on PC gaming when it comes to multi-platform games that are designed for the lowest common denominator (console controller and memory constraints), but I think it's too simplistic to say that consoles are the only reason for the perceived 'dumbing down' of PC games.

You have to look at the development costs as well, which have risen exponentially over the years, and its not uncommmon for a AAA game's budget to exceed $50 million, and have a hundred staff involved. The higher the development costs, the higher the number of sales required to recoup costs (the publishers now set sales targets of 2 million units or more, or consider a game a failure). The best way to increase sales is to reach a wider audience, and that means making a game more appealing to a wider consumer base. And that means 'accessibility' or dumbing down so that any casual gamer can pick it up and play, and its the driving force behind multi-platform game development.

It just happens that consoles already have that kind of 'accessibility' built in, so they go hand in hand with more simplistic, linear 'cinematic' gameplay. Hence the major shift towards console game development, with leftovers ported over to the PC to get some extra sales. Consoles are also more attractive because you can lock-in your customer base and practically force them to buy DLC - especially multiplayer map packs for games like the COD series - which means maximising profit per title for little extra outlay.

On the other end of the scale, low budget games like Sins Of A Solar Empire can cater to niche markets with lower sales thresholds, and still make a profit. They don't have to compromise gameplay for accessibility, because they don't have to sell as many units to recoup development costs. On the other hand, don't expect the greatest looking graphics - because that is one of the big money sinkholes of game development (along with marketing).

Who drives the need for better graphics? Gamers. Pure and simple. So if you want someone to blame for dumbed down games, look in a mirror every time you complain about a game's graphics looking dated, because the developers listen, and ramp up the budget to make their game look the best it can. TimeShift was a prime example of this - the devs released a demo, gamers complained about dated graphics (and some other aspects of gameplay), so they had a cash injection from the publisher to revamp the game engine and improve the graphics before it was eventually released.

Better graphics = higher costs = higher sales requirements to make profit = dumbing down to maximise sales potential. It's a simple equation, and admittedly doesn't cover other aspects like cutting game features/content to save costs (which would then reduce sales targets).

They're in business to make money, at the end of the day. And you can't sell millions of units on PC these days, especially of games with high graphics requirements that the majority of people can't run due to outdated hardware. Gamers with high end rigs capable of running Crysis maxed out are very much in the minority, so it is financial suicide trying to cater to a niche market when you have just spent wads of cash on cutting edge graphics. Hence the complaints from Crytek about 'low sales' on the PC, and their eventual shift to multi-platform development.

Blame consoles all you like, but you (and I) have to take some of the blame as well.

#65 Posted by Birdy09 (4775 posts) -

sux that pc is being more like FPS games only this days... we need more RPG not Crappy MMORPG with the same old point and click system and Lame Fps games with very short singleplayer with a not so good multiplayer.... all RPGs are coming out for the console... that sucks... pc gamers also want to play good RPG with good story lines...

trigun3232
Well considering MMOs are the most popular and played games of all I think your wrong, less and less of us want SRPGs with so called "great stories" ... we want gameplay, persistance and cooperative/competitive elements.... SRPG offer none of those the majority of the time.
#66 Posted by snared04 (455 posts) -

You can draw a pretty direct distinction in terms of "why did this game/genre fail?" for pretty much every genre.

I'm not saying console gaming ruins every game ever put out in the last # of years, but I do firmly believe that consoles ARE the primary cause for the decline in FPS games/gaming. My reasoning for that is the trends of the last few years, and the fact that, within those trends, virtually every FPS that failed hard core on the PC was a port, or a multiplatform.

I also consider what I said true about games like Oblivion and SW:FU. If you compare Morrowind to Oblivion, you basically have a graphically updated, but gameplay and customization watered down version of the former, all so Xbox 360 players could navigate through their menus, and to hell with the PC gamers. SW:FU was not virtually but completely unplayable when released for the PC, as a result of horribly poor porting. So in that regard, Consoles directly and inarguably hurt PC gaming.

And take a look at a couple popular series from a few years back. During the Medal of Honor days, it was the PC games that really shone in the series. The PS game was great for what it was, but MoH: Allied Assault was breathtaking in its day. Again, a PC only game. Call it a niche if you want, but in my opinion when the dev's stop worrying about accessibility for silly console gamers, the game turns out better.

Next came Call of Duty 1, originally just for PC, and utterly groundbreaking in terms of FPS. I remember being totally swept away by this when it was released. Iron sights, weapon swapping, and some of the best damn gunplay ever. CoD2 was even better, and while a horrible-looking version was released on the 360 as well, it was certainly still geared towards the PC side of things. However, since then, CoD:WaW, CoD:MW 1 & 2 have come out, all geared and developed towards their console versions, instead of the PC, and I have been less than impressed with all of them. A steady decline, you might say, as the series has become more entrenched in its new found console homeland.

I'm sure they did this for money as you say, but you're really just proving my point. If the market for developers is largely in consoles, and that fact causes them to consider consoles first and PC's second, then yes: Consoles ruined PC gaming. All other things aside

#67 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="GeneralShowzer"] Diablo was never really a demanding and complex PC game. It can be ported to consoles with great ease, so i don't see why not. It is and always will be a PC game. You are acting as if only now PC games get ported to consoles, while in fact i know that i played Warcraft II on PS.Gladestone1

I just explained the logic, I didnt say I agreed or thought that way ;) .... but it does happen alot. not saying it would with Diablo 3.

What im saying is the pc needs a few good exclusives..Like starcraft 2, like dawn of war 2...We have so few these days..Diablo 3 should stay a pc game period..Ya i no they would loose a lot of cash how ever i think they still will make a ton..With starcraft 2 an diablo 3..Pc gamers such as myself old timers would want to see diablo remain on the pc..Its just a respect thing..Own a xbox so dont get me wrong i love it..Its just a thing ive got with diablo an certain games like simcity need to remain a pc game only..

Why do you NEED these games to remain exclusive to the PC? If anything, we need quality games, and more of them. I don't understand PC gamers who want to keep exclusives for themselves. Most of the gaming market now is in consoles, we (PC gamers) need to recognize that.
#68 Posted by haberman13 (2414 posts) -

[QUOTE="Gladestone1"]

[QUOTE="Birdy09"] I just explained the logic, I didnt say I agreed or thought that way ;) .... but it does happen alot. not saying it would with Diablo 3.chrisrooR

What im saying is the pc needs a few good exclusives..Like starcraft 2, like dawn of war 2...We have so few these days..Diablo 3 should stay a pc game period..Ya i no they would loose a lot of cash how ever i think they still will make a ton..With starcraft 2 an diablo 3..Pc gamers such as myself old timers would want to see diablo remain on the pc..Its just a respect thing..Own a xbox so dont get me wrong i love it..Its just a thing ive got with diablo an certain games like simcity need to remain a pc game only..

Why do you NEED these games to remain exclusive to the PC? If anything, we need quality games, and more of them. I don't understand PC gamers who want to keep exclusives for themselves. Most of the gaming market now is in consoles, we (PC gamers) need to recognize that.

My person rejection of multiplat is that consoles have limitations (memory, cpu, controller) that force developers to pare down their scope to what a console can handle (and what console gamers can handle).

IMO make a game for the PC enthusiast, then remove things and scale back the graphics for the consoles. Not the other way around as it is currently done (develop for console, port to PC).

Games would be better on alll systems if they were first deved for the PC.

Imagine using a Pentium 4 as your target machine when making a game ---- that is what happens when you develop for a console.

#69 Posted by ChiliDragon (8467 posts) -
My person rejection of multiplat is that consoles have limitations (memory, cpu, controller) that force developers to pare down their scope to what a console can handle (and what console gamers can handle).haberman13
I don't particularly care about that part. I like having extremely detailed graphics, but in the end they're just glitz and that, frankly, a very good game doesn't need. It improves it, yes, but a good game is a good game whether it runs with AA at 4x or 16x. My complaint is how it affects the interface. I've been trying to imagine how to play Dragon Age on something that doesn't have a keyboard, where you can simply bind skills and abilities to hotkeys, pick party members with a Function key and select the whole group with a single click. When the interface is designed for a console that has fewer input options, then I lose some of the ability to micro-manage and have full control, that I'm used to on the PC, and that is what irritates me. Not the graphics. I love maxing them out, but I can live without maxed out video settings if it means I get better gameplay and voice acting.
#70 Posted by adamosmaki (9624 posts) -
Stalke SOC, Stalker COP and Stalker CS Cryostasis Crysis and Crysis Warhead Left4Dead and Left4Dead 2 ( they are on 360 but the amount of support and mods for em makes the pc version by far superior) Team Fortress 2 ( same as left4dead ) Arma 2 Serious Sam HD Lead n Gold gangs of the wild west Killing Floor Metro 2033 ( sure there is an x360 version but pc version much better and with the correct vga it looks stunning ) Every multiplat that is better on Pc
#71 Posted by unlikely855 (8 posts) -
it's all about the money. developers have no real reason to compete by way of engaging or innovative gameplay. currently it is much more profitable to go after the casual or irregular gamers, and try to get more demographics into their profit margin than to try and fight over the same old customers, jaded over with years of gaming. go read a few news articles about the how video games are becoming mainsteam, played by old geezars and children alike, the retarded "video games are not just for kids anymore!" articles media has been circulating the last 6 years or so for some reference on this. secondarily, development has stagnated for PC and shifted towards console for another reason: piracy and DRM. developers find it much easier to profit if they don't have their product pirated. they have been complaining about this for years, you guys expect them to do nothing about it? why would they hold back and bend over to the pirates, when industry trends show them they can sell us crap, and kids will buy it to play on their new console? I used to think boycotting rushed or recycled games would be the answer, but now it is obvious to me the fresh customers far exceed us gamers who demand quality rather than cheap gimmicks upon simplicity, or eye-candy. there is really nothin anyone can do about this, except to wait until the developers and investors figure they cannot attract any more casual or new gamers with their gimmicks, and they will figure they have to use quality to carve their profits out of the mass of "casual" gamers...
#72 Posted by RobertBowen (4094 posts) -

I'm not saying console gaming ruins every game ever put out in the last # of years, but I do firmly believe that consoles ARE the primary cause for the decline in FPS games/gaming. My reasoning for that is the trends of the last few years, and the fact that, within those trends, virtually every FPS that failed hard core on the PC was a port, or a multiplatform.

- - - - -

SW:FU was not virtually but completely unplayable when released for the PC, as a result of horribly poor porting. So in that regard, Consoles directly and inarguably hurt PC gaming.

snared04

There are good ports, and there are bad ports, and they swing both ways. There have been just as many bad ports of PC titles to consoles over the years, but they don't get as much attention. A bad port of a game is a separate issue from the actual design decisions for that game taken during development. A bad port could simply be the result of the developer running out of money, or not being competent on a particular platform, or just trying to cash in on the success of a title. So both console gamers and PC gamers have had some raw deals over the years.

When it comes to 'multi-platform' games, I understand where you are coming from, and agree that the constraints of console hardware can have an impact on design decisions as well, such as smaller levels, changes to the interface, lower quality graphics, zoomed in FOV, etc. When it comes to these factors, developers are obviously trying to make 'one game to fit all' in order to save costs, but you can't fit a square peg in a round hole without trimming off the corners, and it can be a false economy if gamers on a particular platform dislike the changes enough to not buy the game.

And take a look at a couple popular series from a few years back. During the Medal of Honor days, it was the PC games that really shone in the series. The PS game was great for what it was, but MoH: Allied Assault was breathtaking in its day. Again, a PC only game. Call it a niche if you want, but in my opinion when the dev's stop worrying about accessibility for silly console gamers, the game turns out better.

snared04

First, I didn't call PC gaming in general a 'niche' market. Space strategy games are a niche market, and so too are games with high end graphics because they are aimed squarely at a minority of PC gamers able to run them. But PC gaming as a whole is very far from a 'niche' market. :)

Second, I think it's disingenuous to label all console gamers as 'silly' or for PC gamers in general to view them as somehow mentally challenged. Many PC gamers also own consoles, and play games on consoles, and that is an increasing trend. Does someone's intelligence quotient suddenly drop sharply when they use a gamepad rather than a keyboard and mouse? Of course not.

In fact, alternative control devices have been around on PCs for the past couple of decades, including joysticks, game pads, pedals, steering wheels, etc. That being the case, it is harder to blame the constraints of the console controller for the 'dumbing down' of gaming - after all, in any fighting game you can use different combinations of buttons to pull off dozens of different moves. So fewer available buttons should not automatically equate to fewer options.

Take the MS Strategic Commander (exclusive to PC) as another example - 8 buttons, and a slider with 3 positions, as I recall - and you could program it with over 70 commands, while also using it for forward/backward/side-to-side movement, and leaning left to right. Considerably fewer buttons than a keyboard, yet it had the same functionality (and I could play FPS and RPG games just as easily as the RTS for which it was designed). The Xbox 360 controller basically has 10 buttons (including the triggers/bumpers), a dpad (4 options there) and two sticks (for movement, panning). Technically, it should be able to offer more functionality than the MS Strategic Commander - but most developers simply ignore that potential. Why?

That means the only real physical constraint on a console is the limited memory, which leads to a reduction in physical size of game assets, such as textures, game levels, model complexity - and these 'visual' constraints are much more noticeable when that game arrives on the PC.

In my view, the dumbing down of games has far more to do with the attitudes of developers toward the perceived competence of their market. They are the ones putting stupid pop-up messages in the games (which is nonsensical if a game has a tutorial level), streamlining interfaces, cutting features so you only have to press a few buttons. They are the ones assuming that every gamer has the attention span of a gnat, and is too retarded to remember which button to press to jump or grab an item in game. I think you'd find many hardcore gamers who prefer console platforms would also enjoy a more feature-rich gaming experience with more depth.

Next came Call of Duty 1, originally just for PC, and utterly groundbreaking in terms of FPS. I remember being totally swept away by this when it was released. Iron sights, weapon swapping, and some of the best damn gunplay ever. CoD2 was even better, and while a horrible-looking version was released on the 360 as well, it was certainly still geared towards the PC side of things. However, since then, CoD:WaW, CoD:MW 1 & 2 have come out, all geared and developed towards their console versions, instead of the PC, and I have been less than impressed with all of them. A steady decline, you might say, as the series has become more entrenched in its new found console homeland.

snared04

Blame Infinity Ward for the decline of the CoD series. They wanted to become a console-focused developer after CoD 1 (ActiVision said 'no'), and CoD 2 was very much aimed at casual gamers, which you can clearly see in many of their design choices that carried over into the PC version: regenerating health, enemies showing up on radar, shooting scoped while jumping, one-shot kill shotguns, a grenade button for quickly throwing grenades (which led to increased grenade spamming), crosshairs going red over enemies (meaning you couldn't hide in bushes), and shoebox-sized maps so people didn't have to run too far to find the next target. Engine constraints also led to bushes popping in and out of view when scoping. No anti-cheat out of the box, in spite of the fact they knew CoD 1 was hacked to death. No mod support for half a year, in spite of the fact they knew custom maps and mods were popular.

Hmm...if hardcore PC gamers had been the focus of CoD 2, as you seem to believe, you probably wouldn't have seen any of those things. I played CoD 1 and United Offensive to death online, and I disliked many of the changes they made to CoD 2, because I could see straight away that those changes were aimed at casual gamers (or 'console' gamers, if you prefer). And yes, the series went rapidly downhill from there as they catered more and more to the casual market.

Another indicator of the 'casual' mindset can be seen in many RTS games in recent years, where developers have largely removed or toned down base building, resource management, etc., ie, the 'fiddly bits', so that gamers can more quickly jump into the front lines and 'blow stuff up'. How can consoles be blamed for this 'dumbing down' of games in a genre that is basically a stronghold on the PC platform? The only possible reason for streamlining a PC exclusive RTS game is to make it 'more accessible' to appeal to casual gamers, which goes back to my argument in my previous post. Dumbed down games appeal to a wider audience and attract more sales.

#73 Posted by griffy2013 (20 posts) -

PC gaming is sadly dead at the moment. But the dumb fuck ( dick up their asses ) corporate faggots are learning the hard way. They will lose money in the end because we are smart enough now to make our own games and they won't control the money for much longer. I find it so hilarious that people are still buying consoles. LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF as you support the industry instead of true art. It will be funny when PC users control the gaming world and the console idiots will be looked at as cute little children playing with their wal-mart toys.

#74 Posted by 8-Bitterness (3707 posts) -

@griffy2013 said:

PC gaming is sadly dead at the moment. But the dumb fuck ( dick up their asses ) corporate faggots are learning the hard way. They will lose money in the end because we are smart enough now to make our own games and they won't control the money for much longer. I find it so hilarious that people are still buying consoles. LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF as you support the industry instead of true art. It will be funny when PC users control the gaming world and the console idiots will be looked at as cute little children playing with their wal-mart toys.

Just got your first PC?

Come on, there's no need to be borderline dumb here. PC gaming is better than ever.

#75 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16151 posts) -

Digging up dead threads, eh? (Hint: You're not supposed to).

#76 Posted by PredatorRules (8014 posts) -

You can say thanks to Activision with their copy paste formula, EA is doing the same right now with BF, so yeah the majority of PC FPS gamers are now on those crappy games because no one makes any good other FPS.

Right now playing Serious Sam 3 BFE and it's way fun than CoD or BF, just run and shoot and care less about storyline.

#78 Edited by JigglyWiggly_ (23556 posts) -

then go play quake live or tribes ascend, problem solved

#79 Edited by napo_sp (275 posts) -

FPS killed PC gaming, PC gaming was better when FPS was still the inferior genre; thankfully those days are coming back! yeah baby!

#80 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

@griffy2013 said:

dumb fuck ( dick up their asses ) corporate faggots

Yeah, you'll last a long time here.

Also, don't bump threads that have been dead for three and a half years.

#81 Posted by Kopmeister (20 posts) -

Quite simply with the increased popularity and of the accessibility of console gaming companies have decided to cater for the consoles and subsequently PC gamers get the crappy ports and its not even like the console games are any good

#82 Edited by kraken2109 (13055 posts) -

NECRO THREAD

(With added troll goodness)