90+ PC Exclusive Games 2011

wonder how many will be sold at retail lol

[QUOTE="lazerface216"]

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] Chapter 1 and 2 are already out and there will be five parts in all, the last planned for an August release. It is browser based for now, but I contacted the developer about a digital release (such as Steam) and they plan to release it as such eventually (actually unless I read the email wrong it sounded like Valve contacted the developer about a Steam release prior to me sending the email). Great so far and I recommend it. SAGE_OF_FIRE

i played the demo last night for about an hour and i have a question. what's up with the ilomilo reference? are they the same developers? i tried researching it today at work to no avail...

yeah, the only connection i can find is that they're both swedish devs.

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

KiZZo1

this says it all. access-ability is really the only reason why so many games are made for the PC. as you said "quantity doesnt equal quality"

Unfortunately the genre selection is extremely narrow on the PC. Im not interested in the slightest in playing an MMO, an RTS game, a simulator, or an overhead strategy/action game where your character is tiny. and nearly every gamer that I know feels the same. so goodbye 70% of the list, right off the bat.

plus, many of these so called "action games" I have seen in videos recently and they look pretty weak, especially in comparison to what console action games are coming out this year. they almost look last gen. not in graphics necessarily but just in the gameplay mechanics and design. they are weak, weak, weak

on top of that, most of these games just seem so generic and lacking in any personality. I know you shouldnt judge a book by its cover, but honestly I feel no intention to purchase games that dont look innovative or fun to play, and doent even have a compelling style. so it really doesnt matter the quantity that you throw at me. it doesnt make these games worth my time,

so give me a break, PC fans. stop trying to impress us with these laughable lists and start actually trying to impress us with innovative, gen-defining classics. thank you.

[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

arbitor365

this says it all. access-ability is really the only reason why so many games are made for the PC. as you said "quantity doesnt equal quality"

Unfortunately the genre selection is extremely narrow on the PC. Im not interested in the slightest in playing an MMO, an RTS game, a simulator, or an overhead strategy/action game where your character is tiny. and nearly every gamer that I know feels the same. so goodbye 70% of the list, right off the bat.

plus, many of these so called "action games" I have seen in videos recently and they look pretty weak, especially in comparison to what console action games are coming out this year. they almost look last gen. not in graphics necessarily but just in the gameplay mechanics and design. they are weak, weak, weak

on top of that, most of these games just seem so generic and lacking in any personality. I know you shouldnt judge a book by its cover, but honestly I feel no intention to purchase games that dont look innovative or fun to play, and doent even have a compelling style. so it really doesnt matter the quantity that you throw at me. it doesnt make these games woth my time,

so give me a break, PC fans. stop trying to impress us with these laughable lists and start actually trying to impress us with innovative, gen-defining classics. thank you.

The genre slection is extremely Narrow on PC? Personally for me, i'm interested in Dungeons, Rfactor 2, Firefall, Bounty Arms, Shogun 2, heroes of stalingrad, Anomaly: Warzone Earth, Witcher 2 Natural Selection 2, Steel Armor: Blaze of war GTR racing 2011, outside of many multiplatforms I have my Eye on....(Thats a RTS, 3rd persion shooter, platformer, WAR RTS, FPS, tower defense, RPG, RTS/FPS hybrid, Tank simulation, racing, and others)

You do know the TC of this thread just simply named games and did 0 statemernt to try to "impress" anyone in his pics of games? Same as when members last week posted all gaming platform list of games to come. Might wanna calm down there on that speculation. Outside of that, PC is not defined by a generation so it kinda voids the concept of "innovative, gen-defining classics".

[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

arbitor365

this says it all. access-ability is really the only reason why so many games are made for the PC. as you said "quantity doesnt equal quality"

Unfortunately the genre selection is extremely narrow on the PC. Im no

t interested in the slightest in playing an MMO, an RTS game, a simulator, or an overhead strategy/action game where your character is tiny. and nearly every gamer that I know feels the same. so goodbye 70% of the list, right off the bat.

plus, many of these so called "action games" I have seen in videos recently and they look pretty weak, especially in comparison to what console action games are coming out this year. they almost look last gen. not in graphics necessarily but just in the gameplay mechanics and design. they are weak, weak, weak

on top of that, most of these games just seem so generic and lacking in any personality. I know you shouldnt judge a book by its cover, but honestly I feel no intention to purchase games that dont look innovative or fun to play, and doent even have a compelling style. so it really doesnt matter the quantity that you throw at me. it doesnt make these games woth my time,

so give me a break, PC fans. stop trying to impress us with these laughable lists and start actually trying to impress us with innovative, gen-defining classics. thank you.

I wouldn't be making statements that you have no evidence to back up. Please actually look at the games and not just jump to fanboy takes

Can consoles do a game with 56k troops in a single game, nope they couldn't even handle 1k.

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

KiZZo1

[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

arbitor365

this says it all. access-ability is really the only reason why so many games are made for the PC. as you said "quantity doesnt equal quality"

Good thing PC has both then.

wonder how many will be sold at retail lol

mariokart64fan

Retail means publishers and for many indie and small developers publishers mean bankruptcy.

[QUOTE="KiZZo1"]

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

cainetao11

Can consoles do a game with 56k troops in a single game, nope they couldn't even handle 1k.James161324

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

Of course PC is going to have the most games, because it's the most accessible platform for developers, but quantity =/= quality.

[QUOTE="James161324"]Can consoles do a game with 56k troops in a single game, nope they couldn't even handle 1k.arbitor365

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

Try Firefall, Red Orchestra 2, Natural Selection 2 or Tactical Intervention when they release. And don't look at the screenshots and say "bu dats unintrestin!", actually put time in and play them, form an opinion.

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

[QUOTE="James161324"]Can consoles do a game with 56k troops in a single game, nope they couldn't even handle 1k.hypoty

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

Try Firefall, Red Orchestra 2, Natural Selection 2 or Tactical Intervention when they release. And don't look at the screenshots and say "bu dats unintrestin!", actually put time in and play them, form an opinion.

I can give you my impression of the gameplay footage of each of these games

firefall - its a wattered down "borderlands" with flying elements mixed in. pass.

red orchestra 2 - this is one that puzzles the **** out of me. what do people see in this game? really. I want to know. they are praising its graphics and realism. look at the soldier deaths 1 minute into this and tell me that it looks even remotely realistic or even up to par with current gen standards. on top of that I see ZERO innovation here. in the interviews, in the wikipedia page, and all the fanboy rants I have read, I see nothing compelling or fresh about this game. this looks like its somewhere behind "world at war." thats not a good thing.

natural selection 2 - I have been seeing gameplay footage of this on machinima. it looks ok. that is, if I were interested in RTS. unfortunately im not. Besides the gimmick of mixing RTS and FPS, there really doesnt seem to be anything going for this game in terms of battle physics, graphics, or gameplay innovation. it looks rather dull

tactical intervention - according the beta testers, the game is buggy and full of problems. Of course, this could be fixed. anyway, the game looks like it might be something between swat 4 and counter strike. 2 games that I dont care at all about.

sorry. But I think I will stick with resistance 3, duke nukem forever, bioshock infinite, and killzone 3. those games actually show promise.

[QUOTE="hypoty"]

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

arbitor365

Try Firefall, Red Orchestra 2, Natural Selection 2 or Tactical Intervention when they release. And don't look at the screenshots and say "bu dats unintrestin!", actually put time in and play them, form an opinion.

I can give you my impression of the gameplay footage of each of these games

firefall - its a wattered down "borderlands" with flying elements mixed in. pass.

red orchestra 2 - this is one that puzzles the **** out of me. what do people see in this game? really. I want to know. they are praising its graphics and realism. look at the soldier deaths 1 minute into this and tell me that it looks even remotely realistic or even up to par with current gen standards. on top of that I see ZERO innovation here. in the interviews, in the wikipedia page, and all the fanboy rants I have read, I see nothing compelling or fresh about this game. this looks like its somewhere behind "world at war." thats not a good thing.

natural selection 2 - I have been seeing gameplay footage of this on machinima. it looks ok. that is, if I were interested in RTS. unfortunately im not. Besides the gimmick of mixing RTS and FPS, there really doesnt seem to be anything going for this game in terms of battle physics, graphics, or gameplay innovation. it looks rather dull

tactical intervention - according the beta testers, the game is buggy and full of problems. Of course, this could be fixed. anyway, the game looks like it might be something between swat 4 and counter strike. 2 games that I dont care at all about.

sorry. But I think I will stick with resistance 3, duke nukem forever, bioshock infinite, and killzone 3. those games actually show promise.

Your opinion but someone could just as easily say the games you are presenting are shallow generic non innovative generation clasics couldn't they? I don't believe that but using your logic in the last few post in the opposite effect could be considered. No one cares though on opinion.. The problem is your equating that your games will be "so much more" and condoning the others just because you don't like them. We all have preferences so its kinda a mute point isn't it? In the end, the Pc is getting alot of exclusives this year with alot of genre's being touched.

PS.. You named some multiplatform games.

I can give you my impression of the gameplay footage of each of these games

firefall - its a wattered down "borderlands" with flying elements mixed in. pass.

red orchestra 2 - this is one that puzzles the **** out of me. what do people see in this game? really. I want to know. they are praising its graphics and realism. look at the soldier deaths 1 minute into this and tell me that it looks even remotely realistic or even up to par with current gen standards. on top of that I see ZERO innovation here. in the interviews, in the wikipedia page, and all the fanboy rants I have read, I see nothing compelling or fresh about this game. this looks like its somewhere behind "world at war." thats not a good thing.

natural selection 2 - I have been seeing gameplay footage of this on machinima. it looks ok. that is, if I were interested in RTS. unfortunately im not. Besides the gimmick of mixing RTS and FPS, there really doesnt seem to be anything going for this game in terms of battle physics, graphics, or gameplay innovation. it looks rather dull

tactical intervention - according the beta testers, the game is buggy and full of problems. Of course, this could be fixed. anyway, the game looks like it might be something between swat 4 and counter strike. 2 games that I dont care at all about.

sorry. But I think I will stick with resistance 3, duke nukem forever, bioshock infinite, and killzone 3. those games actually show promise.

arbitor365

It´s funny that you mention lack of innovation(and other adjectives)to discribe the other games and then you mention these that have no inovation whatsoever to support your argument?

That´s very amusing.

[QUOTE="James161324"]Can consoles do a game with 56k troops in a single game, nope they couldn't even handle 1k.arbitor365

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

I want Diablo 3 and The Witcher 2 NAO

[QUOTE="hypoty"]

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

arbitor365

Try Firefall, Red Orchestra 2, Natural Selection 2 or Tactical Intervention when they release. And don't look at the screenshots and say "bu dats unintrestin!", actually put time in and play them, form an opinion.

I can give you my impression of the gameplay footage of each of these games

firefall - its a wattered down "borderlands" with flying elements mixed in. pass.

red orchestra 2 - this is one that puzzles the **** out of me. what do people see in this game? really. I want to know. they are praising its graphics and realism. look at the soldier deaths 1 minute into this and tell me that it looks even remotely realistic or even up to par with current gen standards. on top of that I see ZERO innovation here. in the interviews, in the wikipedia page, and all the fanboy rants I have read, I see nothing compelling or fresh about this game. this looks like its somewhere behind "world at war." thats not a good thing.

natural selection 2 - I have been seeing gameplay footage of this on machinima. it looks ok. that is, if I were interested in RTS. unfortunately im not. Besides the gimmick of mixing RTS and FPS, there really doesnt seem to be anything going for this game in terms of battle physics, graphics, or gameplay innovation. it looks rather dull

tactical intervention - according the beta testers, the game is buggy and full of problems. Of course, this could be fixed. anyway, the game looks like it might be something between swat 4 and counter strike. 2 games that I dont care at all about.

sorry. But I think I will stick with resistance 3, duke nukem forever, bioshock infinite, and killzone 3. those games actually show promise.

Where do I begin? Watered down Borderlands? Really? Sure disregard the persistent world, 100 player battles, and the entirety of the gameplay and then the only similarity left is the visuals. I thought I told you not to judge a game based on screenshots?

As for Red Orchestra 2, it's the combined arms realistic gameplay that gets me going, not to mention you are judging the game on a in-engine promotional trailer, not actual gameplay. Look at some more recent developer commentary videos. The fact you compare this game to World at War tells me you know absolutely nothing about it, considering their only similarity is the setting. Seriously, if the realistic tank gameplay, 64 player battles, dynamic cover system, bullet physics or dynamic multiplayer modes don't do it for you then it's safe to say these types of games simply don't appeal to you, not that it's 'not compelling' as you put it.

As for Natural Selection 2, what gimmick are you talking about? The gimmick that made Natural Selection one of the most popular mods for Half Life? The gimmick that created a videogame development team? I mean seriously, you go on to criticize it for having no innovation yet you complain that having a commander is 'gimmicky'. And that's all without playing the damn game. Guess what, I've played it and I disagree. I also love how you call it dull and uninnovative when it one of the few multiplayer games where the two teams are completely different in gameplay and tactics. No Red vs Blue gameplay here.

You then go on to praise games like Resistance 3 and Killzone 3, even with your 'high standards' for innovation. Not only that but you treat your opinion as fact! So Killzone 3, Resistance 3 and Duke Nukem show promise but Red Orchestra 2, Firefall and Natural Selection 2 don't? Give me a break. It's safe to assume you're already predisposed and have made up your mind, bias and all.

wonder how many will be sold at retail lol

mariokart64fan

Those 3 PC FPSs look more interesting than what FPSs I've seen on consoles this year.

[QUOTE="hypoty"]

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

who would even want to play an FPS game with that many other players in the server at once? or if you are talking about singleplayer campeigns, in what situation would there call for that many enemies to begin with?

this seems like a pretty pointless ability and I fail to see how that vindicates the PC FPS library. with multiplat FPS games, yes the PC always has the best version. i can give it that. but when it comes to PC exclusive FPS games I am not impressed. there has yet to be a PC exclusive FPS game to really impress me since before this gen.

arbitor365

Try Firefall, Red Orchestra 2, Natural Selection 2 or Tactical Intervention when they release. And don't look at the screenshots and say "bu dats unintrestin!", actually put time in and play them, form an opinion.

I can give you my impression of the gameplay footage of each of these games

firefall - its a wattered down "borderlands" with flying elements mixed in. pass.

red orchestra 2 - this is one that puzzles the **** out of me. what do people see in this game? really. I want to know. they are praising its graphics and realism. look at the soldier deaths 1 minute into this and tell me that it looks even remotely realistic or even up to par with current gen standards. on top of that I see ZERO innovation here. in the interviews, in the wikipedia page, and all the fanboy rants I have read, I see nothing compelling or fresh about this game. this looks like its somewhere behind "world at war." thats not a good thing.

natural selection 2 - I have been seeing gameplay footage of this on machinima. it looks ok. that is, if I were interested in RTS. unfortunately im not. Besides the gimmick of mixing RTS and FPS, there really doesnt seem to be anything going for this game in terms of battle physics, graphics, or gameplay innovation. it looks rather dull

tactical intervention - according the beta testers, the game is buggy and full of problems. Of course, this could be fixed. anyway, the game looks like it might be something between swat 4 and counter strike. 2 games that I dont care at all about.

sorry. But I think I will stick with resistance 3, duke nukem forever, bioshock infinite, and killzone 3. those games actually show promise.

Shows how much you know... 1 person has the OPTION to play in a rts view whereas EVERYONE else is in first person and it doesnt need innovation for what it offers. (flying around the map , crawling on everything , teleportation , building bases)

Doesnt mean much, cause hermits will just dismiss it as its exclusive on their platform so thats all that matters... i for one only care about natural selection 2 but im sure some other people would love 80% of the list.

I wanted to mention this game Magicka. Just saw it today on Steam (it wasn't mentioned in the original post)

Steam Site

Trailer on Youtube if you hate Steam and Gabe Newell

The art caught my eye which led me to watch the gameplay vids which look pretty cool as well :)

I only counted 89. AND I didn't see any plus at the end. Liar!

Going to be an expensive year :D

I wanted to mention this game Magicka. Just saw it today on Steam (it wasn't mentioned in the original post)

Steam Site

Trailer on Youtube if you hate Steam and Gabe Newell

The art caught my eye which led me to watch the gameplay vids which look pretty cool as well :)

Raymundo_Manuel

Hilarious Trailer. It's on ym Steam wishlist now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Am i correct in thinking that Dungeons is being released next month?KalDurenik

February 10th according to Steam. It's looking sweet.

i would only need 2-3 good games a year. but hey, from that pile, maybe some will actually be worth your money. quality, not quantity.

i doesn't even matter for me if they are exclusives or not, as long as the PC version is done right.

Yeah, love the Spiderweb games and really looking forward to Avadon. Other than that, I'm surprised that there are these many games.

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]Am i correct in thinking that Dungeons is being released next month?Kinthalis

February 10th according to Steam. It's looking sweet.

Where do I begin? Watered down Borderlands? Really? Sure disregard the persistent world, 100 player battles, and the entirety of the gameplay and then the only similarity left is the visuals. I thought I told you not to judge a game based on screenshots?hypoty

fyi, I am basing this off of gameplay footage, not that single screenshot.

When I say firefall is "watered down" I mean 2 specific things. First, the graphics (more specifically the textures, level design, and grit). Secondly, the physics. Overall, this game doesn't look quite as well-rounded as borderlands. And this isn't me trying to put consoles on a pedestal. You can get borderlands on the PC and its a great version. I would recommend it before this game.

Just to solidify the point I made about this being a borderlands wannabe, I think we should go over all the factors that these games have in common.

- they both take place largely in a mountainous desert

- they are both FPS RPGs,

- they both contain MMO characteristics (such as taking quests that involve collecting items or killing enemies)

- they both have a similar cartooney $tyle

- they both offer character/weapon customization

- they both largely capitalize on multiplayer.

Now…… are you really going to sit there and tell me that you see no similarities between this game and borderlands besides the visuals?

As for Red Orchestra 2, it's the combined arms realistic gameplay that gets me going, not to mention you are judging the game on a in-engine promotional trailer, not actual gameplay. Look at some more recent developer commentary videos. The fact you compare this game to World at War tells me you know absolutely nothing about it, considering their only similarity is the setting. Seriously, if the realistic tank gameplay, 64 player battles, dynamic cover system, bullet physics or dynamic multiplayer modes don't do it for you then it's safe to say these types of games simply don't appeal to you, not that it's 'not compelling' as you put it.

I compare it to "world at war," simply because they both take place in a similar period and they are in the same genre. I could compare it to many various FPS games, and get the same point across, but I thought this would be more fair considering the limitations of the time period and historical context.

The point is that "red Orchestra 2"s campaign looks very underwhelming. "World at war" at least attempted to demonstrate large-scale battles, cinematic intensity, and a general sense of energy. "Red Orchestra 2" looks pretty dull in comparison. No amount of its supposed "realism" will disguise this.

But lets talk about the amazing factors you listed

Realistic arms gameplay? What do you mean by that? The most I have heard about the guns in this game is that they have more recoil. First of all, most FPS games have plenty of recoil. Exactly how inaccurate and awkward do your weapons have to be? Secondly, I really don't care how much my guns bounce around when I shoot them. Its not an important factor at all. A game could have virtually no recoil and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I fail to see how it is some objective, universal positive to have more recoil in FPS games. It puzzles me when I hear it from so many people, especially the PC crowd.

"Realistic tank gameplay?" once again you use innocuous and especially odd terms. First of all, I think its prudent to point out that the vehicle sections (no matter how well made) are almost always everybody's least favorite part of any FPS game. So, this already doesn't seem like a very useful innovation. Secondly, I would like you to point out exactly what is so stupendous about these tanks, because the gameplay tank footage doesn't look like anything exceptional.

Cover system? Yeah, this game is a little late to the party. Cover systems are becoming more and more common and will soon be the norm.

Bullet physics?............. all I hear is the sound of crickets at this point.

64 player battles? There are plenty of games that can run this many players at once. Hell, resistance 2 can run 60 and that game is 3 years old.

One thing I like about red orchestra 2 is that it largely reveals PC gamers for being totally pretentious and detached from reality.

As for Natural Selection 2, what gimmick are you talking about? The gimmick that made Natural Selection one of the most popular mods for Half Life? The gimmick that created a videogame development team? I mean seriously, you go on to criticize it for having no innovation yet you complain that having a commander is 'gimmicky'. And that's all without playing the damn game. Guess what, I've played it and I disagree. I also love how you call it dull and uninnovative when it one of the few multiplayer games where the two teams are completely different in gameplay and tactics. No Red vs Blue gameplay here.

I call the RTS feature a gimmick, but don't take it as purely derogatory. I don't consider what the first game started as real innovation because this idea was never strong enough to permeate the FPS genre. It hasn't really gone anywhere. Mainly because this idea wouldn't really work in most FPS games. Also, the general concept of switching in and out of action and strategy didn't start with natural selection 1. has been around since "battle chess" on the NES, and probably even before that.

I criticize the FPS gameplay because the gunplay, physics, battle intensity, graphics, diversity, level design, and cinematic quality seem to be rather weak. If it weren't for the RTS feature, this game would just be another mediocre FPS game with not much going for it.

You then go on to praise games like Resistance 3 and Killzone 3, even with your 'high standards' for innovation. Not only that but you treat your opinion as fact! So Killzone 3, Resistance 3 and Duke Nukem show promise but Red Orchestra 2, Firefall and Natural Selection 2 don't? Give me a break. It's safe to assume you're already predisposed and have made up your mind, bias and all.

Well I gave my reasons against the games you listed I can equally defend the games I listed

Resistance 3 – first of all, Resistance 2 was incredible. It made massive improvements over the previous game and the controls were pretty much perfect. The campaign was one of the most impressive that I have seen in this gen. It brought you to many interesting locations, it was challenging, it had impressive boss battles, and the scale was enormous. The multiplayer, especially the co-op, was very fun as well.

Judging by what I have seen about resistance 3, it looks even better than the last game. Improvements have been made to the enemy AI and apparently to the controls (which I find hard to imagine considering how good they were before). The sty|e/visuals, the story, the setting, and many of the themes seem to bear a resemblance to Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."

The road

link

link

link

link

resistance 3

link

link

link

link (note the inference of human cannibalism)

link

This really interests me. Of course, even if I knew nothing about the game, I would still buy it simply because it is made by insomniac. This company has never made a single bad game after 15+ titles. They have always had a tendency to improve their franchises with every entry (eg. Spyro, ratchet and clank, and the previous resistance games).

Duke Nukem – I have heard from the beta testers that this game is going to be incredible and they have said, and I quote, "the king is back." Apparently this is going to be a throwback to duke nukem 3d and I have heard that it will include the best of this gen with the best of the originals. It's a very hushed project but all the testers say that it is amazing.

Killzone 3– the last game pushed the envelope in visuals and scale and it had the first really effective cover system that the FPS genre has seen. I played KZ3 at E3 last year and it was incredible. This game is everything that was good about killzone 2 and then some. This is the best FPS game I have seen this gen.

Firefall

Chantelise

Dead State

Diablo III

E.Y.E.

Star Wars: The Old Republic

RyuRanVII

The games that I have some interests in, plus Aslyum. Seems like a great year for PC indeed.

So what games should i pick anyone ?johny300

I wanted to mention this game Magicka. Just saw it today on Steam (it wasn't mentioned in the original post) Steam Site Trailer on Youtube if you hate Steam and Gabe Newell The art caught my eye which led me to watch the gameplay vids which look pretty cool as well Raymundo_

Thats a nice list but lets be honest, the PC is cheaper and easier to produce games for than a console. Secondly there are very few there that I have even heard of, let alone look any good. Bound to be a few gems but at the end of the day, who is gonna play through them all to find out, cos i certainly wouldnt.firebolt53

1. Ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything..
2. Your statement of who is gonna play them all is kinda mute.. What if I said the exact same thing about the 360 or the Ps3 who also gets a ton of games that someone would not play all of? That really is nothing to argue for or against there.

[QUOTE="firebolt53"]Thats a nice list but lets be honest, the PC is cheaper and easier to produce games for than a console. Secondly there are very few there that I have even heard of, let alone look any good. Bound to be a few gems but at the end of the day, who is gonna play through them all to find out, cos i certainly wouldnt.jedikevin2

1. Ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything..
2. Your statement of who is gonna play them all is kinda mute.. What if I said the exact same thing about the 360 or the Ps3 who also gets a ton of games that someone would not play all of? That really is nothing to argue for or against there.

Firstly I didnt dismiss them, so you cant call ignorance. Secondly its not kind of mute, the console have a smaller release schedule, exclusives are few and far between and as such the information is widely available. From this one can make an assumed choice on the game. With those games I havent even heard of half of them, this assumes that the major gaming networks have not had much of a say about them. From this i cannot make any assume choices, thus it isnt worth playing these 'unknown games' over the better known games which I will know will be good.

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="firebolt53"]Thats a nice list but lets be honest, the PC is cheaper and easier to produce games for than a console. Secondly there are very few there that I have even heard of, let alone look any good. Bound to be a few gems but at the end of the day, who is gonna play through them all to find out, cos i certainly wouldnt.firebolt53

1. Ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything..
2. Your statement of who is gonna play them all is kinda mute.. What if I said the exact same thing about the 360 or the Ps3 who also gets a ton of games that someone would not play all of? That really is nothing to argue for or against there.

Firstly I didnt dismiss them, so you cant call ignorance. Secondly its not kind of mute, the console have a smaller release schedule, exclusives are few and far between and as such the information is widely available. From this one can make an assumed choice on the game. With those games I havent even heard of half of them, this assumes that the major gaming networks have not had much of a say about them. From this i cannot make any assume choices, thus it isnt worth playing these 'unknown games' over the better known games which I will know will be good.

You do understand the definition of ignorance correct? Not dismissing them =/= ignorance. If anything, it should be the gamers who go out and research on said games that might interest them. To many people these days follow that mainstream concept and get lolled into making buying decisions without even having a complete informed decision of all games out possible to enjoy.

Secondly, I have over 30 games i've been personally following and reading up on. Not all these games get the "hype" of gamespots, igns, heavy tv ads, ads all in gamestops but that shouldn't mean anything for a gamer. People really need to stop being suckered into those buying decisions and do their own research on games. You do know that "Mainstream games" does not equal better and nothing can be proven that a mainstream game "will be good". Thats just pure speculation. Again, my statement holds that ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything.

[QUOTE="firebolt53"]

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

1. Ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything..
2. Your statement of who is gonna play them all is kinda mute.. What if I said the exact same thing about the 360 or the Ps3 who also gets a ton of games that someone would not play all of? That really is nothing to argue for or against there.

Firstly I didnt dismiss them, so you cant call ignorance. Secondly its not kind of mute, the console have a smaller release schedule, exclusives are few and far between and as such the information is widely available. From this one can make an assumed choice on the game. With those games I havent even heard of half of them, this assumes that the major gaming networks have not had much of a say about them. From this i cannot make any assume choices, thus it isnt worth playing these 'unknown games' over the better known games which I will know will be good.

You do understand the definition of ignorance correct? Not dismissing them =/= ignorance. If anything, it should be the gamers who go out and research on said games that might interest them. To many people these days follow that mainstream concept and get lolled into making buying decisions without even having a complete informed decision of all games out possible to enjoy.

Secondly, I have over 30 games i've been personally following and reading up on. Not all these games get the "hype" of gamespots, igns, heavy tv ads, ads all in gamestops but that shouldn't mean anything for a gamer. Mainstream games =/= better and nothing you can prove that a mainstream game "will be good". Thats just pure speculation. Again, my statement holds that ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything.

You can't kill PC Gaming.
PC Gaming will live on.
Microsoft tried to kill PC Gaming.
But they failed, as they were smite to the ground.
Sony tried to kill PC Gaming.
But they failed, as they were striken down to the ground.
Nintendo tried to kill PC Gaming Ha,hahahahaha
They failed, as they were thrown to the ground.

Bill Gates tried to dethrone PC Gaming, but PC Gaming was much too strong.
Pirates tried to destroy PC Gaming, but digital distribution was in the way.
System Wars tried to defile PC Gaming, but System Wars was proven wrong.

No-one can destroy PC Gaming.
PC Gaming will strike you down with a vicious blow.
These are the vanquished foes of PC Gaming.
They tried to win for why we do not know.

Steam!
It comes from hell!

mattuk69

[QUOTE="jedikevin2"]

[QUOTE="firebolt53"]

Firstly I didnt dismiss them, so you cant call ignorance. Secondly its not kind of mute, the console have a smaller release schedule, exclusives are few and far between and as such the information is widely available. From this one can make an assumed choice on the game. With those games I havent even heard of half of them, this assumes that the major gaming networks have not had much of a say about them. From this i cannot make any assume choices, thus it isnt worth playing these 'unknown games' over the better known games which I will know will be good.

firebolt53

You do understand the definition of ignorance correct? Not dismissing them =/= ignorance. If anything, it should be the gamers who go out and research on said games that might interest them. To many people these days follow that mainstream concept and get lolled into making buying decisions without even having a complete informed decision of all games out possible to enjoy.

Secondly, I have over 30 games i've been personally following and reading up on. Not all these games get the "hype" of gamespots, igns, heavy tv ads, ads all in gamestops but that shouldn't mean anything for a gamer. Mainstream games =/= better and nothing you can prove that a mainstream game "will be good". Thats just pure speculation. Again, my statement holds that ignorance of games is not a excuse to dismiss anything.

Thats understandable but that does not demonstrate that a lack of information on said games is grounds to dismiss them. That just shows you do not want to put the effort in to finding games you might like and would be more inclined to buy games that you classify as "mainstream". Personally, that has never been how I approach games and I hope I never do. Can I ask how you came to getting Monday Night Combat? I see you gave it a 9/10 and its a game that is more in line with many of these exlcusives coming (non mainstream, smaller developer, etc).. If you could enjoy that one game, couldn't you also find more great games you enjoy that you might not know about? If you did learn about the game before buying it, couldn't you go research more games and find more great games you would enjoy?

I'm just not seeing your connection that people don't have the time to form a decision for themselve to get many great games thusly should just buy what is being "hyped". Also, no idea what jobs, college, etc has anything to do with this discussion.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="arbitor365"]But lets talk about the amazing factors you listed Realistic arms gameplay? What do you mean by that? The most I have heard about the guns in this game is that they have more recoil. First of all, most FPS games have plenty of recoil. Exactly how inaccurate and awkward do your weapons have to be? Secondly, I really don't care how much my guns bounce around when I shoot them. Its not an important factor at all. A game could have virtually no recoil and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I fail to see how it is some objective, universal positive to have more recoil in FPS games. It puzzles me when I hear it from so many people, especially the PC crowd. "Realistic tank gameplay?" once again you use innocuous and especially odd terms. First of all, I think its prudent to point out that the vehicle sections (no matter how well made) are almost always everybody's least favorite part of any FPS game. So, this already doesn't seem like a very useful innovation. Secondly, I would like you to point out exactly what is so stupendous about these tanks, because the gameplay tank footage doesn't look like anything exceptional. Cover system? Yeah, this game is a little late to the party. Cover systems are becoming more and more common and will soon be the norm. Bullet physics?............. all I hear is the sound of crickets at this point. 64 player battles? There are plenty of games that can run this many players at once. Hell, resistance 2 can run 60 and that game is 3 years old.arbitor365

you know, I used to think most PC gamers were pretentious and snobby. but I realize this isnt true, because you guys arent really that good at being pretentious and snobby.

when im condescending or belligerent, at least I have some substance behind it. it seems that, a good percentage of the time, PC fans argue like this

"you dont think that crysis is a visual masterpiece? you must not have played it!"

"you think "old republic" is going to suck? you must not know anything about it!"

"you dont game on your PC? you must be ignorant of the library of games!"

and now I have you with your

"Pretty much all of this shows that you know nothing about the game other than that trailer you saw."

to add to the list.

Realistic gunplay: Look at the term "realistic". Do you understand what that means? Yes it means more recoil (read realistic), but it also means that there will be a complete bullet physics. Meaning that every bullet you fire will be influenced by gravity and normal physics. The bullets will ricochet and stuff like that. Just because you dont care about it doesnt mean that others dont. Im tired of playing FPSs that all play the same (KZ, COD, Resistance, etc.).

Realsitic tanks: Again read the "realistic" part. In RO2 playing in a tank is done how it would be in real life. You will have people driving it, commanding it, firing the gun and such. The entire interior is rendered with historic accuracy. Tanks work well in any BF game, correct? So how could you say that those are the worst moments in any FPS?

Cover system: Yes, you have heard this term thrown around. The cover system does very little actually new, but it takes all of the ways cover has been done before and makes it into something special. You dont just sit behind the cover and pop up to shoot enemies, you can do far more than that. Anything you could do irl, you could do with this cover system.

Monday Night combat is a game that I only played through word of mouth, others bought and I followed suit. And as I said I am not saying there isnt games I would enjoy, there will be some that I would propably enjoy playing but, researching unknown games is not something I do as when a game is released I generally know what I want. Its also the price matter, if i am going to take a risk on a developer I dont want to spend the price of a full price game, im going to want to spend a low amount (another reason why mnc got bought)firebolt53

So you accept getting a game because friends etc told you how great it is but you dismiss a game you might enjoy because you don't want to put in time to research it yourself? You don't want to learn about games is not a issue but that lack of information is not a feasible excuse to disregard games you don't know about. Your judging games because of your lack of information on them and not wanting to spend money on games you don't want to put time to learn about. That's a complete wrong mentality to have.

Lets put it in order based on the logic you have presented

• I don't want to learn about games that might interest me that aren't hyped but I will get games if friends, etc tell me too.
• I can find information on mainstream games but I don't wanna spend time finding information on non mainstream games.
• I don't wanna spend my hard on cash on games I know nothing about.
• I know more about mainstream games and I assume they "will be good" thus I will buy them instead.
• I am allowed to state games I know nothing about are inferior and or not worth buying for myself because they don't have the "spark" to seperate themselves from the rest.

Something about that is a bit off don't you think?