Consolites are too young to know it, BUT PC dominated since SNES

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

Consolites are too young to know it. They didn´t live it to remember...but PC dominated since SNES, since 1994. Only in 2006, consoles were able to catch up with PC to go toe-to-toe with it regarding gaming. But by 2013, PC increased its pace again, and consoles are started lagging back again.

Probably, this gen was the 2nd golden age for console gaming since SNES. But consolites, nowdays, think or state like they were dominating since always.

NO. This gen was just an exception from the rule. Even right now, you can only pit consoles vs PC when you take more than one console, combos like PS3 and XBOX, for example. If we compare them one on one without bias, without fanboyism, using only common sense, PC vs PS3, or PC vs XBOX360, PC always wins.

And I am speaking about gaming, not specs, not processing power, but gaming.

And I remember, consoles weren´t famous for innovation or for offering AAA titles.

Consoles were strictly kids-oriented platform, while PC was for adults and was offering new mature exciting games.

You don´t remeber that, or just don´t know, but back then SNES was offering side slide games like Mario. The good RPGs like Final Fantasy was an exception. The bulk of SNES games were kiddy-stuff. And right now, becuase of nostalgia, you may see them great, but back then everybody was tired of that.

Meanwhile, in 1992, while all console gamers were plaing Mario,

the FIRST 3D THIRD PERSON SURVIVAL GAME was released on PC, Alone in the Dark.

Then Doom followed. It was huge back then, it was revolitionary.

When kids were plaing this,

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMdXFHfmKVSduKB1Bqlym

PC gamers were playing this

Let´s not forget about Myst that featured photorealistic graphics

In 1994, Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger was released. The game that featured live acted cinematics. F*cking CINEMATICS. That stuff was so huge.

The only widely distributed console that catched up on cinematics was PS ONE, one year later. But they never had that 3d graphic quality. And PS ONE was still dominated by kiddy games without much of a story.

And since then PC was rising unstoppably. After SNES, all 14+ gamers moved to PC in search of mature games.

FPS was a blast of a genre. I mean after all those platformers, side slider games, FPS was a break of a fresh air.

Hexen.

Dark gothic style FPS

Terminator. SFI FPS

Quake (a first true 3d FPS)

Half Life The best story-driven FPS back then.

Thief THE FIRST STEALTH GAME

RTS was a good break from all those consolish stuff too.

Warcraft, 1995, the War between humans and orks. How cool that sounded back then.

Civilization, building your nation through the ages

Master of Orion 2, building your space empire.

PC just invented new genres, new gameplays, introduced cinematics and maturity post-SNES gamers were looking for.

Western RPG genre was born on PC, the genre that was adopted by all recent consoles rpgs, too. Dark Souls is a fine example of it, it´s not a JRPG like many noobs claim it, but a western RPG made in Japan (JRPGs imply turn based combat)

And Baldurs Gate 2, Fallout and Planescape Torment set the RPG standards so high so even now nobody can reach them.

Consoles were always lagging behind regarding gameplay and innovation.

During PS2 era, they started approaching the PC gaming quality. But back then Counter Strike was still the most played game in the world.

PS2 was still lacking good FPS and adventures. Almost all PS2 games were a third-person 3d platformers.

The current gen rise of the consoles is due to the fact they gained enough power to run FPS games and being on pair with PC, and many PC franchises such as Call of Duty, Battle Field and even Civilization were ported on consoles. So far they mustered enough maturity to compete with PC.

But still, what makes you think they will be able to go toe-to-toe with PC next gen. Back to 2006, PC Gaming was still expensive, and consoles were a true alternative to PC gaming. But when PC prices are low as never, and incoming PC console boxes from Steam and other hardware manufactures are very close, what makes you think they will have the same sale numbers ?

And this is not just a matter of price, but games too. Look at WiiU, it´s in a unending Limbo now. Gamers don´t buy it untill more games make it to the console, and developers don´t make games for WiiU untill more people buy it. Will it happen to next-gen consoles too? Very probably.

The main argument of consolites is next-gen consoles will cost arround 300$ vs 700$ PCs. But who, insound mind, would spend 300$ for a paltform with no games.

And we all know that people don´t like to buy consoles at launch, but wait for 1-2 years untill more games are released on them.

Do Sony have that time, with their financial problems ? Can they take that risk of making exclusives for 3M potential at launch buyers , and wait untill more people take confidence in the console.

From my perspective, next-gen consoles will reinforce even more the PC positions. They won´t risk making exclusives, especially MS, untill their next-gen consoles stand steadily on the ground. That means 2013 and 2014 will be the years of multi-plats

And oh dear if the Steam box is released and has better specs...with the steam games that cheap... I wouldn´t like to be in theair of MS or Sony CEO then.

Right now, Sony and MS are even regarding units sold. Arround 70M sold units each.

Will next gen consoles reach these numbers again with the incoming PC living room boxes arround the corner ? Let´s hope so.

#2 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -
 Butthurt hermit, move along lads.
#3 Posted by Masenkoe (4888 posts) -

Consoles are not just not starting to lag behind. lol

#4 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

 Butthurt hermit, move along lads.clyde46

Read the post first, assh*le.

#6 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

That's a great story grandpa, tell it again.

#7 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Butthurt hermit, move along lads.jhonMalcovich

Read the post first, assh*le.

To much effort.
#8 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

#9 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

Read the f*cking thread first, bloody trolls. I put valid points why PC gaming will dominate the next gen. 

#10 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

nameless12345

Counter Strike was the most played game in the world when Halo was released.

Besides Halo was on PC too.

#11 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

nameless12345
... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.
#12 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

Read the f*cking thread first, bloody trolls. I put valid points why PC gaming will dominate the next gen. 

jhonMalcovich

No trolls here. It's just that no one cares

#13 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

Read the f*cking thread first, bloody trolls. I put valid points why PC gaming will dominate the next gen. 

seanmcloughlin

No trolls here. It's just that no one cares

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

#14 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

Read the f*cking thread first, bloody trolls. I put valid points why PC gaming will dominate the next gen. 

jhonMalcovich

No trolls here. It's just that no one cares

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

You mad bro? You mad that your thread backfired?
#15 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -
[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

No trolls here. It's just that no one cares

clyde46

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

You mad bro? You mad that your thread backfired?

Pretty pathetic tbh clyde.
#16 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

Read the f*cking thread first, bloody trolls. I put valid points why PC gaming will dominate the next gen. 

jhonMalcovich

No trolls here. It's just that no one cares

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

You're just p!ssy cos you thought you had a great thread and no one cares about it. 

Plus everything in it is common knowledge. I read your thread and I still don't care

#17 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

MBirdy88

... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.

 

Halo came out two years after UT so I think it's not entirely different time frame.

PCs used to cost really much back then too and hardware got outdated in a year or so.

Sure, you got the best graphics and the games were far better on it, but still you could get a console for much cheaper and they also had their fair share of great exclusives.

#18 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

No trolls here. It's just that no one cares

clyde46

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

You mad bro? You mad that your thread backfired?

My thread is true to SW. Don´t like it ? Move to the "I love consoles" section.

#19 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

MBirdy88
You mad bro? You mad that your thread backfired?

Pretty pathetic tbh clyde.

Meh, its threads like this that gives hermits that moany stigma.
#21 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

nameless12345

... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.

 

Halo came out two years after UT so I think it's not entirely different time frame.

PCs used to cost really much back then too and hardware got outdated in a year or so.

Sure, you got the best graphics and the games were far better on it, but still you could get a console for much cheaper and they also had their fair share of great exclusives.

True, it comes down to simplcity aswell. at 6-10 years old I would of enjoyed donkey kong more than unreal tournement and so I did. PC games of that generation were like comparing I dunno, some depthful console game to angry birds. When games get simpler and simpler the audiance expands, Halo made shooters very accessible and so did cod, hence the days of complex shooters have pretty much died. Its sad.... but what can you do.
#22 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -

I'm 32. So much for your assumption. On top of that, two of your examples came out on consoles: I own a copy of Wing Commander III on PlayStation, and Myst was apparently released for the PS as well.

 

Oh, and as much as I love Thief, it wasn't the first stealth game.  My guess would be Metal Gear or Castle Wolfenstein.

#23 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

No. It´s just you trolling. If you don´t care, move along.

jhonMalcovich

You mad bro? You mad that your thread backfired?

My thread is true to SW. Don´t like it ? Move to the "I love consoles" section.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Captain_cannonfodder/games/?tab=all&sort=name Try again bro.
#24 Posted by DISSESHOWEDO (1775 posts) -

Consolites are too young to know it. They didn´t live it to remember...but PC dominated since SNES, since 1994. Only in 2006, consoles were able to catch up with PC to go toe-to-toe with it regarding gaming. But by 2013, PC increased its pace again, and consoles are started lagging back again.

Probably, this gen was the 2nd golden age for console gaming since SNES. But consolites, nowdays, think or state like they were dominating since always.

NO. This gen was just an exception from the rule. Even right now, you can only pit consoles vs PC when you take more than one console, combos like PS3 and XBOX, for example. If we compare them one on one without bias, without fanboyism, using only common sense, PC vs PS3, or PC vs XBOX360, PC always wins.

And I am speaking about gaming, not specs, not processing power, but gaming.

And I remember, consoles weren´t famous for innovation or for offering AAA titles.

Consoles were strictly kids-oriented platform, while PC was for adults and was offering new mature exciting games.

You don´t remeber that, or just don´t know, but back then SNES was offering side slide games like Mario. The good RPGs like Final Fantasy was an exception. The bulk of SNES games were kiddy-stuff. And right now, becuase of nostalgia, you may see them great, but back then everybody was tired of that.

Meanwhile, in 1992, while all console gamers were plaing Mario,

the FIRST 3D THIRD PERSON SURVIVAL GAME was released on PC, Alone in the Dark.

Then Doom followed. It was huge back then, it was revolitionary.

When kids were plaing this,

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMdXFHfmKVSduKB1Bqlym

PC gamers were playing this

Let´s not forget about Myst that featured photorealistic graphics

In 1994, Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger was released. The game that featured live acted cinematics. F*cking CINEMATICS. That stuff was so huge.

The only widely distributed console that catched up on cinematics was PS ONE, one year later. But they never had that 3d graphic quality. And PS ONE was still dominated by kiddy games without much of a story.

And since then PC was rising unstoppably. After SNES, all 14+ gamers moved to PC in search of mature games.

FPS was a blast of a genre. I mean after all those platformers, side slider games, FPS was a break of a fresh air.

Hexen.

Dark gothic style FPS

Terminator. SFI FPS

Quake (a first true 3d FPS)

Half Life The best story-driven FPS back then.

Thief THE FIRST STEALTH GAME

RTS was a good break from all those consolish stuff too.

Warcraft, 1995, the War between humans and orks. How cool that sounded back then.

Civilization, building your nation through the ages

Master of Orion 2, building your space empire.

PC just invented new genres, new gameplays, introduced cinematics and maturity post-SNES gamers were looking for.

Western RPG genre was born on PC, the genre that was adopted by all recent consoles rpgs, too. Dark Souls is a fine example of it, it´s not a JRPG like many noobs claim it, but a western RPG made in Japan (JRPGs imply turn based combat)

And Baldurs Gate 2, Fallout and Planescape Torment set the RPG standards so high so even now nobody can reach them.

Consoles were always lagging behind regarding gameplay and innovation.

During PS2 era, they started approaching the PC gaming quality. But back then Counter Strike was still the most played game in the world.

PS2 was still lacking good FPS and adventures. Almost all PS2 games were a third-person 3d platformers.

The current gen rise of the consoles is due to the fact they gained enough power to run FPS games and being on pair with PC, and many PC franchises such as Call of Duty, Battle Field and even Civilization were ported on consoles. So far they mustered enough maturity to compete with PC.

But still, what makes you think they will be able to go toe-to-toe with PC next gen. Back to 2006, PC Gaming was still expensive, and consoles were a true alternative to PC gaming. But when PC prices are low as never, and incoming PC console boxes from Steam and other hardware manufactures are very close, what makes you think they will have the same sale numbers ?

And this is not just a matter of price, but games too. Look at WiiU, it´s in a unending Limbo now. Gamers don´t buy it untill more games make it to the console, and developers and don´t make games for WiiU untill more people buy it. Will it happen to next-gen consoles too? Very probably.

The main argument of consolites is next-gen consoles will cost arround 300$ vs 700$ PCs. But who, insound mind, would spend 300$ for a paltform with no games.

And we all know that people don´t like to buy consoles at launch, but wait for 1-2 years untill more games are released on them.

Do Sony have that time, with their financial problems ? Can they take that risk of making exclusives for 3M potential at launch buyers , and wait untill more people take confidence in the console.

From my perspective, next-gen consoles will reinforce even more the PC psotions. They won´t risk making exclusives, especially MS, untill their next-gen consoles stand steadily on the ground. That means 2013 and 2014 will be the years of multi-plats

And oh dear if the Steam box is released and has better specs...with the steam games that cheap... I wouldn´t like to be in theair of MS or Sony CEO then.

Right now, Sony and MS are even regarding units sold. Arround 70M sold units each.

Will next gen consoles reach these numbers again with the incoming PC living room boxes arround the corner ? Let´s hope so.

jhonMalcovich

 

I'm probably older than you, andi  prefer to be a consolite (although i have a nice rig ) ! They just don't make games like they used to (quake, unreal tournament even the overrated half life )

#25 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"] ... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.MBirdy88

 

Halo came out two years after UT so I think it's not entirely different time frame.

PCs used to cost really much back then too and hardware got outdated in a year or so.

Sure, you got the best graphics and the games were far better on it, but still you could get a console for much cheaper and they also had their fair share of great exclusives.

True, it comes down to simplcity aswell. at 6-10 years old I would of enjoyed donkey kong more than unreal tournement and so I did. PC games of that generation were like comparing I dunno, some depthful console game to angry birds. When games get simpler and simpler the audiance expands, Halo made shooters very accessible and so did cod, hence the days of complex shooters have pretty much died. Its sad.... but what can you do.

 

UT was not a complex shooter tho.

If you wanted complex, you needed to play Rainbow Six and Operation Flashpoint.

#26 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

I'm 32. So much for your assumption. On top of that, two of your examples came out on consoles: I own a copy of Wing Commander III on PlayStation, and Myst was apparently released for the PS as well.lowe0

They made it to PS 2 years after PC release. Besides the PS quality sucked. And PS din´t have enough power to handle well 3d games back then.

It took them a big trouble to port Duke Nukem too. Anyway those games made revolution on PC first, and only then they were ported to consoles.

#27 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Halo came out two years after UT so I think it's not entirely different time frame.

PCs used to cost really much back then too and hardware got outdated in a year or so.

Sure, you got the best graphics and the games were far better on it, but still you could get a console for much cheaper and they also had their fair share of great exclusives.

nameless12345

True, it comes down to simplcity aswell. at 6-10 years old I would of enjoyed donkey kong more than unreal tournement and so I did. PC games of that generation were like comparing I dunno, some depthful console game to angry birds. When games get simpler and simpler the audiance expands, Halo made shooters very accessible and so did cod, hence the days of complex shooters have pretty much died. Its sad.... but what can you do.

 

UT was not a complex shooter tho.

If you wanted complex, you needed to play Rainbow Six and Operation Flashpoint.

Well, it offered a huge ammount of variety. but while not highly complex, it was alot less forgiving and the skill gaps were much higher, same with quake.
#28 Posted by StormyJoe (5497 posts) -

There are several fatal flaws in your thread. The main one being that you assume innovation in game genres took place on the PC because developers wanted to to do so - that's not true. Nintendo, especially during the NES and SNES days, decided what games were going to be on thier consoles; and they didn't want games like Doom to be on them. Neither did Sega. So, the devs took their titles to the PC where they wouldn't be "restricted". It was a necessity, not a choice.

Proof is in the facts: Nintendo, under fierce pressure to do so, finally allowed Mortal Kombat to be released on the SNES; but they changed the "blood" to "sweat". They also made Rare take out all of the gore from the console release of Killer Instinct.

A lot of games ened up on the PC because of necessity - consoles were too weak, you couldn't save your game, there wasn't enough storage space, etc. Over the past 2 gens, that necessity has wained, not increased.

For the foreseeable future, PC gaming isn't going anywhere - there will be games that require a keyboard/mouse combo, like RTS and simulation games. But this "era of PC gaming dominance" you are suggesting is just not a reality now and is not going to be one in the future.

#29 Posted by StormyJoe (5497 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

MBirdy88

... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.

COD:MW3 sold amost 30 million on consoles...

#30 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="lowe0"]I'm 32. So much for your assumption. On top of that, two of your examples came out on consoles: I own a copy of Wing Commander III on PlayStation, and Myst was apparently released for the PS as well.jhonMalcovich

They made it to PS 2 years after PC release. Besides the PS quality sucked. And PS din´t have enough power to handle well 3d games back then.

It took them a big trouble to port Duke Nukem too. Anyway those games made revolution on PC first, and only then they were ported to consoles.

Doesn't really matter how good it was or how well the system hadled it. It was still on it, debunking that part of your claim

#31 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

PC games sold worse than console games tho.

The only PC games of the era that sold well were Doom (shareware version was much more popular than the "full" one) and Myst.

Unreal Tournament sold, like, 500k copies only.

Compare that to Halo which sold about 8 million copies on Xbox alone.

Also, I liked the SNES kiddy games more than PC games, at the time. (still do if I'm completely honest)

StormyJoe

... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.

COD:MW3 sold amost 30 million on consoles...

in Console(S). he refered to one platform. Im betting each WoW expansion over they life spans has been easily 20+ million... EASILY. (and the core game... well god knows)
#32 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]I'm 32. So much for your assumption. On top of that, two of your examples came out on consoles: I own a copy of Wing Commander III on PlayStation, and Myst was apparently released for the PS as well.seanmcloughlin

They made it to PS 2 years after PC release. Besides the PS quality sucked. And PS din´t have enough power to handle well 3d games back then.

It took them a big trouble to port Duke Nukem too. Anyway those games made revolution on PC first, and only then they were ported to consoles.

Doesn't really matter how good it was or how well the system hadled it. It was still on it, debunking that part of your claim

No, his timeframe was SNES... not Playstation. Lowel's point is meaningless if its a few years later.
#33 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"] True, it comes down to simplcity aswell. at 6-10 years old I would of enjoyed donkey kong more than unreal tournement and so I did. PC games of that generation were like comparing I dunno, some depthful console game to angry birds. When games get simpler and simpler the audiance expands, Halo made shooters very accessible and so did cod, hence the days of complex shooters have pretty much died. Its sad.... but what can you do.MBirdy88

 

UT was not a complex shooter tho.

If you wanted complex, you needed to play Rainbow Six and Operation Flashpoint.

Well, it offered a huge ammount of variety. but while not highly complex, it was alot less forgiving and the skill gaps were much higher, same with quake.

 

That was because of mouse control which offered a lot more precision than a gamepad.

I in general think that FPS don't really belong on consoles. (no offense to those who like console FPS games)

#34 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4520 posts) -

Not too young to know, just no one cares.

"When kids were playing this"? That's patronising. There wasn't many games back then that most would trade for Super Mario Bros.

There aren't games now I would trade for Super Mario Brothers.

'Consoles were always lagging behind' yeah? and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

#35 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

They made it to PS 2 years after PC release. Besides the PS quality sucked. And PS din´t have enough power to handle well 3d games back then.

It took them a big trouble to port Duke Nukem too. Anyway those games made revolution on PC first, and only then they were ported to consoles.

MBirdy88

Doesn't really matter how good it was or how well the system hadled it. It was still on it, debunking that part of your claim

No, his timeframe was SNES... not Playstation. Lowel's point is meaningless if its a few years later.

Ah I see, also why do you keep calling him "lowel"? His name is Lowe0

#36 Posted by razgriz_101 (16871 posts) -
and still.....the consoles were the top dog back then, considering that was possibly the biggest and most influential console gen pre PS2 i'd say if it wasnt for console games back then some PC games might not have existed in their current forms. But we all know Jhon you are just another hermit trying to justify and preach their platform preference to a board who really frankly dont care.
#37 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

and still.....the consoles were the top dog back then, considering that was possibly the biggest and most influential console gen pre PS2 i'd say if it wasnt for console games back then some PC games might not have existed in their current forms. But we all know Jhon you are just another hermit trying to justify and preach their platform preference to a board who really frankly dont care.razgriz_101

Consoles have always dictated most of this industry. 

#38 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

[QUOTE="jhonMalcovich"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]I'm 32. So much for your assumption. On top of that, two of your examples came out on consoles: I own a copy of Wing Commander III on PlayStation, and Myst was apparently released for the PS as well.seanmcloughlin

They made it to PS 2 years after PC release. Besides the PS quality sucked. And PS din´t have enough power to handle well 3d games back then.

It took them a big trouble to port Duke Nukem too. Anyway those games made revolution on PC first, and only then they were ported to consoles.

Doesn't really matter how good it was or how well the system hadled it. It was still on it, debunking that part of your claim

I am not arguing that. I am claiming that PC dominated gaming since SNES providing better, revolutionary games than any consoles had back then.

This is it.

#39 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

There are several fatal flaws in your thread. The main one being that you assume innovation in game genres took place on the PC because developers wanted to to do so - that's not true. Nintendo, especially during the NES and SNES days, decided what games were going to be on thier consoles; and they didn't want games like Doom to be on them. Neither did Sega. So, the devs took their titles to the PC where they wouldn't be "restricted". It was a necessity, not a choice.

Proof is in the facts: Nintendo, under fierce pressure to do so, finally allowed Mortal Kombat to be released on the SNES; but they changed the "blood" to "sweat". They also made Rare take out all of the gore from the console release of Killer Instinct.

A lot of games ened up on the PC because of necessity - consoles were too weak, you couldn't save your game, there wasn't enough storage space, etc. Over the past 2 gens, that necessity has wained, not increased.

For the foreseeable future, PC gaming isn't going anywhere - there will be games that require a keyboard/mouse combo, like RTS and simulation games. But this "era of PC gaming dominance" you are suggesting is just not a reality now and is not going to be one in the future.

StormyJoe

 

Doom and Wolfenstein 3D were on SNES and SMD/Genesis. (32X)

Tonned-down versions but anyway.

Killer Instinct on the SNES had blood and killings but the arcade version had the "full" blood and gore.

Nintendo censored MK on SNES because there was no body to regulate violent video games back then and they didn't want to get letters from angry mothers how their kids are playing nasty games on their "toy".

The lack of the features you mentioned also ment that the consoles were much cheaper than an average PC was, at the time.

The console games were designed accordingly to the hardware limitations.

If you wanted more "complex" games, you needed a PC but if you wanted simplistic (yet "fun") games, the consoles had quite a few strong points.

#40 Posted by StormyJoe (5497 posts) -

[QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"] ... different time frames? 8 million halo, why don't we play the 10 million diablo III, or 14 million of each warcraft expansion ect ect. I hate to fathom league of legends' true user base.... though I think its a load of crap and news reporters that use XFIRE as credible data are on drugs.MBirdy88

COD:MW3 sold amost 30 million on consoles...

in Console(S). he refered to one platform. Im betting each WoW expansion over they life spans has been easily 20+ million... EASILY. (and the core game... well god knows)

So, when you are comparing the PC platform vs Consoles as the TC does with his "Consolites" topic, you *can* group all console gamers together; just not when comparing sales? A little biased, are we? Fine. COD:MW3 sold 14 million ON THE XBOX 360 ALONE.

#41 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]and still.....the consoles were the top dog back then, considering that was possibly the biggest and most influential console gen pre PS2 i'd say if it wasnt for console games back then some PC games might not have existed in their current forms. But we all know Jhon you are just another hermit trying to justify and preach their platform preference to a board who really frankly dont care.seanmcloughlin

Consoles have always dictated most of this industry. 

Consoles couldn´t dictate anything. They were lacking in gaming genres. Consoles didn´t know what 3 dimensions is untill PC showed them.

#42 Posted by StormyJoe (5497 posts) -

[QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

There are several fatal flaws in your thread. The main one being that you assume innovation in game genres took place on the PC because developers wanted to to do so - that's not true. Nintendo, especially during the NES and SNES days, decided what games were going to be on thier consoles; and they didn't want games like Doom to be on them. Neither did Sega. So, the devs took their titles to the PC where they wouldn't be "restricted". It was a necessity, not a choice.

Proof is in the facts: Nintendo, under fierce pressure to do so, finally allowed Mortal Kombat to be released on the SNES; but they changed the "blood" to "sweat". They also made Rare take out all of the gore from the console release of Killer Instinct.

A lot of games ened up on the PC because of necessity - consoles were too weak, you couldn't save your game, there wasn't enough storage space, etc. Over the past 2 gens, that necessity has wained, not increased.

For the foreseeable future, PC gaming isn't going anywhere - there will be games that require a keyboard/mouse combo, like RTS and simulation games. But this "era of PC gaming dominance" you are suggesting is just not a reality now and is not going to be one in the future.

nameless12345

Doom and Wolfenstein 3D were on SNES and SMD/Genesis. (32X)

Tonned-down versions but anyway.

Killer Instinct on the SNES had blood and killings but the arcade version had the "full" blood and gore.

Nintendo censored MK on SNES because there was no body to regulate violent video games back then and they didn't want to get letters from angry mothers how their kids are playing nasty games on their "toy".

The lack of the features you mentioned also ment that the consoles were much cheaper than an average PC was, at the time.

The console games were designed accordingly to the hardware limitations.

If you wanted more "complex" games, you needed a PC but if you wanted simplistic (yet "fun") games, the consoles had quite a few strong points.

There was no blood in Killer Instinct.

I stand corrected, they were (Doom and Wolfenstein). However, they were not the versions that ID wanted to make - they had to do it on the PC.

#43 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -
[QUOTE="MBirdy88"] No, his timeframe was SNES... not Playstation. Lowel's point is meaningless if its a few years later.

The time frame is explicitly defined as 1994 to 2006:
...but PC dominated since SNES, since 1994. Only in 2006, consoles were able to catch up with PC to go toe-to-toe with it regarding gaming.jhonMalcovich
#44 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]and still.....the consoles were the top dog back then, considering that was possibly the biggest and most influential console gen pre PS2 i'd say if it wasnt for console games back then some PC games might not have existed in their current forms. But we all know Jhon you are just another hermit trying to justify and preach their platform preference to a board who really frankly dont care.seanmcloughlin

Consoles have always dictated most of this industry. 

 

True, PC gaming was never really "mainstream". (despite some games reaching a rather large audience, i.e. World of Warcraft, The Sims, ect.)

It was always more of a "geek" (sub)culture.

The tech unknowledgable people and those who didn't want to transform their "work tool" into a games' machine and spend a lot of money on it usually never were really interested in PC gaming.

Sony's PlayStation did a great job for those who didn't want to bother with the complexity and expenses of a PC but didn't want a "kiddy" console either. (as consoles used to be called "toys" before the PlayStation appeared)

So it's not surprising it was one of the most successful console systems of all time and spawned a even more successful successor (namely the PS2) as it made video gaming "mainstream" and not just in the domain of "geeks" and "kids".

#45 Posted by PAL360 (26941 posts) -

I'm 32, played all those amazing PC games from 90s, and i'm a consolite. What now? Malfunction?

#46 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -
[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="MBirdy88"] No, his timeframe was SNES... not Playstation. Lowel's point is meaningless if its a few years later.

The time frame is explicitly defined as 1994 to 2006:
...but PC dominated since SNES, since 1994. Only in 2006, consoles were able to catch up with PC to go toe-to-toe with it regarding gaming.jhonMalcovich

ah my bad.
#47 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

COD:MW3 sold amost 30 million on consoles...

StormyJoe

in Console(S). he refered to one platform. Im betting each WoW expansion over they life spans has been easily 20+ million... EASILY. (and the core game... well god knows)

So, when you are comparing the PC platform vs Consoles as the TC does with his "Consolites" topic, you *can* group all console gamers together; just not when comparing sales? A little biased, are we? Fine. COD:MW3 sold 14 million ON THE XBOX 360 ALONE.

Current gen PC sales can be measured because they are mostly digital. And Steam doesn´t reveal its sale numbers, neither other digital distributors. 

From what I now, Steam has 54M active users and Origin, in its short life, already adquired 30M, plus there are many others like greenmangaming, amazon, etc. If we sum up all of them we will have very huge numbers. 

So only god knows how many copies COD:MW3 sold when it was 15 bucks on Amazon and Steam last christmas sale.

Anyway COD is not good example, becasue everybody knows PC gamers moved from COD to Battle Field after it became so consolish.

#48 Posted by rilpas (8222 posts) -
I'm a PC gamer first and a console gamer second. with that said, consoles have always been where the Money and sales are. You can argue quality untill the cows come home, but as a general rule, games tend to sell better on consoles
#49 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]and still.....the consoles were the top dog back then, considering that was possibly the biggest and most influential console gen pre PS2 i'd say if it wasnt for console games back then some PC games might not have existed in their current forms. But we all know Jhon you are just another hermit trying to justify and preach their platform preference to a board who really frankly dont care.jhonMalcovich

Consoles have always dictated most of this industry. 

Consoles couldn´t dictate anything. They were lacking in gaming genres. Consoles didn´t know what 3 dimensions is untill PC showed them.

Being the first doesn't mean you hold sway over the industry. Without consoles gaming wouldn't be where it is today, it would be such a standardised thing. It may be hard to swallow because you think consoles are inferior, but the fact of the matter is the money is in the console market. There is no opinion about that, it's a fact

#50 Posted by MBirdy88 (8331 posts) -

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"][QUOTE="StormyJoe"]

COD:MW3 sold amost 30 million on consoles...

StormyJoe

in Console(S). he refered to one platform. Im betting each WoW expansion over they life spans has been easily 20+ million... EASILY. (and the core game... well god knows)

So, when you are comparing the PC platform vs Consoles as the TC does with his "Consolites" topic, you *can* group all console gamers together; just not when comparing sales? A little biased, are we? Fine. COD:MW3 sold 14 million ON THE XBOX 360 ALONE.

"biased" ... he was refering to games available on systems, not sales, the very fact that sales were brought up was obsurd to begin with as if its some counter to the TC's point. do we have to bring out the "Mc Donalds vs Your favourite Resteraunt" crap again? angry birds sold more than all our games, SO WHAT. Its a little biased to pit 3 fully marketing non-stop systems backed by massive publishers against an open platform aswell isn't it? at least he had the balls to label ONE system when talking to me. Cod averages on 400-500k players at peak at the minute when I log in (on xbox) .... Halo being 2nd or 3rd was 150k. I got 250k on DoTA 2 alone, not factoring in the slew of MMORPGs, league of legends having even more than Dota 2 and heroes of newerth having a steady 180k, People assume console is more popular because the top dog game has more consistant players than any given PC game, but the reality is that this is onyl the case due to the lack of variety/choice available on the console side.