@scottpsfan14: You have to remember that those exclusives are paid by Sony and Microsoft.
The days of developers making a game exclusively for one console alone are gone. Nowadays, 3rd party studios will either make for both consoles, or make for one and a pc version. It's all associated with costs. Even then, a console/pc version latter on for the same game or it's sequels is very likely.
As for console games being of higher quality, i'll agree with you to a certain extent. However, besides the usual TPS "action adventure" type games, and some fighting or racing games here and there, there aren't any real high quality exclusives on consoles. Even JRPGs and general japanese games are slowly getting PC versions, even if latter, thanks to digital distribution.
So while games like Uncharted, Sunset Overdrive, Infamous, Bloodbrone, Scalebound, Fable,The Order, Quamtum Break, and even Halo and GeOW to a certain extent, are good and of quality, they follow the general same gameplay paterns. Not that i don't want to play them, i do, specially Bloodborne. But that still stands.
As for being "better", well that's subjective. Killzone is high budget title, and clearly isn't anything special. That's just one, i know, but you get the picture.
Throughout history, computers have always had more games than any console. The C64 has over 100,000 known games. The Amiga had well over 10,000 games in it's lifetime. Same with DOS PC's at the time. Only thing is, 99% of those games that weren't on consoles looked and played like shit. SNES had consistently good looking games in both multiplats and exclusives. There were no worthless point and click shit or any low budget tripe. Most games on SNES just looked amazing for it's day. Even though it had about 700 games in comparison to the thousands on computers. The same goes for today. While all games nowadays look better than any game of the early 90's, the ratio is still similar. Consoles are the home for big budget games mainly. Very rarely do PC's get an exclusive high budget game in the class of Crysis 1 or Star Citizen. But like today, in the early 90's, DOS used to get really good ports of console games just the same that looked even better than SNES running on a SVGA card. Mirrors today exactly.
So what I'm really saying is, yes PC's do get more exclusive games than consoles, but how many exclusive PC games there will be at the level of Halo 5, Sunset Overdrive, Uncharted 4, The Order: 1886, DriveClub, Forza H2, BloodBorne, Fable Legends, among others? This is the same situation as consoles in the 90's getting Donkey Kong Country, Sonic games, Axelay, Contra, Metal Slug, and just so many amazing games created by world class names that the PC rarely gets outside of multiplats. These are the facts. Console games are just better for the most part. I'm not saying all PC exclusives are bad, but there is a bigger percentage of good exclusives on consoles mostly.
Most of Snes games were for kids, lol.
I would have picked Doom, Wing Commander, 7th Guest or Warcraft over any console exclusive back then. When I saw my first PC games, Full Throttle and Warcraft, my mind was blown and ditched my snes and became PC Gamer.
And believe me, I like have zero interest in all console exclusives you listed but Bloodborne. But one game is hardly will change the tide. Not even mentining that to play all console exclusives you listed you need to own ALL CONSOLES. And console gaming is the most overpriced over there.
Indies means the ones who don't rely on publishers to publish their games. Technically, EA, Ubisoft and Activision are indie devs as they publish their games by themselves.
Throughout history, computers have always had more games than any console. The C64 has over 100,000 known games. The Amiga had well over 10,000 games in it's lifetime. Same with DOS PC's at the time. Only thing is, 99% of those games that weren't on consoles looked and played like shit. SNES had consistently good looking games in both multiplats and exclusives. There were no worthless point and click shit or any low budget tripe. Most games on SNES just looked amazing for it's day. Even though it had about 700 games in comparison to the thousands on computers. The same goes for today. While all games nowadays look better than any game of the early 90's, the ratio is still similar. Consoles are the home for big budget games mainly. Very rarely do PC's get an exclusive high budget game in the class of Crysis 1 or Star Citizen. But like today, in the early 90's, DOS used to get really good ports of console games just the same that looked even better than SNES running on a SVGA card. Mirrors today exactly.
So what I'm really saying is, yes PC's do get more exclusive games than consoles, but how many exclusive PC games there will be at the level of Halo 5, Sunset Overdrive, Uncharted 4, The Order: 1886, DriveClub, Forza H2, BloodBorne, Fable Legends, among others? This is the same situation as consoles in the 90's getting Donkey Kong Country, Sonic games, Axelay, Contra, Metal Slug, and just so many amazing games created by world class names that the PC rarely gets outside of multiplats. These are the facts. Console games are just better for the most part. I'm not saying all PC exclusives are bad, but there is a bigger percentage of good exclusives on consoles mostly.
That's just purely subjective.
I own a lot those console exclusives you listed and I own a lot of PC exclusives too. And guess what, most of my time is spent on PC.
How is The Order built by world class developers and a PC exclusive like Starcraft II Isn't? Please explain this to me.
Just because console exclusives get more hype by the press, and by console gamers, doesn't mean they are better. How is a niche PC exclusive catering to 5 people worse than a broad console exclusive like Halo that caters to millions ?
You can't objectively state that PC exclusives are worse than console exclusives.
We can however objectively state that PC gets more exclusives than consoles.
It is subjective. You are correct. I'm more talking about the budget and content of games. I think you knew that anyway. The Order is no masterpiece from what we have seen. I agree. But it has had a considerable amount of time spent developing and the content is of higher quality. Not in terms of what the end user will enjoy, but in terms of what's in the game. You can nitpick at this all day, but the higher budget exclusive games, despite not being objectively better than indie or certain PC exclusives, are more common on consoles. FACT. Multiplats are designed with the consoles as the baseline always. Multiplats are never made with PC as a baseline, or else that would require gimping the game like what happened with Crysis 1 on consoles.
And you could objectively say that Amiga got more exclusives than Megadrive or SNES. But 95% or more of those exclusives were indie developers and PD. Some of them are just as enjoyable as the big budget games of course, but again, as you say, it's all subjective from there. I was just stating the facts. Subjective arguments could go on forever. And i'm not about to start one.
Right
That's a fact yes: console exclusives tend to have a higher budget.
Whether a higher budget makes for a better or more enjoyable game or not is the question. Personally, I preferred Shadow Warrior last year over all the games that had a higher budget. COJ: gunslinger was also very nice, also not that high budget.
COD will probably be the highest budgeted game of this year. Just saying.
Lol keep up with your delusions. When was the last time PC won GOTY on GS or any major gaming site?...right
Keep begging for GTA V though LOL
Funny how you completely ignored my comment earlier about GOTYs .
Funny how every hermit ignores my question.
But pls repeat your comment.
GOTY is still nothing more then a pool of opinions. and every site/publication has their own. If a platform had only 1 game that came out every 2 years but it always won GOTY is that better then one that has 3-4 good games come out every year? Its still all a list of opinion. And some of the games in the OP look pretty darn good.
@Heil68: So first we're talking about Metacritic, now it's GS scores? Ok, then, MGS4 and SMG2 are on 2 different consoles. So, to play the best of teh best, you need multiple platforms. One console alone is not enough. Ironiclly, the highest MC scored game is Ocarina of Time, which on PC you can emulate. But you'll need an actual N64 consoles otherwise. Or a 3DS.
And, this year, PC as the highest rated exclusive on MC, Kentuchy Route Zero, at 91, which i haven't played it, because i'm waiting for it too finish, instead of getting in a cliffhanger. Atleast so far.
Also forgot GW2 GOTY in 2012, and Stanley Parable won a couple last year. But i'm still waiting for someone to tell where's the consoels game of the decade.
Well it's like the argument of liking indie bands better than Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, U2, The Beatles, etc. No rule book says that the 'legendary' bands are better than an Indie band that can still really play and create catchy tunes, but will that band impact people on a wider scale than the legends? Will Starcraft II, while some people favor it over anything else, go down in the books as another TLOZ: OoT? Will it impact as many people as what TLOU has? Or will it fill up a few hours of your spare time in an enjoyable manner? Ask yourself these questions. I know that story has a lot to do with the Impact. And you could argue that a game is about the gameplay primarily. But I'm tired and I have created one too many branches of arguments..
But a higher budget does not necessarily mean better gameplay. Where do you get that from ?
I'm sorry but did Starcraft 1 not go in the history books ?
Did Civilisation not go in the history books ?
What about Age of Empires II ? Doom ? Wolfenstein 3D ? Half Life ? Max Payne ? endless list is endless.
You're making it seem like PC is nothing but indie bands and consoles is nothing but AC/DCs. Let me tell you, bluntly, that comparison was absolute shit.
Log in to comment