H0RSE / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
1632 23 11

H0RSE Blog

Battlefront: What it needs to be a worthy successor

With EA and Battlefront in the news recently, I started thinking about the game and how there are certain fundamental criteria, I feel, that need to be met in order for DICE's new take on the franchise to feel like a worthy successor.

1: Gameplay:

The new Battlefront game needs to "feel" like a Battlefront game, and not just "Battlefield: Star Wars." Battlefront's gameplay was more "arcadey." It wasn't molded around "realism," and instead had a more arena-like feel. Their was no ADS, and I don't think there was recoil either. It was more twitchy, since it all just point and click shooting, and the TTK was much higher. This formula made for a more fast-paced gameplay that was virtually frustration-free, something Battlefield is the exact opposite of.

Now I understand that times change, and certain mechanics such as ADS and recoil will certainly show up in the game, but that still doesn't mean that it needs to feel like just another DICE game, (Battlefield) rather than take on the gameplay/feeling that many Battlefront vets are hoping for.

2: Third Person View:

Playing Battlefront in 3rd person was one of the cool features of the game, and I'd argue one of it's staples. From what I remember, you could play any part of the game in 3rd or 1st person, and could switch between them freely. It has been stated by someone at DICE that players will be able to play the game in third person "at least in some capacity," but that quoted part is what has me skeptical. I don't want TPV just "in some capacity," I want it available for the whole game.

3: Vehicles:

Battlefront didn't have a huge reliance on vehicles. Outside of starship dogfighting, they were practically non-existent. Again, I get that times change, and I don't mind vehicles perhaps playing as more prevalent role in the new game compared to the originals, but seeing as how vehicles are a huge part of Battlefield, I don't want to see this carry over into Battlefront. Being spawn-camped by a circling heli is bearable only so many times, and don't want to see this kind of abuse take precedence in Battlefront. It would also lead to the game feeling too much Battlefield.

I'm all for giving us speeder bikes and AT-ST's and X-Wings, but let's not go overboard. Perhaps even do it like they did with the older games, where vehicles were largely map/mission focused, like the Hoth invasion or the attack on the Death Star.

4: Bots:

Botmatches were a staple of the previous games, and also missing feature from many FPS games today. Not only would this help to make the new game "feel" like a Battlefront game, it would also be a smart move for attracting more customers. I get that competition is big in FPS now, but that doesn't mean that a game has to be solely focused on it. The Granddaddy of FPS games, Quake and UT, were/are highly competitive games, yet also featured bots. One of the most competitive genres in gaming right now, MOBA's, also even feature modes with bots. It seems entirely selfish to not include them, not even just for Battlefront, but for any game, really.

Mind you, these are only my opinions, and in addition to being a big Battlefront fan, I'm also a big Star Wars fan, so I might take the announcement of a new Battlefront game being made, a little more personal than others.

Console War Rant

Remember when console and PC fanboys would duke it out online, with the PC crowd boasting graphics and performance, while the console crowd would claim "it's about the games" while throwing out terms like "graphics whore" and "PC elitists?" Well fast forward to now, and console fans are duking it out amongst themselves over the same bullshit, and the irony is, they have become the things they ridiculed others for in the past - elitists.

Turns out that it probably never was "all about the games." That was likely just the story you stuck with since at the time, console players were in a position where the PC beat them substantially in every thing many of you actually cared about - graphics and performance. Now that consoles have come a long way and are at least comparable to low/mid range PC's, some of you just can't help yourselves from being the dicks that you demonized in the past.

The whole "console war" is nothing but a big dick waiving contest, and unlike real war, there is no winner and loser, because it's all subjective. For every plus you can tally up for one console, someone else can tally up one on another. It's just a vicious cycle that leads nowhere. Play whichever console you prefer for whatever reason(s), or play them all. Whatever choice you make doesn't need to include insulting those who chose differently.

Titanfall Beta: My gripes

Now before any panties are bunched up, this isn't going to be a rant about how I hate Titanfall and/or how broken it is. In actuality, I found the game to be quite fun, (although lacking features due to the beta) and virtually bug free. I can also easily see this game being very popular and likely receiving good ratings across the board. However, seeing as though I'm not a CoD fan, (in fact the last time I enjoyed CoD MP, was back when they were still set in WWII) I approached this game with a bit of skepticism, and the comparisons I found in my hours spent with the game, are as such:

Titanfall plays similar to CoD, but it doesn't "feel" like a CoD game - if that makes any sense... It shares the same overall formula - similar gun mechancis and damage scales, similar gamemodes and gameplay mechanics, even the aesthetic is similar, but the extra layers it adds, like the Titans or the movement system, etc. somehow allows it to differentiate itself enough from CoD to still remain its own game, rather than just "CoD with mechs." Now, as I stated, I have not spent extensive time with CoD MP, but based on what I have experienced or seen/heard from others, that is my synopsis on it. Throughout my play session, I did happen to run into things that seemed to stand out, that I personally had a problem with.

1. Damage scales - Overall, I feel the TTK (time to kill) should be increased. It seems like in a game of this pace, being able to drop opponents as quickly as you can, feels self defeating. It's pretty much, "who sees who first wins," which should feel familiar to CoD fans, and is also one the things I don't like about those games. However, although I feel firefights should should last longer, (or have damage scales that allow for firefights to ever happen in the first place,) kills didn't feel cheap or unfair.

2. Epilogue - The "Epilogue" at the end of matches just seems entirely unnecessary. Not only does it add a "one life only" element to gamemodes where it isn't needed, it doesn't actually have any effect on the outcome - the losers still lose, and the winners still win. It just seems like a waste of time in an attempt to make the game feel more dynamic. I can understand this type of mechanic making sense in the MP campaign, but in the traditional MP modes, it just feels unwanted and cutting into the time that could be used for counting down for the next mission. Perhaps if it offered things like “Partial Victory” for losers or “Total Victory” for winners, it might actually have more of an incentive, but as it is now, when the Epilogue began after each match, I just found myself sighing and thinking to myself, “is it over yet?”

3. Burn Cards - The burn card system in Ttianfal essentially works like perks for your pilot. The problem is, they seem utterly pointless, with too much risk vs reward. They only last until you die, so you could use a really good card, and then encounter some BS (which happens a lot in games) and lose it before you ever even had a chance to really use it. This could easily be due to my dislike for “gambling” in games, and am more a fan of straightforward mechanics – this is what you have/get, this is what it does, and this is how long it lasts, with no strings attached. In this regard, I don't think it is too much to ask that the cards last the entire match, (perhaps only being able to choose one instead of three) regardless how many times you die, and are then "burned" after the match ends. The burn cards did however seem to offer a fair amount of variety in what they did, and nothing really seemed to be really OP.

4. Tactical Abilities - I don’t have a problem with the abilities themselves, but rather how they operate, specially their usage/cooldown. The abilities cannot be cancelled, that is, if you active your Cloak or Stim, you have use it until it drains completely, rather than being able to cancel it when you no longer need i. This seemed to be more of problem with Cloak, where you might want to enter a building cloaked, and then find out there were no hostiles, and not being able to de-cloak until the ability completely drained. I don’t know if this was a balance decision or simply personal preference, since I’m not really sure how a player could abuse them if they were able to cancel them out. They would still be draining the ability, and would still have to endure a cooldown, even if it wasn’t as long. It just seems like by not offering this feature, it takes away from some of “tacticalness” of the tactical abilities, and instead makes for a feature that can make players reluctant to use them.

5. Rodeo - The Rodeo feature in Titanfall allows for pilots to ride on the backs of enemy titans and shoot at their “brains” to take them down. It is a cool idea for allowing pilots to counter titans, but it seems remarkably simple, and that is the problem. There is no QTE or any special maneuvers you need to perform in order to mount one these hulking, metal beats - just jump on top of or close enough to one, and the game automatically situates you on top of it, and then automatically initiates the animation of opening the hatch to access the titan’s “brains.” At that point, it’s just point and shoot (with your primary or secondary weapon – using your anti-titan weapon will kill you.) Although this is easily countered by the fact the pilot is exposed to enemy fire this while time, and by using things like Electric Smoke or even getting out of your Titan and dealing with them yourself, it seems like the whole process could be more involved/engaging, and not as autonomous as it is now.

As stated, my time with the game was overall enjoyable, and as a whole, I find it to be pretty solid, but even the best games are not without their flaws, and these are five that stood out to me. I will be picking this up on March 11th on Xbox One and (hopefully) having a blast with friends, so for those also anticipating this game, "prepare for Titanfall!"

1080p is a must for next-gen: No it isn't.

Recently there was news released concerning the Xbox One and the upcoming Call of Duty: Ghosts game that for many, was disheartening to say the least. From threats of cancelling system pre-orders to extreme bouts of nerd-rage, and enough virtual facepalms to make one's head completely cave in, the internet exploded to the extent that you'd think Activision officially announced that smallpox infected blankets would be shipping with the Xbox One versions. Unfortunately, nothing that drastic has happened to warrant such extreme behavior, and instead it's just news that the Xbox One version of the upcoming Call of Duty Ghosts will be 720p, compared to 1080p native on the PS4.

In light of this "tragic" news, I'd like to address the recent notion that 1080p is a "must" for next-gen gaming....it isn't...1080p is not some "holy grail," mandatory accomplishment that games must meet in order to be considered "next-gen." It is little more than an arbitrary technicality cooked up by the community, largely due to moving goalpost mentalities and wishful thinking. Graphics or resolution alone is not some guideline to base whether or not a game achieves "next-gen" status, and if you think otherwise, then quite frankly, you're wrong. I don't doubt that games will release in 1080p, as some games already are, but to apply this short-sighted way of thinking to every single game? If that's the case, then frankly, you are in for some disappointment.

The notion that in 2013, 1080p, or more importantly, 1080p/60fps, should be a standard in gaming, is again, largely wishful thinking. This level of gaming can be standard, if you have the power, and frankly the new systems do not, as is evident by games being announced at less than 1080p and/or 60fps on both systems. If we were discussing high-end PC's, then these arguments would carry much more weight, but we are speaking of modestly priced, retail entertainment devices. The fact is this - the new systems, regardless how "next-gen" many expect them to be, are still using dated tech before they even release, that can't even achieve 1080p on certain older titles, with or without max settings enabled.

If you choose a lesser medium in terms of graphics/processing power, then you should except lesser results, it's really that simple. You can point the finger and cry "PC elitism," but really it's just being rational. You can't buy a Hybrid based on preference, and then demand it performs like a Ferrari, and then cry foul when it doesn't. Anyone suggesting that any game that gets released on a $400-500 device, cannot be considered "next-gen" if it is anything less than 1080p, or even more demanding, 1080/60fps, is naive and out of touch with reality, especially considering all the other (arguably) more important factors that can contribute to a game being "next-gen," which is a little more than a buzzword itself, with no definitive meaning.

If none of the games released on the new consoles achieved 1080p, they could still easily qualify as next-gen, due to other aspects, such as better performance, new, innovative ideas or added features. Battlefield 4 is a good example of this. Is it running at 1080p? No, not on either system, but both versions are running at 60fps, and have 64 player servers, as well as advanced features such as Battlescreen That is an example of "next-gen" in gaming, despite lacking 1080p resolution. In relation to COD Ghosts, both versions will have the same campaign, the same multiplayer, the same features and both will be running at 60fps. Players will equally be having fun on both versions, despite the apparent doomsday revelation that the Xbox One version will only be running at 720p...

It seems that the console community has become increasingly close-minded and superficial in their views, to the point that they seem to have forgotten why they play games in the first place - for fun. Why is it that when discussing graphics in a PC vs console format, graphics don't matter as much and it's all about the games, but once it becomes a matter of console vs console, graphics take center stage as proponents from each side engage in a blood lust fueled fervor? 720p, 1080p, who really cares? Games are going to be equally enjoyed by players on both consoles, so why turn it into a chest pounding ego-fest? Why does it always have to result in a "console war"? There are many people who will be purchasing both consoles for their love of games, so it seems trivial to pick sides and fight tooth and nail for your preferred platform. If it's the prettiest games running at smooth framerates that is needed to justify your purchase, then again, you are on the wrong platform, since we have been achieving this for years on PC. If it's other aspects that lead you to choose console gaming, such as functionality, exclusives, controllers, etc. than focus on those aspects and leave it at that.

The Console vs PC debate done right

The console crowd seems to be in this state of mind where, they don't care how they win, as long as they win. Meaning, they don't look into WHY consoles sell more than PC's, they just see they sell more, (and they own one) so PC's suck. To put in in layman's terms, console sell more because they are simple, not because they are 'better.' Also, I would guess that PC's do indeed outsell consoles, for the simple fact that not everyone is buying a PC for gaming. Look at places schools, universities, and households around the world that purchase PC's not to play games on.

Console's aren't outselling PC's because they are so much more versatile, and have superior hardware. They are outselling PC's because they are cheaper and easier to use. But, like a lot of things, you get what you pay for. Consoles appeal to the younger crowd more than PC's do. Which means a lot of consoles are bought by parents, not the kids playing them. Mommy and Daddy don't want to spend $1000 on a PC for little Jimmy, because there's a good chance he'll brake it. So they settle for the easier to use console...they don't want to get thier kid the diamond ring...so they settle for the Cubic Zirconium.

Most PC's are bought by the actual person who is using it, and they are usually 18 or older, and they have a much higher appeal for older gamers. Now before you start the "I don't have to pay $1000 for my xbox." I hear this statement so much, and it really holds no merit, because 1) PC gamers are willing to spend $1000 and much, much more for their rig, and in return for spending that money, will get superior hardware, the ability to upgrade, and enough storage space to make an xbox cream its pants. 2) Console gamers 'conveniently' forget to include things like surround sound speakers, and HDTV's in their price. or if they buy headphones, or any peripherals. You might say "but those are optional." And I would say, "so is paying $1000 or more for a PC." Plus in some cases, you HAVE to have a broadband connection (xbox), we do not. You have to pay for full access to your 'browser or 'OS' (XBL) and the games cost $10 or more each.

Now the whole "Consoles are better than PC" debate is dead as dead, because no one ever elaborates on why. They just say things like '"consoles are better, because PC's suck."....yeah, that solved a lot.....You have to get into specifics as to why, and you will see that both platforms are better for certain things. If I say "wheat bread is better than white bread," I can't prove that, but if I say "Wheat bread is better nutritionally than White bread," now we're getting somewhere.

So how are PC's better than Consoles? Well first off, hardware. PC hardware is vastly superior to a console, in terms of performance and versatility. First off, PC's are capable of superior graphics...if you can't admit this, then you really are a fanboy. The best video card on the market right now retails for around $600. Do you really think 1 part of a PC, that cost's as much as 2 Xbox Elites, isn't going to outperform what a console can do? Not only could it outperform 1 console, but it could outperform all of them combined. And this doesn't even include the nice motherboard, CPU, RAM, HD, sound card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers. All of which can be chosen and purchased separately, rather than limited to the 'what you see is what you get' philosophy of consoles.

PC's also have a lot more freedom with their hardware compared to consoles. For instance, for my new PC, I need a case, GPU, CPU, motherboard, and RAM. I don't need a new dvd burner or cd drive. I don't need a new HD or sound card. I don't need a keyboard, mouse, monitor or speakers. I can choose to replace only what I need to, rather than buy a console, have to wait 5 or so years for the new console to come out, (while still having 5 year old hardware) and then buy the whole thing, rinse and repeat. I think A LOT of console players would like the ability to swap components in their consoles. Other than business or money reasons, I don't see why Console companies don't consider this option when designing systems.

Another big win for PC is storage space. What's the biggest xbox HD, 120GB? I have 500GB on this computer, and my buddy has 3 HD's, and over 3TB of storage space. Again, no contest, PC wins.

Another is versatility and choice. I can use my PC to run a server (not just for games) I can use things like Photoshop, and MS Word. I can burn CD's, DVD's, and Blu-Ray. I can check my email, pay my bills, and check my bank account. I can do things like run a business and trade stock on my PC. I can play games without the disk. I can learn another language, convert miles to kilometers, print and fax documents, even lookup who invented the word 'fart.' I can do SO much with my PC, that it easily justifies the price. When I buy a PC, it's not just an entertainment device, like a console is. Which is a big reason why you will find many households have PC's rather than PC's AND consoles.

And I say choice for this reason. I can listen to music on my PC. You can listen to music on your console. The difference is, when I listen to music, I can choose what I listen to it on, whereas you are stuck using whatever software is in the console. I can choose between itunes, or WMP, or Winamp, or Foobar, or MediaMonkey, or software that came with my Sound Card. I can add plugins that enhance the sound, or add effects like echo. I have EQ settings, etc. and the same goes for movies, and games. I play Fallout, you play Fallout, but I can change the resolution on mine. I can change specific options in my graphics. Do I want AA or AF enable? Do I want Bloom or HDR lighting? Do I want shadows? How detailed do I want the shadows? How detailed do I want textures? etc. I can boost graphics to the highest setting, or even lower them to increase performance. I'm sure some console gamers would like the ability to sacrifice some video settings in some games to make them run a little smoother. I also have true dedicated servers for multiplayer, practically every game has fully customizable controls, and with the amount of buttons on a keyboard mixed with a mouse, I also have more choice for my controls. I also don't have to have broadband to play online. I can also choose which OS and Browser I use, whereas on xbox you get to choose between XBL and….well, nothing.

These are some big advantages that a PC has over a console. Now let's look at some console advantages.

The biggest two are probably price, and ease of use. First off, I would like to get something out of the way. Yes, gaming PC's can cost $1000 or more, but they don't HAVE to. You can buy a PC for much cheaper, that includes a monitor and mouse/keyboard, that still competes with a console. It's just that most PC gamers don't want to 'settle' or 'compete.' They want to destroy the competition, and will buy the best of the best parts, to play games at high resolutions, with max settings. All of this still doesn't change the fact that consoles are less expensive.

For $300 you get a descent system, which can play games, movies and music, and can play online and talk to friends, all in one nice, neat package. It sacrifices all the options and versatility of a PC, to be streamlined and easy to use. You buy it, you hook it up, you put in a game, you play it. It's a done deal. This appeals to a lot of people. Especially parents with children, people who don't want the 'hassle' and 'responsibility' of owning a computer, and people who are computer illiterate. And all games made for a certain console will work the same on all those consoles, since the hardware is identical. They also tend to be smaller than PC's and are usually played from the comfort of a couch, rather than in front of a computer screen, which also leads to consoles being a more social platform for gaming. I however, play my xbox on my monitor. This way I can keep my PC and console all in one spot, and it also frees up the TV. And my monitor is widescreen 1080p.

Another things is their is more than 1 console to choose from. Wii plays wii stuff, xbox play xbox stuff, PS3 play PS stuff. There is more choice for a consumer, whereas a PC may have different brands, like Gateway, Compaq, Dell, etc. but they all play the same things. This can be looked at as an advantage or disadvantage for both PC's and consoles.

So enough with the, "consoles suck" and "PCs suck," crap. They both have things that appeal to different people, and one is not is not 'the best.' If you are looking for a less expensive, 'hassle free' method of gaming, where you can have friends over, relax and play games, go with a console. If you want the ability to have a workstation as well as a gaming rig, and you want the best of the best hardware, with a more 'intimate gaming experience', where it's typically just you and the game, and any friends you play with are usually online, get a PC.

PC and console gamers, for the most part, can play well together. It's usually when someone yells baseless comments like, "PC'suck!" or "controllers blow!" that things get ugly. Nobody likes to hear something they like or enjoy get made fun of. And it starts this big debate, with testosterone and typo's flying all over the internet. So console fanboys and PC fanboys…get off your high horses. I'm a PC gamer at heart, but I still play console games. We are all gamers here, regardless of where and how we play them.

What happened to the "Arcadey" Shooters?

Once upon a time, long long ago, shooters were fast paced and more about in your face fun, than KD ratios. Things like health bars reigned supreme, and medkit pickups, ammo, powerups and weapons covered the landscape. It was a glorious time, where carrying 10 weapons at once was encouraged, and things like dodging and rocket jumping were tactics. Gibbing was the norm in this magical realm, sprinting was the default speed, skill was based on reflex and precision, and anything less than 60 frames a second was just too slow. Yes, It was a wondrous time, a Golden Age of gaming......but that was long ago.

Since then, the world of shooters have fallen into a Dark Age. Health bars have been replaced by "take cover before you die" systems, making you virtually invulnerable if used correctly. Players are forced to choose from a fraction of the weapons available, rather than have access to all of them. Tedious actions such as aim down the sights were introduced, detracting from the fun, visceral gunplay of yesteryear. A rocket to face, which used to result in a glorious display of bloody chunks, was replaced by a lackluster animation of a body dropping to the floor...and remaining in one piece. You won't find a single medkit or ammo crate, the only weapon pickups are off of dead bodies, and sprinting was not only mapped to a button, but in certain cases, you have a limited amount available to you. 30 frames is now deemed an acceptable framerate. Sometimes, players only require a couple shots to kill, throwing skill out the window, and players are more infatuated than ever with leaderboard stats, KD ratios and talking trash, rather than just having a good time.

What happened? The FPS genre has been turned on its head, and the games off the past have been swept under the rug like a dirty secret. I want my health bars back. I want ammo and medkit pickups. I want my Quad Damage and over the top gunplay, and dammit, I want guns that are unconventional and don't make sense! These "tactical shooters" of today are a dime a dozen, and most of them have nothing "tactical" about them. So for all the Quake 3's, and the Unreal Tournaments. The Serious Sam's, Team Fortress's, and Painkillers. Here's to hoping that the gaming world has not totally forgotten you, and we once again bathe in all your gaming glory.

Xbox Live Arcade: Games I'd like to see.

So I was on XBL today, and I saw one of my friends was playing "Call of Duty Classic." on arcade. WTF! I thought to myself. What is that, and more importantly, where the hell did he get it? The original CoD was a great game. After all, it was the one that started the whole CoD phenomenon, and quite frankly, I will take WW2 themed CoD over MW any day. It started as a WW2 franchise, gained its fame as a WW2 franchise, as far as I'm concerned, CoD should have stayed WW2 games. So I immediately search for it to download, but it's nowhere to be found (cue sad face). I later find out that it will be released for download on Dec 2, on XBL. That's awesome! I will definitely check that out...and this got me thinking...what other great games would be awesome to be remade either on arcade, or as totally new xbox titles?

First off, I think it would be absolutely awesome to redo the SNES/Genesis version of Shadowrun. Make it as an arcade game, with updated graphics, sound, etc. That would be epic! Let's admit it, rpg's are awesome. Cyberpunk is awesome. Redoing Shadowrun would be (curse word)ing awesome!

Now there's a good chance a lot of console players played the old Shadowrun, but what about games that weren't even on console? Something that console gamers never had the pleasure of enjoying. And for them, I have 2 words (and a number) Baldur's Gate 2. Remember oldschool crpg's like Planescape: Torment or Icewind Dale, and how incredibly awesome they were? Well, if you're a console gamer, you probably don't. There's a good chance you don't even know what CRPG stands for (Computer Roleplaying Game) basically, if you are a PC gamer, and were gaming back in the day, these games made it worth getting up in the morning. It would be a great way to expose console gamers to some PC gaming goodness. And it's not only a crpg, but it's like THE BEST crpg! To see an updated BG2 would be so epic. The isometric view in Dragon Age was one of the biggest turn ons for me. It was a way to relive my old PC rpg days...then later getting burned to find out that the iso-view was cut from the console version...(my PC is outdated, falling apart, and I'm broke)

I went into some detail about those games, because those are the 2 games I think would be really, really cool to remake and re-release. Although, they are both rpg's, so they will be long, and therefore probably cost more than normal MS points. Those aren't the only games I think would be great to remake. I have a list here of games I think would be awesome to remake. I know a lot of the games listed were on multiple platforms, I just listed the versions I remember playing.


Quake 3

Deus Ex

Fallout 1&2

Return to Castle Wolfenstein, or at least just the Multiplayer portion, or Wolfenstein: ET

Battle Chess


Double Dragon 2

Final Fight

Bad Dudes

Wizards & Warriors

R.C. Pro-Am

Blaster Master

River City Ransom


Skate or Die

Deja Vu


Casino Kid


Chrono Trigger

Tecmo Super Bowl


Road Rash


Kid Chameleon

General Chaos

Toe Jam & Earl


Zombies Ate My Neighbors

Mutant League Football/Hockey


Dungeons and Dragons


Killer Instinct

Ghosts n' Goblins

Michael Jackson: Moonwalker

X-Men Arcade game!

Return of the Jedi

A wrestling game done in the oldschool fashion of the 16-bit era, or like N64 wrestling games (back when they didn't suck)

And if anyone cares, here is some info on the differences between CRPG's and console RPG's.

If I had to sum up the differences, it would be CRPG's were typically played in an isometric view, opposed to the 3rd or 1st person views popular among console rpg's. They have more of a "Dungeon and Dragons" setting, in fact, a lot of them were based off D&D rulesets. They also tend to have more focus on developing a character and exploration, and are Western RPG's. They took advantage of the keyboard and mouse setup, usually by moving via point and click, rather than the WASD or arrow keys. The stories and dialog are long and feature the "choice system," where an NPC wil say something, and then you select a choice to respond with. There is also a lot of lore you can discover and read that doesn't even relate to the main story. Also, and this is at least partially due to CRPG's being older games, there was A LOT of reading.

Console rpg's seem to first off, come from Japan. You won't really find JRPG's on a PC, unless it is a port from a console game. And I'm not talking about all those free online MMO's and such. I'm talking about retail released, non-MMO titles. Console rpg's seem to be more focused on telling a "carved in stone" story, where you basically just listen and can't choose your response to dialog. They also feature brighter, more vivid settings (those crazy Japs). I haven't played a FF game in quite awhile, so I don't know if they have released a FF game yet where you can create a character from scratch, and pick everything from their sex and race, to their class, facial features, skills and name? This is something that CRPG's are known for.

A lot of the popular RPG's now are based off CRPG's, and have just been updated including games like Fallout, The Elder Scrolls games, and anything that Bioware releases.

Comment for Next Gen Systems

I've been hearing a lot of hype recently with the information coming out on the next gen systems. Hype from people about the insane graphics, and such. ell, I'm just going to make this short and sweet. I have a PC. So al the Next Gen hype means nothing to me,. and gets real old and annoying real fast. It's like bragging about to me about having a Lamborghini, when I already had one for years, you're comparing apples to apples. So don't go crying to mommy when I don't share the same enthusiasm as u when you when you get your now Xbox 360, or PS3. The only thing I am looking forward to is selling them on ebay to the morons who will pay 3 and 4 times more for them. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to surf the internet, and print some things out (oops, cant do that on next gen systems).

PC vs. Xbox: Online

I am both a PC gamer and and xbox gamer. I am a PC gamer at heart, and have been one far longer than I have been playing on the Xbox, but in this short time, I can see the vast differences. I will be focusing on the Multiplayer aspect of both systems, and listing the pros and cons (to me) for both.

Ah, the PC. It is my lifeline. Without it, I would die, and wither into something that loosely resembles a turd.. I could list a million reasons why I love it so much, but like I said, I will be focusing only on the MP aspect. First of all, it's free. You don't have to pay any sort of fee to play online via the PC, you also don't have to have a broadband connection. It is also the best MP available. RTS games, a genre that is rarely on any console, it a big part of PC gaming. And playing them online is a blast.
I always hear inexperienced Xbox players telling me that the PC isn't better than XBL because of friend's lists and voice comm. But the truth of the matter is, the PC has both of these, and in my opinion, carries them out better than the Xbox. Most friend's list on the PC are either through server browsing software, (such as Gamespy or The All Seeing Eye) or saved on the games server itself. (such as in battle.net games), and your not limited to one, global Gametag. You can have a different gametag for everygame. And no matter how many times you change it, It won't mess up your friends list. You will still be on there, with you new name updated. As for voice comm....Xbox playes thought they had this new, revolutionary thing when they heard XBL would feature headsets, and voice communication. The truth of the mater is, We PC gamers have been talking to each other through voice comm for years now. Although it is not universal like on XBL, meaning you can't just talk to anyone playing with you, it is much more organized on the PC. You install voice communication software (such as Roger Wilco, Teamspeak, or Ventrillo) and setup your own room. This way, you only speak to those in the room with you. No annoying players yelling and cursing, only people you care to hear will be heard. And on top of that, we also have a keyboard, so voice comm isn't all that important anyway.
Which brings me to another topic....trash talking. Trash talking on the Xbox is out of control. Probably due to the fact that the Xbox is geared towards younger players who haven't developed online etiquette yet. Even those people who talk trash on the comp...I't is a lot less annoying to have someone type trash, than to actually hear them running their mouth. And that person will most likely be kicked from the server in a PC game, an option that doesn't exist on the Xbox. The ability to create your own server, with your own settings, is probably the biggest perk to PC gaming, other than the controls. To setup your own game, and be your boss, let who you want in, and kick who you want out. The ability to change the settings of the game, and tweak it just the way you want, is something the Xboxers will never experience.

Well, I an still new to playing on the Xbox. When I mean new, I dont mean playing on it in general, I mean playing on my own. Not on my friends, or at the store. So what does the Xbox have to offer that the PC doesn't? From what I can see, not much, but I won't bash it, after all, Online via console is still a new concept. They do have games that aren't available on the PC, although the PC ahs games not available on Xbox. The headset , although I dread hearing those annoying little snots talk trash after every kill, and after every game, is neat. Being able to talk whenever is something that appeals to the community. But what it really comes down to is this....it's fun. I have fun playing XBL, as do I playing on the PC. No matter what the differences are, or the pros and cons, what it comes down to is, I have fun, and you should too. Leave your whining at home. Log on, have some fun, and I'll see you online!