[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Let's try to leave out answers like "it already did" and try to look at what the PC would need to give the consoles a run for their money: - better OS. Windows just plain sucks. Linux is free and far better. Sure, it doesn't support DirectX, but look at what PS3 and Wii deliver under OpenGL for their respective hardware. [color=red]As a Vista user, I may be one of the only people in the world to say I have really never had any problems at fault of the OS and not by the stupid people I live with.[/color] - more multiplats. It's discouraging that big multiplat games like L.A. Noire and RDR don't come to the PC platform. [color=red]Yeah, lol, almost as if we didn't want them ourselves. It's up to the devs, and contractors at Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo.[/color] - more standardized hardware. Currently PC gaming consists of a whole lot of different configurations and obviously it's hard to develop for every different PC out there. So what there would need to be is a "rounded-up" configuration that would be seen as a standard. Of course games could still utilize the extra power (or run on worse hardware) but that would be up to the devs. 100% gamepad support is a must too. [color=red]Are you saying you want PCs to be like consoles, all with the exact same hardware? Also, you can completely alter configs for just about every game PC has to offer, if that's what you're talking about. If a dev makes one that's hard to configure, too bad. If you can't understand how to use a .cfg, too bad. And if you play with a gamepad amongst people with a mouse and keyboard, you. Will. Die.[/color] - more games that trully take advantage of the PC platform. That doesn't mean just a little supped-up console ports but games that really are much better on the PC platform. If it worked out several years ago it could now too. [color=red]Sure is a shame that people develop games on the PC, put it on a console, and then port it back to PC. Besides, any game that lets you use a mouse and a custom key configuration is better than its console counterpart in my books (granted it isn't full of bugs and they didn't playtest).[/color] - more advertising. Publishers should advertise the PC versions as the best. [color=red]Why, so console kiddies go and buy PC games unknowing that their system can't handle it? I thought we were already implying that people don't know much about PCs. Steam is all the adverts games need (for exclusives; multiplatformers take care of themselves).[/color] - more sequels to c.lassic PC games. I'm talking games like Magic Carpet, Ultima Underword, Discworld and so on. Of course these games could also be for the consoles but the focus should be on the PC versions. [color=red]Yes, because that's what people are playing nowadays.[/color] - a standardized online service. Xbox has Live, Sony has PSN but the PC has nothing like that. Maybe Stream comes close but it needs to expand to be comparable. [color=red]Steam is pretty much what you speak of. Sure, people buy games with other clients, but who the hell honestly uses EADM or Games for Windows Marketplace?[/color] - much less buggy games, compatibility issues and protection problems. That's really what I think is the biggest problem with PC gaming. Even big PC games like The Witcher are a "buggy mess" when they are released and you have to wait for patches to make the game playlable. I'm sure this turns off many from PC gaming too. [color=red]You have to wait for patches on buggy console games too, pally. ;)[/color] And lastly: the platform needs something to attract the masses to game on it. The Wii has the Wiimote, the 360 has the Kinect and the PS3 has the Move. What does the PC have? I think it needs something like that too if it wants to attract people who aren't really into games. [color=red]Well, if what the PC has isn't the mouse and keyboard, then... then you're implying motion control... nononononononono[/color] About the only thing I agree on is your take on multiplatform games.
Log in to comment