Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Second Take: Hating Halo

Last response: in Site Feedback
Share
October 5, 2007 4:39:28 PM

Sometimes success can create a backlash, the "mo' money, mo' problems" problem. This seems to have happened to Halo, especially within the PC gaming community. Ben and Rob discuss.

Watch Video: http://www.tomsgames.com/us/site/flash_videos/second_take_pc_gamer_halo_hatred.html

Are you a Halo fan, hater, meh mumbler? Sound off!

-Ben

More about : hating halo

October 5, 2007 6:14:25 PM

Go Rob!! Half Life FTW
October 5, 2007 6:34:29 PM

I have always been loyal to PC gaming it just works. I think the last console that I bought was N64 and after that I just realized it wasn’t worth it to buy a completely new console so I could play the next best game. To me most console games are to kiddy and after awhile boring. A lot of times when I play a console game at my friends house I think to myself this would be so much better on the PC. I think it also depends on the type of person you are. People that love PC gaming are usually hands on with their PC; they love taking it apart, upgrading it and modding it. I find that most of my friends that only play consoles are not as tech savvy.

I don’t understand some of the aspects to consoles like Xbox Live, why do you want to pay a monthly subscription when you can go online on your computer and play on the Internet for free. Which also kind of brings me to my other point. Usually most games that come out for console get ported to PC so what’s the point in a console? The other thing that doesn’t make sense to me is when the game gets ported to the PC the graphics are 10x better because our GPU's are much more powerful so why wouldn't you want to play it on a PC.

Now I know it sounds like I hate consoles, but I don’t. They are a lot of fun when you have a group of friends over, much easier to hook up four controls then lugging your PC’s over. Anyways I just think that there is a lot of hype on consoles and I think that has to do with somewhat having to be tech savvy when it comes to PC gaming. Game On.
Related resources
October 5, 2007 6:55:30 PM

I've got a lot of friends that play console games, I even have an Xbox with Halo and have Halo 2 for the PC. With that being said, I hate Halo. There are several reasons I hate it.

1. Graphics. Sure on a standard non-Hi-Def TV they're not that bad, but put them on Hi-Def or a computer monitor and they're laughable. That holds true for Halo 2 as well. I don't have a Xbox 360, but I can only imagine.

2. Level Design. I've never been through so many of the same corridors in one game.

3. Crosshairs. I know you can change them, but they're huge. Let's do a comparison.

- - @
/ \ \|/
| | | Example A
Half-Life Crosshair + Halo Crosshair \ / /\
- -

Now saying that a enemy is the size of Example A, which would you rather have?

4. Halo fanboys claiming they're FPS Gods. I have a lot of friends that are serious Halo fanboys. I constantly get in arguements about controllers vs keyboard and mouse, and also Xbox graphics vs PC graphics. If controllers are so precise, why does Halo have such a huge $%#@ing crosshair?

Well, Halo is good in one department, cooperative mode. I had a blast playing through the first Halo with my best friend. He is also a computer gamer, so I must ask. Why the %$#@ did Microsoft remove cooperative play from the PC versions? Probably because Xbox sales would plummet if actual FPS gamers could enjoy the coop without having to by an Xbox.
October 5, 2007 7:20:13 PM

It's not a crosshair, its the circle of Auto-Aim.

Coop was awesome, the only reason I liked Halo as well.

Would be nice to see the next gen consoles sold at a profit like PCs are.. I wonder how many they will sell.
October 5, 2007 7:52:51 PM

My angst comes from a different source...

I'm a PC gamer that actually liked Halo. Sure, the level design got a bit repetetive, but it delivered some memorable moments.

What cheesed me off was how microsoft treated the PC gaming community. Many, many people do not remember that Halo was originally a PC game that was nabbed very late in the development process and transformed (by gobbling up Bungie) into the flagship for MS's upcoming console. I was one of many people who were following the development of this "PC" title with anticipation, only to be stunned when MS delivered an unapologetic groin-kick to the windows gaming community by hogging the title as an x-box exclusive. Then to add insult to injury, they sluggishly released the games for the PC under the abusive "buy-our-latest-OS-to-play" program.

MS says that it supports the PC gaming community, which is funny because it does a lot to hurt it.

As for the hype issues, I am less bothered. Like I said, I thought Halo was a very good game and from what I've seen of the sequels, they also looked to be pretty good games. The reason that they are as good as they are though, is because the gameplay was developed for the PC.

Still, Halo freaks are doing themselves and the gaming universe a disservice by proclaiming Halo 3 to be a "God". While I enjoyed the original title, Halo 3 would have to be a radical improvement over the original to even make my top 10 shooters - maybe not even my top 20. And it probably falls even farther when you throw in RPG, adventure and strategy games. If gamers consider themselves "hard core" or discerning in the least, they should ditch the kiddie-toys, grab a mouse and a keyboard and hold on to their seats.
October 5, 2007 8:25:37 PM

Quote:
What cheesed me off was how microsoft treated the PC gaming community. Many, many people do not remember that Halo was originally a PC game that was nabbed very late in the development process and transformed (by gobbling up Bungie) into the flagship for MS's upcoming console. I was one of many people who were following the development of this "PC" title with anticipation, only to be stunned when MS delivered an unapologetic groin-kick to the windows gaming community by hogging the title as an x-box exclusive. Then to add insult to injury, they sluggishly released the games for the PC under the abusive "buy-our-latest-OS-to-play" program.


I feel your pain. I already posted about this under the last video discussion about Halo. Then something interesting happened...interest got the best of me.

I have been eying the 360 for some time now. I've been a PC gamer forever but something is happening right now that could change the PC gamer perspective forever. Microsoft is supporting a console! It's hard to accept as a PC gamer but at some point you have to. Microsoft will kill PC gaming so that they can control the purchase of games and content through the xbox 360. I'm sure they are having meetings right now asking each other how they can kill off the PC as a game platform to induce more xbox sales. They know that you are going to have a PC whether you game on it or not. Now they want the gamers to be locked into their platform and it's working.

I took the plunge. I got the 360 and I am happy with it. I bought a rockin PC 1.5 years back (see specs below) but now its feigning. The Bioshock demo ran like garbage. Lost Planet Demo same thing. Most games are no longer PC games being ported to xbox. Instead it is now the other way around and Halo was a huge root cause for this. It's popularity spawned a spark in Developers that introduced them to masses of gamers who would actually pay for games (because with consoles you have to). What a concept!

So you see, not only is it MS to blame for the death of PC gaming, it is gamers themselves. I am sad to admit that I am now part of the problem. However, it is not because I am not a loyal PC gamer, it is because I am a GAMER and gamers deserve to play all the hot titles at a good frame rate with no crappy bugs and driver support issues. Vista only this and that. $500 dollar video card upgrades that last you about a year. Running out of HD space because games take up 10 GB of space now.

I will still play PC games. But if I were to only play PC games I know I'd be missing out on a lot. Halo 3 is no exception. It is a great game. Not the best but quite fun and exciting. I personally think I will have more fun with Quake Wars and HL2 on the PC. but we shall see.

www.homebrewhobby.com

Hobby Machine:
Quicksilver G4
Mac OSX Tiger

Workhorse/Gamimg:
Silverstone 600W, Athlon X2 4200+ , 2G XMS Corsair, eVGA GeForce 7800 GTX, Audigy 4, WD 330GB , XP Pro x64 and 32 bit edition (Ex-Vista User)
October 5, 2007 9:28:44 PM

I'm with ya, Rob.

October 5, 2007 11:17:40 PM

This PC VS Console has been going on for years and IMO the computer wins hands down every time.........there is no comparison. Plus the computer does so much more and does it better.....end of story.
October 6, 2007 8:38:06 PM

I hope they do kill PC gaming...So Linux can pick it up...So I can choose between ATI and NVidia. I say forget about Direct X 10. Alot of you PC gamers get angry about console gamers and their couch sitting controllers w/ split screen madness. Can't do split screen with the PC. Really I say you Msft PC gamers deserve everything you get. You are the ones feeding into this Msft crap. Because you allowed them to control the whole computer hardware market w/ DX 10. They can't push their next O.S. without gamer approval of their graphics technology. If you guys would just forget about Direct X and only support OpenGL and other open source graphics they wouldn't be able to tie down the hardware market. The graphics market pushes the PC market for the most part. Now Msft controls every other hardware manufacturer, meaning you have to continually buy new printers, monitors(DRM), upgrade your ram for the resource hogging Vista, find your own drivers for XP pro 64, and wait forever for security updates from Msft. So once again you PC gamers deserve every bit backstabbing from msft you get. When you spoon w/ them in bed there's a potential you may get f@$#'d. Msft wouldn't be $h17 w/o PC gamers. Imagine how all of us Linux users feel watching you guys get the good games because the video card manufacturer's wont open source their drivers. BTW-There are a lot of IT newbs using Msft OS, because all they do is play games on their PC.

I'm sure the 360 will be the last game machine I buy though, seeing as how I don't have much time for games lately.

BTW- I used to setup mobile networks (meaning, Domain controllers ADUC, Exchange, Sidewinder FW, bluecoat, Vidoip, Cisco rtr/sw, etc.etc.), but I got moved to a helpdesk taking calls for idiots and limit pushers... So I'm a little disgruntled.
October 7, 2007 4:39:16 AM

I used to be a pc gamer for many years. Upgrading this updating that, tweaking every ini file to squeeze a few fps so my games would run better. Benched with 3dmark2001 and the others after. Then I bought a geforce 5800. It was amazing! Pixel shader here, anti alias n anistropic there... Until I bought half-life 2 and oblivion. Then decay began. Hey, let's upgrade to an x800xt from ati so new games will run well on my P4-2.8 with a gig of ram. Wahoo! Oblivion all at medium and slow as hell and hl2 ran well... but not day of defeat... So another few hundred bucks spend on a pc upgrade that ends up as useful as that sweater grandma gave me. Yeah the one with the seagull on it.

That was it. I even stopped gaming for a while. I mean either I buy PC parts or I buy games. Let's try a "next gen" console. I bought a 360 exactly when gear of war went out... And to be honest, I'll never NEVER go back to pc gaming. Sure I miss a lot my mouse and my nostromo but no more pain in the arse system requirement. Everybody online has
the same "rig" so it's fair. Also I did a raw estiamate of gaming costs...


26 inch lcd samsungX 700$
xbox n games +live 700$

decent pc run games 700+$
decent video card 300+$
and a monitor... 2-300$

i forgot... windows... 150$?

There is GOOD in both PC gaming and consoles gaming. Right now what scares my about pc gaming are the rapidly increasing system reqs and DRMS. I lend bioshock to my friend and he didn't have to call fcc to get to play...

Sure pc's rocks. I miss dm_iceworld and fy_poolday. User created content and free MODZ...

I'm now on linux (ubuntu) and I like that. Music, movies and all. Having unlimited funds, I'd go with pc gaming. I'd change videocards with each seasons and so on. I'm not rich and I want good time playing games and not configuring them so my 360 will the solution for a good while.

PS I finished HL2 on my pc then and now I can't wait to get orange box (360)!!
October 7, 2007 9:17:01 AM

has HALO II and III come to the masses on windows xp?? no.
end of story. microsoft can burn in hell as far as i am concerned. they would have made even more money and me happy if they had brought it to pc's on windows xp. god i loved halo I, and I CAN'T play the rest of it! bungie, you sold your soul to the devil, microsoft, burn again !

A.
October 7, 2007 3:08:03 PM

I'm 100% with Rob!

I've been trying to explain to my console friends just how weak the Halo series is compared to the gameplay in computer games. I've played all three Halos to humor my friends over the years and its just a weak game compared to many computer games that don't get a fraction as much credit. I would like to add that this is probably because the bar for computer gamers is thousands of feet higher than the bar for console gamers. Computer gamers expect much more than Halo offers because we have been spoiled by the brilliant games that have come out for the PC over the years.

Halo 3 is crap...plain and simple. I can go back and play Deus Ex and have a lot more fun and depth of gameplay. Deus Ex came out YEARS ago...
October 7, 2007 3:50:43 PM

Wow,

I guess i shouldn't be shocked to see this much hating on a hardware forum. I think a lot of the haters out there are really pathetic.

I have a PC and a 360. Haters, on BOTH sides of the issue, are idiots who are missing out on good games.

No offense Rob, but most of your legit complaints about Halo, really applied to Halo:CE which did have repetitive level design - true. But it was still a good game... have you played Halo3 yet - from the discussion I couldn't really tell - none of your comments were directed specifically at 3...

What I don't like is the whole superiority complex put out by PC gamers. Frankly, it gives the rest of us PC gamers a bad name. Again Rob, "go out and get a 2nd job." Are you for real? :ouch: 

And this whole, if you don't play with a mouse and keyboard you're not really good. The best CS player would get killed playing Halo3 against the best in Halo3, AND vice versa... so who's better? neither, they're different games.

I like Halo3. I like HL2. I get to play both. If you don't play one or the other because of childish hatred then I ask you: who is the real loser? :) 

-tiger
October 8, 2007 12:07:27 AM

I went over to a friends house and beat halo 3 in 3hrs on normal, I altogether have played about 25 hrs of FPS games on a console, either I'm really good (which I highly doubt) or the game is way to short and easy. I'm going to try it on legendary soon.
October 8, 2007 2:04:05 AM

oh btw, if you can buy a keyboard and mouse for the XBox360, then Halo is a decent game....otherwise its pure ass.
October 8, 2007 6:38:29 AM

Chazwuzzer said:

What cheesed me off was how microsoft treated the PC gaming community. Many, many people do not remember that Halo was originally a PC game that was nabbed very late in the development process and transformed (by gobbling up Bungie) into the flagship for MS's upcoming console.


BTW Bungie was a Mac developer before MS bought it. Imagine how the poor Mac users felt when MS came and bought one of the few decent Mac game developers. :( 
October 8, 2007 3:28:31 PM

I don't care if a game is on PC or console. If it's fun, I'll play it. I'm kind of a Halo hater, but I still like the games. They're good for a console shooter. I think the first Halo game was innovative and introduced a lot of cool things that I hadn't seen before in a game whether it was PC or console, such as vehicles, competent AI, etc. And with very few loading pauses, it just created a great visceral atmosphere. I appreciate little things like your character climbs into the vehicle instead of magically appearing inside it like in the Battlefield series. And each game had at least one level that was a lot of fun.

But Halo cut a lot of corners, and it hasn't really recovered until Halo 3. A lot of my resentment comes from what the Halo series could've been had it continued as a PC game as it was originally intended. I think it would've ended up being phenomenal.

But Halo is easy to learn and coop and multiplayer are fun to play with friends. That's definitely what has made Halo the success it is... the multiplayer is fun and addictive, minus the cumbersome X-Box Live service and annoying 12 year olds.

The potential lost due to console restrictions are what I hate about Halo. Oh yeah, and the horrible structure and cliffhanger for Halo 2. Halo 2 felt like half a game. People only like it because it let them play over X-Box Live.
October 8, 2007 6:33:09 PM

choknuti said:
BTW Bungie was a Mac developer before MS bought it. Imagine how the poor Mac users felt when MS came and bought one of the few decent Mac game developers. :( 


Yeah, I totally forgot about that. I remember when they released Myth:TFL for the Mac - I thought it was the best mac game release that I had seen in ages. It was an all-round awesome game too.

I feel the rage of the other poster that hopes Linux can pick up the slack. I used linux a lot more back in the day, but.... well, its a long story. Anyhow, I've always hoped that someone could get some programming virgins/hackers to come out with an app that would run DX on a linux system. Man, it would be good-bye Windows. Maybe a move off of MS is inevitable for PC games - I would never look back.
October 8, 2007 7:49:36 PM

tiger00 said:
Wow,

I guess i shouldn't be shocked to see this much hating on a hardware forum. I think a lot of the haters out there are really pathetic.

I have a PC and a 360. Haters, on BOTH sides of the issue, are idiots who are missing out on good games.

No offense Rob, but most of your legit complaints about Halo, really applied to Halo:CE which did have repetitive level design - true. But it was still a good game... have you played Halo3 yet - from the discussion I couldn't really tell - none of your comments were directed specifically at 3...

What I don't like is the whole superiority complex put out by PC gamers. Frankly, it gives the rest of us PC gamers a bad name. Again Rob, "go out and get a 2nd job." Are you for real? :ouch: 

And this whole, if you don't play with a mouse and keyboard you're not really good. The best CS player would get killed playing Halo3 against the best in Halo3, AND vice versa... so who's better? neither, they're different games.

I like Halo3. I like HL2. I get to play both. If you don't play one or the other because of childish hatred then I ask you: who is the real loser? :) 

-tiger


Easy, Tiger (sorry, I couldn't resist)

I'm not anti-console. I mention in the video that two of my favorite FPS are GoldenEye and The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (which I played on the Xbox first). And sorry, I still feel that Halo 2 had some poor, repetitive level design.

As for my feelings on Halo 3, I made a few points but Ben edited them out in the interest of time. In short, I liked them game more than I thought I would, and I thought it was the best of three. Check out the link below for more.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/fringedrinking/2007/10/halo_hating_is_put_on_hold_hal.html
October 9, 2007 1:19:59 AM

I couldn't disagree with Duke05 more. I've been a PC gamer since I was given a Commodore64 when I was 5 years old (I'm 23 now.)

I have never spent more on my computer system than the average person spends on a console + computer. never. It's hardly possible.

$300 for a decent video card? BS. I bought a brand new 7900gs in June for $99. Not a game on the market that a 7900gs can't play well.

You console people keep comparing craptastic GPU's that consoles have with the best possible that PC's have, and then comparing the price. So what if you couldn't run HL2 maxed out when it came out? Turn it down a bit, and it's STILL much more detailed than Halo ever was.

Lets do a price comparison shall we?

Next Gen Console = ~$400
Craptastic Laptop or Desktop that you need anyway (and most people buy computers far more expensive than $500) = ~$500
(And I won't even count the HD TV)

Gaming Computer = extra $300-400.

And obsolete in a year? I've never understood this. My brother has a three year old desktop. I bought $50 of extra ram, and a $50 video card (7600gs). Can run any game out reasonable well at 1280X1024. Three years old! Buy midrange and upgrade when needed and you'll spend equal or less than you would on a console, while still getting better graphics. Xbox Live subscription alone costs more than I ever spend on video cards. Buy a $100-150 card, use it for a year, sell it for $50-$100. $50 per year. Heh.

Consoles do one thing well. Hanging out with friends in the living room while playing some games. If you're playing a console by yourself: you suck. Buy a PC.

So to the topic at hand, I have great memories of halo. All of them are coop.

Halo is a great soundtrack, with a decent game, with a high fun factor from hanging out with friends. But if you think the gaming value compares to a PC... you are a newb.

So Rob is right. Console gamers = newbs ;) 

October 9, 2007 10:24:45 PM

wingless said:
I'm 100% with Rob!

I've been trying to explain to my console friends just how weak the Halo series is compared to the gameplay in computer games. I've played all three Halos to humor my friends over the years and its just a weak game compared to many computer games that don't get a fraction as much credit. I would like to add that this is probably because the bar for computer gamers is thousands of feet higher than the bar for console gamers. Computer gamers expect much more than Halo offers because we have been spoiled by the brilliant games that have come out for the PC over the years.

Halo 3 is crap...plain and simple. I can go back and play Deus Ex and have a lot more fun and depth of gameplay. Deus Ex came out YEARS ago...


You should expect more! You're paying for it...like a friggin' nose bleed! And you should also expect your machine not to crash due to crappy @$$ memory access errors or insufficient paging file space.

BTW: I'm not at all saying that Halo 3 is the best game ever, But it fits the budget and has no adverse affects on my PC lifespan.
October 13, 2007 10:28:06 PM

I decided to check out the fuss with Halo recently and played through some of the Halo 2 single player on PC. This game should get about a 5/10. Bland, uninspired, and dated, with laughable dialog and tedious level design. I thought Doom 3 was lightyears better than this, and most people consider that to be an average shooter. Gimme Max Payne, NOLF, or Half Life any day of the week. It's sad that console gamers have no clue what good shooters are like, if this is what they consider great.
October 23, 2007 8:22:27 PM

Since I am a man of science I developed some equations to help aid those found in a heated argument over console vs PC gaming. The PS3 will be used for price comparison given it is the most performance-capable console to date.

$ = total currency value in geographical location
# = quantity of units
Z = GPU superiority factor = .821 if supporting DX10, = 1.205 if supporting DX9 (Derived from Awe factor)

Price Comparison
IF ($PS3) * ($HDTV) > ($Graphics card) * ($HD monitor) * Z
Then Win for PC gaming

Game Selection
IF [(# Sony Games + # Xbox Games + # Nintendo Games) / (# Games in Universe)] / (# consoles owned) < (#PC Games) / (# Games in Universe)
Then Win for PC gaming

*Note that PS2 and PS1 games shall not be included in the Sony Games variable if console is not backwards compatible in light of recent events regarding Sony eliminating backwards compatible units.

Cheers
December 1, 2007 12:19:45 AM

SpinachEater said:
Price Comparison
IF ($PS3) * ($HDTV) > ($Graphics card) * ($HD monitor) * Z
Then Win for PC gaming


How about you make a reasonable comparison? The display device plays no role in the price comparison. Unless of course you are suggesting that either A) PC's can't output high resolutions to a HDTV or B) PS3/Xbox 360 cannot be played on a normal CRT or LCD monitor. However, neither A nor B is correct, so the comparison should be the cost of the console vs the cost of a normal PC + grapics Card sounds, although not perfect, much more reasonable.

And BTW, I have an Xbox 360 and I generally play it on my 22" LCD monitor, and it works great.


SpinachEater said:
Game Selection
IF [(# Sony Games + # Xbox Games + # Nintendo Games) / (# Games in Universe)] / (# consoles owned) < (#PC Games) / (# Games in Universe)
Then Win for PC gaming


Now I am really starting to believe that you are not the man of science you claim to be. For one thing, both sides are divided by the (# Games in Universe) so obviously those can be removed from both sides. Just some simple algebra. Also, you (and most PC gamers who use this argument) seem to imply that your PC can play every game ever made for PC. However, this is not the case. Due to the incredible flexibility of PC's, incompatibility issues pretty much always arise. The biggest issue is obviously different operating systems than what the game was designed for. And occasionally there can be other reasons why the game may not work on a particular PC.

Don't get me wrong, if you were to ask me which has the bigger game selection, I would easily say PC. But it isn't fair to claim that all PC games work on a PC.
December 6, 2007 10:44:10 PM

i own a xbox, xbox 360, and a pc. I have games for all. I own each halo except the last however. Why? Because the first was great, the second was ok, the last was crap. Nothing changed, it was halo 2 with a mod and updated skins. I played through the campaign and online but it really is not good at all... In my opinion it deserves a 7.5 maybe
January 4, 2008 10:19:29 PM

I agree with those who say that both sides have their elitists giving off a bad image. I'm personally a PC and console gamer. I used to play consoles as a kid, I moved on to PCs in high-school, but now I see that they both have their own pros and cons.

The key, for me at least, is to differentiate a console game from a PC game. This may not apply for everyone but, for example, MMORPGs(WoW/FFXI) and RTS(Starcraft/C&C) games belong to PCs in my book and Adventure Games(Prince of Persia/Assassin's Creed) and RPGs(Mass Effect/FFXII) belong to consoles. Yes these types have all been done on both platforms but, in my opinion, always feel better on their native platform.

My cut on FPS games(oh no, PC territory) is that it's typically better on PC. However, my experience with Halo 1 was much better on the Xbox. So I suppose it comes down to native platform for me.

Some games are tough to sort into a platform though. Oblivion is my top example for this, kind of like a FPRPG(you don't want to play this in 3rd person usually). User made mods (PC) or sit comfortably in your couch not worrying about the fairly high graphics requirements (Console)?

All this said, just find what fits your style best and don't forget that imposing your elitist views on others can be(read: is) irritating.
January 7, 2008 4:55:04 AM

the only reason i play the 360 is because most of my friends have it where as only a couple have up to date computers
January 23, 2008 11:10:32 PM

IMO the only games that "Belong" on a PC only are RTS and MMO, and for console i can only really say Fighting games, maybe sports as well. They simply lend their design to a gamepad. RTS on a console, never happen. RPG's i personally think can be done well on both platforms, i'll cite Baldur's Gate I/II as a pc example, and any FF game on console as an example.

Moving along, yes, i am still bitter about the "Bungie MS buyout/consequent **** over of PC gamers to promote XBOX" situation, i know it was a damned long time ago but i still can't help it. I will also agree with previous statements that console gamers really dont know what a good FPS is. I am going to say that up until COD4 they really had **** FPS games.

Now, i have been a PC gamer since i built my first 486sx33 pc an eternity ago, and used boot disks to load games like X-Wing (god i miss that game). With that being said, i have also been a console gamer since my first Atari. I have slowly built my hatred of console gaming over the years. Used to i would play whatever was good on whatever console or pc was available. Some of my fondest gaming memories came from games like Dark Forces, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Everquest, Half-Life. Playing games like contra with my buddies on the couch, or sitting down and going completely apeshit on Gran Turismo for 10 hours straight, etc. Hell i even remember playing the original doom by dialing my modem straight into my buddies modem and doing Co-op (something i think needs to come back in gaming). To this day he makes me take point on FPS games because back in doom i had a bad habit of shooting him in the back.

With that being said, i think that the almighty dollar has transpired to ruin console gaming. I am going to site the PS2 era as the starting point. Too many developers are sacrificing art in favor of getting the game out on the market early so they can move on to developing the next game for some poor parent to buy their kid. As far as i can tell Squaresoft and Polyphony Digital are the only 2 remaining console developers that are willing to invest the time necessary to make a good/polished game. Now all the PC developers are either moving to consoles, or trying to pull the same trick by releasing undeveloped games (Vanguard: SOH for example). What happened to the days when companies like Blizzard would delay a game for a epoch if necessary to make sure it was done right?

Now we have the era of the dreaded console ports to PC. I site KOTOR2 as a prime example of how badly this can affect things. Sometimes it can be done somewhat well, COD4 for example, but you still can see some of the things that were dumbed down or gimped because it was developed on a console.

I also want to bring up what i like to call the "OOOOHHH! Shiny Graphics!" incident that i firmly believe is the plague of the vast majority of console gamers. Test my theory one day and show up to a babbages or gamestop or whatever they call it now on the release date of a major console game. I assure you the first thing that you will hear is them talking about how badass the graphics are. Hell i remember when EQ2 was released on 11/08/2004, i had to show up the next morning to pick up my copy b/c i worked on the 8th, which happened to be the same day that Halo2 was released in NA. I remember how **** shocked the massive number of people were to discover that my buddy and i were NOT there for halo but in fact to pick up a PC Game??!?!!. They have games on PC's??? Seriously it was almost laughable to see/hear their reactions.

I actually have this argument with my room mate almost weekly because he feels i am being irrational in labeling console gamers that way. I am sure to some extent i am exaggerating, but, its like they say, stereotypes exist for a reason.

Now, to be fair, i think we have to examine the cost structures of both sides. Really i feel that you can only compare the cost of the video card and the console itself. Including the TV in the console isnt valid because the tv serves other purposes, i.e. watching movies or football or whatever, and thus has other uses. I also believe that outside of the video card in a PC, which is truthfully the only part you buy for the SOLE purpose of gaming (we'll except the few CAD guys and 3D developers, they usually use workstation cards anyways) you can't really include the cost of the rest of the PC in your argument, because you can use it for many other things. Typing papers, research, chatting, coding, work, "extracurricular activities", etc.

So, realistically, a person buying a high end card can be expected to spend 300-400 on a vid card. I dont include the guys who pay say $600 for the bleeding edge because realistically they gain at best 10-15% over the second step down, and pay a huge premium to do so. I also don't believe they are representative of the core PC gamer. Consoles used to be 150-200 but are now eeking into the 300+ range as being average. So, cost becomes a moot point IMO.

Another thing i want to bring up is that nobody seems to think about the fact that all the graphics chips being used in new consoles are based off of developments made during graphic card developments for PC. XBOX 360 is a 7800gt chip if i recall, and i believe the ps3 is an ati r580? I dont rem exactly. So if PC Gaming gets canned, do you really think graphics are going to move forward at the rate they have. Do you think in say 4/5 years when the Xbox 720 and/or PS4 come out that there is going to be as big a jump in graphics as there was from the xbox -> xbox 360, or from ps2-ps3 especially? I doubt it, highly.

Personally i think the only thing that can or will keep PC gaming alive, and believe me it pains me to say this, a lot, is Blizzard and WOW.
January 23, 2008 11:58:08 PM

I think Halo sucks.
That is all.
January 26, 2008 11:53:28 AM

Kutark, I disagree that only the video card matters. You state that you can do other things, but do you NEED to do other things. For example, I had an Athlon64 3200+ computer, It was a Socket 654 with 1gig of memory, and a Radeon 9800 Pro video card. I have 2 Western Digital Raptors 74 gig each. (I'm waiting for the TB drives to come down a bit further in price). When I was in college, I didn't NEED anything more. And for 95% of the people, they don't need anything more. The athlon Processor is fast enough now for everything BUT gaming. The Memory is fine now for everything BUT gaming and Vista Ultimate, and if you have it, then doubling it is FAR cheaper than changing your whole system. BUT, since I like Gaming on the PC, I needed a New 8800 GTS 320, oh wait, that's PCI express. Well I got to get a motherboard that is compatible. Boom, I went from 300, to now $450. Oh wait, if I switch, I also need a new Processor, well boom E6600, well from $450, to $720. Oh wait, If I do a switch of the MB, I'll also need new DDR2 memory, as mine were DDR1 and the pin count are different. I decided to go 2Gigs and they are 1066 so at the time it cost me $200 bucks boom, $920 (later on, I went over board and got 2 2gigs, to now total 6 Gigs of Memory, but the advantages, weren't as big as the jump to 2gigs for NOW, and since it came much, later, I won't even include it in this). Now, I'm not even including the fact that, due to a desire for better airflow and temperature control, I got a Lian-Li A10 case, that was also $250, I got the greatest Sound Card, and Auzen X-Meridian, even switched out the Op-amps to LM4564s on all 4 of them. And later, upgraded from a 20inch widescreen display, to a 24inch display so that I can't have 1920x1200 resolution. These that I didn't include AREN'T necessary for the upgraded. But the $920 at the time of the upgrade WAS. Finally, the personal hours it took to do the upgrade. In college I didn't mind, Now, it's a hassle, especially when MB manufacturers, are lite on instructions, or for some Odd reasons, it didn't want to Post. I even went so far as to get a new R/M# as I was going to send it back, then it finally worked.

These are things that MOST people simply don't want to deal with. It's not just a Video Card purchase, as easy as say it's just a Console Purchase. I would agree with you on the TV though, as that TV will serve as the DVD player output device, it will serve as the Blu-Ray player output device (ie.. the PS3), it will serve as the PS3's game output device, and it will serve Countless hours as a HDTV. So the TV isn't exactly a "NEED" but it sure as hell is a very Useful, as in Everyday use type of "WANT".

Finally, everything in your statement focuses on XBOX360 and PS3, but again, PC people often Fail to realize that Not everything is graphics. The one console you Fail to mention, is the Biggest culprit in taking people away from other medias. The Video gaming is Up, PC gaming is down, PS3 compared to PS2 is down, XBOX360 would be much higher without the Wii around. The Wii is WAY up compared to all new consoles, and to it's predecessor. People do buy the wii, both young and adult, and as much as some may not want to admit it, but Sir Howard Stringer himself admitted it, and that is, They are taking their market share, and their ability to Not make enough consoles for the demand, is actually a Sony benefit, as it led to more PS3's sold during the holidays. It offers, things that PC games can't really do at this time and is important in any real discussion. Despite the achievements of the Orange Box, Bioshock, Halo 3, COD4, Crysis, Rockband and Guitar Hero, Unreal Tournament 3, it was Super Mario Galaxy that won Gamepots', IGN, and Gametrailers Game of the year.

I don't think Next Generation will have as much of a reliance on Graphics. Not after what Nintendo has shown us, and Not after we've seen how long, difficult, and expensive it is, to make games for these new generation systems. We've reached a point where Uncharted's Graphics are fine and that we don't NEED Crysis level graphics. Gears of War type graphic is fine and we dont' NEED whatever will be out 5 years from now. Plus, as we've seen already, the Jump from generations begin to give you diminishing returns. It's not the same as the jump from 8 bits to 16, or 16-2D to 32 bit and able to do 3D and very colorful 2D. Or Blocky 32 bit to more smooth 128 bit. Or occasional Mitten Hands of 128bit to now the jump to HDTV and higher resolutions and in the case of Nintendo, a revolution on how we think of games. Unless you go into Virtua Reality or something like that, NEXT generation will simply just be a refinement of this one. I doubt we'll go past 1080P as TVs will NOT, all TVs in the forseable future will be limited to 1080P. We already game on the internet now without problems, so that won't be the big thing. We already have Blu-Ray in the case of the PS3 and the capabilities to include uncompressed sound or 7.1 sound, so that can't be it. Nintendo already got us thinking outside the box, so anything in the future like it will be a homage to the Big N. This generation of consoles already have downloadable games and patches and much more. Now, even for a great company like Squaresoft, the cost of making games, made them unable to spend a decent money towards projects like Xenogears, which was a stellar game. Instead, Square is now focussing their attention towards the latest Final Fantasie and Dragon Quest, and in the mean time, have decent revenue with Ports of old 16 and 8 bit games and the occasional side game like Revenant Wings was a side game to the original Final Fantasy XII.
January 28, 2008 5:04:16 PM

I will concede on some points with the PC issue, as the majority of pc users that do research, internet surfing, etc won't upgrade their proc and mobo/mem etc unless their comp is basically biting it. I was actually referencing more from the coder/photo/video/editor etc. The people who use their pc's both for work related and gaming.

I have to fully disagree with you on the graphics issue. I absolutely do not believe that PC gamers are graphics driven any near as bad as console gamers are. Games like Warcraft 3/wow, starcraft 1, hell look at starcraft 2, the graphics arent all that great and that game is going to be stupid popular. Hundreds of thousands of People still play CS:S. TF2 has relatively poor graphics and is extremely popular. The list goes on.

The Wii is a fad. I can't tell you how many people i know who own a wii and played the crap out of it for a few months and now almost never touch it. I'll agree that the new mario 64 sequel was excellent and most deserving of the game of the year award. But i truly believe the only reason the Wii is popular is A. Cost, and B. Novelty. Its not a system for a true gamer, it is a system designed for and predominantly bought by casual gamers.
!