The future of gaming

ngnikolaos · Post by **ngnikolaos** » Mon May 30, 2005 2:30 pm

...I made this conversation with my brother tons of times.

I think that we say "those were the games in the good ol' days", but really, is that the case? There were crappy games in the past, there are crappy games now. There were excellent games in the past, there are excellent games now.

There are some games that simply grow old, or are inferior in comparison with newer versions of the same game. Playing Mortal Kombat Deception is generally FAR more enjoyable than playing MK 1 for instance. So, why should MK 1(SF2)-like games still come out, when a newer , more evolved form of the same game is developed?

I agree that these days, with competition being far more increased than in the past, companies have to be sure that their game is going to make them gain money. And thus, the programmers say: do we make a game with a guy who causes rain anywhere he goes, not knowing how the gamers will react to such a game, or do we make a Doom 3-like horror FPS, knowing that it's going to sell bigtime; and voila, "originality-sure thing" score is 0-1.

Frankly, I want to see remakes of known genres. If any game of a specific genre would come out only once, with no one making a game like it, we would've stuck with Wolfestein 3D and Final Fantasy 1. Wouldn't that be a shame?

On the other hand, it's good to see 2-3 Doom 3-like games a month, instead of 10-20 having EXACTLY the same setup and feel...

Conclusion: None whatsoever.

Fuujin · Post by **Fuujin** » Mon May 30, 2005 2:45 pm

I think that in next or the one after that generation of consoles the games will finally reach that barrier between "mondo cool but still visibly CG" and "perfectly life-like" graphics, in other words, the absolute 0wnage point when the graphics will no longer get better. This is when the companies won't be able to mask their games' flaws with graphics better than average, so to sell games they'll have to focus on gameplay, innovation etc. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I feel that soon we'll see the new era of gaming.

As for FPPs, I don't really like them either. The majority of them are just monotonous for me, so it takes something special to make me play a shooter. The last games that managed to do this were the 1999 ones - Thief, Blood 2 and Half-Life. The later ones simply didn't cut it. Some people say that a renaissance of FPPs has begun with Half-Life 2 and Doom 3, but I can't play these on my puny computer.

Still, I feel that PC gaming is dying, The consoles get much more quality titles, so pretty obviously they'll get more innovative ones too. PCs do work better with some games, but so what? I already said how I feel about FPPs, MMORPGs bore me, and strategy games seem to die out, about to meet the fate of the only genres that could convince me that PC gaming has any value - old-school adventure and PC-type RPGs.

Kodoshin · Post by **Kodoshin** » Mon May 30, 2005 5:23 pm

Mortal Kombat was never a game about gameplay really though, it was always about gore and shock factor (and after the latest installment mini-games). That sorta thing shows it's age quick.

To this day however I still participate in Super Street Fighter II Turbo tournaments as it is a game thats gameplay depth has held up over time. A great game should still be fun even after it's graphics are no longer state of the art, most of the games from the PSX/64 era have aged poorly for me in that respect.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Mon May 30, 2005 6:24 pm

Still, I feel that PC gaming is dying, The consoles get much more quality titles, so pretty obviously they'll get more innovative ones too. PCs do work better with some games, but so what? I already said how I feel about FPPs, MMORPGs bore me, and strategy games seem to die out, about to meet the fate of the only genres that could convince me that PC gaming has any value - old-school adventure and PC-type RPGs.

How can you say consoles are getting more quality titles, PC games are being proted over to consoles far more often these days. Again I dont see how you can say strategy games are dieing out there are tonnes being released, both flashy and tactical types. You have to face facts, its from the PC that the vast majority of the innovation and growth as a medium is originating.

Fuujin · Post by **Fuujin** » Mon May 30, 2005 7:55 pm

Yes, that's right, though more often then not they're multi-platform releases, not ports. Which only proves consoles superiority - when you have a faulty platform that has a few killer titles, and another, more specialised platform that has these few killers + much more, the decision is easy. You'll be able to play Doom 3 & Half-Life 2 on X-Box (though in poorer form, I'd imagine), but the majority of quality video games never see a release on PC. Viewtiful Joe, Tekken 5, ZOE, RE: Outbreak, Devil May Cry - hard to compete with games like that.

For me, PC gaming started to deteriorate in 2000. Before that there wasn't a better platform, consoles and PCs complemented each other. PCs had their adventure games, FPPs, strategy games, PC-style RPGs and netplay, consoles had fighters, console-style RPGs, action, action-adventure, platform games and all was well. However, from 2000 onwards it all went to hell. I guess people realised that specialised platform that's fully compatible with games developed for it, without crashes and millions of settings, is the only way to go. LucasArts abandoned adventure games, as did Sierra, which meant practically no such games on PC (or anywhere else, for that matter). Bullfrog went bye-bye. Fallout team soon followed (heh). Bioware now releases their games both on PC and X-Box. Even Blizzard now makes a console-exclusive game! It doesn't get much more obvious than that.

As for strategy games, I meant THE strategy games, not some strategy games. There may be a lot of titles released now, but what of it, if none of them gets even remotely close to Starcraft or Populous: The Beginning?

And just to lighten up the atmosphere:

I like swords.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:23 am

And just to lighten up the atmosphere:

I like swords.

Heh, same here

It seems to me you are stuck in the past. For example:

As for strategy games, I meant THE strategy games, not some strategy games. There may be a lot of titles released now, but what of it, if none of them gets even remotely close to Starcraft or Populous: The Beginning?

There have been many amazing strategy games released since then. You just cant move with the times basically, in my opinion. You prefer your old comfortable slippers that you've worn for years

when you have a faulty platform that has a few killer titles, and another, more specialised platform that has these few killers + much more, the decision is easy. You'll be able to play Doom 3 & Half-Life 2 on X-Box (though in poorer form, I'd imagine),

How is the PC a faulty platform and the "much more" released on consoles is generally rubbish. Yes there are more console releases but they are generaly awful.

I feel consoles are the biggest contributing factor to the problems many people have mentioned they feel the games industry is having. The ease of console gaming has made gaming more and more popular over the years, but as we have said as it becomes more mainstream so it becomes more average. Case in point is Deus Ex 2. The first game was amazing and ground breaking and one of the all time classics, the second was not for one reason alone, they wanted a multi platform release. Changing the game so it could be released on a console ruined it.

Viewtiful Joe, Tekken 5, ZOE, RE: Outbreak, Devil May Cry - hard to compete with games like that.

Again I say broaden your tastes and you'll find the PC has a huge amount to offer.

oponok · Post by **oponok** » Tue May 31, 2005 2:36 pm

I think the argument that lost in thought is making is that 3D games are just ONE direction games can go in, and that pronouncing 2D games as dead would be very narrow-minded. He isn't blaming the lack of innovation on 3D itself, but of the short-sighted nature of those who produce games soley for the mainstream crowd, who coincidentally seek "realism," thus eliminating 2D games.

The games that the mainstream are clamoring for (or are just being fed; it's tough to tell where it all begins) are sports and GTA clones. There is little innovation in these genres, but they're proven sellers, and so game companies realize that they need not stray from these formulas in order to find success. Now that games are getting closer and closer to movie budgets, the gamemakers need gauranteed successes to stay afloat, which is why we see gaming in the state that its in. I'm hardly admitting that innovation is dead, but if (moronic or uneducated) consumers continue to ignore brilliant companies like Nintendo who continuously seek to define or redefine genres, they'll just die out.

Now, as for 2D games being ugly or unenjoyable, that's pure BS. Look out your god damn window if you want realism (I imagine most people in general don't do this enough to begin with). With even the most beautifully rendered games of today, we find laughable errors such as polygon tearing, slow down, fog, clipping, things disappearing out of existance, camera isues, fake-looking shadows and lighting, awkward animations, blurry visuals, etc. In my honest opinion, I think the most wonderful looking game perhaps ever created is still the original Super Mario Bros. Abstracted, iconic (but never ugly or too detailed) characters and items coexist in a balanced world of simplicity, smooth motion, and coherence. This game needs not strive for realism, as it enforces it's own consistant artistic design and its own universe, of which no single element interferes with the game's own believability. In fact, the game itself created the visual and audio language that we STILL associate with gaming, in spite of these times of faux realism. As for its gameplay, its prefection is likely still unsurpassed in and perhaps outside its genre.

Maybe it would actually HELP game designers if they would go back to the basics and recreate gaming from the ground-up in 2D, instead of adding to the ever-growing mass that's already there. Yes, a game like Grand Theft Auto might seem utterly new and exciting, but didn't The Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy already establish free-roaming, non-linear gameplay? I recall traveling across Hyrule on a horse while doing drive-by's on ghosts long before vrooming around any mock-cities while enacting a drive-by.

It's possible that if we look backward, we can define something completely different from anything started by Nintendo and Atari. It's already happened in other media. Think poetry versus a novel. Think (to add some modicum of relevance to this actual board) "Dragonball" versus "Finding Nemo" versus "This Unnameable Little Broom" versus a Looney Tunes animation versus the work of Len Lye versus "Tale of Tales." I'm sure most of you have never heard of most of these, with the exception of "Dragonball," "Finding Nemo," and "Looney Tunes," and it's because these are what is successful, and similar products can continue to be made easily available to the public, while a work such as "Tale of Tales," while hailed by countless critics as the single greatest animation ever made, will forever remain unknown to even the most avid animation lovers. Nevertheless, you'll spot countless fundamental differences between all these selections. I'd like to see more of this variety in gaming, if it can even be achieved.

lost in thought · Post by **lost in thought** » Tue May 31, 2005 2:45 pm

I think the argument that lost in thought is making is that 3D games are just ONE direction games can go in, and that pronouncing 2D games as dead would to be very narrow-minded. He isn't blaming the lack of innovation on 3D itself, but of the short-sighted nature of those who produce games soley for the mainstream crowd, who coincidentally seek "realism," thus eliminating 2D games.

See thats exactly what I mean. One of the biggest problems to come because of this, is people becoming acclimated to constant 3D, in what-ever form it might take, so people begin to expect it, and expect bigger and better on each outting. They slowly begin to forget other things, because of companies over-use of that single style, and if anything it's depressing.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Tue May 31, 2005 5:50 pm

Here is one more point for the PC gaming scene then. Its flexibility allows the growing number of indie developers to exist, not to mention modders and bedroom developers that must use 2D due to time and budget limitations.

I see your point Oponok, 2D could just be another style to add to the ones already around, with its own benifits and drawbacks. However its the constant search for more realism that drives the hardware market, the lifeblood of the entire home computer industry.

Who knows, mabye the public will get annoyed at the constant spending and a slump in sales, or a daring developer releasing something wonderful will cause a 2D rennissance. We can only hope...

oponok · Post by **oponok** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:14 pm

I think it's not JUST realism that the hardward companies aim for, as pushing to create systems capable of more polygons, textures, color, and memory open the door for more creativity, no matter what direction is taken. The software designers are the ones who use the technology to produce realistic games. I'm not saying "realism" is an awful, bad, terrible thing, but variety should be available.

If someone here still doesn't think money heavily influences game design, let's look at Dragonball Z. What was popular in Japan in the 2D era? Mainly Street Fighter (and similar fighting games) and roleplaying games. So what kind of games did Japanese DBZ fans see? Street Fighter clones (yes, with a few DBZ-ish differentiations...) and RPGs. Now, in the 3D era, when Americans are demanding DBZ games, what are we seeing? An action game (Sagas) and fighting games (although while I find Budoukai 3 highly preferable to the older fighting games, the point still stands). And don't forget that it's only because DBZ is so profitable that these games are even being made. Now, I'm not saying I want to start seeing DBZ puzzle and sports games, but it's apparent that money governs what is produced.

It's not all bad, though. The Budoukai series, with its focus on cinematic gameplay and source-inspired mechanics is a breath of fresh air. Hopefully, Sparking!, with it's altered perspective (while snagged from ZOE, the free flight third person perspective hasn't been in a fighting game, as far as I know), will hopefully offer something as original and enjoyable to the fighting genre as Smash Bros (though that's terribly unlikely).

lost in thought · Post by **lost in thought** » Tue May 31, 2005 8:29 pm

Aurek wrote:I see your point Oponok, 2D could just be another style to add to the ones already around, with its own benifits and drawbacks. However its the constant search for more realism that drives the hardware market, the lifeblood of the entire home computer industry.

No Aurek, not just another style, it's the style. Okay, yes, 3D is the choice of the day right now, and nothing will change that, but lets think here- 2D is the underlying force of it all, if not for it we wouldn't have games at all today.

Now I can see companies focusing on more realism to sell product, but let me reference Sony: a short time before the PS2 was released state-side, there came a strong wiff of bullshit, as the console distributor made it abundantly clear that they intended to deny fully 2D games for the console [which is why, short of psuedo-2D/3D titles, we have none.] Why they took that step, when their previous console, and previous developed titles both featured 2D respectively is beyond me, but I am going to guess that Sony believes the market can only thrive in full-3D.

Where the future of 2D gaming is headed, I do not know, but even in the capable hands of Nintendo I don't know how long the art-form will last, but right now the company is effectively doing the style justice aesthetically, but without the addition of fully 2D games on it's GameCube, it's not doing the art-form the justice it deserves in the big picture. Again, I can only imagine the reasons, but a company like Nintendo- who has single-handedly allowed the art-form to live merely because of it's reliance on the Game Boy should be able to take a risk here and there, and give the members of it's longest supporting fanbase their dues, right?

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Tue May 31, 2005 10:24 pm

Well, a good example of why you don't see too many 2D titles is Alien Hominid. I've head it called both a 'Great trip down memory lane to revist the day of the hard and action packed 2D side-scrolling games.' and a 'Tavesty to gaming to go back to 2D in a day and age when much better 3D is possible.' That's the problem. 2D is seen as 'old school' these days, and using it is a gimick. Or it's just shunned by most people.

What we need is not a 2D game or 3D game or Cel Shaded game or text based game or any of that. What's needed is through and through originality, innovation, and care. A well thought out game with well thought out controls, gameplay, story, characters, mechanics, etc.

And you can't say that the current genneration of 'Graphics are everything!' thinking is what's killing the rest of the areas of games. There has ALWAYS been games with little or no purpose. I remember the only reason I even LIKED Quake was because it was just fun to play, even if it lacked any real story IMO. Where as other games were just fun because of the story.

Rummors about the Revolution's possible 'Projected 3D abilites' could help to turn things around. Not with going back to 2D, but by pushing into the next realm of 3D. But that will only be a new gimick that will only draw people for so long (just like Cel Shading).

I really don't see the industry fixing itself unless it's by mistake, until after the industry begins to die off. One it starts coming crashing down around them and their tried and true games stopping selling the innovation and love will return to the design. Until then, we can only wait and hope.

lost in thought · Post by **lost in thought** » Tue May 31, 2005 10:50 pm

Xyex wrote:Well, a good example of why you don't see too many 2D titles is Alien Hominid.

Don't lump Alien Hominid in with this, you know as well as anyone else, it's roots. It's wrong to judge 2D, based on the lack-luster turn out of a gimicky game, from a tiny, and obscure development company, done by someone who has turned his gimicky flash-based gaming/movie website into a fulltime job.

Xyex wrote:2D is seen as 'old school' these days, and using it is a gimick. Or it's just shunned by most people.

The only reason people think that way, is because developers push to hard, to much, for high graphical quality. And what did we discuss before? This sort of thing leads to gamer acclumation, which leads to the 'needy effect', which leads to doing the same thing all over again. It's a vicious circle.

Xyes wrote:What we need is not a 2D game or 3D game or Cel Shaded game or text based game or any of that. What's needed is through and through originality, innovation, and care. A well thought out game with well thought out controls, gameplay, story, characters, mechanics, etc.

Originality is gone, and it is never coming back. It died in the same ditch as story.

Xyex wrote:And you can't say that the current genneration of 'Graphics are everything!' thinking is what's killing the rest of the areas of games. There has ALWAYS been games with little or no purpose. I remember the only reason I even LIKED Quake was because it was just fun to play, even if it lacked any real story IMO. Where as other games were just fun because of the story.

I can, and I do; because it's true. The bottom line is, companies focus on making the graphics into the 'end all be all', when they have the budget to do so, so you end up having to sacrifice elements. [Look at Budokai 3 for instance, I couldn't say what kept a few DU scenario's out, but what-ever it was, obviously there was reason enough to strip the game of said scenarios.]

Xyex wrote:Rumors about the Revolution's possible 'Projected 3D abilites' could help to turn things around. Not with going back to 2D, but by pushing into the next realm of 3D. But that will only be a new gimick that will only draw people for so long (just like Cel Shading).

It's because of the 'graphics' issue, that will make me unable to afford to gaming, next generation. Although, at this point I am less than sad about that, with the way things are progressing.

Xyex wrote:I really don't see the industry fixing itself unless it's by mistake, until after the industry begins to die off. One it starts coming crashing down around them and their tried and true games stopping selling the innovation and love will return to the design. Until then, we can only wait and hope.

Of course they won't fix themselves, it's just not financially sound at this point, especially for Sony, since they've just thrown away quite a bit of money on their new "Cell Processor"; hopefully though, when it does crash, if any company left is willing to take a risk in the market again, I can only hope they take the initiative and step back to 2D. Because of this, I can only hope that if said event occurs, that a company will have the nerve to start again, even with the likely loss of the mainstream crowd.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:36 am

No Aurek, not just another style, it's the style. Okay, yes, 3D is the choice of the day right now, and nothing will change that, but lets think here- 2D is the underlying force of it all, if not for it we wouldn't have games at all today.

Its true 2D is where we all started but so what? I dont get what you're trying to say here.

Now I can see companies focusing on more realism to sell product, but let me reference Sony:...........clipped...........but I am going to guess that Sony believes the market can only thrive in full-3D.

Well I would say they did that to keep the hardware market moving. They must reckon that 2D games will slow people desire for better graphics and thus slow down the rate at which new hardware sells at. They loose respect from me for that one.

Originality is gone, and it is never coming back. It died in the same ditch as story.

Rubbish mate, neither of these things are dead. You either have too narrow a view or are playing the wrong games.

I can, and I do; because it's true. The bottom line is, companies focus on making the graphics into the 'end all be all', when they have the budget to do so, so you end up having to sacrifice elements. [Look at Budokai 3 for instance, I couldn't say what kept a few DU scenario's out, but what-ever it was, obviously there was reason enough to strip the game of said scenarios.

Not all companies do this, you must be playing the wrong games. None of the games I'm playing these days focus entirely on the graphics. Not unless I buy them just because they do.

I really don't see the industry fixing itself unless it's by mistake, until after the industry begins to die off. One it starts coming crashing down around them and their tried and true games stopping selling the innovation and love will return to the design. Until then, we can only wait and hope.

That will never happen. Gaming is here to stay and its never going to fall apart like that. Not in a million years, its too mainstream now.

It seems some people are unhappy and want to go back to 16 bit consoles, its not going to happen, adapt to the changes dont try to keep stuck in the past. Stop being stuck in the mud and like I keep saying; broaden your gaming horizons forget the constrictive labelling of genre's and cultivate a purer love for gaming as a whole. Then you will see there is plenty of innovation, care and gameplay around today.

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:38 am

Originality is gone, and it is never coming back. It died in the same ditch as story.

Neither is dead. You can still find games with some originality, and many with story. It's just not so easy to find at times. Truthfully, the same can be said for movies though.

Aurek wrote:
I really don't see the industry fixing itself unless it's by mistake, until after the industry begins to die off. One it starts coming crashing down around them and their tried and true games stopping selling the innovation and love will return to the design. Until then, we can only wait and hope.
That will never happen. Gaming is here to stay and its never going to fall apart like that. Not in a million years, its too mainstream now.

It seems some people are unhappy and want to go back to 16 bit consoles, its not going to happen, adapt to the changes dont try to keep stuck in the past. Stop being stuck in the mud and like I keep saying; broaden your gaming horizons forget the constrictive labelling of genre's and cultivate a purer love for gaming as a whole. Then you will see there is plenty of innovation, care and gameplay around today.

Actually, with the constantly rising prices, if the trend goes as it is now, this coming generation will be the end of it. $400 for a system and $70 for games is pushing things as is. The next gen after the coming one will probably be pushing $500/600 a system and $100 a game. There's only so high you can push prices before people stop paying.

When that happens profits will nose dive and the industry will fall apart. The only way they can prevent this is cost reduction. Cost is high due to the ammount of power put into their consoles. Lower the graphical power, divert that to processing ability that can allow for more complex games, and you're good. That's what the GC was cheap, it didn't try and push things too hard like the other systems. I'm betting the Revolution will be the cheapest this time around.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:39 am

Actually, with the constantly rising prices, if the trend goes as it is now, this coming generation will be the end of it. $400 for a system and $70 for games is pushing things as is. The next gen after the coming one will probably be pushing $500/600 a system and $100 a game. There's only so high you can push prices before people stop paying.

Someone will find a way around it, I dont refute the rising costs of gaming but I never subscribe to doom and gloom scenarios with regard to any subject. They never turn out quite a bad as people think. We are already seeing the consolidation of development houses into larger businesses that can work on more than one game at a time. This is a trend that will continue I think and there will always be a market for churned out games franchises like Budokai, Tomb Raider and the myriad of sports titles. What does this mean? It will be increasingly harder for new companies to start up and that combined with the large cost of development will mean less risks, less origionality. With regard to price however, there are other factors to take into consideration.

Consoles are always released on a price skimming policy
$500-$600 is not a lot for a system that will last you several years.

The console developers recognise nagging power and know they will get many pre orders and early sales from young people. Hence they price skim. Price skimming is a business term for releasing a product into a market at a high price and reducing it later. If you think $500-$600 is a lot for a console please come and live in Ireland for a while

The X-box and PS2 were first released at $490-$590 and have reduced over time. (down to $110 for the X-Box)

This being said the price of games themselves is worrying, as its rising all the time. This is due in large part to the retailers though I think, as PC games are generally cheaper. Some games are first released over here at $75-$85 with the average price for recent games around $67. How does that compare with the US?

Xyex · Post by **Xyex** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:54 am

Aurek wrote:

Consoles are always released on a price skimming policy

$500-$600 is not a lot for a system that will last you several years.

Five to six hundred dollars is quite a bit of money. Far more than I would ever pay for a system. I forget what the PS2 game out for here originally but I got mine for $150 which, IMO, is a fair price for a system. The average person simply does not have the money to put down five to six hundred dollars for a console that will only last 5 years or so.

Aurek wrote:This being said the price of games themselves is worrying, as its rising all the time. This is due in large part to the retailers though I think, as PC games are generally cheaper. Some games are first released over here at $75-$85 with the average price for recent games around $67. How does that compare with the US?

I don't know about PC games but console prices top out at $50 here with sports games only being $20.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:00 am

The average person simply does not have the money to put down five to six hundred dollars for a console that will only last 5 years or so

What, you cant save that amount of money over 5 years? It took me less that that to save for my current PC which was much more expensive and I didnt have a regular job. Its well within most people's means.

I don't know about PC games but console prices top out at $50 here with sports games only being $20.

Yeah the numbers I gave there were for console games. PC games are generally around the $55-$67 mark for new or recent games.

Fuujin · Post by **Fuujin** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:33 am

Consoles vs PCs

It's pretty obvious that if there are more games released on consoles, there will be more crappy games there. But I can live with that, because it works the other way around - there are more killer games, and ones that aren't all FPP.

And I'm not saying that the domination of consoles is all good. For example, it seem to be one of the factor that led to death of adventure games, which I enjoyed. However, they're cheaper then PCs, more convienient, and have a lot of good games, so I'm not complaining.

If you could give me some examples of games which I'm supposedly to blind to see and which are the evidence of a thriving PC games market, please do.

2D vs 3D

Yes, it also worries me. I absolutly love 2D fighters, especially the flashy, fast ones like Marvel vs Capcom, and it pains me to see the genre slowly degrading. Some series show signs of going to 3D (KOF), some simply dissapear (SF), and the rest are mainly hastily manufactured vs games. Probably gamers are fed up with the politics of 2D fighter developers, which consist of releasing a "Ultra Mega Strike 7 + Alpha" versions with one character more, a convention mostly absent in 3D fighter market. However, that doesn't explain the lack of other 2D games. I mean, they converted Mega frickin' Man to 3D! I guess, as someone already pointed out, it's a strategy of console manufacturers, who feel that 2D games won't push hardware market enough. What can I say, thank God for handhelds.

Game costs

The influence of retailers is painfully obvious in Polish market. PC games cost about 30-60 zl (10-20 $), yet console games are nigh inaffordable - 200-300 zl (66-100 $). Of course games will be more detailed and therefore more time and money-consuming, but I'm not worried - if the movie industry can work with it, so can games.

And, uh, lost in thought - I think you're exaggarating by saying that story in games has died. If anything, developers are more concerned with story, because it became one of the selling factors for the games, and not only RPGs and adventures. There are much more games with complex and interesting story than 10 years ago. Remember the exciting and multi-layered story of Pac-Man? That's right, you don't. Because it was never there.

Aurek · Post by **Aurek** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:26 pm

If you could give me some examples of games which I'm supposedly to blind to see and which are the evidence of a thriving PC games market, please do.

Ok let me see, this is by no means an exhaustive list. The games I am listing here are games that stand out for any reason but only recent large releases. If you want me to list some older games, indie games or mods Ill be happy to do so.

Freedom Force vs The 3rd Reich
X2 The Threat
Unreal Tournament 2004
World Of warcraft
Eve Online
Planetside
Evil Genius
Rome: Total War
Ground Control 2: Operation Exodous
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War
Half-Life 2
Far Cry
Darwinia
Stronghold 2

And thats not even counting multi platform games!