Tendo City
Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Printable Version

+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' (/showthread.php?tid=4325)



Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 17th April 2007

Good article... my opinion on each point is after the quote. :)

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/780/780989p1.html
Quote:Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob
A handy guide to discovering the PC elitist within you.
By Li C. Kuo | April 16, 2007

The PC Gamer Snob, every gamer knows one, you may even be one yourself. They consider the PC to be the end-all be-all of gaming and will scoff at the idea of dirtying their hands on any sort of upstart console. Here's a handy guide to see if you or one of your friends fits into this especially snooty class of gamer.



10. HD is So Last Gen

1080i, 720p, 1080p, pffft, whatever. 1920x1200 is where it's at. That's 1200p if you want to put it in HDTV terms. You like to point out that PC gamers have been gaming in "high definition" well before consoles could even display games in "enhanced definition," better known as 480p. Heck, 1280x1024 already beats out 720p, and standard definition 480i games? Even stuff from the days of DOS topped that.

9. Mouse & Keyboard for the Win

You believe that only chumps play first-person shooters with a gamepad. In your eyes nothing matches the precision of the good old keyboard and mouse combo. No other control scheme comes close and you fully believe that with your keyboard and mouse setup you can easily best any console gamer in any first-person shooter. Including GoldenEye. Not that you'd play that.

8. Now You're Really Playing with Power

You constantly remind people how weak consoles are. Your PC has at least 2GB of RAM, far more than any piddling console and you'd pick an Alienware system over a PlayStation 3 any day. Why settle for a 60GB harddrive when you can get 600GB? Also, you believe Crysis looks better than any next-gen console game on the horizon. (You may have a point.)

What the PC Gaming Snob sees when he looks at his own gaming rig.

7. Will Wright = Game God

"Will Wright is a bigger genius than Shigeru Miyamoto." There is nothing you love more than the expression console gamers get on their faces when you utter these words and slander the creator of their beloved Mario. You think Spore is far more promising than Super Mario Galaxy, and while you're at it you add that Peter Molyneux has more talent in his left pinky than Hideo Kojima and Shinji Mikami combined.

6. Kids' Play

Platformers are for kids. You wonder why in the world a person would want to play a game where all you do is jump from platform to platform and collect coins or rings or other such nonsense. You'd much rather be leveling up in World of Warcraft or moving up the ranks in Battlefield 2142. That's totally different!

5. Blame it on the Console Gamers

Console gamers are responsible for the decline of some of the PCs best franchises. For example, the original Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six titles were fantastic and realistic, but now they've been compromised as the games cater more to console gamers and tone down the realism. To you, this is an absolute travesty. A vein on your forehead bulges.

How the PC Gaming Snob views the average console gamer.

4. You Think That's Realistic?

GTR2 is far more realistic than Gran Turismo could ever hope to be, and if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, Gran Prix Legends is the racing game to play. Everything else is "too arcadey." Not only that, but all flying games on consoles are rubbish. The Ace Combat series is a pathetic representation of modern air combat and all the Star Wars console games don't even begin to compare to bliss that was Tie Fighter and X-Wing. Also, thanks to Microsoft Flight Simulator X you're fairly confident you could land a Boeing 737 in real life. How many console games can teach you that skillset?

3. GamerTags are Overrated

Who needs Xbox Live when you've got the Internet? You've been gaming online since Quakeworld. Not only that, but it's also completely free. You look at console owners who have to pay for online gaming services and think about all the extra custom mousepads you can afford.

2. The Invincible PC

PCs are forever. You refuse to ever buy a console and wonder why anyone would. Consoles are fixed technology whereas PCs continue to advance. PC tech gets better year by year. You just can't top a system that's constantly evolving.

1. Nyah, Nyah, Console Tools

You've read this entire column and agree with every point, own every game mentioned, and can't wait to forward it on to your console-loving friends who just don't know any better. Congratulations: You're a PC snob!

10. Absolutely true. "800x600 desktop", you say? Bah, that's just the desktop. For games that support it natively I always played at resolutions higher than that. 1024x768 most of the time, due to framerate issues. Even there though, you've got a higher resolution than "720p", much less pitiful 480i... as they say, even old DOS stuff looks better. All it takes is 320x240 resolution to equal the quality of a TV (because it's not interlaced on a superior PC monitor), or 640x480 for one twice as good... :)

9. True for FPSes, that's for sure. Gamepads are better for games like platformers, arcade racing games, fighting games, etc, though, so I've had gamepads for my PC ever since 1995. So I don't quite agree on this one. And besides, I've never been a big FPS fan...

8. Yup, no question. The main thing keeping me from upgrading my PC much more frequently has been money, but now I have a nice new one, so that's settled for some time now. And I do have 600GB of HDD space... :)

7. Nah... Molyneux is about on par with those other two, probably, and Wright isn't better than Miyamoto. He is good though.

6. Don't agree there obviously, otherwise what have I been doing at a Nintendo site for this long? :)

5. This one is absolutely true, though. Console games are console games (and simpler) and PC games are PC games (and more complex). I like both kinds. PC games started console-izing in the late '90s, and it accelerated in the last six or seven years. It's gotten pretty bad... from Baldur's Gate to Knights of the Old Republic or from the first Rainbow Six game to the more recent ones, the sad impact of consolization has been felt hard in the PC gaming industry. :(

4. This is part of #5, pretty much (for why so many fewer of these games are around these days), but is also absolutely true. TIE Fighter is a more complex flight simulation than any console flight game I've ever seen, and that's just a space sim!

3. Yup. See: Windows Live and how it will (should) fail.

2. Obviously not, I have both. (And yes, handhelds are consoles. Saying that because I've been playing PC games since late (December?) 1991, handheld games (GB) since Christmas 1994 (if my memory is correct), and major-console (N64 first) games since September 1999... but I consider handhelds to be consoles, so I've been playing handheld games for almost as long as I have computer ones, if not quite as long. :))

1. Not quite, but I do like PCs more. Getting this new one has reminded me of why I like PC games... suddenly, I can actually PLAY most of the games made in the last few years again like I used to be able to! :)


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 17th April 2007

I think I need to point out something about interlacing. It only shows half the vertical lines, yes, but it shows them at TWO DIFFERENT PLACES back and forth repeatedly. It, for all intents and purposes, really IS the full resolution showed at half the frame rate. Your brain can't tell the difference.

ABF I really don't get the whole "PC games are going all consoley" stuff. You may need to repeat that because I was playing Commander Keen at the time.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - EdenMaster - 17th April 2007

Well, I disagree with many of those points but there is one feel very strongly about, the mouse/keyboard combo for FPS games. Nothing truly can compare. Using a pad just complicated matters and puts a lot of potential options, many of which you may need at the <i>same time</i>, on one little area. The keyboard and mouse together provide the perfect ease of control.

I bought Counter Strike for the X-Box since I'm uch a big fan of PC CS. I've played it...maybe...a couple hours :D. No pad can hold a candle, sorry.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 18th April 2007

There is a way to improve on keyboard and mouse though. That improvement is to make a keyboard with, basically, some of a game pad built in. Namely, an analog stick for more finess in movement.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - EdenMaster - 18th April 2007

But there isn't just movement with the mouse. I have a five-button mouse with a wheel, and I use it not only for movement, but for firing my gun, reloading, cycling through my weapons, interacting with objects, and using voice chat. On this...ultra-keyboard you speak of, those would all need to be bound to yet more keys to press. Having the two separate but working in tandem is best.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Bo Jackson - 18th April 2007

Platformers are for awesome people.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 18th April 2007

Quote:ABF I really don't get the whole "PC games are going all consoley" stuff. You may need to repeat that because I was playing Commander Keen at the time.

Oh come on. Of course console-style games have existed on the PC forever, but in recent years more and more major PC games have launched simultaneously on the PC and consoles. In most cases, this means the PC version is cut back in order to meet the demands of a console audience.

My best example of that is the one I mentioned -- Bioware. Baldur's Gate or BGII versus KotOR? I really hope I don't have to go over that one again, I've complained about the console-related problems of that game here before, that's for sure. The article mentions Rainbow Six as well. I haven't played the more recent Rainbow Six games, but I did play the demos of the first two in the late '90s. They were PC games with a heavy tactical bent; you had to set up a route on a map before entering the mission, etc. The newer ones... from what I know, console-style FPS with maybe a few hints of what made the first game so successful.

Even RTSes are getting console ports... maybe Battle for Middle Earth II and Command & Conquer III weren't affected by their X360 ports, but if this continues on, who's to say that next time the console version won't be the main version and the RTS genre will be compromised too like the RPG genre is almost completely and the FPS genre is partially?

List of major, PC-only, non-MMO PC RPGs I can think of:
Bioware - Dragon Age? If it doesn't end up ported... their other games are for consoles or console and PC (or MMO).
Obsidian - NWN 2 expansion. Their other game is for consoles and PC.
Bethesda? Console and PC.
Troika? Dead, maybe because they didn't compromise and make console ports of their games.
Interplay? Pretending that they will actually be able to get enough fools to give them money so that they can make a Fallout MMO when I don't know if they even have more than one or two staff members...
Sir-Tech? Dead. Origin? Dead.
Heuristic Park? I have no idea what they're doing, nothing has been heard of them since Dungeon Lords came out in 2005 as far as I know...
....
Whatever little companies like http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/ are making
And that's about it

Yeah, the PC RPG genre is in awful shape, and it's sad. And no, MMORPGs don't count. They're really a separate genre.

Quote:I think I need to point out something about interlacing. It only shows half the vertical lines, yes, but it shows them at TWO DIFFERENT PLACES back and forth repeatedly. It, for all intents and purposes, really IS the full resolution showed at half the frame rate. Your brain can't tell the difference.

It's not, though. Just look at any "640x480" (480i) N64 game or something, and then a 640x480 PC game. The PC game is sharper looking... no, interlacing is a graphical negative. Otherwise, people wouldn't have cared about going from 480i to 480p... but they did, and it's because the graphical difference is noticable.

Quote:There is a way to improve on keyboard and mouse though. That improvement is to make a keyboard with, basically, some of a game pad built in. Namely, an analog stick for more finess in movement.

No, because of how you hold your hands on a keyboard, that wouldn't work. An analog stick would only really be usable if it were a joystick or something or if the keyboard were handheld like a gamepad so you could grip it and get a good thumb position for a stick, and neither of those ideas would work at all for keyboards. Maybe pressure-sensitive buttons or something though... ... nah, that wouldn't work either, if it affected button resistance for typing...


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Great Rumbler - 18th April 2007

I like console gaming because it's much, much cheaper than PC gaming.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - TheBiggah - 21st April 2007

I enjoy gaming on my PC and console. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Cost is a major advantage for console, but you can't do RTS on a console.

-TheBiggah-


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 21st April 2007

You can with today's consoles, because they have USB ports for a mouse :D. Actually, the Wii and the DS have a good interface for RTS.

(Note that I've never really been good at using the keyboard "shortcuts" when playing RTS games, so I don't.)


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 21st April 2007

You'd need an HDTV, though, otherwise you have to deal with unacceptably blurry interlaced TV resolutions. And what are you going to put that keyboard and mouse on? Your lap? Not to mention that as far as I know the console versions don't have map editors, modding, etc, and that's a part of any successful PC RTS... No, PCs work better. A lot better.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 21st April 2007

No arguments there. I'm just saying that it CAN work now, wheras before you had to use a joystick.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/784/784479p1.html

And here's their counter-argument, "Top 10 Ways to Tell You're a Console Fanboy".

Quote:For our previous Top 10 column, we brought you our take on the top 10 ways to tell if you're a PC gaming snob. This light-hearted list made some of you chuckle, while others folks seems to get a little steamed. We've decided to even things out this week by coming up with a list of the top 10 ways to tell if you're a console fanboy. This should prove that we believe in equality, which is why we make fun of everyone equally.

After this week we promise that the next Top 10 will leave this whole ugly affair behind. Now, please enjoy the horribly offensive and biased list below.

10. In Defense of Consoles

A console gamer reacts to our last "Top 10" column.

You read through our PC elitist list thinking to yourself "Wrong, wrong, wrong..." then went on a local message board and wrote a long rambling post about how much GameSpy sucks.

9. Big Screen Gaming

I bet you my HDTV is bigger than your PC monitor.

19-inches? 24-inches? What a joke. Real gamers play on screens that are 37-inches or bigger. You hear PC gamers brag about how great World of Warcraft looks on their Dell monitor and you laugh as you go home to sit on your couch in front of your massive HDTV hooked up to a 7.1 THX-certified surround sound system. Let's see PC gaming top that.

8. The Best Roleplaying Games Are From Japan

All the best roleplaying games are from Japan.

Baldur's Gate? Neverwinter Nights? Bah, the only real role-playing franchises come from Japan and have names like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest and Chrono Trigger. Also, it's a plus if they have questing teenagers, cute furry creatures or giant birds to ride on.

7. Console Games Work

Getting PC games to run would give even Einstein a headache.

RAM requirements? Processor speed? You don't need to fiddle with anything to get console games working, you just pop in the disc and play. PC games are a whole other story, you'd have to be Einstein to figure out how to keep everything running smoothly on a PC gaming rig.

6. Miyamoto is Your God

This is your god. Bow down or face his wrath.

Shigeru Miyamoto, or "Shiggy," is your deity of choice. The man is a genius, can do no wrong, and deserves to be treated like the best thing to happen to humanity since the discovery of penicillin. You've cosplayed at Nintendo's E3 press conference and cried during the first Twilight Princess trailer.

5. Gamepads are Good Enough

This is all you need to pwn someone in a shooter.

You can do just fine on first-person shooters with the dual analog sticks on a control pad. You don't need a mouse and keyboard and you're sick of hearing PC gamers (aka - "PC whiners") bitch about how much it sucks to play an FPS with a console controller. What's even worse is when PC gamers brag about how badly they'd kick your ass if they only had their keyboard and mouse.

4. Realism Sucks

Gran Turismo is about as realistic as console gamers want or need.

You play videogames to escape from real life, not to recreate it. Why do PC gamers want realistic shooters or realistic flying games? Dying in one hit isn't fun and neither is reading a 200-page instruction manual just to get a plane off the ground. You want to just load up your game and have fun.

3. Save Games are for Wusses

Real men don't complain about not being able to save anytime.

There is nothing wrong with checkpoints in your mind. It makes games more challenging. What fun is it to save your game every ten seconds? There's nothing like roving through a dungeon for an hour and knowing that if you die you'll have to start all over again.

2. Japanese Games Rule

This is Japan, land of wacky games that PC gamers will never truly appreciate.

Katamari Damacy, Vib Ribbon, PaRappa the Rapper, these are games that stepped out of the mass market circle and had a distinct Japanese flair. You're convinced that no Western developer could ever make games that are as creative or unique and take pride that you pay the extra cash to import games that will never make it to these shores.

1. Real Friends

PC gamers settle in for a night of Raiding on WoW.

As a console player you have friends who don't just exist in World of Warcraft. Multiplayer = gaming with your buddies on the couch or at the very least chatting with them on Xbox Live. You know their real names and you hang out in real life. They're more than just another Leeroy Jenkins.

The only one of these that I don't either completely disagree with or have significant issues with is #6. Other than that... no, I don't agree at all. :)

10. No, I pretty much did the opposite.
9. PC - 17" monitor (2.0 stereo/headphone sound); console - 19" TV at school, 27" TV at home (mono/stereo (built-in TV speapers)/headphone sound)
8. No. Not even remotely. Some JRPGs are good, but PC RPGs are significantly better.
7. Meh, dealing with hardware is fun sometimes... frusterating when you can't get something to work, but fun much of the time. :)
6. Yeah, Miyamoto is awesome.
5. Both are good and have different, and complimentary, uses. The same goes for joysticks. All PC gamers should have a gamepad and a joystick as well as their keyboard and mouse (and no, the ministick in a dual-analog gamepad does NOT count as a joystick), and console gamers should play PC games too.
4. Realism is good. Simplicity is fun, but complexity and depth adds more to the game and makes it more satisfying when you do well in it... I may never be able to actually play Falcon 4.0 or Grand Prix Legends, but I sure would respect someone who is a lot more than most console gaming achievements.
3. Exactly the opposite: Save anywhere is one of the best features in any game with it. Limited saving is one of the worst features in any game without it. Some genres or game types need it more than others, but it's great whenever it exists.
2. They're both good. American games are every bit as good as Japanese ones.
1. Both ways are social gaming... just because it's online doesn't mean it's less social, really...


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 2nd May 2007

I still don't see PC games as more "complicated". I mean I've been playing PC games for years, from all those old classic platformers to the old adventure games (though admittedly I didn't play the old RPGs, I do have the NES version of Ultima Exodus, and really the fact that it's also on NES negates any claim to it being an example, further it played a lot like Dragon Quest but with more classes). Up until those first FPS games, PC games really were just an alternative. After FPS, then modding came into it's own, but I wouldn't say Wolfenstein was some huge epic far more intricate in detail than some console game.

I will say this, at this point, the main difference between PC and console games, with them increasingly being released on both systems almost totally identical? Modding. Unless they do this "game 3.0" thing as Sony calls it (and as has been done well on PCs for years), the PC will continue to have the advantage in games with heavy modding support.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Great Rumbler - 2nd May 2007

I'll take the best of both worlds and toss the rest.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 2nd May 2007

That's basically what I do. I've yet to find anything even close to a Zelda game on PC, and Oblivion on a console isn't much of an option when I can pilot an airship in the PC version.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

PC strategy games are more complex than console ones, PC RPGs are more complex than console ones, PC racing sims are more complex than console ones, PC flight sims are FAR more complex than console ones, etc, etc... in pretty much every single genre that is present on the PC, I'd definitely say that PC games are unquestionably more complex. Not every single title, of course, but overall.

Quote:That's basically what I do. I've yet to find anything even close to a Zelda game on PC,

To be fair, there isn't anything else as good as Zelda on consoles either...

Quote:(though admittedly I didn't play the old RPGs, I do have the NES version of Ultima Exodus, and really the fact that it's also on NES negates any claim to it being an example, further it played a lot like Dragon Quest but with more classes).

Just because the game is also available on consoles doesn't mean that it's the same... I'm pretty sure that the PC Ultima games were definitely more complex than the console ones...

I mean, honestly. Advance Wars or Fire Emblem vs. hex-based wargames or something? It's not even close! PC games are just consistently more complex than console ones. There are very, very few console wargames, or console racing sims that are actually simulators, or realistic console flight simulators, but those are all genres with long histories on the PC. There are no console space flight sims that I know of, and similarly console mech games are much more arcadish than the classic PC sims like MechWarrior 2 for mech sims or X-Wing/TIE Fighter for space sims. There are no RTSes, really. TBSes exist, within the one subgenre of tactical strategy games ("SRPGs"), but those are mostly not as complex as most PC strategy titles, and they do annoying console stuff like hiding or obscuring gameplay systems so you need FAQs to figure out what is going on...

And as for RPGs... can you honestly say that console RPGs have the depth and complexity of a Baldur's Gate or a Fallout? I sure wouldn't. Not that they have no depth, they do, but it's just not the same.

Quote:I'll take the best of both worlds and toss the rest.

Same here, pretty much. :)


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 2nd May 2007

The PC is home to sims, though I don't play those flight simulators. RPGs, well that's a matter of opinion. I've played Oblivion and Torment to an extent, and I've also played a number of Japanese RPGs. Some are pretty simplistic, but some show a lot of thought and planning into a complicated system (Final Fantasy XII), and some are simplistic at first glance but have a lot of subtle strategy involved (Pokemon) and some are just plain simple (Final Fantasy 1), though that last one was made when PC RPGs were pretty simplistic as well. Ultima Exodus was almost a direct port of the PC version, only with better sound (sound cards hadn't really taken hold in the PC world yet) and worse graphics to a small extent (still did that weird "only see stuff your characters can see" effect). It still let you fight a loosing battle against some kid in town if you felt like it though.

I've played One Must Fall, and I've played Street Fighter 2. I've got a pretty good idea of which of those is more complex. The fact is, different genres, for various reasons (only sometimes related to things like interface like in RTS games), make their home on different platforms.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

Quote:Ultima Exodus was almost a direct port of the PC version, only with better sound (sound cards hadn't really taken hold in the PC world yet) and worse graphics to a small extent (still did that weird "only see stuff your characters can see" effect). It still let you fight a loosing battle against some kid in town if you felt like it though.

I don't know about Ultima III, but by Ultima V or VI the console versions (such as existed) were nowhere near the same as the PC ones. Cut content, more linearity, fewer features, etc... I'd doubt that the earlier ones would be much different, other than that the PC versions themselves were simpler so there might be less to change.

Quote:I've played One Must Fall, and I've played Street Fighter 2. I've got a pretty good idea of which of those is more complex. The fact is, different genres, for various reasons (only sometimes related to things like interface like in RTS games), make their home on different platforms.

Well yes, fighting games are very weak to mostly nonexistant on PC. One of the few genres that goes in favor of consoles. The vast majority of game types are more complex on PC.

Quote:RPGs, well that's a matter of opinion. I've played Oblivion and Torment to an extent, and I've also played a number of Japanese RPGs. Some are pretty simplistic, but some show a lot of thought and planning into a complicated system (Final Fantasy XII), and some are simplistic at first glance but have a lot of subtle strategy involved (Pokemon) and some are just plain simple (Final Fantasy 1), though that last one was made when PC RPGs were pretty simplistic as well.

Console RPGs might have some depth in the character development system, but they have linear plots, no character creation or player choice in where things go, mostly linear game design too (much less open-endedness), and with few exceptions less complicated battle systems. "stand in two lines and hit eachother" is not depth... console games certainly do like to add complexity in some categories, but they don't usually create deeper, more strategic battle systems, or complex branching plots where your actions matter, or any of the other things that make PC RPGs what they are (and better than console ones).

Really, it's not a debatable point that PC games are more complex than console ones. It's a fact. Are you honestly going to say that there's a console strategy game out there with the depth of Starcraft (no, SC64 doesn't count. No online means it's irrelevant.), Warcraft III, Supreme Commander, or other major RTSes? Or Rome: Total War or Medieval: Total War? Europa Universalis or any of Paradox's other overly complex grand strategy titles? 4X games like Master of Orion or GalCiv II? Graphic adventure games of the quality and depth of the PC classics (there are a few, but very few)? Wargames (nearly nonexistent on consoles, some of the most complex games around on PC) And then you could go to those other genres I mentioned before like flight sims and space or mech sims (mostly older, but there are a few newer space games like the economically-focused X series)... Etc, etc, etc. Really, come on. Console and PC games aim at different markets, and that shows in the kinds of games released for each system.

I mean... does Gran Turismo even have car damage yet? Lol (not that I like or play racing sims, I don't, I greatly prefer futuristic and arcade racing games (which are mostly, but not exclusively, on consoles), but still, in comparison...)

I'm not saying console games are bad of course, as I like simple games too for sure, but that doesn't change that essential fact.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 2nd May 2007

I'm not debating strategy games or sims. I will however debate pretty much everything else. RPGs, well again it's a matter of taste. I've played FFXII and I've played Oblivion. They tend in different directions. One is open ended and is very flexible in character creation, but the combat system is pathetic. There is no real strategy involved. It's all determined beforehand by your stats. Don't get me wrong, I love character development, but it is what it is. On the other hand, while the character are predefined in Japanese RPGs, the combat systems are usually VERY rich. "Stand in lines and take turns stabbing each other" more accurately describes American RPGs. I really don't recall ever actually having to come up with a strategy in battle. Whether I won or not was already determined by my equipment in a game like KOTOR. Now there's something to be said for that sort of development, but I much prefer having to develop an overly complicated chain of special abilities that leads to a single conclusion. For example, I don't recall ever having to use a "jump" ability to avoid a major spell in a battle where draining MP is the way to victory, remembering to case "Reraise" on my characters to prepare for a scripted "Ultima" spell at the end of the battle, but these sorts of complicated strategies are par for the course in Japanese RPGs. All the bosses have unique abilities that require complicated battle plans. Of course, you could just power level yourself so you can just use the sword over and over until they fall down, but that's the boring way to play it.

Really what I look forward to is an RPG that combines the strengths of both styles.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

Quote: Dark Jaguar I'm not debating strategy games or sims. I will however debate pretty much everything else. RPGs, well again it's a matter of taste. I've played FFXII and I've played Oblivion. They tend in different directions. One is open ended and is very flexible in character creation, but the combat system is pathetic. There is no real strategy involved. It's all determined beforehand by your stats. Don't get me wrong, I love character development, but it is what it is. On the other hand, while the character are predefined in Japanese RPGs, the combat systems are usually VERY rich. "Stand in lines and take turns stabbing each other" more accurately describes American RPGs. I really don't recall ever actually having to come up with a strategy in battle. Whether I won or not was already determined by my equipment in a game like KOTOR. Now there's something to be said for that sort of development, but I much prefer having to develop an overly complicated chain of special abilities that leads to a single conclusion. For example, I don't recall ever having to use a "jump" ability to avoid a major spell in a battle where draining MP is the way to victory, remembering to case "Reraise" on my characters to prepare for a scripted "Ultima" spell at the end of the battle, but these sorts of complicated strategies are par for the course in Japanese RPGs. All the bosses have unique abilities that require complicated battle plans. Of course, you could just power level yourself so you can just use the sword over and over until they fall down, but that's the boring way to play it.

Really what I look forward to is an RPG that combines the strengths of both styles.

I could write a long post, but this one is so uninformed that it's not worth it.

1) Oblivion, and the TES series in general, has pitifully bad combat. It's FPS level, really. Many PC RPG fans criticize the series greatly for this fact. This is a horrible example of "typical PC-style RPG" (though even so, you're wrong... Oblivion has a skill element I believe, or at least a random element. Stats don't determine everything; equipment (weapons or spells you use) and player skill matters some too.). Fallout or Baldur's Gate would be much, much better examples. Not KotOR; it's consolized and simplistic in comparison to true PC RPGs (no movement orders while paused? No "party AI off" option to make them ONLY do what you say? WHAT?? And add to that the horrible console-style infinite inventory in one giant list (no weight limits? Why not??), the annoying console-style interface, the extremely simplified game and stat system in comparison to true PC RPGs, etc...),

2) FFXII's combat system is NOT a standard console RPG system. It's quite different. Movement is a factor. It actually reflects some of the improvements PC RPGs have made to the RPG genre in the past fifteen years, combat system wise. It's just as bad a pick for "typical console RPG" as Oblivion is for PC RPG. Really, it's like you chose the least strategic PC RPG possible and one of the most strategic console ones (without going into "SRPGs"), and that's not right. Pick something more conventional.

3. "stand in lines" does not apply to PC RPGs because "stand in lines" means "STAND". That is, you can't move. You can move in battle in virtually any PC RPG released since Pools of Radiance, excepting a few first-person throwback games (Wizardry series, Might & Magic perhaps, etc) or action-style first-person RPGs (TES series, Stonekeep, Ultima Underworld, etc), movement is a big element in battle... and in those action-style first-person RPGs you can move too, even if it's often just back and forth in the corridors. So no, you're completely wrong. In most PC RPGs you move. In most console RPGs you select options from a menu and can't move. There are of course exceptions -- those rare console RPGs with strategic combat do exist -- but I'm talking about overall, and overall the Japanese RPG genre is still working off of the Wizardry model, not the Pools of Radiance, Baldur's Gate, or Fallout models, and it's really too bad. (though FFXII changes that a bit, I don't know if that's going to last... sounds like FXIII might be going back to a more traditional system).

Normal PC RPGs have strategic battles. You can move around. Position matters. What the characters are equipped with matters, because you have a lot of choices there. One of the most important aspects of battle is your setup when you enter it... not "your setup" in a console sense, where that means "how many random battles have you fought, depleting your MP and items", but in a "is your skill with this setup enough to overcome the next enemy" sense... in a BG game you can rest anywhere without enemies around, so having your spells is usually not a problem. And equipment and level matter too of course, like in console RPGs, but in PC ones you change equipment less often (in console RPGs it's like 'go to next town, buy next armor type -- iron, bronze, gold, whatever'. It's silly and kind of odd, really. In PC RPGs, generally, you keep equipment for a long time. For instance, in Baldur's Gate II my main character has been wielding one weapon since maybe 15-20 hours into the game (and I'm like 130 hours in including the expansion). Another one has a weapon from even earlier. And armor? You upgrade that just as infrequently. There is much less of a focus in what your equipment is in a PC RPG... what it is is important, but once you get set up, you can know that it'll stay that way for a long time. You also know that there's a very high likelihood that the items you'll truly want to equip will come not from stores, but will come from quests or enemy drops. Stores are useful for selling items to and replenishing consumables, but not often for upgrading your characters' equipment, and that's how it should be... but you can't do that if enemies don't drop usable stuff, of course...

The game also runs on consistent rules. In console games there is no equality; the enemies and you run on different rulebooks. You can't learn the abilities they know, they can't fight competently like humans do. They don't drop their equipment (ie that Lizardman drops his breastplate and axe and you can pick them up and equip them if you want. You probably just leave them there, though, because you don't need to pick them all up... but they are there.), they drop some random items and gold. They get by either as fodder to chew up your time or with lots of HP and overpowered attacks that kill you unfairly quickly that they only use sparingly for no apparent reason. Honestly, these are stupid design ideas. In most PC RPGs, the enemies and you are designed the same -- everyone runs on the same rules. They cast a spell at you? It's probably one you can learn. Maybe not, if it's some special skill that only a Dragon can use or something, but probably. It certainly follows coherent rules, and they won't just not use them simply because their spells are so powerful that if they did you lose. It's so stupid how in console RPGs there is a complete disconnect between the rules your party follows and the rules the enemies follow... that shows that there is no real basic gameworld there, just "enemies to fight and a party".

Now, PC RPGs used to do some of those things too... but then in the late 1980s, starting with Pools of Radiance, the genre began to change. Another great wave of change came in 1997-1998 with Fallout and Baldur's Gate. Console RPGs ignored those and for the most part kept on in their old archaic systems that they had copied from Wizardry and Ultima III so many years earlier. They, instead, focused on telling a story... and a linear story. No role-playing here, oh no, just a linear tale, adventure game style. That's not role playing! Role playing means choices, it means creating a character and acting them out the way you believe that character would act... it doesn't mean just taking a group of precreated characters and using them in a linear, choiceless story.

And as for depth... honestly... I played Golden Sun, Lunar, a bit of the SNES FF games, Skies of Arcadia, Tales of Symphonia, etc... they're fun, but deep? Nope. Most console RPGs are almost comical in their simplicity in comparison to most PC RPGs, in fact. Combat is simple. You have only a few options. There is no deep undersystem running the game like you find in a D&D game, as I said earlier. Late-game Baldur's Gate II combat is so incredibly deep and complex that each turn takes quite a while... you have to manage huge spellbooks in your mages (and the complex nature of the spells themselves; these are not exactly "do 10 damage" stuff... there are direct attacks, area of effect attacks, summons, defensive spells, healing magic, spell protections, spells to disspell spell protections, etc.), all of your skills, what the enemies are doing, where your characters are, the terrain of the area (are you in a small enclosed room? Then avoid those area of effect spells that hurt your party... but which spells do you have left memorized that you can use?), enemy spell protections, et al. Awesome stuff.

This, of course, ignores the PC action-RPG field -- Diablo II, etc. They have a lot of strategy too, much more than console action-RPGs like the Mana games or whatever... I mean I love those games, but there the strategy is mostly just in a few decisions you can make in developing your character. There's a lot more complexity and depth in the character building and development in even a Diablo 2 than in similar console games.

(you know, it's when I write posts like this that I remember why it was that I was confused by how much I liked Skies of Arcadia when I first played it... compared to PC RPGs it's so sillily simplistic, and yet I loved it anyway... there are some reasons I think -- the onscreen automap, discoveries, likable characters, nice graphical design, the positional aspects in combat (how the characters face eachother and pretend to fight, not just stand in two lines, and how spells and stuff have areas of effect), etc -- but still it's still something I think about sometimes, I've found. After all, despite those things it's still not exactly complex. I guess it's as I said earlier -- complex is great, but I like simple sometimes too...)


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - DMiller - 2nd May 2007

I'm with DJ on this one. I have always found the battle systems in console RPGs to be more complex. KOTOR and the other PC RPGs are great fun, but the battles are pretty much as DJ said. You send your characters in and if they are more powerful than your enemies and you have good equipment you will win. I would occasionally need to use force powers or magic in PC RPGs but it was generally for healing or because some enemies took very little physical damage.

I will say that console RPGs haven't progressed a whole lot in the battle department, but it is still more strategic than the battle systems of most PC RPGs. Even in FFXII, which is as close to the PC battle system that the Final Fantasy games have come, you need to program gambits to do well or battles would last a long time. Generally in good console RPGs you need to fight bosses a number of times before you can develop a solid strategy against them. I rarely fought bosses more than once in the KOTOR games, and I believe I beat the final boss in both of them on the first try.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

Quote:I'm with DJ on this one. I have always found the battle systems in console RPGs to be more complex. KOTOR and the other PC RPGs are great fun, but the battles are pretty much as DJ said. You send your characters in and if they are more powerful than your enemies and you have good equipment you will win. I would occasionally need to use force powers or magic in PC RPGs but it was generally for healing or because some enemies took very little physical damage.


KotOR != PC RPG! Did you read what I said? KotOR's battle system was simplified for console audiences. It's simplistic and lacking compared to most good PC RPGs. What actual PC RPGs have you played? KotOR doesn't really count. It was PC RPG-ish in its story and branching plot, and in how the enemies use recognizable skills and drop their equipment, which you can then pick up, and other things like that, but not in its depth and complexity of combat.

The reason that I have said so many times that KotOR so badly needed movement while paused and turn off AI is because as it is designed, the easiest way to win is to just hit 'attack' and watch. Maybe give some 'power attack' or whatever commands every so often; it's annoying because of the stupid queue thing, so maybe not. That's not particularly good design. It's fast paced, but not strategic... a far cry from what you find in Baldur's Gate, that's for sure. It's frusterating really, because when I played it I could see so many ways how they could have so easily made the game so much more strategic and fun, but they just didn't do it...

Honestly, what you two are saying is so utterly wrong (in the "complete exact opposite of the truth" sense that the only conclusion I can come to is that you're basing all of your opinions on PC RPGs on The Elder Scrolls and KotOR. There's just no other way to explain how you could think that way, not that those games fully validate such thinking! I mean, KotOR may be simple compared to Baldur's Gate, but it's still got depth!

As for equipment. The way console RPGs handle equipment is kind of stupid, I've always thought... in a PC RPG, getting new equipment actually means something! In console ones it's just 'have you done enough grinding to afford the next level of armor?' Boring. And not fun either, since I HATE grinding. And farming, but that's MMOs (which are a completely different genre). :)

A Black Falcon Wrote:And equipment and level matter too of course, like in console RPGs, but in PC ones you change equipment less often (in console RPGs it's like 'go to next town, buy next armor type -- iron, bronze, gold, whatever'. It's silly and kind of odd, really. In PC RPGs, generally, you keep equipment for a long time. For instance, in Baldur's Gate II my main character has been wielding one weapon since maybe 15-20 hours into the game (and I'm like 130 hours in including the expansion). Another one has a weapon from even earlier. And armor? You upgrade that just as infrequently. There is much less of a focus in what your equipment is in a PC RPG... what it is is important, but once you get set up, you can know that it'll stay that way for a long time. You also know that there's a very high likelihood that the items you'll truly want to equip will come not from stores, but will come from quests or enemy drops. Stores are useful for selling items to and replenishing consumables, but not often for upgrading your characters' equipment, and that's how it should be... but you can't do that if enemies don't drop usable stuff, of course...

DMiller Wrote:I will say that console RPGs haven't progressed a whole lot in the battle department, but it is still more strategic than the battle systems of most PC RPGs. Even in FFXII, which is as close to the PC battle system that the Final Fantasy games have come, you need to program gambits to do well or battles would last a long time. Generally in good console RPGs you need to fight bosses a number of times before you can develop a solid strategy against them. I rarely fought bosses more than once in the KOTOR games, and I believe I beat the final boss in both of them on the first try.

That's because KotOR is easy and they removed a lot of the strategy and depth and complexity that were in their PC RPGs, knowing that console gamers aren't used to that kind of stuff and the audience would have been a lot smaller than it would be for a more fast-paced game like they made.

Play Fallout, Fallout 2, Arcanum, Greyhawk: The Temple of Elemental Evil, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate and its expansion Tales of the Sword Coast, Baldur's Gate II, its expansion Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal, Wizardry 8, Wizards & Warriors (no, not the NES game), Neverwinter Nights 2, anything from Spiderweb Software Spiderweb Software, maybe older stuff like Betrayal at Krondor, Pools of Radiance or other Gold Box games (or even Wizardry, if you want to suffer even more) if you want real oldschool, etc... those are PC RPGs.

That is, of course, ignoring the Diablo-style action-RPG subgenre, which as I said can have a surprisingly large amount of depth too at times. Those games do often have more of a focus on "play to collect loot", though, which doesn't interest me that much...

And then there's The Elder Scrolls, which I think I've talked about enough times before.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

On a related note, these articles are quite interesting. Not new, but interesting if you haven't seen them, for sure...

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/763/763050p1.html
http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/782/782155p1.html

Read them! Interesting stuff. :) He has some good points...

Oh yes, also, Planescape: Torment is exempt to pretty much everything said in this thread. The combat is easy and even if you do die you get resurrected and the main character has resurrect special abilities from the beginning. The game is about the story. And that's why it's the best RPG ever made.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 2nd May 2007

Okay I'll drop Planescape, except for this. The focus on story shows we are looking at different aspects here.

Planescape, from what I've played of it, does have an interesting story. When I finally get back to it I intend on playing the rest of the way through. I do in fact value a good story in a game. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. But, a game can more than make up for what it lacks in an open free-interaction and choices in story with the rest of it's gameplay. I think perhaps you just haven't given these alternative styles a chance to rub off on you.

I played Neverwinter Nights, at least. I'll tell you what I will of that. Does it have an "intricate and well developed system" underneath all the gameplay?

Yes, it does. Unfortunatly, it's underealized if you ask me. Now, I appreciate things like being able to unlock a door or set a trap, but that's not really combat, that's something else. I'm talking actual combat systems. I can also appreciate a million stats that each affect different skills, like accuracy with a bow or the strenth of a magic missile (for proper attacking of the darkness). That's not really strategy though. Those are statistics. Magic: The Gathering (which I have to say I DO actually have a deck of) gives an example of real strategy, and that's got basically two statistics and somewhat simplistic rules. What matters there is clever effects where you can be all like at 1 life point and after activating a series (of tubes) special effects, you can be all "and with THAT in effect, THIS, nullifying everything you did and turning THAT against you". I've never done that in Neverwinter Nights. In that game, it really was all about boosting my statistics in various fields using various equipment to get an edge in battle. Traps set before the battle, which may not even take place due to them, don't really count. Getting the drop with stealth for an initial attack is "cute" but I was doing that in Earthbound, I was doing that in Final Fantasy with certain equipment. That's not strategy.

Okay, let me put it this way. Maybe Neverwinter Nights should also be excluded from the list. I'll admit, I haven't played either of the Fallout games (watched a friend play a little of the beginning, though that doesn't really count).

Describe to me a scenario with deeply involved strategy in one of those games. Basically I'm saying I may have been playing these games "all wrong", a possibility you should consider when it comes to console RPGs. It sounds like you never once actually thought through a battle and just hit the "attack" command over and over again.

I would have been bored from the very first Japanese RPG I played if there wasn't involved strategy I had to come up with to win. I really don't think you are playing them the right way. I think you are just sorta power leveling. You describe a "grind" but in something like Final Fantasy (for the most part) or Chrono Trigger, I never really had to grind. Further, if you never went on side quests, I'm not surpriused you never found the armor with special effects. For example, and I know you love this form of strategy, there's the stuff that cuts all elemental attacks by 50%, or absorbs one specific element, or a sword that gets a critical strike 70% of the time, or one that drains MP to do 4x damage instead of 2x during a critical strike, or something that makes you undead, meaning instant death spells heal them completely, but you can't use party-wide cure effects any more.

And I've checked all the complicated algorythms as they have been decoded for at least a few Japanese RPGs, there is a system to be found.

Looking at Chess again, that game has a lot of strategy and has almost no rules to it. A massive rule book doesn't necessarily make for a better, or more "in depth" game, except in the sense that it has a lot of rules. By the same token you can end up with a surprising level of depth with some basic rules so long as there is a lot of ways to vary those rules and stuff that totally violates those rules. Why not have abilities that defy the rules? It makes things more interesting if you have a pawn that can, for no good reason, change into a queen.

I think you really just need to give them a chance. I mean I gave the American ones a chance. I've had a lot of fun developing my characters. I've actually taken the time to just sit around CREATING characters without even playing the game. I'm not saying those games are bad, they are very well done and to be honest I do like the range of freedom they offer. I'm just saying all those guides over at GameFAQs with strategy after strategy for all manner of in-game battles should tell you something, and that's that strategy exists in the good console RPGs.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 2nd May 2007

Background info: JRPGs I own (counting action-RPGs but not Zelda, to make an arbitrary division. No SRPGs.)

completed
--
Golden Sun -- got bored repeatedly and took long breaks so it took a long time to finish, but eventually I did.
Skies of Arcadia: Legends -- great game.
Tales of Symphonia (action combat) -- I was getting bored by the end, but managed to finish it.
Illusion of Gaia (action-rpg) -- lots of fun. Not too hard, good plot... just fun.
Final Fantasy Adventure (action-rpg) -- great game, one of the GB's best
Riviera: The Promised Land -- great and original!
Lunar Legend -- decent enough... autofight/save anywhere help. Utterly standard by JRPG genre conventions, but decent anyway.

incomplete
--
Golden Sun: The Lost Age -- Got 8-10 hours in. Pitifully easy. Got bored.
Phantasy Star 2 -- hard!
Phantasy Star 4 -- haven't played (and also hard)
Sword of Vermillion (actionish) -- too old fashioned to be fun
Secret of Mana (action-rpg) -- I really should play this more...
Drakkhen -- oldschool, not so fun (but for $2 who cares)
Lunar: Dragon Song -- decent, I'll pick it up again eventually
Children of Mana (action-rpg) -- kind of dull after a while
Sword of Mana (action-rpg) -- decent but not so great. I got bored.
Baten Kaitos -- boring!
Summon Night: Swordcraft Story (action battles like Tales of Phantasia but better) -- great, will finish eventually. More people should play this...
Persona 2: Eternal Punishment -- psx. Long. Might play more someday. Grind required -- tedious.
Star Ocean: The Second Story (action combat) -- great game, will definitely play more (got past halfway). More user control over character development than most JRPGs.
Grandia -- so conventionally dull in so many ways, but it can be kind of mindlessly fun I guess...
Koudelka -- kind of unique, I should play it more. Survival horror-ish atmosphere, movement grid in combat...

I don't think Survival Kids really counts. It's really an action-adventure, not RPG. I didn't finish it. I'm also not counting Alundra 2 (action-rpg, got bored, unfinished), or Brave Fencer Musashi (should play more, fun) and Threads of Fate (great game, completed). They're platformers really... same for Wodner Boy in Monster World, though that's even more of a platformer and less of an RPG than Threads of Fate is. Beyond Oasis might count too; it should if Secret of Mana and Illusion of Gaia do, but it feels even more Zelday than those two do, though. I haven't finished it, but I should once I play it again; it's short, and quite good.

Also not counting emulation, of which I have played a bunch of stuff but not come anywhere near finishing anything. I could comment on some, but I won't here.

Quote:Okay I'll drop Planescape, except for this. The focus on story shows we are looking at different aspects here.

Planescape, from what I've played of it, does have an interesting story. When I finally get back to it I intend on playing the rest of the way through. I do in fact value a good story in a game. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. But, a game can more than make up for what it lacks in an open free-interaction and choices in story with the rest of it's gameplay. I think perhaps you just haven't given these alternative styles a chance to rub off on you.

It's not that Planescape's combat is bad -- it's good, since it uses the Baldur's Gate engine -- but it is somewhat simpler. Most characters equip just one kind of weapon, like in a console game, so there is much less inventory management and choices in equipment and weapons to be made, removing a big part of most any PC RPG. The combat is also not that hard; there is no fight in the game that really stood out as "that was HARD!". Some were challenging, but not really hard. But even so there are some cool spells (a few top-level ones even have FMVs, for some reason, though you never need to use those spells...) and unique weapons... but it's about the story and characters, and it shows. The story, world, and characters overwhelm everything else in the game. It almost feels more like an adventure game than an RPG in some ways... anyway, you can't talk about the game without talking about the script. It would be pointless.

As for your point that a game can make up for a bad story with gameplay, well, yes. That was the theory behind every single RPG released in the '70s and '80s, after all: the story was a nearly irrelevant excuse to send you out there to kill things. And that does work, if the gameplay is good... but JRPGs usually have both linear stories and mostly hands-off character development. You often have only minimal actual impact on how your characters develop. You just give them their next (character-exclusive or class-exclusive) armor set in each town, buy their next weapon (unique to them), see the next plot point, and go on... what are you doing that actually makes them representative of YOU and not just "characters in a story you are following"? Sure sometimes I can get interested iin the story and it can pull you through the game, but so often the rest of the gameplay is so simple... sometimes I liked it anyway, but the fact remains that it is simple.

There is usually some degree of control, and there is the occasional JRPG which actually does do more, either in plot or in character development (but not usually in both...), such as Riviera for character development (branching paths along the way (that do not affect the outcome, just short alternate routes), the attraction ratings, etc), but it's not common.

Quote:I played Neverwinter Nights, at least. I'll tell you what I will of that. Does it have an "intricate and well developed system" underneath all the gameplay?

Yes, it does. Unfortunatly, it's underealized if you ask me. Now, I appreciate things like being able to unlock a door or set a trap, but that's not really combat, that's something else. I'm talking actual combat systems. I can also appreciate a million stats that each affect different skills, like accuracy with a bow or the strenth of a magic missile (for proper attacking of the darkness). That's not really strategy though. Those are statistics. Magic: The Gathering (which I have to say I DO actually have a deck of) gives an example of real strategy, and that's got basically two statistics and somewhat simplistic rules. What matters there is clever effects where you can be all like at 1 life point and after activating a series (of tubes) special effects, you can be all "and with THAT in effect, THIS, nullifying everything you did and turning THAT against you". I've never done that in Neverwinter Nights. In that game, it really was all about boosting my statistics in various fields using various equipment to get an edge in battle. Traps set before the battle, which may not even take place due to them, don't really count. Getting the drop with stealth for an initial attack is "cute" but I was doing that in Earthbound, I was doing that in Final Fantasy with certain equipment. That's not strategy.

Okay, let me put it this way. Maybe Neverwinter Nights should also be excluded from the list. I'll admit, I haven't played either of the Fallout games (watched a friend play a little of the beginning, though that doesn't really count).

Neverwinter Nights... I don't own it, but I did play the demo. And it does have that deep system underneath. The problem is, they give you only one character, pretty much completely sabotaging the D&D system. NWN 2 rectifies this -- you get parties again. NWN 1, though, just ends up as a mountain of hack and slash with a bad story (and the story, the single player game that is, is universally considered to be pretty bad). What fun. Yeah, that's why I never bought it...

Anyway, you do say some interesting things there. I would disagree about stats. Stats are, of course, the basis of D&D... stats and die rolls are the foundation of the system. They're the most important thing there is in the system, and there are a lot of them. Is this complexity necessary, or fun? Complexity for the sake of complexity is not always a good thing, after all... I would say that it is, most certainly. The fact that the game is based on a complex, consistent statistical model is extremely important, and is something that all PC RPGs do in one way or another (though many created just for games are not as complex as D&D, all the major ones have one). Console RPGs just don't usually have such complex statistical underpinnings, as I said, and it hurts the believability of the world.

Anyway, anything that affects battle is part of battle. These RPGs don't have some silly "battle mode" where you go to a separate screen. As such, why would something like a trap not "count"? That's silly... unlocking doors or detecting and removing traps aren't part of combat, though, for sure (though they are definitely part of the game, and the statistical model)

Quote:Looking at Chess again, that game has a lot of strategy and has almost no rules to it. A massive rule book doesn't necessarily make for a better, or more "in depth" game, except in the sense that it has a lot of rules. By the same token you can end up with a surprising level of depth with some basic rules so long as there is a lot of ways to vary those rules and stuff that totally violates those rules. Why not have abilities that defy the rules? It makes things more interesting if you have a pawn that can, for no good reason, change into a queen.

This is true of course. There are different ways of achieving a similar goal, and more complexity doesn't necessarily mean a better game. Chess is a strategy game though, not a role-playing game, so there is a difference there... since RPGs add things like hit points and character stats and all that, they are necessarily more complex games than simple strategy games like chess. There's no way to avoid that fact. As those two articles I linked say (read them, will you?), "RPG" means "levels and levelling"... whether that's a good thing or not is another question, but they do.

Still, would say that levels are not necessary. The first RPG (graphic adventure-RPG, actually) that I really loved was Quest for Glory I. Great game... but it has no levelling. You simply have stats that increase as you use them -- repeatedly try to climb a tree to improve climbing, run to improve running, etc. It was a great system that I thought worked well...

Another example would be Guild Wars. Signs say that Guild Wars 2 is going in a different direction, unfortunately, but Guild Wars has a low level cap of 20 which you hit fairly quickly. After that the game becomes a balanced game where your strategy -- the eight skills you bring with you and how you use them -- is paramount. They were consciously thinking of collectable card games like Magic, actually, when they made the game... and obviously I think that the system works incredibly well, given how many hundreds of hours I've put into that game (making it probably my third most played game ever after only SC and WC3, though I don't know the order of those three since SC and WC3 don't keep time logs...)... it keeps the focus on strategy and skill and not just levelling through that low cap and skill limit (eight only, can't change them at will, only in towns).

Also, looking at those JRPGs I finished and the ones I didn't, barring the games that I simply didn't finish because of boredom, many of the incomplete ones were ones that I felt required unnecessary levelling. I know I've said it many times before, but it annoys me... if I can get to the boss, I should be able to defeat them with enough effort provided that I've got a decent amount of consumables left (now there's one other thing GW did right... no consumables. Your health and energy auto-recharges when you're not fighting, and every class has healing skills. It made me never want to go back to the tedium of Diablo II's "belt and inventory full of potions" ever again...).

Guild Wars also, of course, has a base model. Enemies use the same skills you do and have levels just like the players...

Quote:I would have been bored from the very first Japanese RPG I played if there wasn't involved strategy I had to come up with to win. I really don't think you are playing them the right way. I think you are just sorta power leveling. You describe a "grind" but in something like Final Fantasy (for the most part) or Chrono Trigger, I never really had to grind. Further, if you never went on side quests, I'm not surpriused you never found the armor with special effects. For example, and I know you love this form of strategy, there's the stuff that cuts all elemental attacks by 50%, or absorbs one specific element, or a sword that gets a critical strike 70% of the time, or one that drains MP to do 4x damage instead of 2x during a critical strike, or something that makes you undead, meaning instant death spells heal them completely, but you can't use party-wide cure effects any more.

There's more to it than just items with special effects, though, as I've tried to say... just having those things doesn't mean that you have true depth. Not when those status effect things are usually the most useless abilities in the game, and don't work well on most of the enemies that they might actually be helpful against... and as for modifiers like those examples there, those are nice I guess, but it's not like it's really an important part of the game... in Guild Wars virtually all armor has modifiers (pluses and minuses), and those modifiers are balanced at the top level so that you can't just get a "+15 damage" without it being "while enchanted" or something. Kind of annoying really, but it balances things... anyway so, as it's so common, finding the kind of modifier or weapon addon that you like is an important part of configuring your character. The same goes for a Baldur's Gate style RPG, though in that case character level and how powerful the item is is much more relevant, since there is no hard level cap that you reach early on like GW has. Is that really true, though, in console RPGs?

Quote:Describe to me a scenario with deeply involved strategy in one of those games. Basically I'm saying I may have been playing these games "all wrong", a possibility you should consider when it comes to console RPGs. It sounds like you never once actually thought through a battle and just hit the "attack" command over and over again.

Usually that's all you have to do to win. In some games that's all you CAN do; magic is often limited and runs out fast, special abilities are also limited and need to be used carefully, only normal attack can be used most of the time against normal enemies in a lot of games... the games are often designed so that most of the time you don't use strategy. It just chews up time before you get strong enough to be able to face the boss.

Now, if I wanted to counter my own argument, it would actually be simple... I'd start talking about the JRPGs which don't follow all of those genre conventions. :) There are some. Of course, there are also some PC RPGs that don't follow most of those genre conventions either... but since there are more JRPGs than PC RPGs by a large margin, the unconventional console ones are more noticeable. And even those less conventional JRPGs still usually have set characters (even if you can configure them and choose their abilities, their basic character traits and classes are set) and a single main narrative that you can't really affect or can only minimally impact (or where you can get 'different endings' for different characters you end up with or whatever, but the main plot is always the same)... it's a rare JRPG indeed that doesn't follow any of these guidelines. More often it's just 'it follows some but not all of them'... which can be good enough, if the unique features make it truly different.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 3rd May 2007

Secret of Mana? Sure that's one where all you really do is attack. That's much more of an action game though.

In any event, here's hoping I might actually get to play the games you say actually represent the sort of RPG combat system you are talking about. I can't find them in stores, or used game stores. Maybe Steam? Anyway, I didn't set out to dig on American RPGs, because in spite of what I've seen as a general lack of depth in actual combat (and my internal jury is still out on that until I've played those mid 90's mastering of the form you speak of), the rest of the stuff in the games I've played tend to be very well done (yes, Neverwinter Nights was this cliche stuff reminding me of some cheesy fantasy books I read as a kid). It's a matter of taste really.

(Incidentally, as for the trap thing, well I guess I just consider an enemy walking into a bomb when you aren't even in site as a casualty, whereas an active engagement of the enemy is what counts as a "battle proper". Xenosaga, which is a game with a lot of strategy, mainly involving the modification of turn order to suit you favorably (though the "AEGS" combat just plain sucks) has a sort of "trap" itself in the form of blowing up some electrical circuit as the enemy passes by, reducing some stat or another. That could be considered combat in a form but generally you haven't atually started attacking them yet when you are doing this so I don't really count that little pre-engagement part.)

Anyway, I do hope that one day Japan learns the art of the MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION CHOICE. I get the impression they just never even had "Choose your own adventure" books or anything to give them the idea but, well I've ranted on this before, but when a goron (not RPG but same concept) asks desperatly if you'll help their leader snap out of it, and answering "no" just loops you back through the conversation to that choice, again and again, until you say "yes". Or, in the more adventurous examples, answering "no" just results in at most a tiny mini-scenario where maybe you get a different piece of equipment (an item to duel weild weapons perhaps instead of one to use two hands to weild a single weapon) before the story forces your character to make that "yes" choice anyway and the game goes on like nothing happened. I suppose Final Fantasy 7 had a mini-scenario involving going on a date with different characters depending on tiny otherwise meaningless choices was CLOSE, but it still had no real effect on the game's story. No, a real choice is something that can actually have a major impact, like entire towns being alligned against you forcing you on a complicated quest chain where you might become a werewolf, and eventually go to the dark cave of the wolf gods, and here you can either choose to serve them, recruiting an army, slay them, restoring yourself to normal, or slay them and BECOME the wolfen singularity, each one changing drastically what you have become, now THAT is choice. Oblivion, for example, allows you to pretty much blow off it's "main story" and do whatever you want, whether it is becoming a feared and respected evil overlord, a reclusive magical hermit, or a shining hero of the people. I also can see it being expanded much further even from there. And also, much better conversation structures allow you to actually, you know, have a repor with people you develop.

Don't get me wrong, a very compelling narritive sometimes requires snatching a lot of the control away. In Japanese RPGs "non-linear" means getting to go on side quests (or not) in various orders throughout the game. It is something I still very much appreciate in those types of games though. Anyway, my point is a proper marriage of these two styles of games would really impress me.

Also, and this is just something that's been bugging me about American RPGs for some time, I really wish they would all stop just trying to copy D&D. Not ALL of them do that, but too many just say "if we want a good system, it has to be based on D&D". I'd like to see some REALLY unique system that defies that style. Quest for Glory sounds like it does that, for example. Chrono Cross did a similar thing actually, but beyond that the entire combat system was unique. It still used hit points and such, but here's what I mean. Every battle starts out with you unable, or close to unable, to even use your special abilites. Instead you have 3 strength level attacks. Weak, but with a very high probability of hitting, medium, medium chance of hitting, and strong, fairly low chance of hitting. Every succesful attack raises the chances of all 3 by a bit. Also, every succesful attack builds power for the special moves. The special moves each exist on "tiers" of power. In fact, you can decide which tier to place it on, and the spell scales in it's effectiveness accordingly. Each one has it's "default" level and notes how much of it's power has increased or decreased. That's for "normal" powers, there are also character specific abilities that are unlocked during play that are fixed. Anyway, aside from more powerful abilities needing more attacks to use, they also each have a "color". There are 6 (actually 7, but as far as most of the game goes, 6) different color "elements" (all abilities are elements, so the elements are more like the periodic table style of elements than primal earth mother elements, in terms of sheer number anyway). Every time an ability is used, aside from it's color having the obvious strength and weakness depending on character alignment and enemy resistance/weakness, also changes the "field color" of the battle. In fact, the field itself has up to 3 color allignments, storing the past 3 spells used, enemy and character alike (this is one of those games where both sides use the same battle system, though the enemy still has the Japanese tradition of weaker defense but much higher HP, and various enemies still often have abilities you never get to use, though you can learn a number of them). Very special abilities, summons, require the entire field to be alligned to it's color and a fully charged attack. As you can imagine, this takes a lot of strategy, anticipating enemy moves and making sure you get in enough physical attacks to be able to use the summon. (Great idea but unfortunatly too often the summons for all the work that went into bringing them into the world often didn't bring the power you would hope they would.) Basically here I'm giving you an idea of the sort of originality I like in a good RPG system. It's why Chrono Cross is still one of my favorite games. The only thing is, they took out one of my favorite parts of Chrono Trigger, combined attacks, but the rest of the system makes up for it and then some. Really by comparison all Chrono Trigger had unique to it WAS the combined character attacks, and was otherwise pretty standard in comparison. Anyway, the standard "flow" was usually pretty climactic when I compare it to pretty much any other RPG, in that your characters become stronger and stronger as the battle went on, on BOTH sides, instead of the standard weaker and weaker, until a random knife stab is what does the enemy in by taking that last hit point, when you used your most powerful gambit right at the start. It had all the drama of an action movie when at the very end you summoned everything you had to blast the enemy with a dragon of fire summoned from your very soul. I'm basically saying that it can be very complicated in it's own way.

If you want my honest opinion, if all games were to be released for just ONE system, I'd want it on PC (which isn't really just one system, but just GO with it). Sure there's the issue of optimising for hardware, but DirectX has been making big strides that make such optimizing far easier since that layer is what handles interacting with the hardware. Further, and this is really the big thing, it's the user customization. Everything from mods to whatever controller the user wants to use, right there on the PC. I doubt it'll ever happen, but hey I can hook up a PC to a big ol' TV if I need to and get pretty much everything I want in one box. Also, PC games have been doing for YEARS what console games are announcing as "brand new revolutionary features". XBox Live does add a lot of usability to online play, but it basically is an extension of online systems on the PC, especially Blizzard who was the online king before that. What I'd like is a standardization between various online groups, all of them catching up to Live eventually (though a lot need to catch up to Blizzard first), so that, basically, they can all communicate with each other allowing you to send invites to Live members from your Steam account, for example (and really, Steam needs to catch up to Live as well, but they aren't even at Blizzard level). Beyond that, Sony's talking about "Game 3.0" with Little Big Planet and being able to design your own levels. That's great and all, and I love the engine they have for that little platformer, but in all honesty this 3.0 thing has been done since, at LEAST, Doom .wad files. Then there's mouse and keyboard (though for the longest time, PC game controllers sucked, SUCKED, every single one, until the Sidewinder, then they started sucking again until finally people just hacked console controllers and now everything either uses bluetooth or USB to hook up so they instantly became PC compatible, officially recognized or not :D (incidentally, Nintendo does not "approve" of the unofficial drivers on the PC for the Wii controller, but honestly I don't care, I just need to make sure my Wii is OFF when I use it for a PC controller so I don't accidently control two systems at the same time). Further, if you want sims, or FPS games, or strategy (either kind), or adventure games of the point and click variety, you go with the PC, for the most part. If you want fighting games though, or weird "party" games like Mario Party, or platformers, or the console style of adventure game, you go with console. If you want an RPG, I am of the opinion that there are two VERY distinct styles with their own strengths and weaknesses, one much more often found on consoles, and the other much more often found on PCs. Make your choice!


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Great Rumbler - 3rd May 2007

You know, Fallout kind of reminds me of Shadowrun on the SNES.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2007

First: I'll reply to the rest of your post later. First I wanted to talk about Quest for Glory.

I just lost a great, long post about the Quest for Glory series that I really don't want to rewrite (it would take another half hour at least probably...)... :( :( ... bah, I can't resist. :)

Quest for Glory is what happened when Sierra took their adventure game engines and made RPGs in them. There are plenty of Sierra-style inventory puzzles, conversations with options, etc... except that it's also an RPG. You can equip stuff (though you don't change your armor/weapons much, it does happen once in a while across the series, and if you're a mage you get more spells as you do things, etc), check the time (there is a day/night cycle), rest (though be careful where you do it; resting in the wilderness at night is not a good idea... go to town or to a safe area. :)), you eat food (yes, you have to buy food. :)), etc.

The settings of the games are also unique. Each game is set in one specific area. You do not travel the world each time and save it from some ancient evil five times over. This is a good thing. :) QFG1 is German, 2 is Arabian, 3 is African, 4 is Eastern European, and 5 is Greek, and each time the setting is on a constrained area. The first and fourth games are each set in a small town and the forest surrounding it; the second one has two cities and a desert between them; the third a city and some plains (with a village in them) and jungle beyond it; and the fifth a city on the main island and some other islands around it. Each time, you do something to help the people in that region. There are also major themes tying the games all together, and evil forces that take several games to find the source of and defeat, but each game has a specific focus and region, and I think that that design works really well... I don't need to travel to every country in the world for two hours each like in your average JRPG, darnit. I'm perfectly happy just saving one nation at a time... :)

Combat: the series changed combat systems multiple times, but they are consistently simple and action-focused. In the first four games, enemies are visible in the overworld but when you run into them you go into a battle screen. In 1-3, this is a simple screen where you are in front and the enemie(s) are in back. You can't move, but can dodge and parry left and right (block until they let down their guard than hit, etc), attack or use magic, etc. It's simple, but works... in QFG4 though there's a new system, with side-scrolling battles. There are two modes, one more actionish and one a bit more strategic, and the battle system is great... nice graphics and style, etc. Not complex, but good enough. QFG5, coming some years after the fourth one, is quite different. The game in general feels a bit more "RPG" than "RPG-Adventure", though it is still a QFG game. Combat is simplistic -- no separate battle screen. Just Diablo-ish "click on the enemies a lot to kill them". There is a block button, and magic of course, but the combat in the fifth game is kind of lacking... even in that last game though, which has more of an RPG feel than the others, the puzzles are still the focus. The games are graphic adventures after all, as well as RPGs, and they have the Sierra-style adventure game puzzles you'd expect them to have... though often with a QFG twist (multiple ways to complete them, or combat elements, or other things to keep things interesting). :) The puzzles are great, and for once, the fact that in some cases doing the wrong thing can kill you actually makes sense... this is an RPG after all!

Story and writing: The story and writing in the QFG games is great. The designers, Corey and Lori Cole, did a very good job with the story throughout the series. The sense of humor is great and shows through frequently; they can be very funny games. They have a serious side too though, of course, and when they are they do it just as well as they do serious. The fourth and fifth ones have voice acting. Quest for Glory has an interesting system to make you feel like you are the character (that I may have described before somewhere here, but oh well): instead of putting words in your character's mouth, there is a description of what you are saying, without putting it in specific words. As a result, in QFGIV and V, the narrator says those parts describing what you are saying, not some voice actor playing "You". It's a great system that works well. (There are some limitations to the role-playing -- while you can choose class and stats (and these have a very real impact on the games), you can't choose your character model. There's just one, a blond man (which you name, there's no default).)

Classes and continuity: QFG has three main classes and one special class. In the first game you choose between Fighter, Mage, and Thief. Your choice matters -- there are some houses to rob and a thieves' guild you can only access as the thief, some mage games and stuff only mages can really do, etc. In addition, puzzles have different solutions depending on your class. For instance, there is a thing you need up in a tree in a birds' nest. You can try to climb the tree, or throw rocks at the nest to knock it down, or use the Fetch spell to grab it; which you use depends on your characters' skills. Now, despite the lack of levels, there is still kind of a "grind" in the games at times -- if you don't have enough skill in whichever of those methods you are using, you'll just need to try over and over until your skill level is high enough. But since your skill in the ability is going up slowly over time as you do it and not just all at once when you suddenly level up, it doesn't feel that bad (and of course if you'd been practicing climbing or whatever steadily all along it wouldn't have been a problem). Anyway, many puzzles throughout all of the games in the series are like that one and have multiple solutions depending on your class. In addition, there is a fourth class which a Fighter (in QFG 2, 3, and maybe 4?) or perhaps Mage (in QFG3 maybe? 4? not sure) can become a Paladin. You need to do specific quests in order to change class (which are of course different in each game where you can convert), doing good deeds and stuff like Paladins are supposed to. It's never a class you can create a new character in -- to use a Paladin you needto either import one from a previous game (since each time you finish a QFG game you can create a 'finished save' which you can then load in any QFG game after it. If you're going from 1 to 4 or something, your stats will be scaled up appropriately so you don't start far behind new characters. Or you can take one character through the whole series.) or use a precreated Paladin save character (I think there is one in QFG5).

The first and fourth Quest for Glory games are my favorites. The first one was the only one I had for a long time, and it has great nostalgia value for me, but the fourth one was simply incredible and I eventually decided that it was just as good as the first one. I didn't play 2, because QFG2 is only available in the old-style EGA engine with text input (QFG1 was originally that way, but then there was a VGA remake using the KQ5-style engine, which is the one we had), and in a game this complex I don't find that fun. Trying to go through long, complicated conversation trees without specific lists of the words you can ask about? That's no fun! Anyway, 1-VGA, 3, and 4 use that classic VGA Sierra engine. 3 isn't quite as good -- it's good, but is a bit more linear, there isn't much for thieves to do thieving-wise, the general design is a bit weaker, etc. Still, it's kind of rare, being an RPG that actually uses an African setting... QFG5 uses its own engine and looks a lot more like an RPG -- a less adventure-style interface (though there is a Look function still), the screen scrolls, you fight in the overworld (and areas are as a result larger in scale), etc. It's usually considered the weakest game in the series, though it does provide for a good, solid ending to the series.

On that subject, QFG 1-4 have point system, Sierra adventure style. You can finish the games without doing everything; there are some things you must do, but then there are other tasks beyond that that are optional. Each game has one real ending, but because of the varying quests depending on class and the optional elements, that doesn't mean that they play through the same way each time or that on your first playthrough you're going to get it all. 5 is again different; there is one ending, with variations depending on character pairings (for your character alone or with several possible partners). It's the end of the series though, so that kind of ending makes sense...


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 3rd May 2007

Interesting... It is unfortunate I can't find these games anywhere. I would hope Sierra would eventually release a box set, but considering what that meant with the various Quest collections, they'll likely phone it in again...

The thing is, Steam's there. They can do the full port job and sell it to pretty much everyone with very little cost to them. Now, the thing I hate about Steam is the need to connect online to play any game, even if it's single player. I understand it's a copyright protection scheme, it's just annoying when I take my laptop out and about and still need an online connection, but generally speaking I am within range of some wifi access point so most of the time I at least can still play these games.

Anyway, it's better than Gametap. Don't get me wrong, those Sam and Max episodes and Myst Online are interesting, but I will NEVER pay a monthly fee to play a SINGLE PLAYER game. That is just absurd. If a game ends up on my hard disk, I want to use it FOREVER.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2007

Steam has no PC RPGs though, I believe... in comparison, notable major RPGs on Gametap:

Planescape: Torment
Baldur's Gate
Baldur's Gate II
Icewind Dale w/ Hearts of Winter expansion
Icewind Dale II

I'm not sure about the BG and BGII expansions though (and while the BG1 expansion doesn't really add that much plotwise, the BGII expansion is essentially the third and final section of the story), and Gametap is a subscription service... the BG games aren't that expensive and should be available. Well, it'd probably be not too hard to find the Baldur's Gate II collection anyway... not so sure about BG1, and despite how BGII is a better game in almost every way, I would say start with the first one.

Quote:Interesting... It is unfortunate I can't find these games anywhere. I would hope Sierra would eventually release a box set, but considering what that meant with the various Quest collections, they'll likely phone it in again...

The releases:
Hero's Quest (later Quest for Glory): So You Want To Be A Hero (EGA, text input, 1989)
Quest for Glory II: Trial by Fire (EGA, text input, 1990)
Quest for Glory I: So You Want To Be A Hero (VGA graphical interface remake, 1991)
Quest for Glory III: Wages of War (VGA, 1992)
Quest for Glory IV: Shadows of Darkness (VGA, 1994)
Quest for Glory V: Dragon Fire (1998, 3d characters and stuff)

Quest for Glory: Anthology (1-4, unsure if both versions of 1 are there) (1996)
Quest for Glory: Collection Series (1-2 EGA versions, 1, 3, 4 VGA versions, 5 demo and soundtrack on separate cd) (1997)

They're great, great games, and QFG still has a devoted fanbase (just look at how the Sierra.com official QFG board is still actually active), and on ebay the games are expensive -- Quest for Glory: Collection Series goes for up to $100 or more on ebay sometimes... the Quest for Glory Anthology (similar to the QFGCS, but without the QFGV soundtrack CD and a few other things, that is assuming that it's a complete version of the Collection Series box) is also expensive, though not as much so as the QFGCS. Old copies of the games themselves are cheaper, of course, but those of course are on floppy discs and stuff (well, for 1-3 they are; 4 has a floppy version, but without speech of course so it shouldn't be bothered with. The CD version is what to get.)

Quest for Glory V is cheap, though. Not that that helps much, it being the last game in a series with strong story continuity and a transferable character and all... :)

I of course found QFGCS (complete) and QFGV (complete) in a local shop a while back (mid '05?) for $5 each, but most people probably would not be that lucky. And since we'd owned QFG1-VGA for years, and I had loved it, I knew the series well and had been wanting the CS for a long time...

Most people who want to play the QFG games probably just download them, I'll bet, though as I own them I've never looked to see if any 'abandonware' sites have any of them (and you wouldn't do that anyway, I know)... because yeah, it should have been part of the rerelease series they did last year. I mean, I'd say that QFG has a larger fanbase now (and for years now) than KQ, SQ, or PQ have, much less LSL...

Quote:The thing is, Steam's there. They can do the full port job and sell it to pretty much everyone with very little cost to them. Now, the thing I hate about Steam is the need to connect online to play any game, even if it's single player. I understand it's a copyright protection scheme, it's just annoying when I take my laptop out and about and still need an online connection, but generally speaking I am within range of some wifi access point so most of the time I at least can still play these games.

I don't have a laptop so that's not a concern for me, but it is annoying even so that you'd have to log on online just to play a single-player game. But does it also need that for boxed copies of those games you install separately? Annoying copy protection indeed... they restrict your rights in order to try to stop piracy. Which, of course, I'm sure it fails to do...


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 3rd May 2007

I'm sure they can fake an online connection to have their own computer be the "verification server" or something. To be honest if there was such a hack, I'd run that program on my laptop myself just to have full range with those games.

So those games are on Gametap after all? That's so annoying... I mean the service would be great if they just let you actually buy the games as an alternative to signing up to their service FOREVER or losing access to the game.


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - A Black Falcon - 3rd May 2007

At $10 a month with no additional fees for specific games, if they wanted to do that they'd have to charge game-specific fees and not a flat rate, I'd say...


Gamespy's 'Top 10 Ways to Know You're a PC Snob' - Dark Jaguar - 4th May 2007

That's not something I'm opposed to. They just need to do it.