Tired of being treated as a second class gamer....

[Chibz]

Whether you knew it or not, you just claimed that Street Fighter was deeper than NetHack.
It has been in continuous development since 1987 and is considered by many to be one of the deepest and most challenging games (if not THE deepest) ever made.

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm partially in agreement with him. I've played it and for all the developers' bragging it isn't really THAT deep or challenging. The only difficulty I experienced is with how shit-backwards the UI is. And when your primary problems come not from playing the game, but rather dealing with how poorly designed basic features are...

That's not genuine challenge.

And besides, matching wits & reflexes against another player will always, ALWAYS be harder than beating a machine.

 

[Inkidu]

Personally, I think developers should always start with developing for consoles and then port (well) to PCs.

Make the game use less buttons first. It's easier to add a button than take one away later. It's not a "which do I think is better" issue. This is facts. Console first and then PC. This is of course, if you lack the resources for simultaneous development.

 

[Weaver]

Whether you knew it or not, you just claimed that Street Fighter was deeper than NetHack.
It has been in continuous development since 1987 and is considered by many to be one of the deepest and most challenging games (if not THE deepest) ever made.

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm partially in agreement with him. I've played it and for all the developers' bragging it isn't really THAT deep or challenging. The only difficulty I experienced is with how shit-backwards the UI is. And when your primary problems come not from playing the game, but rather dealing with how poorly designed basic features are...

That's not genuine challenge.

And besides, matching wits & reflexes against another player will always, ALWAYS be harder than beating a machine.

Even if I agree it's not challenging (which if you attempted any conducts in nethack I don't know how you can say that) but I refuse to concede that it is not deep. You can play nethack for years and not experience everything.


Did you know that if you dip an ordinary longsword in a fountain at level 5 it has a 1 in 6 chance of becoming Excalibur? Did you even know you could dip weapons in fountains? Did you know towels can clean your hands if they get greasy from eating fried food?

It's a game with so many possibilities, items, actions and things that can happen. Experiment with how to make whatever god you decided to worship happy or angry. Try engraving "Elbereth" on the floor (or other words). This is just the absolute tip, engraving (or scrawling in blood) would require pages and pages to fully explain the mechanics and possible outcomes of and it's a miniscule component of the large and sprawling depth of nethack.

 

[Chibz]

Deleted for length

In other words, it lacks focus. The fact that they simply didn't stop making it isn't a selling point. It isn't good at all. This merely made the interface an incredibly convoluted mess. The UI made the game distinctly unpleasant to play.

When you bake a cake, you do not throw dozens and dozens of incompatible toppings onto it. To do so would make the cake taste nasty, n'eww. Instead, you limit the flavours of the toppings to make a cake that is focused and will surely please. BAM!

 

[Weaver]

Deleted for length

In other words, it lacks focus. The fact that they simply didn't stop making it isn't a selling point. It isn't good at all. This merely made the interface an incredibly convoluted mess.

When you bake a cake, you do not throw dozens and dozens of incompatible toppings onto it. To do so would make the cake taste nasty, n'eww. Instead, you limit the flavours of the toppings to make a cake that is focused and will surely please. BAM!

You're committing the "moving goalpost" argumentative fallacy. We were not talking about the "focus" of the game, we were talking about the depth. If you cannot stay on topic or clear of fallacious logic, I feel no reason to continue this discussion with you.

Good day.

 

[Chibz]

You're committing the "moving goalpost" argumentative fallacy. We were not talking about the "focus" of the game, we were talking about the depth. If you cannot stay on topic or clear of fallacious logic, I feel no reason to continue this discussion with you.

Good day.

You didn't even mention any degree OF depth. You mentioned a large number of features, making it diverse. Although to move forward on the "depth" department we'd really need to set up an agreed definition...

I'll never argue that the game lacks features. It probably has too many of them. However: more features does not a deeper game make.

Example: Chess features a total of six pieces. Go technically only "features" one piece. Yet these games are easily two of the deepest games going. Even going so far as to be deeper than games with far more "features".

 

[Plazmatic]

I'm also a PC gamer, currently using a $3000 gaming computer that I built from the ground up.

priciest hardware isn't always the smartest buy, since hardware gets exponentially pricier. be on the lookout for hardware on the upper part of the "middle-class" stuff, they usually tend to last a little less long then the ultimate top of the range, but cost almost 40% cheaper.

Yeah I own a computer made from 800$ worth of crap, probably is just as good as your 3000$ one, and I hope you didn't buy those "big bad graphics cards" and then SLI/Crossfired them, because that would be completely useless, no game would require that even at its highest settings, you only do that when you want to save money and wait to buy a new computer.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

I love generalizations, and all their inaccuracies.

I'm a console gamer, and have never said anything bad about pc gamers because they play on a pc
I've tried keyboard & mouse, and I really didn't like it (maybe because I find it hard to relax sitting at a desk)

I don't care what platform you play on, it honestly doesn't matter if the game is fun and made well

I do care about being called a retard for liking a different control scheme, and not being able to afford upgrading my system every year. Please, don't make something as simple as preference into a measure of intelligence.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Whether you knew it or not, you just claimed that Street Fighter was deeper than NetHack.
It has been in continuous development since 1987 and is considered by many to be one of the deepest and most challenging games (if not THE deepest) ever made.

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm partially in agreement with him. I've played it and for all the developers' bragging it isn't really THAT deep or challenging. The only difficulty I experienced is with how shit-backwards the UI is. And when your primary problems come not from playing the game, but rather dealing with how poorly designed basic features are...

That's not genuine challenge.

And besides, matching wits & reflexes against another player will always, ALWAYS be harder than beating a machine.

Thanks for getting it. It seems people have forgotten true multiplayer these days with the rrise of all the fps and team oriented junk. Deep and complex are not synonymous.,you may have an rpg with 20+ years worth of content but all this means is that you're playing things that in part were concolidered deep back in the 8-16 bit erra. Even if it was as well made as BG2 it still wouldn't be deeper than a good fighter. More immersing? Sure, but like someone else said, that is indeed a whole other aspect of the games that I didn't touch on here.

 

[Magnetosis]

Whether you knew it or not, you just claimed that Street Fighter was deeper than NetHack.
It has been in continuous development since 1987 and is considered by many to be one of the deepest and most challenging games (if not THE deepest) ever made.

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm partially in agreement with him. I've played it and for all the developers' bragging it isn't really THAT deep or challenging. The only difficulty I experienced is with how shit-backwards the UI is. And when your primary problems come not from playing the game, but rather dealing with how poorly designed basic features are...

That's not genuine challenge.

And besides, matching wits & reflexes against another player will always, ALWAYS be harder than beating a machine.

I believe Rybka and co. would like to have a word with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches

 

[Vault101]

Something I've never understood was how if all games are made on PC's... Wouldn't that make it easier to at least port to PC? But I digress.

I think more companies should take the Valve approach and develope games for both PC's and consoles with controls and flow that isn't affected by what you play on./

But in the end we must realize that PC gaming is beginning to fall, and it won't be long before we're the senior citizens of gaming; I truely hope it's after I lose interesting in gaming.

I dont think PC's are on the downward turn anymore than consoles, sure we are on the back burner but it still exists

the techhnology will change...mabye there will come a time where you plug your 10th generation iphone into your TV and grab a controller...theres you games kinda thing

and steam, dont forget about steam

 

[Nihilm]

Snip

I agree. Is there anything more pathetic to be elitist about than video games?[/quote]

Which flavour of ice cream is best ?

 

[Chibz]

I believe Rybka and co. would like to have a word with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches

Actually, they suffer the same flaw all computers do at time of posting. They are incapable of truly adapting/learning.

Computers like Deep Blue only really adapted through direct. Human. Interference. And IBM could be said to have cheated in many, many ways to give their computer an unfair advantage. The computer that they then dismantled when called out for a rematch. Fancy that.

And since then, when the computer hasn't been given an unfair advantage... The human players involved actually did fairly well. Why? Because there are simply anti-computer tactics.

Since they can't really adapt, there are anti-computer tactics that allow you to bend the computer over a table and violate it, almost without fail.

and steam, dont forget about steam

But what about people who would rather forget about Steam for the more-intrusive-than-necessary DRM that it is?

 

[WFox]

Is there really such a think as a console elitist? I mean, I know there are people who prefer consoles to PC gaming, but do they really go around condescendingly explaining how vastly superior they are? I haven't encountered very many discussions about it before, but I've never seen that argument. But I have encountered PC elitism more than a few times.

Here's the thing, I get that gaming PC's are built to be fantastic, and that they can have the absolute pinnacle of graphics etc. Also, having mods is awesome, and by far the best thing about PC gaming, and I have missed them so very much since I gave up on PC gaming. I think that PC gamers are branded as elitist, whether they are or not (and let's face it, there are some very vocal PC elitists out there) because PC gaming requires much more from the player than the consoles.

As much as I enjoyed playing Morrowind on my computer years back, this is the reason I stopped playing computer games. I don't know enough about computers to keep upgrading my system to play the latest games, and I don't want to spend the money on it either (though the bigger reason here is lack of knowledge). I know this about myself, and so I bought a Xbox 360. As much as I'd like to have mods when playing Oblivion, or Dragon Age, I like being able to go out and buy any new game, knowing for sure that I'm going to be able to play it when I come home even more.

Nilco- I can't tell if you're post is a work of clever satire, or if you're being sincerely antagonistic. I'm going to assume it's the latter (if not, well my bad, don't I look like an idiot now). In any case, I seriously doubt that consoles and console games sell better simply because PC gamers are such shrewd consumers, rather it likely has more to do with your other point- it's just a bigger market.

Then again, if console games are selling better, then maybe console gamers just like video games more than PC gamers. Maybe most PC gamers are pirates, and don't consider the hard work the devs have put into their games worth paying for. But then I don't have the sales statistics for PC and all the consoles, so I can't say one way or the other.

Maybe it's better if I don't make sweeping generalizations about the habits and behaviors of very large and diverse groups. I guess it's unlikely that most PC gamers are criminals. But then again, I'm just a console gamer, and as everyone knows, we're pretty much all simpleminded peons.

 

[Dogstile]

Consoles are slimlined for quick and easy use. They don't require in-depth knowledge and since there won't be any problems, there's no need to have any knowledge as to how to fix the problem.

Console players don't find any problem with this because they have never experienced what it's like to come across a bug, or a weapon glitch, go into the system, find the engine.ini, and adjust the value to fix the problem. Fixing a small error like that is just one of the few things that make being a PC gamer worthwhile, but console elitists see it as a problem.

Speaking as a PC gamer myself, why the hell is a glitch in the game that you have to fix not a problem?

I mean, yeah sure, its easily fixed, but many people would rather not have to do it. Its neither fun nor rewarding to be a bug fixer for a game you've brought.

 

[DaHero]

Consoles are slimlined for quick and easy use. They don't require in-depth knowledge and since there won't be any problems, there's no need to have any knowledge as to how to fix the problem.

Console players don't find any problem with this because they have never experienced what it's like to come across a bug, or a weapon glitch, go into the system, find the engine.ini, and adjust the value to fix the problem. Fixing a small error like that is just one of the few things that make being a PC gamer worthwhile, but console elitists see it as a problem.

Speaking as a PC gamer myself, why the hell is a glitch in the game that you have to fix not a problem?

I mean, yeah sure, its easily fixed, but many people would rather not have to do it. Its neither fun nor rewarding to be a bug fixer for a game you've brought.

No it's not, but unless developers wise up and actually support the PC, it's all we can do.

 

[Bandvagn]

This travesty has got to stop! while we have injustice against any and all minorities, wars, tsunamis, hunger and death all around some console players think they are better than PC players?! NO! this has got to stop! enough it tell you, enough!!

 

[Ace of Spades]

The reason I don't like a lot of PC gamers is that no matter how well-founded their complaints are, that the industry is becoming more console dominated, it's never fun to have someone shit on stuff you like, and when it's announced that Skyrim is being developed specifically for console controls, it's a bit annoying having hordes of people disparaging consoles for poisoning a game they were looking forward to.

 

[viranimus]

You make some solid assumptions, Most of which I am not compelled to argue against. However I think it is sort of silly to think that K&M is actually a total deciding factor on platform of choice.

...., but I think why most PC gamers don't just switch is not their sense of entitlement, but the fact that you can't play console games with a mouse and a keyboard, atleast that is the reason why i would not switch.

I know I predominantly play on PC now, though I have access to consoles as well. However Ive yet to encounter a game that I felt benefited from K&M configuration. Every game I play, inevitably I will map to a 360 gamepad via xpad if there is no native 360 gamepad support, and I know I am not the only one who does the same.

I also doubt highly anyone who considers themselves a gamer would limit their choices of entertainment based purely on a control interface method.

I dont doubt that a K&M configuration might well be a point of consideration, but there are many reasons why a person picks the platform they so choose and more often than not its decided on based upon multiple factors.

 

[Zantos]

I'm a console gamer and don't think PC gamers are elitest. Hell, I do PC game, I just prefer the 360. You say console gamers always assume you're being elitest if you talk about PC gaming. Hell, we get it the same way where there's always some PC gamer who will come into a perfectly reasonable console discussion and berrate you you for owning a console. I have my reasons for my purchases.

Yeah, it's unfair that PC games tend to get far less support or investment from devs than consoles, but that's just where the money is. Hopefully Steam is restoring some of the balence back to the PC but still, the gaming industry has to follow the money to grow and expand. It's the way the system works.

Now I agree with what you're saying in principle that we're all gamers, but you also seem to believe that it's all console gamers and not just some trolls who do this. A theory which is, well, counter productive.