SupCom isn't lowend, but it looks like a lowend game actually.
Dunno about the modding capabilities but they're supposed to be good. So decent engine, bad game.
Chris Taylor complaining
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
I don't think that there's anything on a console that can't be done on a PC, but the opposite is not true. The only reason there's such a thing as console-exclusive is because PC development can be a nightmare of compatibility stuff... I mean, someone tell me why Final Fantasy has never been on PC but has been on every console, even GBA. It certainly isn't anything to do with hardware restrictions. It seems like some companies just don't want to put their stuff on PC.
In almost every instance where I hear a developer saying, "PC GAMING IS DEAD!!" it's because they've screwed up their latest release. Tell Stardock or Valve that PC gaming is dead.
The only reason some publishers prefer consoles, IMO, is that they've been kicked off the PC boat by gamers who are too smart to buy from them anymore. Think Infogrames/Atari, or EA. Give them another 10 years and console gamers will stop buying from them as well. Of course, by then it'll be piracy's fault again. What a load of crap.
In almost every instance where I hear a developer saying, "PC GAMING IS DEAD!!" it's because they've screwed up their latest release. Tell Stardock or Valve that PC gaming is dead.
The only reason some publishers prefer consoles, IMO, is that they've been kicked off the PC boat by gamers who are too smart to buy from them anymore. Think Infogrames/Atari, or EA. Give them another 10 years and console gamers will stop buying from them as well. Of course, by then it'll be piracy's fault again. What a load of crap.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
FF7 and 8 were released for PC, so was FF11 (or 12 or 10, that online game).why Final Fantasy has never been on PC
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
FF VII, the one everyone says is the best one ever, was on PC? First I'd heard of it. If it's so good, I'll have to go find a copy.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
You can also get every FF before 10 running through an emulator. I don't think the PS2 emulator is finished yet, but when it is, that gives you 10-12 as well.Caydr wrote:I don't think that there's anything on a console that can't be done on a PC, but the opposite is not true. The only reason there's such a thing as console-exclusive is because PC development can be a nightmare of compatibility stuff... I mean, someone tell me why Final Fantasy has never been on PC but has been on every console, even GBA. It certainly isn't anything to do with hardware restrictions. It seems like some companies just don't want to put their stuff on PC.
In almost every instance where I hear a developer saying, "PC GAMING IS DEAD!!" it's because they've screwed up their latest release. Tell Stardock or Valve that PC gaming is dead.
The only reason some publishers prefer consoles, IMO, is that they've been kicked off the PC boat by gamers who are too smart to buy from them anymore. Think Infogrames/Atari, or EA. Give them another 10 years and console gamers will stop buying from them as well. Of course, by then it'll be piracy's fault again. What a load of crap.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
That's not what I mean though, getting a game to run isn't the same as it actually being released... Like, what I meant is, some developers just don't seem to like PC very much in the first place.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
http://www.pcsx2.net, definitely runs FFX, and XII IIRC. Check out the the supported games list.
Caydr: Better get the PSX game. The PC version runs too fast at some point (some action sequence), so playing the PSX game on an emulator like ePSXe might be a better idea as you can limit the FPS. The PC release of FF8 was pretty wonky too. Besides, FF7/8 look much better on an emulator when you increase the render target.
Caydr: Better get the PSX game. The PC version runs too fast at some point (some action sequence), so playing the PSX game on an emulator like ePSXe might be a better idea as you can limit the FPS. The PC release of FF8 was pretty wonky too. Besides, FF7/8 look much better on an emulator when you increase the render target.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Ahh, I bet I could play it on my PSP! I've always wondered what it would be like to play a game on it...
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Of course a PC can play every game a console can. The problem is it doesn't. Most people want to play the games, not just rest in the knowledge that their system could play them if they were ported (well, PS3 fanboys aside).
Sure, Stardock and Valve are making money on the PC but compare them to a console-only company like Nintendo: They are tiny. And no, I don't think people will "wake up" and stop buying console games, that's just your arrogance talking because you think you know what's better for them. Most people are perfectly fine paying 10├óÔÇÜ┬¼ more for their games (and that's reducing as PC games are getting more expensive while console games get cheaper, at least those for the Wii) and only buying a 300├óÔÇÜ┬¼ piece (or 150├óÔÇÜ┬¼ since most wait for a price drop) of hardware every 5 years instead of getting games slightly cheaper but paying three to four times as much every two years for the hardware.
Sure, Stardock and Valve are making money on the PC but compare them to a console-only company like Nintendo: They are tiny. And no, I don't think people will "wake up" and stop buying console games, that's just your arrogance talking because you think you know what's better for them. Most people are perfectly fine paying 10├óÔÇÜ┬¼ more for their games (and that's reducing as PC games are getting more expensive while console games get cheaper, at least those for the Wii) and only buying a 300├óÔÇÜ┬¼ piece (or 150├óÔÇÜ┬¼ since most wait for a price drop) of hardware every 5 years instead of getting games slightly cheaper but paying three to four times as much every two years for the hardware.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Sorry my apologies I am easy to misunderstand. It is my curse. Please don't jump to conclusions.
You capture my point exactly, in your first paragraph, but you don't realize it's my point. The point is, a PC can do virtually anything you want it to and most often it can do it far better than a console simply by virtue of its superior controls, peripherals, and user modification. This statement was made in response to another statement by a different individual who was saying that ... .... er, wait, now that I look, actually it was you:
It's certainly true that Stardock is nothing compared to Nintendo as you say, however I don't think that's a fair comparison. These two companies have totally different aims. Stardock wants to be small, as they've realized the same way Nintendo has, that it's about gameplay not graphics. Stardock could easily be a major company but they clearly as a company prefer rather small genres like space strategy and 4X, genres for which titles are almost never released when compared to the FPS genre for instance.
My intention was not to say that console gamers are dumb because they buy those games, it is to say that console gamers, on the whole, are perhaps less informed an experienced than PC gamers. This is simply because PCs have been around longer. Many people are just getting their first console in the last 5 years. That's my take on the situation, anyway.
Also I don't think that they will stop buying "console games", I mean "console games from garbage companies". IE, Atari, EA, etc. This is tied into my argument in another thread saying that these companies are the ones saying PC gaming is dead, because nobody wants to buy their "crap" anymore. Crap, like, the same damn hockey game with 2% more bloom every year. Or crap like, everything Atari's made in the last 5 years.
I certainly wasn't trying to sound arrogant but in the future I will endeavor to make my posts clearer. I have the bad habit of assuming people can understand my way of speaking, my sense of humor, etc, all just from text. It's gotten me in trouble in a lot of other places as well unfortunately.
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you make the statement about PCs costing too much. However I am pleased to see that this may not remain the case forever. ATI and more recently even Nvidia have begun to see that they're killing the PC market by their overpriced hardware, and this combined with much better RAM prices allows a PC to be had for about the same as a console at launch. Or, in the PS3's case, possibly less. Now, if we can just get cheaper CPUs and motherboards, I really believe the PC as a gaming platform can have another golden age.
You capture my point exactly, in your first paragraph, but you don't realize it's my point. The point is, a PC can do virtually anything you want it to and most often it can do it far better than a console simply by virtue of its superior controls, peripherals, and user modification. This statement was made in response to another statement by a different individual who was saying that ... .... er, wait, now that I look, actually it was you:
And perhaps I too have misunderstood you. Upon re-reading, I realize maybe you're not making claims about a platforms capabilities, but in fact about what is actually made for it. While I believe you are oversimplifying the facts, I do agree with you that too many games just don't come out for PC. This was when I mentioned Final Fantasy, which, despite being a rather simple game graphics-wise (and nothing else could prevent a game from being good on PC), many of the titles were never released. I don't really like Final Fantasy, it's just an example.KDR_11k wrote:Because you CAN'T play the same games on the PC. If you're PC only you basically get three genres: FPS, RTS and MMORPG. Consoles have many more than that.
It's certainly true that Stardock is nothing compared to Nintendo as you say, however I don't think that's a fair comparison. These two companies have totally different aims. Stardock wants to be small, as they've realized the same way Nintendo has, that it's about gameplay not graphics. Stardock could easily be a major company but they clearly as a company prefer rather small genres like space strategy and 4X, genres for which titles are almost never released when compared to the FPS genre for instance.
My intention was not to say that console gamers are dumb because they buy those games, it is to say that console gamers, on the whole, are perhaps less informed an experienced than PC gamers. This is simply because PCs have been around longer. Many people are just getting their first console in the last 5 years. That's my take on the situation, anyway.
Also I don't think that they will stop buying "console games", I mean "console games from garbage companies". IE, Atari, EA, etc. This is tied into my argument in another thread saying that these companies are the ones saying PC gaming is dead, because nobody wants to buy their "crap" anymore. Crap, like, the same damn hockey game with 2% more bloom every year. Or crap like, everything Atari's made in the last 5 years.
I certainly wasn't trying to sound arrogant but in the future I will endeavor to make my posts clearer. I have the bad habit of assuming people can understand my way of speaking, my sense of humor, etc, all just from text. It's gotten me in trouble in a lot of other places as well unfortunately.
I agree with you wholeheartedly when you make the statement about PCs costing too much. However I am pleased to see that this may not remain the case forever. ATI and more recently even Nvidia have begun to see that they're killing the PC market by their overpriced hardware, and this combined with much better RAM prices allows a PC to be had for about the same as a console at launch. Or, in the PS3's case, possibly less. Now, if we can just get cheaper CPUs and motherboards, I really believe the PC as a gaming platform can have another golden age.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
What about the combined CPU/GPU? If those are good, cheap and popular (put in every dell) it might rectify the problem with average joe:s computer sucking?
The only problem is that package PC:s tend to suck, they know they can rip off ignorant people selling PCs with no graphics card and so. A good custom built PC can easily last you trough years, except for the total graphics whore titles like crysis or unoptimized crap like supcom, and it certainly doesn't need to be expensive.
The only problem is that package PC:s tend to suck, they know they can rip off ignorant people selling PCs with no graphics card and so. A good custom built PC can easily last you trough years, except for the total graphics whore titles like crysis or unoptimized crap like supcom, and it certainly doesn't need to be expensive.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Yeah... that CPU/GPU thing would be interesting if they ever get it off the ground. It seriously sounds like too much to load onto a single chip though. I mean with a GPU, it's not just one chip, you've got an entire board for that, and with motherboards already being positively _covered_ in chips and stuff, I don't know where they'll put all the supporting hardware.
-
BlueTemplar
- Posts: 314
- Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 22:37
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
I think this problem is over: Look at Intel, the blame was put on them about releasing integrated video cards that couldn't run the recent games, and now they are releasing the GMA GPU's which have support for shaders 2.0!
Look at the EeePC, it can run most of the games, even somewhat demanding ones, like Rome-Total War, Half-Life 2, UT2004, World of Warcraft, O(ld)blivion, Far Cry (ok, badly for the last two), SupCom... (err not SupCom, at least not at a decent pace, that would really be going too far
).
And I suppose they will anticipate the next hardware revolution, and include a minimal support for it. (But now you have the Vista problem...)
Look at the EeePC, it can run most of the games, even somewhat demanding ones, like Rome-Total War, Half-Life 2, UT2004, World of Warcraft, O(ld)blivion, Far Cry (ok, badly for the last two), SupCom... (err not SupCom, at least not at a decent pace, that would really be going too far
).And I suppose they will anticipate the next hardware revolution, and include a minimal support for it. (But now you have the Vista problem...)
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Templar, PS2.0 support does NOT mean that it'll run games. Well, it might start them but noone wants to play a game at 1FPS.
Caydr, aren't Atari, EA and THQ the most active publishers on the PC? Seems like most games are published by them.
Caydr, aren't Atari, EA and THQ the most active publishers on the PC? Seems like most games are published by them.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Atari, well, I know for a fact they haven't made a decent PC game in recent memory. They horrendously botched their opportunity with Enter the Matrix and since then I've kinda kept tabs on Atari because I want so badly to see them fail.
I don't know if they're really one of the more active publishers, but I know their parent company, Infogrames (in Europe), recently bailed them out financially because nobody wanted their crap anymore.
As for EA, quantity does not equal quality. They've got two things going for them, sports and Sims. They've also got Need for Speed, but they manage to completely botch 3 out of every 4 games they make with that franchise. They also destroyed Command and Conquer. They're a close second to Infogrames/Atari imo. If it wasn't for the Sims, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are today, and if it wasn't for their exclusive deal with sports teams, they'd be a minor publisher.
Publishers I like? That would take some effort. Although I hate Atari and EA the most, I generally dislike most of them but Stardock and a handful of other "Company Philosophy: Don't Be Evil" companies.
Is it really wrong to hate publishers in general? How many times have you had a game ruined because the publisher insisted it had to be out for Christmas? Or they shipped it early? Or they wouldn't pay the developer to make a patch? Yet they get 95% of the proceeds from sales. I hate em. They're like music companies, except that music companies aren't usually to blame when an artist makes a crappy album.
I don't know if they're really one of the more active publishers, but I know their parent company, Infogrames (in Europe), recently bailed them out financially because nobody wanted their crap anymore.
As for EA, quantity does not equal quality. They've got two things going for them, sports and Sims. They've also got Need for Speed, but they manage to completely botch 3 out of every 4 games they make with that franchise. They also destroyed Command and Conquer. They're a close second to Infogrames/Atari imo. If it wasn't for the Sims, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are today, and if it wasn't for their exclusive deal with sports teams, they'd be a minor publisher.
Publishers I like? That would take some effort. Although I hate Atari and EA the most, I generally dislike most of them but Stardock and a handful of other "Company Philosophy: Don't Be Evil" companies.
Is it really wrong to hate publishers in general? How many times have you had a game ruined because the publisher insisted it had to be out for Christmas? Or they shipped it early? Or they wouldn't pay the developer to make a patch? Yet they get 95% of the proceeds from sales. I hate em. They're like music companies, except that music companies aren't usually to blame when an artist makes a crappy album.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
You forgot Battlefield BTW. I don't recall who was in charge of Call of Duty 4 but that's supposedly pretty good too.
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Some thoughts about this discussion (and similar discussions on other forums):
1. Wow, are internet masses fickle. Wasn't Chris Taylor hailed as ChrisT a while ago? Please remember that he gave us Total Annihilation, so without him we wouldn't be playing Spring now. Who cares if he goes on a little rant now and then? Besides, I think Supreme Commander is an amazing game, with a very ambitious design. That the balance in multiplayer games and the community spirit did not turn out as expected doesn't nullify the genius and the hard work that went into the game design.
2. I think "piracy" or rather filesharing is a real problem, in that it gives PC users bad habits. If you're responsible you're gonna buy at least the games that you like most, or those from underdog companies, because you want them to make more great games. But can we say that the majority of gamers are responsible people, especially given that a lot of them are kids or teenagers, who may not fully grasp the consequences of their actions? When you get the habit of getting things for free, it's kind of hard to convince you later to pay for them. Right now it's so easy to find and download a torrent for anything... Even gamers with a good moral sense can be tempted to spend a bit more on the computer, and then say that they hardly have money to buy games.
3. As far as I know, pirating consoles is harder to do, and is less widespread than pirating computer games. It makes sense, you can't pirate console games with just a console, you need a computer and the technical knowledge. The main (not the only) market for consoles seems to be gamers who don't want to bother about the intricacies of a computer, so it would make sense that few of them know how to pirate games.
4. Now, there are certainly more things than just filesharing that are affecting the PC games market, but some of the solutions proposed in this thread are just too simplistic. For instance, saying that "they just have to offer online gaming": personally I'm not a fan of multiplayer games, even though I do play them from time to time. So if the single-player games market dies because of filesharing, that will be enough to mourn, thank you very much. Besides, MOST protections can be bypassed, except when all of the content is online, such as in WoW. You could play pirated BF:1942 and similar games on pirated servers, for example, so there goes the argument that multiplayer is the solution. If there's a validation server, the executable can be hacked to fake it or not connect to it, and so on.
5. So, what is the solution to save PC gaming? There's no single one, unfortunately, and I believe game developers are rightly puzzled by the situation. A piece of the solution, though, would probably be to stop relying only on retail sales, and give gamers the opportunity to buy the game online at full price at any time, even though maybe they "tried" (read: downloaded full version) it before they bought. A lot of PC games show their true greatness only after a year or two, when modding has enriched the game and hardware specs have caught up with the initial ambitious design. At that point, people are very enthusiastic about the game and would gladly pay for it, but they can't. Or it's priced so cheaply that it's barely worth it for the company, unless they sell thousands of copies. A lot of people were still willing to buy TA five years after it came out, often because they discovered it due to the modding community!
When SupCom came out I bought a copy, but had to give it to my brother because my own computer was too old. I look forward to playing it in a few months or a year whenever I do a serious computer upgrade, because the modding scene shows a lot of potential. At that point, I think I would be willing to buy a(nother) full-priced copy if I really enjoy the game, but under the current system it won't be possible.
6. I think the development of Dwarf Fortress and the rather numerous donations its creator receives should be an inspiration. After all, it makes more sense to pay to encourage the development of a promising game, and to reward further patching and improvement, than to shell out cash once for a game that we haven't tried, and then expect all the patches to be free. WoW players pay a monthly fee to play, so why can't we to fuel continous improvement of the games we like? I think that with such a system, we would lose less promising games dropped mid-development due to the "publisher's fear" syndrom, because they would get funding as they go.
7. Some game developers could start open-source games (the content may or may not be open-source/creative commons) and get payed by enthusiastic gamers to work on the game. This is different than #6, because Dwarf Fortress is not open-source, and doesn't benefit from community development and code review. I don't know if it would work money-wise, but large software development studios ought to try that as an experiment: they often pay people to work on games that eventually get cancelled, so they can risk the Free software gambit a few times, isn't it?
As a side note, Richard Stallman made a living for a while just on being payed to develop the open-source Emacs. So, there's a chance it could work for games as well, even though you won't get enterprise customers.
(Edited for spelling)
1. Wow, are internet masses fickle. Wasn't Chris Taylor hailed as ChrisT a while ago? Please remember that he gave us Total Annihilation, so without him we wouldn't be playing Spring now. Who cares if he goes on a little rant now and then? Besides, I think Supreme Commander is an amazing game, with a very ambitious design. That the balance in multiplayer games and the community spirit did not turn out as expected doesn't nullify the genius and the hard work that went into the game design.
2. I think "piracy" or rather filesharing is a real problem, in that it gives PC users bad habits. If you're responsible you're gonna buy at least the games that you like most, or those from underdog companies, because you want them to make more great games. But can we say that the majority of gamers are responsible people, especially given that a lot of them are kids or teenagers, who may not fully grasp the consequences of their actions? When you get the habit of getting things for free, it's kind of hard to convince you later to pay for them. Right now it's so easy to find and download a torrent for anything... Even gamers with a good moral sense can be tempted to spend a bit more on the computer, and then say that they hardly have money to buy games.
3. As far as I know, pirating consoles is harder to do, and is less widespread than pirating computer games. It makes sense, you can't pirate console games with just a console, you need a computer and the technical knowledge. The main (not the only) market for consoles seems to be gamers who don't want to bother about the intricacies of a computer, so it would make sense that few of them know how to pirate games.
4. Now, there are certainly more things than just filesharing that are affecting the PC games market, but some of the solutions proposed in this thread are just too simplistic. For instance, saying that "they just have to offer online gaming": personally I'm not a fan of multiplayer games, even though I do play them from time to time. So if the single-player games market dies because of filesharing, that will be enough to mourn, thank you very much. Besides, MOST protections can be bypassed, except when all of the content is online, such as in WoW. You could play pirated BF:1942 and similar games on pirated servers, for example, so there goes the argument that multiplayer is the solution. If there's a validation server, the executable can be hacked to fake it or not connect to it, and so on.
5. So, what is the solution to save PC gaming? There's no single one, unfortunately, and I believe game developers are rightly puzzled by the situation. A piece of the solution, though, would probably be to stop relying only on retail sales, and give gamers the opportunity to buy the game online at full price at any time, even though maybe they "tried" (read: downloaded full version) it before they bought. A lot of PC games show their true greatness only after a year or two, when modding has enriched the game and hardware specs have caught up with the initial ambitious design. At that point, people are very enthusiastic about the game and would gladly pay for it, but they can't. Or it's priced so cheaply that it's barely worth it for the company, unless they sell thousands of copies. A lot of people were still willing to buy TA five years after it came out, often because they discovered it due to the modding community!
When SupCom came out I bought a copy, but had to give it to my brother because my own computer was too old. I look forward to playing it in a few months or a year whenever I do a serious computer upgrade, because the modding scene shows a lot of potential. At that point, I think I would be willing to buy a(nother) full-priced copy if I really enjoy the game, but under the current system it won't be possible.
6. I think the development of Dwarf Fortress and the rather numerous donations its creator receives should be an inspiration. After all, it makes more sense to pay to encourage the development of a promising game, and to reward further patching and improvement, than to shell out cash once for a game that we haven't tried, and then expect all the patches to be free. WoW players pay a monthly fee to play, so why can't we to fuel continous improvement of the games we like? I think that with such a system, we would lose less promising games dropped mid-development due to the "publisher's fear" syndrom, because they would get funding as they go.
7. Some game developers could start open-source games (the content may or may not be open-source/creative commons) and get payed by enthusiastic gamers to work on the game. This is different than #6, because Dwarf Fortress is not open-source, and doesn't benefit from community development and code review. I don't know if it would work money-wise, but large software development studios ought to try that as an experiment: they often pay people to work on games that eventually get cancelled, so they can risk the Free software gambit a few times, isn't it?
As a side note, Richard Stallman made a living for a while just on being payed to develop the open-source Emacs. So, there's a chance it could work for games as well, even though you won't get enterprise customers.
(Edited for spelling)
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
Those kids didn't have the money to buy the game, and the teenagers needed their money for drugs and birth control. Do you really want those genetic disasters running around making spawn of themselves everywhere?a lot of them are kids or teenagers
Most = All, and very easily.Besides, MOST protections can be bypassed
Problem is, then the people who donated start to feel like they should have some say in the game's development. And those people are uniformly stupid with stupid ideas and stupid hairdos.stuff about dwarf fortress, donations, etc
Aside from that, your points were ambiguous enough I don't feel like saying anything. Have you considered a career as a speechwriter?
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
It took them a whole week to do bioshock ;_;Caydr wrote:Most = All, and very easily.Besides, MOST protections can be bypassed
Re: Chris Taylor complaining
"Mom, Dad, can you buy me that game? Please!"Caydr wrote:Those kids didn't have the money to buy the game, and the teenagers needed their money for drugs and birth control. Do you really want those genetic disasters running around making spawn of themselves everywhere?a lot of them are kids or teenagers
Did you just have a bad day? Some of those people have stupid ideas, some others have excellent ideas, and some have stupid ideas but have enough confidence to keep donating and let the creator do as he pleases. All you're pointing out is that there are downsides to this solution, as with any other one.Problem is, then the people who donated start to feel like they should have some say in the game's development. And those people are uniformly stupid with stupid ideas and stupid hairdos.stuff about dwarf fortress, donations, etc
If any career requires using sarcasm a lot and being exceedingly negative, you might want to consider itAside from that, your points were ambiguous enough I don't feel like saying anything. Have you considered a career as a speechwriter?
. But, thanks for reading my ambiguous post.