I bought this game for my laptop yesterday not knowing about the hype or reviews and I can say it's a fun game. I wouldn't vote for it to be game of the year but it is fun in its own right

developers that still bother with pcs astound me

rage looks kinda nice but nothing that special, killzone 2 is still the best looking fps on a console and i mean its not just about texture size and stuff its about aesthetics

and about pc gamer ratings, what do they matter ?! most of them wont buy the game anyways



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2011 02:09PM by gaaira.

^how does that change the fact that most people wont even buy the game and they wouldnt even if it was better on the pc? fps are the one thing that pc gaming is good at and i prefer to play them on the pc but come on now cod sold like 10 mil on 360 and ps3.

gaaira posted:

^how does that change the fact that most people wont even buy the game and they wouldnt even if it was better on the pc? fps are the one thing that pc gaming is good at and i prefer to play them on the pc but come on now cod sold like 10 mil on 360 and ps3.

If the game was better on the PC, pc gamers would purchase the game. But since there were many reports of popping issues, graphical issues, driver issues, people didn't buy the game. And for those who did and had the issues are pissed off. Hence the low scores on metacritic.


As for Call of Duty............. pffft. Who fucking cares. Britany Spears has sold millions of records, but that doesn't mean her music is any good.

Look, all I am trying to point out here is when developers focus hard on making a great PC game, we get gems like The Witcher 2. Witcher 2 is a beautiful game in so many ways and the devs have done a fantastic job of listening to the people who have purchased the game and patched/fixed issues that have come up.

Portal 2 (one of the years best games) was a multi platform game, and guess what? The PC version has been the best seller.

So again, you show PC gamers some love, they will buy your games. But if you give them half assed console ports like Rage, or slap on bullshit DRM (looking at you ubisoft), PC gamers will give you the middle finger and move on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2011 08:14AM by Vendetta11.

Riktor posted:

World of Warcraft sported 12 million players at its peak, and no one bought it? Really? A dubious assertion.

WoW and the "games" of this genre, the only genre flourishing actually when it comes to pc gaming, are not games the same way doom is a game and diablo is a game. It's an online social platform for the biggest part. And to me its the industry's answer to pc's piracy but how successful a MMORPG is, is all about its ability to establish a large userbase, thus MMORPGs are all about user interaction mechanics rather than actual gaming. Its the Facebook equivalent of gaming.

Riktor posted:

Frames per second are the one thing pc gaming is good at? What on God's green earth are you blathering about?

FPS; First Person Shooters

Riktor posted:

That's because beer-swilling fratboys don't know dick about building a gaming PC

Whatever market assessment of this kind is irrelevant. Market tendency is the point here not derogatory remarks.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2011 06:01PM by gaaira.

gaaira posted:

WoW and the "games" of this genre, the only genre flourishing actually when it comes to pc gaming...

Starcraft II begs to differ.

posted:

are not games the same way doom is a game and diablo is a game. It's an online social platform for the biggest part.

No, it isn't. It is a skinner box at it its biggest part. Press a button, get a reward. Press that button enough times and you may just get a really big reward. This is what Diablo was all about. Why you think there's some huge disparity between the games is completely beyond me.

And, furthermore, I think you'll find the long-term player base is interested in much more than just standing around Stormwind emoting to one another. At end game, you can run dungeons, run raids, play the economy, collect shit, engaging in masochistic completionism... the list is nearly endless, really.

And in that you assert there is no game to be found in raiding, or just running dungeons for that matter, is the illustration of precisely how ignorant you are of these games. Feel free to peruse the forums over at @#$%& Jerks, where there's no shortage of smart guys with calculators crunching the numbers to find the "best" way to play each spec for every class. You've absolutely no conception of how demanding WoW can be with its most challenging content. It is so goddamn hard, only 5% of the player base ever gets good enough to actually see it.

But you say there's no game there? Perhaps more hilariously, you say there's no game there while you tout Final Fantasy as the end-all be-all RPG... Final Fantasy, an RPG on rails with no character customization whatsoever and precisely nil interactivity, directed by a guy who openly proclaimed he didn't believe in giving players options, that his games were about "story" and not gameplay. That is, a series of games which are essentially pre-rendered cut scenes occasionally interrupted by short periods of button mashing.

Whatever, dude.

posted:

Its the Facebook equivalent of gaming.

The analogy is broken. With facebook you know the people before you start playing. For many WoW players, the social bond is the result of playing the game together. My guild is tight-knit because we cut our teeth together downing raid bosses, not because we were standing around pondering our bellybuttons.

posted:

FPS; First Person Shooters

Well, I suppose a console player wouldn't know anything about frames per second. My mistake.

Riktor posted:

Whatever market assessment of this kind is irrelevant. Market tendency is the point here not derogatory remarks.

Clearly, you've missed the point.

What sells in great numbers is not necessarily the best product, but a great product will almost assuredly sell. If you make a pc game worth a fuck, people will buy it. If developers keep cranking out derivative console games and porting them to the pc, gamers are either going to boycott them or pirate them.

Also, there's the artistic aspect of gaming. Console are limited, PCs are not. Starcraft could not have been made for a console, nor could WoW. The original Deus Ex was not even attempted on a console until well after the game had succeeded on the PC market (and even then, all would concur the PC version was the superior). Thief: The Dark Project certainly would never have never been greenlit as a console game... why it discourages you from killing people! Think of the profit loss!

Strategy, real-time or otherwise on the console? Give me a break. Without the PC, there would be no Total War series, no Europa Universalis, no Civili-fucking-zation, by extension no Alpha Centauri, which I still play to this day. There'd be no Sim City. Shit, there would be no Sims, which was enormously successful without a console port. There would be no Rollercoaster Tycoon. There'd certainly be no Dungeon Keeper.

How about RPGs? I'm talking about real RPGs which demand a modicum of skill from player. There would be no Fallout. There would be no Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights. There would be no System Shock. There would be no Dragon Age. There would be no Planescape: Torment.

Without Counter-Strike, there would sure as shit be no CoD.... and let us not forget Quake, and its wonderful little modification called "Team Fortress". Then there was Unreal Tournament and Quake 3, Half-Life, and Half-Life 2, and the litany of mods released for all of those games.

I honestly don't comprehend why we're having this debate. Right here before you is conclusive proof that whatever console games are doing now, PC games already did 10 years ago, and did it fucking better.

And, to answer your question, devs are still making PC games because they haven't lost their passion for the art. They know the only way to break new ground is to create for the PC. They know the minute a console is released, it is already yesterday's news.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2011 10:04PM by Riktor.

gaaira posted:

How does that change the fact that the console market is bigger and more consistent ?

Bigger and consistent doesn't mean "better". You keep walking down this same path, almost pathologically. Perhaps you've forgotten your own argument:


"I don't know why devs even bother making games for the pc anymore..."

If this is all that concerns you, the answer is astoundingly simple, even to those who didn't sleep through economics: because the market, however smaller than the console market, is still there, and its numbers are still big enough to justify development.

Satisfied now?

posted:

Save for scarcely few examples (portal 2) most FPS, the one thing (next to StarCraft 2 i suppose) the PC is natively better at, constantly, for the last few years, sell far more on consoles. The market, especially in the US, has shifted and shown new priorities. I cannot blame id for going on consoles. It's about its survival -not big bucks, simply bucks- for one. Epic is the giant that id used to be. I can blame id though, for not doing anything other than a dated, storyless, generic shooter that doesn't hold a candle to Deus Ex HR, Bioshock, Borderlands, Crysis, Cod.... Rage is not a bad game but it's painfully mediocre. How many monsters can one kill without a motive ?

You keep making allegations, providing no justification for them whatsoever. Consoles are "natively" better at particular gaming genres? Please elaborate, and explain how.

Other stuff:

Riktor posted:

The last of the Mohicans and its only one game. But again it's Blizzard, the one developer that traded success for their spine. Gamers bitch and cry about something, Blizzard bends over and releases a patch. 10+ years of releasing patches. Cohesive ideas and concepts are second to a happy userbase (notice how i didn't say gamers).

You criticize the games industry for not listening to the market and continuing the develop games for the pc, and now you criticize companies for listening to their base and thereby continually improve their product.

Congratulations. You are now about as sensible as the plotlines to half the derivative JRPGs you adore so much.

Riktor posted:

Yeah BUT how successful a MMORPG is, is all about its ability to establish a large userbase, thus MMORPGs are all about user interaction mechanic. Of course there is gaming involved but i pointed out the developer's priorities.

No, you pointed out what you believe to be the developer's priorities.

Fact: I can't walk to the bathroom to take a piss without tripping over a hundred free-to-play MMOs. If the social aspect of online gaming is really all the devs and players care about, then why is Blizzard and its $15/month monstrosity dominating the fucking market? Is it somehow superior at the social thing? How hard is it to program a chat pane?

posted:

There is no greater story goal to reach, there is no overall puzzle to solve, you keep diggin down dungeons for the shake of keep digging down dungeons and you will keep digging down dungeons as long as there are others who will also keep digging down dungeons.

Right, and people will still be playing CoD online as long as there are other people playing CoD online. Congratulations, you've figured out the basic requisite components of multiplayer games!

Riktor posted:

Kinda irrelevant but they're "technologically", not "artistically", limited.

Kind of irrelevant? Try "completely irrelevant".

Nowhere did I say consoles were artistically limited, but rather that the PC allows devs to be freer of constraints, and thereby more capable of realizing their final vision. A simple game can still be great (LIMBO). No one is refuting that.

gaaira posted:

Man you are like a spoiled little brother, you get defensive and upset out of of nowhere and don't elaborate on anything: what exactly do you mean by better ?! Better how ?!

You tell us...you brought the word "better" up first. So, what exactly did you mean by "better"?

gaaira posted:

Man you are like a spoiled little brother, you get defensive and upset out of of nowhere and don't elaborate on anything: what exactly do you mean by better ?! Better how ?!

Vendetta11 posted:

And you, who tried to get away with the truly bullet proof point of "Call of Duty............. pffft. Who fucking cares" and still quote me, do you have anything concrete to share ?

cause i missed the part where you contradicted the fact that pc gamers are a minority exactly cause of their attitude towards putting their money where their mouth is, the piracy fact.

Relevant to Rage:

All iD had as a studio was stunning graphic technology and when they limited that, they lost their edge. They revealed how dated their gaming is since they were in direct competition with games like Killzone.

Riktor posted:

You aren't claiming FPS and RTS are better on the pc, you are claiming these two genres are the only two the PC is "natively better" at handling.

Yes, but one doesn't really contradict the other. My logic is simple, they are the only two genres that the consoles haven't been able to show worthy counterparts and i doubt they will (without making radical changes like with the FPSs) cause of the graphical and control limitations.

Riktor posted:

Definition of BETTER
comparative of good

cute attempt at being patronizing but it's still apples and oranges. better gaming / better market.

Riktor posted:

Because you are. That much is evidential.

No, im not. What exactly is that evidence ? How am i a console fanboy for saying the obvious, that developing games primarily for the PC is way too big a risk for most studios.

Riktor posted:

posted:

which i actually don't identify with since i am also a pc fps gamer myself

Well, la de da.

Why else do you think i said FPS are half dead for me.

Riktor posted:

If you need a firm example of why I answer your posts so curtly, you need look no further than the gem thus quoted above and the few to follow. They typify the lack of thought you put into your opinions.

curtly ?! come on now, i have read so many similar discussions on this matter as a result of rage. you're not saying anything unique or different. you all base your logic again and again on the argument that pc gaming is alive and well because of the self assuring "i buy games, why don't they care about me" "I know this because I can still buy games for the PC." boohoo. crackers with that whine ?

Riktor posted:

PC gaming isn't commercially viable anymore? According to whom? I assume you have figures to back this up?

You so funny. [www.vgchartz.com].

Riktor posted:

For you it may very well be dead, but for millions of other people it is not. As for it not being what it used to be, I imagine most of us would agree. PC games have largely been affected by the limitations of consoles, so now all PC games are dumbed down, short, uncontrollable, and shitty-looking.

Yeah, the millions who bought Modern warfare for their 360 & ps3. I don't agree with them as a gaming choice, it came as a surprise to me but the market has spoken and shown its preferences. That doesn't mean i can justify calling the studios sell outs either since i am a minority in this case. And for the record apart from the graphics, the dated game that is Rage, is all iD's fault.

Riktor posted:

League of Legends? DOTA 2? World in Conflict? Company of Heroes?

The latter two, are nowhere near the same planet as SC2 sales wise and the first two are not exactly rts. They fit in the category of online only, community based, time vampires. And although i do play LoL from time to time i have to say that sadly, that's the only future of gaming on the PC.

Riktor posted:

portal 2 was popular because it was a bargain on steam

It was retailed for $49.99, slick.

Yeah, on day ONE, it was less than 30 something during the summer and now it's 20 bucks, slick. The ps3 and 360 versions sold 1 mil in the first month (vgcharts), slick. Do you know what revenue is, slick ? In none of valve's sales announcements during the summer did they mention steam sales except for late august.

Let's not forget what i said, that the game is one of the sadly few examples

Forecasting and Analyzing Digital Entertainment (FADE), has recently stated that Valve's digital distribution service, Steam, has seen a 42% increase in revenue. It should come as no surprise that the almost universally lauded Portal 2 was responsible for much of this growth.

No forget that, it was almost half the fucking steam during the summer and here i should add that "valve" also said that "We can never predict" and "left 4 dead did better on consoles". An off the chain game comes every once in a blue moon, yeah it will do ok. Does that spell market consistency to you, slick ?

Riktor posted:

The same can be said for any game people play online with other people. Is Modern Warfare 2 fun to play online anymore? Fuck no. Why? Because nobody fucking plays it.

Totally different games, one is a shooter with a multiplayer aspect, the other is a platform for an online community. For Modern Warfare you need just some people at every game. For wow to be functional, you need the community. Nevertheless, they made a whole new Modern Warfare 3 just now, that's why MW2 is not hot news anymore. What Blizzard's been doing for a decade is constantly sucking up their community, with like 3 games in 10 years. Great business plan, meh gaming-wise. Still it is a direct answer to piracy and consequently the unstable pc market.

^look, one thing that really pissed off people was that all id's new games have always been like a reason to invest in a new graphics card etc and this time id kinda turned their back on them. i wonder how gamer reviews would have ended up if the game had better graphics on the pc. no better than doom 3 im sure

i mean that along with cryteck releasing even the first crysis for consoles it's going down hill for high end machines. it's been 3 years since i bought a new graphics card and i think it's gonna stay with me with a looong time

I'm PC user and gamer, i dislike the idea it might get abandoned. Though i see nothing to worry about as my favorite types of games aren't going away anytime soon. I like simracing and consoles don't have it period. It's PC genre.

I haven't got Rage yet because i've read it's hardware hungry and hoping for patches/mods. Not trying to be a geek and play in on ultra settings or whatever, i'm not very demanding gamer, i played original Duke Nukem 3D (using DosBox, in 640x480 resolution) not long ago. And i have yet to finish GTA IV / EFLC and some other games i got years ago...who am i fooling, i should play Stalker instead of Rage.

Carmack never promised game as deep as Fallout, did he? He might have sounded rude to some strict PC followers but i don't blame him, every programmer knows bugs are inevitable. And megatexture worked just fine in ET:QW, gamers nowadays tend to forget the tremendous amount of work modern games require to make, no need to get so obnoxious about some flaws here and there.

neither Forza nor GranTurismo are recognized as real sim for various reasons

From what I've played of RAGE - I don't feel there's anything wrong with it (unless you played the pc version on the first day) but it just feels very plain. There's nothing that really makes you feel like coming back to continue your campaign, at least not for me. After the patch released, everything seemed to work fine, it looked nice but there was nothing really special about it. Even the gameplay didn't feel that immersive or special. It's just a very big pile of blandness and in some ways that can be worse than a poorly made game because it evokes no real emotional or large critical response from the player. It's not bad, it's not good, it's just... there not really doing much.

As for the thing about critics - I found that the best person who can judge it, is you!