PC development becomes "secondary" for Epic <Cliffy B interview>

[BlakeD]

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/02/13/gears-of-war-creator-update/

Saw this over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun:

I think people would rather make a game that sells 4.5 million copies than a million and “Gears” is at 4.5 million right now on the 360. I think the PC is just in disarray… what’s driving the PC right now is ‘Sims’-type games and ‘WoW’ and a lot of stuff that’s in a web-based interface. You just click on it and play it. That’s the direction PC is evolving into. So for me, the PC is kind of the secondary part of what we’re doing. It’s important for us, but right now making AAA games on consoles is where we’re at.

I have to agree with the general sentiment at RPS. You're making a sizable chunk of money with either PC or console if you're Epic, or did in the past. Blaming poor sales on a lame rehash of UT2004, with less options/mode, doesn't make much sense. I think his view of the PC gaming industry is a bit distorted as well. There are plenty of cool indie games available and the I still believe the FPS control scheme on PC to be vastly superior to the one's on consoles. As much as I love Halo 3 and COD4 multi-player on my Xbox 360, nothing beats the sublime control of TF2 on my PC. Anyone's thoughts on this?

[forgeforsaken]

Sales trumps control schemes.

[Kunikos]

I'm looking forward to when people start saying AAAA games. I mean, going with "more better!" worked for the shaving razor industry, right? ;)

Maybe the reason their games haven't done well on the PC is because... well... they're boring? Console players haven't been completely inundated with the same shooters year after year for tens of years like PC users have. I'm sure by then people will yawn at a Gears of War 3 or whatever Epic iterates out at that point.

[Thrag]

I think he speaks the truth unfortunately. However this isn't the death of the industry by any means. The really big budget titles migrating away from PC may slow the advance of system requirements and perhaps open up room in the market for smaller budget games and more innovation. My favorite PC games aren't those blockbuster interactive movie games like GoW (I love those too of course), but things like Sins of a Solar Empire, Portal, Armageddon Empires to name a few recent titles. Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but the huge budget games moving off the PC may allow more room in the market for mid to small budget games to succeed.

[AndrewM]

I don't think PC games are dying, I think console games are just doing really well. Makes sense for them to focus there, though it is a little sad for one of the older quintessentially PC-focused dev houses is going console.

[Rock8man]

I think he speaks the truth unfortunately. However this isn't the death of the industry by any means. The really big budget titles migrating away from PC may slow the advance of system requirements and perhaps open up room in the market for smaller budget games and more innovation. My favorite PC games aren't those blockbuster interactive movie games like GoW (I love those too of course), but things like Sins of a Solar Empire, Portal, Armageddon Empires to name a few recent titles. Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but the huge budget games moving off the PC may allow more room in the market for mid to small budget games to succeed.

Amen to this. I like the current state of affairs too for the same reason. I think a lot of these triple-A games moving away from the PC might actually be better for PC games overall.

[BlakeD]

Sales trumps control schemes.

Well, I understand this and in some respects I can't blame him. I'm not so much concerned that PC games are secondary for Epic so much as surprised by the statement. I think that from an outside perspective, sure it looks like Peggle and WoW are dominating sales, but that doesn't take into account all the digital distribution sales or the cool unique titles that are found on PC.

It also doesn't take into account that, and this is all anecdotal since I didn't download the demo, UT3 was a pretty mediocre affair on the PC. It's not bad, but it was a step back by most people's accounts. To expect amazing sales from a stripped down version seems a little strange to me. I think the PC multi-player FPS audience has largely switched from twitch-based shooters to more tactical/team-based ones. I don't really have any sort of evidence to support that other than sales over the last couple years and a seemingly shift in opinion from my friends and people on message boards.

So, basically I can't blame him for trying to maximize profit when games cost millions upon millions to make, but I think his personal view of the PC gaming industry is distorted.

[Nick Walter]

He seems to be right on the money unfortunately. My impression is that the PC games market is going to be an ugly place for awhile because the hardware manufacturers, most particularly the graphics card makers, have fucked it up.

They fragmented the PC market into uber-high end gaming PCs and $400 emachines. The high end PCs are too expensive and finicky for most people to bother with considering the ongoing upgrade costs. Hence the high end market is too small compared to the console market to justify the big money development efforts. The $400 emachines are a much larger market and worth targetting for development but are of course only capable of playing games with really low hardware requirements with any degree of reliability. Hence the trend for the last few years of more casual and web based games. And the migration of all the more serious/hardcore franchises to console-land with PC as an afterthought.

Or at least, that's my game industry outsiders take on the state of things.

[mouselock]

There are plenty of cool indie games available and the I still believe the FPS control scheme on PC to be vastly superior to the one's on consoles.

Yet FPS on the consoles do fine. And your point about indie games? That's exactly what he seems to be saying. I parse it as:

It's a hell of a lot easier to make a glossy, high-budget, AAA title that's going to hit the type of sales numbers that justify that type of investment in the console space. Comparing, say, GoW to Crysis, it seems hard to disagree there.

[JD]

Blaming poor sales on a lame rehash of UT2004, with less options/mode, doesn't make much sense.
The PS3 port of that "lame rehash of UT2004" outsold the PC version (in the US), too, so I guess that's another number Epic's looking at.

-Julian

[Rock8man]

He seems to be right on the money unfortunately. My impression is that the PC games market is going to be an ugly place for awhile because the hardware manufacturers, most particularly the graphics card makers, have fucked it up.

Well, from this news a couple of days ago, they might be coming together to form an alliance to save PC gaming:

Link (http://www.mercurynews.com/columns/ci_8238036).

Excerpt:

The personal computer game industry has trailed behind its console brethren in recent years as easy-to-play games on the Nintendo Wii or online games on the Xbox 360 have stolen the excitement.

Companies with a vested interest in keeping the PC alive as a gaming platform will soon announce a consortium dubbed the PC Gaming Alliance. According to two people familiar with the effort, it will include top industry players such as Intel, Microsoft, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices as well as a number of computer companies.

So..... the "PC Gaming Alliance" to the rescue?

[Enidigm]

I don't think the problem is with graphic card manufacturers but PC assemblers like Dell taking the default stance that no-graphics card is plenty of graphics card. For 50$ each and every PC sold today could have a very reasonably useful 3d card. But PC makers are still driven - really in an odd way - by what can only be called an 80s-era mindset where "MORE CPU = MORE COMPUTER". This is exactly what Apple does, pairing really nice processors with utterly ordinary or substandard graphics cards. And then the manufacturers' have the gall to plaster "multimedia ready!" on all their boxes.

Decent cards even help with things like text documents or long text webpages, or menu refresh rates, if they have onboard memory, and not just gaming. PC makers could sell it, but the model they've used for 20 years is the one they're most comfortable with. They're terrified of falling behind another PC maker in the CPU number game.

I'd say PC game developers like Epic are as guilty, though, in that they really push graphics and eye candy over art or gameplay. At least a quarter or maybe half of developers, it seems in the PC marketspace, are pure "bling" developers. For some reason they see a games' selling point as not being what you're doing in the game but how sexy the game looks like. This is what causes a huge amount of fragmentation in the marketplace.

[BlakeD]

The PS3 port of that "lame rehash of UT2004" outsold the PC version (in the US), too, so I guess that's another number Epic's looking at.

-Julian

Outsold by how much though? http://planetunreal.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=147169

I understand why Epic is placing PC secondary and don't blame them. And the PC gaming landscape has changed. You're right, game developers go where the money is. It's just frustrating to see a PC dev veteran, a company that always put PC first, switch over. I love my Xbox 360, but I still prefer FPS on a PC. Scalability is an issue as well. Some companies are better at it than others which may also determine sales on the PC. It just seems like some developers are quite successful on the PC in the FPS genre so I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling some of his complaints.

Your comments are valid. Maybe I'm blinded right now.

[RickH]

So..... the "PC Gaming Alliance" to the rescue?

Too little too late. When people stop buying PC's with weak specs and shared video memory, there might be a better installed base for the kind of PC games that used to sell big like Crysis and UT3. But that's not going to happen. Laptops are taking more market share than desktops and the need for high-end video cards before you can justify buying any current PC games keeps the market limited to dedicated enthusiasts.

And the enthusiasts are losing some of their enthusiasm. Last year, I broke a 2-year upgrade cycle for the first time since 1991 because I didn't see the point of pouring money into the box in my office when I spend almost all of my time in the living room.

[Zylon]

Yet FPS on the consoles do fine.

Which only goes to prove that people will inflict all manner of usability handicaps on themselves if it means they can game from a couch.

[Kareem]

The PS3 port of that "lame rehash of UT2004" outsold the PC version (in the US), too, so I guess that's another number Epic's looking at.

-Julian

There was no PlayStation version of UT2004. They had no frame of reference for how crappy UT3 is.

[Rob_Merritt]

What is more interesting, the fact that epic is placing PC as a secondary platform or that PC gamers placed Epic as a secondary developer a while back?

[Matt Perkins]

So..... the "PC Gaming Alliance" to the rescue?
Yeah, I commented on this on my site a couple of days ago, but I agree completely with the sentiments expressed here. What is the PCGA (or whatever they decide to call themselves) going to do here? Offer cash based incentives? Other than that, it just doesn't make sense for most games to be PC first. Yeah, a port here and there is cool, but the sales potential on the consoles these days is just too much to ignore.

I predict some hooplah, some vague promises and not much else after their announcement at GDC. I'd love for them to prove me wrong, but I don't think they will.

Epic, on the other hand.... Yeah, as I stated above, the PC Gaming market just doesn't make sense in a lot of ways right now. But using UT3 as the reason, a mishmash/rehash, is hilarious. "We made a weak game sequel that didn't sell well...stupid PC game market!"

[Nick Walter]

I don't think the problem is with graphic card manufacturers but PC assemblers like Dell taking the default stance that no-graphics card is plenty of graphics card. For 50$ each and every PC sold today could have a very reasonably useful 3d card. But PC makers are still driven - really in an odd way - by what can only be called an 80s-era mindset where "MORE CPU = MORE COMPUTER". This is exactly what Apple does, pairing really nice processors with utterly ordinary or substandard graphics cards. And then the manufacturers' have the gall to plaster "multimedia ready!" on all their boxes.

Decent cards even help with things like text documents or long text webpages, or menu refresh rates, if they have onboard memory, and not just gaming. PC makers could sell it, but the model they've used for 20 years is the one they're most comfortable with. They're terrified of falling behind another PC maker in the CPU number game.

I'd say PC game developers like Epic are as guilty, though, in that they really push graphics and eye candy over art or gameplay. At least a quarter or maybe half of developers, it seems in the PC marketspace, are pure "bling" developers. For some reason they see a games' selling point as not being what you're doing in the game but how sexy the game looks like. This is what causes a huge amount of fragmentation in the marketplace.


You paint this as Dell being cowardly and dumb, but I see it as them being sharp. Their is no percentage in putting in anything higher than Intel GMA graphics processors. The only thing a PC needs anything more than that for is games and the gamers would sneer at $50 video adapters anyway, so why bother?

If a "PC Alliance" can come forward and bring some console-like gaming capability standardization for gaming hardware to the PC then the situation can improve. The Dells of the world can include $50 of gaming hardware and be confident of its utility to their consumers. They can make it a selling point instead of knowing that whatever they include is going to be sneered at by PC gamers. I think that's exactly what needs to happen if PC gaming is going to have a renaissance in any genres beyond the casual.

[unbongwah]

I am bemused by the number of "yeah, well your games aren't all that great anymore, either!" comments I've seen in response to this interview. Perhaps we can get some folks to dump on Mass Effect for sucking compared to Bioware's BG2 glory days while we're at it?

[RobotPants]

There was no PlayStation version of UT2004. They had no frame of reference for how crappy UT3 is.

But UT3 isn't "crappy". It's just not the leap forward people expect from a sequel. There's still a decent fanbase for twitch shooters out there, but it's become progressively smaller since UT2004's release and people are used getting more than what UT3 offers. It's not a bad game by any means. It's just that the demographic they aimed at with it is a lot tinier than it used to be.

[Mark Asher]

Developers are going where the money is, and that's on the consoles now. I really don't see much changing that.

Smaller developers can exploit the PC market. We'll still have games. Gears of War, Halo, etc., will be console first from now on, and we will just have to wait for ports. Of course most of us will just play them on the console anyway.

I don't see this harming shooters. There are going to be a lot of shooters made regardless. It's the PC-centric titles, like RTS games, that we may see fewer of since they don't translate well to console control schemes.

I expect as much out of the PC Game Alliance thing as we got out of Games for Windows. Maybe PC Gamer magazine will rebrand itself as PC Gamer Alliance if someone coughs up enough dough. That seems to be about all we got out of GFW -- a rebranded Computer Gaming World mag.

[Pumpkinhead]

The PS3 port of that "lame rehash of UT2004" outsold the PC version (in the US)
-Julian

Really???


Yikes.

[Rob_Merritt]

I am bemused by the number of "yeah, well your games aren't all that great anymore, either!" comments I've seen in response to this interview.

They aren't that great anymore. UT3 is just the same game from a decade ago but less and pc gamers are not interested aren't interested in year old ports like Gears of War. Ports with a significant lag never sell very well, ever!

Had Epic put in a significant effort in a solid pc exclusive title and it didn't sell, I could understand their position. Instead they made some half ass ports and they sold like half ass ports. Duh, no surprise.

[scharmers]

It didn't help that GoW PC was and still is broken out of the box for a lot of people (including me) and that Epic has little or no concern in fixing it properly. UT3 is my biggest disappointment of 2007 -- it's like the superlative UT2004 never existed, and Epic decided to create UT2003 all over again.

[Thrag]

Which only goes to prove that people will inflict all manner of usability handicaps on themselves if it means they can game from a couch.

There is some truth to this. So I think the solution here is to make more comfortable PC setups!

I actually don't play my Xbox much because I have a much more comfortable PC setup. I have a comfortable reclining chair in my living that has arms wide enough to place a rigid mouse pad on, the keyboard goes in my lap, and the monitor is an LCD on an arm that I can swing into position in front of me, or out of the way when not in use. To save PC gaming we need to get PCs off the desk and on to the couch! ;)

[Rob_Merritt]

I find gaming from the couch more uncomfortable than gaming at my desk.

[McBain]

Let me take one for the team and offer myself up as flamebait: UT3 isn't selling on the PC because it sucks compared to the games it's competing against. Sorry, Clifford.

To be honest, I'd rather play Pirates, Vikings and Knights. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRm5adN7B5g)

And RobotPants, the problem with marketing UT3 as a twitch shooter is that most people who want to play twitch shooters are busy playing better twitch shooters. Like Warsow. And Quake 3. And Tribes (1).

[Myth]

I'm looking forward to when people start saying AAAA games. I mean, going with "more better!" worked for the shaving razor industry, right? ;)


Hee hee, that is until you accidently remove a strip of flesh from your face with one of those quad-bladed monstrosities.

http://www.hizone.info/data/2003/10/13/images/quattro_razor602.jpg

In terms of the topic at hand, I haven't upgraded a thing in my computer for over a year which roughly coincides with my aquistion of a HD TV and next gen console. That pretty much sums it up my feelings. HD console gaming is just that good.

[JD]

It didn't help that GoW PC was and still is broken out of the box for a lot of people (including me) and that Epic has little or no concern in fixing it properly.
I guess, the stealth release didn't help the game either. Yes, there were some print ads. But when I was talking to some people about the game some time in November, they were like "Oh, that's out already?" or "Really? I had to idea that it got ported."

Also, Games for Windows Live support - having to pay for a monthly service that doesn't really provide anything on PC is quite unappealing. And if you already got a Xbox Live Gold account - thus also having GFW Live Gold -, chances are you already played Gears on the 360 a year earlier. Sure, you don't have to have GFW Live Gold to play the game, but it' feels like not getting the full feature set.

-Julian

[Zylon]

Ports with a significant lag never sell very well, ever!
I suppose that doesn't bode well for the DS port of Myst then.

[Sepiche]

What is more interesting, the fact that epic is placing PC as a secondary platform or that PC gamers placed Epic as a secondary developer a while back?
Yeah I gotta agree with that line of thinking. I havn't picked up an Epic game since the original UT. It's different game modes were fairly innovative and interesting for the time, but nothing they've put out since then has interested me in the slightest.

Ironically I think the overall quality of the PC Games I've been playing the last few years is better than it has ever been, but it's largely not companies like Epic that are putting out the games I play.

[BobJustBob]

But UT3 isn't "crappy". It's just not the leap forward people expect from a sequel.

It's fairly crappy. The gameplay is practically identical to the other games, except where stuff has been stripped out. The interface and AI are noticeably worse. In the demo I kept getting stuck on level geometry, which never happened in the other UTs. Basically it's a graphics upgrade and a gameplay downgrade.

[Jon_Danger]

PC Gaming is d0med for the..what... 5th year in a row now?

[RobotPants]

You never got stuck on level geometry in the other UTs? You're a lucky man, then. The AI's about the same. I will give you the interface, though. It's absolutely horrible and the fact that they used Gamespy's shitty server browser over the excellent ones they had in previous games is just weird.

[Peter Olafson]

I can't get too excited about this. Epic looks away from the PC. Someone takes its place. And there will continue to be throngs of great computer games.

Peter

[unbongwah]

Ports with a significant lag never sell very well, ever!
True, but even when cross-platform titles ship to PCs & consoles on the same day, they typically sell much better on consoles (e.g., Bioshock).

Anyway, I wasn't questioning the assertion that Epic's games aren't as great as they used to be, just commenting on the number of responses I've seen which were some variation of "good riddance!" or "no great loss anyway." :-)

[RickH]

Anyway, I wasn't questioning the assertion that Epic's games aren't as great as they used to be, just commenting on the number of responses I've seen which were some variation of "good riddance!" or "no great loss anyway." :-)

No kidding. I think it's pretty significant when great PC developers like id and Epic switch to consoles at the primary development platform. Sure you've still got Valve, but what are you going to buy the other 11 months of the year?

[Kevin Grey]

Yeah I gotta agree with that line of thinking. I havn't picked up an Epic game since the original UT. It's different game modes were fairly innovative and interesting for the time, but nothing they've put out since then has interested me in the slightest.

Ironically I think the overall quality of the PC Games I've been playing the last few years is better than it has ever been, but it's largely not companies like Epic that are putting out the games I play.


But it's not just UT3 is it? Maybe TF2/Orange Box did gangbusters on Steam (we don't have any numbers there) but other high profile PC targeted shooters like Quake Wars and Crysis didn't seem to burn up the charts. We actually got numbers for CoD4 and Bioshock and, even if they did decently for the PC market, those numbers were mere shadows of what they are moving on consoles.

So is CliffyB's assertion that the games that are really moving on the PC space are the WoWs and Sims of the world really wrong?

[flyinj]

Personally, I would always take the PC version of an FPS over the console version, if there was a choice.

With Call Of Duty 4, that changed. No cheating, everyone has the exact same controls, everyone has the exact same resolution (well, if you're HD) and graphics settings. And voicechat, party system, the whole Live infrastructure.

All of that combined to make me forgo my beloved KB+M... and I'm actually quite pleased with the results.

Frontlines: Fuel of War will be my second PC or 360 FPS I choose to get on the 360.

[Guido Jones]

PC Gaming is d0med for the..what... 5th year in a row now?

Domed? No. Changing? Yes. PC Gaming will always be there, it just may not be as big.

[forgeforsaken]

Yeah, I've made the switch as well. Big part of it is that I've just got tired of upgrading/maintaining the PC to keep up with the games. I still game on the PC of course but right now 360 is my primary and I'll grab most anything for it first over the PC version.

[MikeSolita]

As an outsider, I'm a little confused ... I realize PC versions of AAA shooters will never sell as well as their console counterparts due to the mass-market nature of consoles. I get that.

But take Call of Duty 4, for example. It still put up ~400,000 sales on PC, maybe $20 million gross revenue. From a developer's perspective ... that's not worth the bother?

(Sort of tangentially related ... Steam now has 15 million users and is just starting to build up [sorry] steam. That's got to be sort kind of encouragement...)

And even if you're lead developing on the 360, I thought the whole benefit of that platform was its similarity to the PC. But despite that, releasing a title on both PC/360 isn't worth the trouble for a few hundred thousand sales?

I mean, I don't quite understand the "forget PC" mindset when you see ports of big franchises on mobile phones. A platform is a platform is a platform.

[Coca Cola Zero]

And even if you're lead developing on the 360, I thought the whole benefit of that platform was its similarity to the PC. But despite that, releasing a title on both PC/360 isn't worth the trouble for a few hundred thousand sales?


Well, he never said they were abandoning the PC, just that the PC is secondary at this point, so clearly they see the few hundred thousands of sales as worth the port.

[WarrenM]

And even if you're lead developing on the 360, I thought the whole benefit of that platform was its similarity to the PC. But despite that, releasing a title on both PC/360 isn't worth the trouble for a few hundred thousand sales?
There are many issues on the PC that you don't have on the 360 - namely, compatibility testing. That adds a ton to the testing budget and if you only ship on the 360, it's something you don't have to bother with.

Note that I'm not speaking for Epic in any capacity here, just throwing that out there as a data point.

[Mark Asher]

"But take Call of Duty 4, for example. It still put up ~400,000 sales on PC, maybe $20 million gross revenue. From a developer's perspective ... that's not worth the bother?"

Sure it's worth the bother, but it still means the PC version is the afterthought. It also means you invest development dollars in the kind of game that plays well on a console. If it's the type of game that works well on a PC but not a console, you will probably see fewer of those made.

[Shadari]

Note that the 400k figure mentioned is U.S. only I believe. Figure that number ends up being well over a million worldwide.

[unbongwah]

But take Call of Duty 4, for example. It still put up ~400,000 sales on PC, maybe $20 million gross revenue. From a developer's perspective ... that's not worth the bother?
Of course it is. But when the X360 version sells over 3M copies (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165505) - well, it's pretty clear where their bread is being buttered, innit?

Like CCZ says, Epic's not abandoning the PC, they've just moved it to the backseat, because the lion's share of sales for these sorts of shooters now come from consoles.

[Shadari]

Orange Box is light years better than UT3 in both quality and value. I don't blame PC gamers for having little interest in UT3. I'd pay 100 bucks for Orange Box before I'd pay 10 bucks for the mediocre UT3. Epic got seriously spanked by Valve.

[Shadari]

Epic's not abandoning the PC, they've just moved it to the backseat
Indeed. In fact, it started with Gears of War. Based on both it and UT3, it's no loss.

[unbongwah]

Indeed. In fact, it started with Gears of War. Based on both it and UT3, it's no loss.
Thanks for reinforcing my point (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1248921&postcount=37), dude. :-)

[Shadari]

Thanks for reinforcing my point, dude. :-)
I'm here to serve!

[Damien Neil]

He seems to be right on the money unfortunately. My impression is that the PC games market is going to be an ugly place for awhile because the hardware manufacturers, most particularly the graphics card makers, have fucked it up.

Developers have been complicit in that fucking, however.

Note that Blizzard has a longstanding reputation of making games that will run on your system, even if its a five year old piece of crap or a laptop with a crappy integrated video chipset--and their name is a license to print money.

The most common comment I hear from friends when they hear of some upcoming release that tweaks their fancy: "Wow, that's really cool. Pity it won't run on my machine."

[CastOutDevil]

Orange Box is light years better than UT3 in both quality and value. I don't blame PC gamers for having little interest in UT3. I'd pay 100 bucks for Orange Box before I'd pay 10 bucks for the mediocre UT3. Epic got seriously spanked by Valve.

Agreed. Epic and id have fallen into a development rut that is remedied easier on consoles. The console gamer seems to enjoy the same game sold to them every year with a new date and some glossy feature. PC gamers tend to expect a little bit more. When you run out of creativity, make console games.

[MyNameIsWill]

Epic, id Software, Infinity Ward. Who's left that can still be thought of as "PC centric" AAA developer? Valve? They may be switching over, too.

[Damien Neil]

Agreed. Epic and id have fallen into a development rut that is remedied easier on consoles. The console gamer seems to enjoy the same game sold to them every year with a new date and some glossy feature. PC gamers tend to expect a little bit more. When you run out of creativity, make console games.

Goodness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer_%28video_game%29) knows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft:_Orcs_%26_Humans), each (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40%2C000:_Dawn_of_War) PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation) game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Commander) is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Nations) unique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohan_%28series%29) flower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Earth).

[Quitch]

Good Lord, I thought people stopped thinking of id as an AAA developer just after Quake III.

[Hetzer]

I say good riddance to all those epics id´s and what nots....

back in the day i had an apple II and it never bothered me that the c64 sold so much more hardware and games... if joe average console gamer is sooo happy with fps, than he should have it... if he could take those generic rts games as well?

really most games on the xbox 360 arent my cup of tea otherwise i would have bought one some time ago.

The games that i play at the moment are Dom3, Sins of a solar empire and i fire up mtw2 now and then. Dont see those games on console anytime soon and when im the first to buy one...

[Cronox]

Developers have been complicit in that fucking, however.

Note that Blizzard has a longstanding reputation of making games that will run on your system, even if its a five year old piece of crap or a laptop with a crappy integrated video chipset--and their name is a license to print money.

The most common comment I hear from friends when they hear of some upcoming release that tweaks their fancy: "Wow, that's really cool. Pity it won't run on my machine."

I totally agree with this, I would add Valve as another developer who has been very successful while offering decent support for older systems, maybe not to Blizzards level but certainly more than other FPS developers.

I would add that gamers (ie us) are partially to blame too, if people didn’t buy a new graphics card every 12 months I think ATI and Nvidia would have slowed down their release cycles and possible lowered prices while developers would have put more work into making sure their game ran well on lower end systems.

It became something of a vicious cycle really.
- ATI/Nvidia release a new card as they reach saturation point on their old ones and the market it ready to move to something new.
- Developers support these cards to avoid falling behind others who do.
- Consumers buy the cards to get the nicest looking games. Start back at step one

[caesarbear]

Goodness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer_%28video_game%29) knows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft:_Orcs_%26_Humans), each (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40%2C000:_Dawn_of_War) PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation) game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Commander) is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Nations) unique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohan_%28series%29) flower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Earth).
So you played all those and think they are the same? Because I've played all of those and they aren't.

If the mouth breathing masses wish to play Gears of War instead of Crysis, then let them. How is this any different than before besides Epic realizing that mediocre shooters sell really well on the consoles.

[McBain]

I would add that gamers (ie us) are partially to blame too, if people didn’t buy a new graphics card every 12 months I think ATI and Nvidia would have slowed down their release cycles and possible lowered prices while developers would have put more work into making sure their game ran well on lower end systems.

It became something of a vicious cycle really.
- ATI/Nvidia release a new card as they reach saturation point on their old ones and the market it ready to move to something new.
- Developers support these cards to avoid falling behind others who do.
- Consumers buy the cards to get the nicest looking games. Start back at step one

I think it's starting to slow down a little bit. The 8800 cards were a huge improvement over the generation that preceded them, and look like they're holding up really well over a year after they hit the market.

[Alan Friesen]

I think it's a terrific time to be a PC gamer. Games like Aquaria, Puzzle Quest, Armageddon Empires, Rock Legend, and the upcoming Spectromancer show that you don't need an AAA budget to make an AAA game. I think it's absolutely fantastic that there are people out there who are focused on developing PC games with substance, rather than flash without -- great games like Company of Heroes and Stalker notwithstanding.

[Jason Becker]

No kidding. I think it's pretty significant when great PC developers like id and Epic switch to consoles at the primary development platform. Sure you've still got Valve, but what are you going to buy the other 11 months of the year?

Valve, and Dice(battlefield series), The Enemy territory guys etc...There are a number of quality PC shooters for multiplayer a PC gamer can choose from. So no I don't care that Epic is going console mostly. So what. There were developers that replaced iD after they slacked off when they assumed people would be happy playing DM forever. Just like there are developers who have already replaced Epic in the PC shooter world.

[Wobbo]

It's fairly crappy. The gameplay is practically identical to the other games, except where stuff has been stripped out. The interface and AI are noticeably worse. In the demo I kept getting stuck on level geometry, which never happened in the other UTs. Basically it's a graphics upgrade and a gameplay downgrade.

For once, this man is dead on.

To be fair however, CliffyB did not work on UT3, so it's not fair to blame him.

[Chris Nahr]

If the mouth breathing masses wish to play Gears of War instead of Crysis, then let them. How is this any different than before besides Epic realizing that mediocre shooters sell really well on the consoles.

So you're calling Gears of War a "mediocre shooter?" Because that's amazingly retarded. And I haven't heard that Crysis was so much better. The only reason it's not played by "mouth breathing masses" is because of its unrealistic hardware requirements.

[caesarbear]

So you're calling Gears of War a "mediocre shooter?" Because that's amazingly retarded.
How so?
The only reason it's not played by "mouth breathing masses" is because of its unrealistic hardware requirements.
So, you're saying that if Crysis had much lower system requirements it would sell as much as GoW?

[Chris Nahr]

Have you actually played Gears? Brilliant cinematic presentation combined with revolutionary gameplay in one highly polished package. If you call that "mediocre" you don't know what the word means.

So, you're saying that if Crysis had much lower system requirements it would sell as much as GoW?

Hardly, since it's still a PC exclusive and doesn't sound nearly as interesting. I haven't played this one, though, so I'm not saying it's mediocre or anything -- just that I don't see much excitement for the game, other than for its pretty graphics.

[Coca Cola Zero]

I think it's a terrific time to be a PC gamer. Games like Aquaria, Puzzle Quest, Armageddon Empires, Rock Legend, and the upcoming Spectromancer show that you don't need an AAA budget to make an AAA game.


The PC is not a secondary platform to the Puzzle Quest guys, more like a quaternary platform, considering the DS, PSP and Xbox 360 versions all came out before it and the devs/pubs seemed reluctant to even commit to a PC release at all for quite a while.

[caesarbear]

Have you actually played Gears?
Not on a 360. Are you suggesting it can only be properly experienced on a console?

[Cronox]

So you're calling Gears of War a "mediocre shooter?" Because that's amazingly retarded. And I haven't heard that Crysis was so much better. The only reason it's not played by "mouth breathing masses" is because of its unrealistic hardware requirements.

I think the fact that he opened by calling people mouth breathing masses should be a good sign that he is trolling and to not take the rest of the post seriously.

[caesarbear]

"Mouth breathing masses" is just Qt3 tradition. Go think up something to actually say before you dismiss me.

[Chris Nahr]

Not on a 360. Are you suggesting it can only be properly experienced on a console?

No, I played it on the PC myself, though with a gamepad. The PC version did have a nasty crash bug along the campaign, otherwise it was fine. Also, edited in more stuff in my original reply.

[Cronox]

"Mouth breathing masses" is just Qt3 tradition. Go think up something to actually say before you dismiss me.

Kind of like you though up something to say there? See what I mean about trolling?

The fact that you dismiss GoW as a mediocre game makes it clear that there isn’t much of a point engaging you on this topic. Your mind is made up and you don’t care what anybody else thinks.

[caesarbear]

I don't see much excitement for the game, other than for its pretty graphics.
Oddly, pretty graphics is why I think so many claim GoW as a great game. Crysis has open set pieces and various 'superpower' tactical options going for it along with a great attention to detail. It's not surprising that all you know about it is the graphics though.

Brilliant cinematic presentation combined with revolutionary gameplay in one highly polished package.
The cinematics are excellent, but there's nothing revolutionary about the gameplay. I find GoW to be a perfect example of how graphics do not make gameplay. If you strip away the special effects and dramatic camera angles, you're left with rather plodding and repetitious gameplay. It's a ton of style, without much substance.

[Naeblis]

They can make all their future games for console for all that i care, after having playing Gears of War and UT3. The first is average OTS shooter with some mediocre things (poor variety, controls, AI) and the second is more-of-the-same but with less polish and less innovation than UT2004.

[cliffski]

When people bemoan low relative sales of a title on PC vs Console, you need to look at the quality of the port. I'm a hardcore PC gamer (despite now owning a wii), and I will flatly refuse, point blank, to buy any game on the PC that talks about console controls and 'button A'. This happens far too often. I also don't appreciate games designed for crappy TV resolutions on my kickass video card and monitor.

As for the pc gaming alliance thing, if intel are a member, can someone at intel STOP MAKING VIDEO CARDS THAT DON'T FUCKING WORK. I don't mind people buying crappy PCs, I mind that intel cards don't have a sticker on them that says "will not work with any game beyond tetris" stuck on the box. 90% of my tech support is to people with intel video.

[Kalle]

Have you actually played Gears? Brilliant cinematic presentation combined with revolutionary gameplay in one highly polished package. If you call that "mediocre" you don't know what the word means.

What is revolutionary about it? Honestly, because I don't see it. The cover mechanic is done very well, that's about the kindest thing I can say about the game. The actual gameplay is repetitive to the point that it becomes dull. The piss-poor aim might be business as usual on a console but with a mouse and keyboard it just gets annoying, and the cover mechanic is so central to the game that the level designers make each room into a little artifical arena with carefully placed boxes, walls, and pillars for you to hide behind and all of a sudden I have a feeling I'm playing indoor paintball.

[Kareem]

And it wasn't highly polished. I kept experiencing a memory leak during the campaign that would cause the game to crash every so often.

Also, there was the annoying mandatory Live account if you wanted achievements to be saved (for whatever reason).

Not deriding Gears by the way, I got quite a lot of enjoyment out of the game, but "revolutionary gameplay," "brilliant cinematic presentation" and "highly polished" is a bit of an overstatement.

[Kalle]

I didn't get very much enjoyment out of Gears. I mean, I like shooting stuff and chainsawing aliens to death as much as the next guy, and it doesn't have any major flaws. It's very polished. It just didn't have anything to hook me with.

[cliffski]

its highly polished on platforms the dev gave a fuck about maybe?
cross platform games often suffer...
PC gaming FTW

[Chris Nahr]

And it wasn't highly polished. I kept experiencing a memory leak during the campaign that would cause the game to crash every so often.

Also, there was the annoying mandatory Live account if you wanted achievements to be saved (for whatever reason).

You're talking about the PC port here. I was talking about the game itself, aside from technical issues with the port.

Not deriding Gears by the way, I got quite a lot of enjoyment out of the game, but "revolutionary gameplay," "brilliant cinematic presentation" and "highly polished" is a bit of an overstatement.

Well, here are some concrete points...

Some review said that Gears felt like playing the characters of Predator. I think that was meant as a criticism but I can only say... yes, they did just that, and they pulled it off perfectly! The characterisation was hilariously over the top, which is really the only way to do the bald angry space marine genre IMO. I'm sick of the sincere flag-waving patriotic bullshit in most other military shooters. Gears nailed the feeling of an old Arnie movie.

Next, about the game mechanics. Exactly which older games offer such tactically deep but still highly accessible gameplay? Today Gears is synonymous with shooter mechanics that are based on moving from cover to cover, rather than running around in the open. Uncharted was called a mix of Gears and Tomb Raider. Any style of gameplay that has such a lasting effect well deserves to be called revolutionary.

The actual gameplay is repetitive to the point that it becomes dull.

That's not a very meaningful criticism. Any shooter has repetitive gameplay since what you do is shoot stuff, all the time. We call it repetitive only when we don't like it... but I did.

Sure, you seek cover a lot and there are many little walls or other items for cover. But the setting offers decent excuses for those items -- it's a war zone so you have roadblocks, debris, broken walls and whatnot. And if you find yourself cowering behind cover all the time I suggest you lower the difficulty level -- I was playing on easy which is my usual level for shooters, and I could do quite a bit of running & gunning between the fights that really required cover.

Then there are the excellent boss fights (except for the lame end boss), the berserker that hunts based on sound rather than sight, the kryll that attack only in the dark... really, if you played so many other shooters that had all that I'd like to know about them!

The piss-poor aim might be business as usual on a console but with a mouse and keyboard it just gets annoying

So why did you use mouse & keyboard? It's a console game, play it with a console controller. That's what it was designed for.

[mouselock]

When people bemoan low relative sales of a title on PC vs Console, you need to look at the quality of the port. I'm a hardcore PC gamer (despite now owning a wii), and I will flatly refuse, point blank, to buy any game on the PC that talks about console controls and 'button A'. This happens far too often. I also don't appreciate games designed for crappy TV resolutions on my kickass video card and monitor.

You're stupid then, Cliffski. Because Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Tomb Raider Legends, etc.. all talk about 'button A' and all were great games. The fact that they have console roots isn't an indicator that they're crap games. In fact, there are certain genres that the PC has always been relatively poorer at because those "console controls" lend themselves to some genres a lot better than the clunky combination of one set of digital controls (keyboard) and an analog planar controller that's not particularly great about highlighting orthogonal axes (mouse). (This goes way back to the days of 2D sidescrollers: Mario vs. Commander Keen? No contest.)

[Robert Sharp]

I like Gears a lot, but it really doesn't seem revolutionary to me either. It's just another shooter. Even the lauded graphics annoy me a bit. They almost glow, and it's very distracting. I have a hard time making out distinctions in a lot of areas. Some might say that's more realistic, but oddly enough I don't have a hard time telling the curb from the street in real life, even during construction (when there is rubble, as in the game).

I like the cinematics though. I thought the story was over-the-top Rambo-style fare, and I enjoyed it for that. It was silly and fun.

[cliffski]

You're stupid then, Cliffski.

No. I have different opinions to you. There is a difference.

[Nick Walter]

Developers have been complicit in that fucking, however.

Note that Blizzard has a longstanding reputation of making games that will run on your system, even if its a five year old piece of crap or a laptop with a crappy integrated video chipset--and their name is a license to print money.

The most common comment I hear from friends when they hear of some upcoming release that tweaks their fancy: "Wow, that's really cool. Pity it won't run on my machine."

An excellent point. It's hard to say who started the ugly cycle or how it got going. I tend to blame the graphics card makers because they clearly profited by it at the expense of PC gaming in general. It's really a classic example of how a free market economy in conjunction with companies pressured to meet short term (quarterly/annual) goals can decide to pursue courses that destroy their own market in the long run.

[McBain]

So you're calling Gears of War a "mediocre shooter?" Because that's amazingly retarded. And I haven't heard that Crysis was so much better. The only reason it's not played by "mouth breathing masses" is because of its unrealistic hardware requirements.

I have a 360 and I purchased Gears of War for it.

I have a gaming PC and I purchased Crysis for it.

Crysis is so much better than Gears.

Gears has a cool cover system, but on the whole, the gameplay is so mediocre it hurts. Gears has amazing graphics. Crysis has amazing graphics and really fun gameplay and a fucking incredible world editor.

Sorry, Crysis is a much better game (IMO, obviously). It also has much better vehicle levels and is lacking those stupid "stay in the light" sequences.

Gears was a fun co-op game, but if I want to play a shooter with a cover system, I'd rather play Mass Effect or R6: Vegas.

[Robert Sharp]

This thread makes me wish I could run Crysis on my machine :(

[mouselock]

No. I have different opinions to you. There is a difference.

Mea culpa on the tone, Cliff. Sorry there.

But your complaint is still baseless. All those games run in high resolution. At least one of them was authored for 720P which is high enough resolution that graphics snobbery is dubious at least. The mere presence of a "button A" control scheme on a PC game is no more indicative of quality of title than, say, the lack of 3D super-whiz-bang graphics. Given your vocation, I'm assuming you'd agree that the lack of full resolution 3D textures for 1920x1080 resolution and higher isn't indicative of games that have no reason to be played, n'est ce pas?

[Kalle]

So why did you use mouse & keyboard? It's a console game, play it with a console controller. That's what it was designed for.

Well, A) I don't have one handy and B) It's a PC game when you release it on the PC platform and support Mouse/keyboard controls. But those are really moot points because C) Inaccuracy by design is annoying no matter what controller I use.

[CastOutDevil]

Goodness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer_%28video_game%29) knows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft:_Orcs_%26_Humans), each (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40%2C000:_Dawn_of_War) PC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Annihilation) game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Commander) is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes) a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_Nations) unique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohan_%28series%29) flower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Earth).

Are you attempting to show diversity in one genre? Or are you implying that these games are carbon copies of one another? Your hyperlinked iceburn kind of fizzled.

[Kalle]

Next, about the game mechanics. Exactly which older games offer such tactically deep but still highly accessible gameplay that has such a lasting effect well deserves to be called revolutionary.

Ever play Rogue Trooper? It's another 3'd person shooter that was released six months before Gears of War and is very similar in gameplay. And it's hardly the first. Cover-based game mechanics are not a revolutionary feature. Gears gets props for doing it well, not for doing something brand new.


Today Gears is synonymous with shooter mechanics that are based on moving from cover to cover, rather than running around in the open. Uncharted was called a mix of Gears and Tomb Raider. Any style of gameplay that has such a lasting effect well deserves to be called revolutionary.

Or it just might be the case that Gears of War is just the latest and most well known game to employ cover mechanics like this. When you want to describe something by parallell you draw on well-known examples. Fame isn't the same thing as innovation.

[Chris Nahr]

Yes, I vaguely recall a comic-based shooter called Rogue Trooper that was released to mediocre reviews and general indifference. If that's a typical example for previous games with similar mechanics then they don't take anything away from Gears' well-deserved fame. Being the first game to do something well is much more important than just doing it first IMO.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Gears of War was heavily influenced by Resident Evil 4, which is a much better game and doesn't look like it had Rob Leifield onboard as art director. The cover mechanic, which was its one twist on the forumula, it got from Kill.Switch and didn't do it any better ... though it did do everything else better - you know, the stuff Resident Evil 4 did better than Gears. It's probably not a mediocre game, strictly speaking, but it is compared to its stratospheric sales and ridiculous critical praise. It's definitely not a revolutionary game for the pretty obvious fact that it hasn't started a revolution. Uncharted is not a revolution.

[Kalle]

Yes, I vaguely recall a comic-based shooter called Rogue Trooper that was released to mediocre reviews and general indifference. If that's a typical example for previous games with similar mechanics then they don't take anything away from Gears' well-deserved fame. Being the first game to do something well is much more important than just doing it first IMO.

And how would you know if Rogue Trooper did cover mechanics well or not. You admit you never played it. Rogue Trooper suffers from dated graphics (PS2/xbox generation release), a general lack of challenge as you are much stronger than enemy grunts (but hey, you play Gears on easiest difficulty) and a pretty short campaign, but mechanically the game is solid and IMO a bit underrated.

You're the one who claimed Gears was a revolution. It should be on you to back that up.

[Chris Nahr]

Fair enough, underappreciated gems do exist here and there, and Gears may have been revolutionary only for those who didn't play them. But you know, there are quite a lot of people in that category, and pointing out obscure predecessors is little more than nitpicking.

Anyway, the discussion got started with Gears being called "mediocre". Since the game got stellar reviews, sold extremely well, and is still fondly remembered by everyone outside of Qt3, it seems the burden of proof is on the detractors, not the fans. I thought it was amazing and took this opportunity to write up my thoughts about the game and maybe encourage some crusty old PC gamers to try the port (with the gamepad, please!). But I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about it.

[Quitch]

You're either revolutionary or you're not, anything else is just marketing.

[bago]

Code for a stable platform with a low piracy rate or code for a platform with a HAL, massive testing costs and rampant piracy.... Tough call there.

[Rob_Merritt]

Code for a stable platform with a low piracy rate or code for a platform with a HAL, massive testing costs and rampant piracy.... Tough call there.

Except piracy is really really easy on the 360. It took a few years to break and its missing online play but its trival to do now. Don't know about the ps3.

[mono]

Epic moving away from PC means nothing to me but one less derivative, vanilla shooter crowding the market every two years. I think consoles are the perfect market for them.

[McBain]

Epic moving away from PC means nothing to me but one less derivative, vanilla shooter crowding the market every two years. I think consoles are the perfect market for them.

Yep. I guess it's chic to slag on Epic, but I really was never a fan of the UT series, and I thought Gears was the single most head-scratchingly overrated game I've ever played. Coop was fun, but there were maybe four hours of gameplay? Yeah.

[mono]

I'm not trying to be chic, and I don't think Epic is a bad developer. They've just been more of a 'tech demo disguised as a game' company than even id Software could hope to aspire to. I had a blast with the original UT, and the Onslaught mode of UT 2004, but I never got the hype.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Epic moving away from PC means nothing to me but one less derivative, vanilla shooter crowding the market every two years. I think consoles are the perfect market for them.

This is dumb. A lot of Unreal Tournament's weapons had some smart, creative gameplay design that shame every other shooter. The link gun and shock rifle are cool. They always had shitty, embarrassing art design, but thy should be exempt from the 'derivative' and 'vanilla' crap.

[Robert Sharp]

I agree. UT is a great series, even if the most recent one was a step back. 2003 and 2004 deserve props for what they are. I still play them. Gears was fun for me, though I'm not sure if I'll ever play it again. I happen to think it IS fairly vanilla, but I'm not going to slag Epic for that. It's still a solid game, if a bit overrated.

Since I have a PC and a 360, I don't really care which one they develop the games for.

[cliffski]

The mere presence of a "button A" control scheme on a PC game is no more indicative of quality of title than, say, the lack of 3D super-whiz-bang graphics.

It's not a problem in itself, but it points to a lack of care done in porting the game to the PC. It proves nobody who is primarily a PC gamer ever played through the game to test its suitability for that platform, and who else knows what other lazy decisions were made to rush the game to the PC? Save game systems with limited slots and other interface compromises are more likely to surface on a pc port if the devs could not be bothered to even catch console language in the tutorial.

[Shadari]

Scanning various messageboards last night, it quickly became apparent that he's gotten a lot of people in an uproar with these comments of his. Clearly the PC gaming market isn't as big as the console one. And I know people are terrible when it comes to boycotts and all that jazz, but I think CliffyB has done quite a bit of PR damage. At this point it would probably be wise for Epic to put a muzzle on CliffyB and let Tim Sweeney resume his old role as spokesperson of the company.

[Dave Long]

Scanning various messageboards last night, it quickly became apparent that he's gotten a lot of people in an uproar with these comments of his. Clearly the PC gaming market isn't as big as the console one. And I know people are terrible when it comes to boycotts and all that jazz, but I think CliffyB has done quite a bit of PR damage. At this point it would probably be wise for Epic to put a muzzle on CliffyB and let Tim Sweeney resume his old role as spokesperson of the company.
Sweeney hasn't said boo for years. Mark Rein is the guy that's always talking and he's been saying a lot of dumb things lately too.

[Shadari]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/02/27