Maximum PC

Hey all,

Was trying to find something to tide me over until games like TES: Skyrim and Diablo III hit the shelves, and I'm even more jaded now.

I checked out Gamespot's top 100 PC Games list, and out of all 100 from 1996 to today (15 years), only 8 were from the past 5 years. This equates to 33% of the past 15 years of PC gaming has only recorded 8 "Great" games.

The ones on the top 100 from the past 5 years include: Super Meat Boy (Most recent), Star Craft II, Dragon Age: Origins. Crysis, The Orange Box, which technically isn't actually a game, but a collection of games, World in Conflict, TES IV: Oblivion, and WoW, the burning Crusade.

Note that of those 8, only 3 were released in the past 3 years.


Some of these games I'd like to play, such as SCII, but I know that the most fun is had by playing with friends and family, which of course means at least 1 additional copy. We're way too tight on cash to put out $100 on a single game.

The other big reason I'm feeling jaded, is that I feel mostly let-down by releases of games such as Civilization V, which had a ton of favorable press leading up to release, but while the game takes my steps in the right direction, primarily with the UI and such, it takes some huge steps back. The chief complaint amongst Civ'ers is that it lacks the "one more turn" drive, as well as having huge game balance issues, poor AI, glitches, etc.

I got a chance to play the beta for Darkspore, a new game from Maxis due for release at the end of the month which is an RPG spin on Spore. It's definitely fun, definitely addictive, but many of the other beta testers agreed it needs work in key areas like story, variety in missions, etc. In short, while fun and addictive, it's a bit of a grind, some would say more than a bit.

And of course we've got to wait till November 11th for Skyrim, that's almost 8 months, and Diablo III is coming "sometime, when it's ready". And at this point I'm holding back faith in the developers for releasing a highly polished product worthy of my $50 because of how badly I feel I've been stung by Civ5.

I'm looking forward to seeing Torchlight 2 in July, (rumored), Portal II looks fun, but it's not really my "thing".

My big fear is that the gaming industry as a whole has gotten to the point where the only games worth developing are those they can by 99.99% sure are marketable to every male in the 14-28 age bracket.

Space combat games? Dead.
Adventure games? Mostly dead.
4X games? Civ5 might just have put one of the final nails in that coffin.

The largest genre these days is FPS, and it sucks that 90% of them are simply military / warfare style. Hl2 was an FPS, but it sure took a different approach than the plethora of Battlefield, Company Of Heroes, etc games.

One of my old buddies was over today, and he and I agreed that when we play an FPS, we don't want to feel like we're in a real war. Real wars aren't fun. We want to be thrown into a far-out scenario armed with weapons no soldier in the US Army could dream of wielding, like rail-guns, gravity guns, or heck, even just a crossbow or RPG would be great instead of the classic pistol / shotgun / automatic route.

/me: Starts humming the tune to Aerosmith's song "Jaded"

Dan O.

Gamespot's not an accurate way to gauge a good game, as they're only talking about AAA titles. Try out Sins Of a Solar Empire, if that doesn't do it, play Minecraft. If THAT doesn't do it, look into modding/modded games.

That's the bulk of my problem though. I want to see a new AAA title I can get lost in for a few years, not have some casual fun for a few months then get bored.

HL2 by itself I played through at least 3 times for the original, I've also played both episodes, and I believe I played HL2 E1 at least twice.
Morrowind in 2002 I played for years. I'd usually take a month or two break every 2-3 months of really getting into it, then after taking a break I'd dive back in with an idea for a new character or play-style. I literally did this from 2003 all the way the hell to 2006 When Oblivion was released.
Oblivion I did the same thing, but now that it's 5 years old, it's lost it's luster, I've played it out by-and-large, and I'm having a hard time getting back into it.
Diablo II was released over a decade ago, but just last year I played it heavily for at least 3 months, probably 6 actually after the announcement of Diablo III.
Before then it was much the same on-again off-again play from release date up until at least 2006.
Civ IV was released in 2005, and I played it much the same way, up until Civilization V's release. I just have a hard time reverting backwards in game releases. I love most of what Civ V is, but have a hard time getting addicted in the same way.

Right now I'm just feeling "stuck". Skyrim is 8 months out, DIII is at least a year, CiV bombed, and I just don't know what to play right now.

I have played Sins, but never really got fully into it, might give it another shot tonight.

Peace,
Dan O.

There are a ton of genres and a ton of fans for each. It would be impossible to get everything into a 100 item list because something WILL be left out. Something that appeals to you may not appeal to me. That is just how it is. So, mainly the popular games are being pushed nowadays. Money? Probably. Right now, I'm still enjoying my time in TF2. It get's more dynamic with all of the updates and can get downright silly. But it definitely has tons of reputability. So, I feel that even with all the one-hit wonder games, there will still be several games that will pull you in and keep you there.

I understand what you're stating. Developers want money and the only way they can get that is through titles that the most prevalent customers want. CoD is probably the best example. I can agree that CoD is fast paced and it's fun, but like what you said, a lot of other games in different genres are being avoided.

I miss Homeworld 2, in which the v1.1 patch for it does not work for Vista, and that patch is required for mods. EVE Online and Sins of a Solar Empire somewhat make up for the lack of space titles, although EVE is really repetitive unless you're PvPing and Sins is a really slow game and definitely has their ship models off of EVE. World in Conflict was a great game, and I occasionally play it LAN with my younger brother. Really wish there were more of those kinds of games.

Brother in Arms. I just finished Hell's Highway, and it's what I look in a game, great FPS action with simple squad controls. GRAW had this, but it was way to complicated and the game was too hard (how the fuck am I supposed to get away from a dozen enemies and a tank that's 5 ft away from me?!?!)

A lot of current games just doesn't capture my attention now. Not including Starcraft 2 and L4D2 (which i got bored of), the games on my laptop is from 2008 and under. Hell, I installed SimCity 4 for a little while not to long ago. Airport Tycoon anyone?

I dunno....maybe it's the masses of dudes who want to try to be cool with guns and stuff like that that captivates them too CoD-type games.

Believe me I know how you feel. Totally jaded old gamer here. Been searching for that next big thing that is going to steal my heart and all my free time since I lost my beloved HG:L in early '09. So far everything has fallen short, except one (hopefully) glimmer of light.

Have any of you looked into Firefall yet?

Just spotted an interesting Opinion article on OXM:
http://www.oxm.co.uk/26573/why-we-need- ... lefield-3/

Seems the author is feeling much the same.


Edit: Oh, and news just broke that Darkspore has been delayed by a month based on feedback from the last beta.

Good news is that it will have an Open Beta during April.

You mentioned space combat, but have you played Terran Conflict? I sunk way too much time into that. More than enough to wait till Skyrim. Although, I won't buy Skyrim til December 2012, because that'll be when they finally released all the patches, all the DLC, and the expansion, so that way I can buy the Ultimate edition.

But asking Gamestop what the best games are is like asking your mom what the best Sci-Fi book is.

Actually, I said "GameSpot", not "Gamestop", there is a difference.

I feel the same way. I used to play almost every FPS that came out: Doom, Descent, Quake, Half-Life, Unreal, Red Faction, Halo. MOHAA came out and I played that for a long time.

Then EA decided to keep repackaging the same game over and over again. A long list WWII games came out over a period that lasted longer than the actual war. Eventually they switched to "Modern Warfare", but it's still more or less the same game. I guess you can only make "that game where you run around and shoot everybody" so many times.

I still run an Athlon 64 X2 with a Geforce 9800GT, as the only games I've bought for the PC since Counterstrike Source (which is still the game I play the most) are Portal, Team Fortress 2, and Unreal Tournament 3 (since it was on sale for $8 on Steam). I've also played all of the Halo games on Xbox (which I really like because it adds a Sci-fi twist to the traditional FPS). I wish Microsoft would port these games to the PC, but I know they're trying to sell Xboxes and their damned Live subscriptions. Sad to say, I believe if Microsoft had put as much effort into PC gaming as it had into the Xbox, PC gaming would be kicking the consoles' asses and not reduced to the niche market that it is now.

Wareeagle,

That is the saddest thing about Microsoft. They want to compete with *everyone*...

It mostly started with Mozilla. Microsoft couldn't stand that Mozilla had the lions' share of the browser market, so they competed with them, to the point of dumping millions into developing IE, then dumping even more millions into a legal battle which pulled Bill Gates away from the helm, leaving the MBA Steve Balmer who knows nothing of coding, hacking, etc, and that was the last time a truly revolutionary OS was released, Windows XP over 10 years ago.

In the end, IE was a product they ended up bundling with the OS, and haven't really earned anything out of it.

Now of course it's:
Google? Bing!
iPod? Vuze!
Amazon's Cloud Service? Azure!
and on, and on...

The problem is they've got their priorities so mixed around, they're competing so heavily with Sony and Nintendo for a console they've forgotten that consoles compete with Windows-based PC's and PC gaming.

It also is crazy how the Official XBox Magazine's website hosts their podcasts on iTunes, which requires you to download the Apple software.

What the hell ever happened to sticking with what you know and do best??? No one can be the best carpenter, painter, and rocket scientist. Do what you do best, and stop competing with the world at large.

The console issue is worse than mere competition for PC's now. Most game developers are designing the control interface and user interface around what works on the console, and then porting it all over to the PC.

Along with that, all 3 major consoles are now 5 years old, and if a game developer wants to create a game on multiple platforms, they need to make sure it performs on these 5 year old relics, which holds back development in new graphics technologies on the PC.

Their iPod alternative isn't the Vuze, lol, it's the Zune. Vuze is a p2p software app.

This is what Microsoft's site says about Azure: "Windows Azure helps developers build, host and scale web applications through Microsoft datacenters."

This is what Amazon says about their cloud service: "Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) is a web service that provides resizable compute capacity in the cloud. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers."

So I guess they do compete, but you really can't blame Microsoft there, why allow another company to monopolize that market? Microsoft started out as a software development company, but there isn't any reason that they shouldn't have diversified the way they did. They wouldn't be as wealthy and huge as they are, had they not done so, and isn't that the point of a conglomerate/corporation? To grow, to diversify, to become powerful, and to provide services to the rest of the world that they want and will need? I'd say they're hitting the nail on the head.

REGARDLESS, the thread needs RE-railed, since it's been DE-railed, lol. The games industry is full of drudgery, bore and gore. Shoot, shoot, bang-bang, *explosion*, *achievement*, etc., etc., b-o-r-i-n-g. However, there are lots of companies willing to fill in the gaps, just stop looking for "that next epic-awesome-uber-game that's gonna tide me over for the next few years", cuz it's not going to happen. Instead, pick a few games here n there that are great fun to play, yet inexpensive.

Expecting the games industry to suddenly become epic, is like expecting idiots to suddenly turn into geniuses and make the world peaceful for once, it's simply not going to happen.

I'm just thinking it's just really hard to think up an original game nowadays. I mean, we can have sequels, but that can go on for so long before it's old. Now when somebody makes a new game, and it's usually a copy of something we already have. It just keeps getting harder and harder for games to come out with any new ideas. I mean, can you guys think of anything that a game already doesn't have?

PM_DNKLR...

I don't have a problem with MS being competitive. Competition is a good thing, a very good thing. My concern with them is they're overly reactionary to everything. They've *got* to come out with a competing product for every other popular thing, to the point where they have failed to come out with anything that they can really call their own, and worse, 90% of their products fail to become popular.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Microsoft now makes more profit from XBox360 than from Windows, that's the issue in a nutshell.

But yeah, it's like my friend and I were saying, who really wants to play a game about classic warfare? True warfare isn't fun!

AZN:

There's got to be some more gameplay ideas out there... in 2004 Valve released HL2 which included the Gravity Gun, which offered all kinds of interesting gameplay mechanics.

And just a few years ago Valve stepped it up again with Portal, the most ingenious gameplay style I've ever seen. And have you seen the clips from Portal 2? Repulsion Gel, Propulsion Gel, Co-Op gameplay, etc, all add to the gameplay mechanics.

I also really like the gameplay with DarkSpore. The basic idea is that you control squads of creatures (one squad at a time) and while you can't actively play with all the creatures in a squad, you can fast-switch between them, and you can use one ability from each creature in the squad, plus 3 more from the creature you're currently playing.

The other novel concept with DarkSpore is that you're creatures levels are determined by what items they're equipped with. It's the ultimate loot game, because finding good loot doesn't just enhance your character's abilities, the loot actually levels your characters, making them stronger, smarter, and more powerful.

Spore itself was an interesting concept, mostly because of the amount of stages in gameplay.

I'd like to see a game pull off time travel well. Where you can travel in time backward or forwards while trying to achieve a mission of sorts. The challenge would be trying to achieve a desired result on your timeline, without resulting in an adverse change, or worse, chaos.

That game might have to be limited in it's scope, perhaps the character only has the ability to travel a few hours back and forth, trying to correct something, which keeps the content of the game from getting out of hand.

I think Stargate does a good job of showing the intriguing possibilities that are available with time travel.

I don't know if any of you guys watched SG-U last night, but when faced with a shortage of supplies and too many key systems down and no spare parts they decided to risk it and go home by gating home while the ship was being powered by a star.

Long story short, the star had a flare, and the entire crew minus the scientist went through the gate but failed to show up on Earth, and the scientist and the entire ship were thrown 12 hours into the past.

Once there, the scientist not only warned everyone about the upcoming catastrophe, but they also raided their future ship and took all the weapons, ammo, medical and food supplies, as well as all the spare parts they could grab before the ship sank into the star.

I'm sure there's a game here, waiting to be developed to take advantage of the unique possibilities time travel permits.

Yeah, that's a typo, but I still mean it for Gamespot.

Yeah, it's called Timesplitters. Now THAT series is pure fantasy fun! I especially still enjoy slapping a sticky bomb to someone's face and watch them run amok, blindly, trying to figure out how to get it off, then "BOOM" *splat* . Epic. The characters offer so much nice variation too, I just wish they'd release a "Timesplitters All-Stars" where they allow you to have all maps, weapons, characters, etc., and it's strictly multiplayer. That's some fairly endless, mindless fun right there!

Man I thought they stopped SG-U. I definitely going to have to see the remaining episodes.

Technically, the series has been terminated, but they're still airing the remaining episodes of the current season (3 IIRC).

Basically, this will be the last season of SG-U.


This is where the TV and Movie industries have me jaded as well...

It used to be that SciFi was all about Science Fiction, as-in, fictional stories with a scientific basis or plot-line.

Today, it seems SyFy is all about fantasy, and very little science. Besides the "Ghost Hunters" and the hoards of Vampire / Werewolf / Mutant stories, even the ones that at least had some SciFi promise like Eureeka are delving way too deep into fantasy. For example, Eureeka DoD researchers finding a way to store an entire large-size tent, complete with large-screen TV, Gaming Console, and of course a power source in a small little package that you simply press a button and it all just "pops up" and even the TV turns on automagically... excuse me while I hurl in my mouth.

Warehouse 13 is another show that had some Sci-Fi promise, and is WAY overloaded with fantasy.

The only show that currently exists on the SyFy network with it's feet firmly grounded in Science and not Fantasy is Stargate Universe, and despite having good ratings this past couple of seasons, even after they completely botched the marketing on it, they're killing it.

Personally I really enjoyed SG-U. I feel they marketed the "youth" aspect WAY too much, as it's actually a very adult-orientated series. Yeah, there's a couple of "kids" in there (college age), but they don't bang on the college drum and start doing the things that college age kids do in other shows.

I thought the cinematography was excellent, a vast improvement over the days of SG-1 and Atlantis. I also loved the music score (actual music!!!). It was grittier, more "in-your-face", and had some real deep moral and ethical dilemmas.

I do agree with some of the criticism that the show lacked most of the comedic relief of SG-1 and Atlantis, and it did always feel like they were on the loosing-side of things. It was by-and-large dark and they weren't having a good time overall.

Meh, I just hope the BBC doesn't screw over Doctor Who. Word is they just USA-ified Torchwood, for which I have little hope that the series will survive in the States. What's most depressing is that Torchwood was doing very well, but the BBC wasn't, and is having a bad financial crisis of it's own. It's now being produced by the STARZ network... Sad.

And if anyone doubts that good science fiction always gets the Axe, while fantasy and reality gets the dollars, I have just one word to say.. Firefly.

Dan O.

You might want to give Pioneer One a look.