Video game news, video game reviews, walkthroughs, video game mods, and game trailers

Activity Feed

Rank: Newbie

Status

Site Activity

Default-user Axe99
I'm not sure about this - Braid was around the first wave of _console_ indie titles, but small-team games had been and have been around forever (prior to the mid-1990s, almost all games were 'small team' anyways). Flower, a small-team, limited scope game based entirely on digital distribution was announced under development in 2007, following the success of that team's earlier, 2006 console title (not indie, as it was published by Sony, not unlike Braid being published by Microsoft, but most definitely the same model). Both Flow and Flower also had pretty short runtimes. Go over to PC or the Wii (Lost Winds, for example, released in May 2008, before Braid), and you'll see similar stories. Braid may have been a revelation if you only gamed on the Xbox 360, but if your gaming net was cast wider, it was just one amongst many in the early wave of console indie titles. Not to take away from its creativity or vision, but console indie titles were happening before Braid launched (or was announced), and continued afterwards. It's in the first wave, sure, but it wasn't first, nor was it the most successful, so singling it out ahead of the rest of the first 'indie' console wave seems a little strange. Indeed, picking a title that launched on Xbox 360 seems even stranger, as there were technically no indie titles outside of XBLIG on XBL - they _all_ required publishers last gen ;). Braid didn't push Valve or Sony to create their policies of allowing indies, there were already self-published indies on Steam and the PSN _before_ Braid launched ;). It also didn't change Microsoft's approach, even though much of its success was based on XBLA sales.
Default-user Axe99
Nice one - good luck with the redesign, site looks and runs well otherwise, from what I can see, some good stuff here, somewhat one-eyed PC articles aside ;).
Default-user Axe99
Haha - comments system badly needs to support paragraphs ;). Anyways, going into next gen I'd support going a PC and Playstation 4 based on what we know, but clearly revise that depending on the Xbox launch. But if they stick with their poxy controller, and don't provide indie support or a range of exclusive games, then it looks like PC and PS4 are the way to go, _unless_ you're a big fan of Ninty first-party, in which case PC and Wii U.
Default-user Axe99
Ye gads - so many issues with this article. Coming from a PC, PS3 and 360 gamer (and I've given the Wii a run, but it wasn't my thing). PC is an i7 3770 @ 3.5Ghz with 16GB DDR3, and a GTX 660 with 1.5GB GDDR5: - Backwards compatibility is _not_ a breeze. Yes, you can get almost anything to work, but it will often take time and effort. I recently fired up 'The Witcher' (excellent game imo, a game with real PC roots, rather than the console game on PC option that most PC gamers go for) - took an hour of fiddling around with various compatibility options and restarts to get it working. I was originally planning to play The Witcher 2 on PC, but now if I find a cheap version on 360 I'll play it there, because I know it will work without extra work. This is not an isolated incident either - Gary Grigsby's World at War won't save, so you have to play through the 5-6 hour game in one hit, Mass Effect needed an obscure downloadable to run (3 hours of forum searching to find), Metro 2033 fell over the first time it tried to run. All were fine (World at War aside) once the issues were sorted, but backwards compatibility is a horrible, bollocksed-up mess. If you're not sure, just go to the tech issues thread of _any_ PC game - not only are there issues, but there are so many different issues it can take a while to work out which specific problem you have. - it looks better does it? Yes, it does on my GTX 660, but on my old GTX 550 and anything earlier it looked as good or worse. Have a gander at the Steam hardware survey - sub GTX 550 cards are far more common than GTX 660s and their ilk. _Most_ PC gamers play on machines that are below PS3/360 in actual performance, and if they want better, they'll need to spend a few hundred dollars to upgrade (as they'll likely need a new PSU to go with that new graphics card, and probably some new RAM as well). - Games are not always cheaper on Steam. Right here, right now, Darksiders 1 and 2, and Assassin's Creed: Revelations are cheaper on the PSN, which also has regular sales with 30-75% off. PSN isn't quite as good as Steam yet, but it's damn close, and getting closer all the time. Throw in something like PS+, and I personally get just as good a deal on PSN as I do on Steam. Another thing to note is that a lot of those 'just a few dollar' games on Steam are half-a-decade or more old, or indie games that originally retailed for $10. You can get deals like that elsewhere as well. - You really, truly think the Xbox controller is perfect? Have you played any games that use the d-pad? I'd wager the answer is no, because it's a mess! Combine that with the assumption that people using the controller have one arm longer than the other (or a deformed left/right hand) - that, or they assume people will sit assymetrically, which is bad for your posture and back health, and I'd say the author doesn't have a lot of experience with that controller, nor OH & S. Fortunately, better gamepads are available for PC :). And the 360 ;). - You get more constant internet connection required games on PC than any current or announced next-gen platform. Not quite sure what your point is here. I look forward to playing Diablo 3 on PS4 - where I won't need an internet connection. I've boycotted SimCity on PC, just because of that. Other than all of the points above, the big thing that'll hold back PC gaming is the cost and technical knowledge required. PC gamers always talk about the cost of PC components, not pre-built units - strangely enough, comparing the cost of something that's been put together with the price of its components is _not_ a fair comparison. Your average console gamer has to research to find which components are appropriate (eg; does my motherboard have the right PC-I interface? is my PSU going to be up to the task?), then put the thing together - all of which take time, and for gamers with a job and family (average gamer age is 30+ now kids ;)), time is money. A $500 pre-assembled console is _not_ the equivalent of $500 of parts in a list on the internet. That, and for many PC gamers (again, I'll reference the Steam hardware survey), they'll need to upgrade far more than their graphics card - they'll need a new motherboard, chip and RAM, not to mention PSU (and, likely after all this, case). More work, and more expense. If the PS3 struggled at $600, how do you think PCs will go at $1000-$1500 for the same performance? Finally, there's the install base. PC-only gamers go on about the hundreds of millions of PC gamers, but Steams member base is still below that of either the PS3 or 360, after a longer period on the market and with a much lower cost of entry (a few MBs of download, as opposed to a few hundred dollars of hardware purchase). There's a reason the PC has almost no AAA exclusives - it's because PC's install base of paying customers isn't large enough, and hasn't been since the internet led to widespread piracy in the late 1990s (I was there, lamenting while I watched PC gaming eat itself). Combine that with consoles (Playstation and Nintendo in particular) having numerous high-quality exclusives, and going PC-only means you're missing out.
Show Older Activity