When did this meme start? Considering my familiarity with old PC hardware, why do some people pretend that computers were always super imba master race gaming machines?
Let's see:
NES was better for gaming than the 80s IBM PC (which was weak in gaming even compared to ZX Spectrum) and pretty much every 8-bit computer.
SNES and Genesis had graphical effects and games that beat every computer except for the Amiga for a long time.
PS1 came out in 1994, and titles were still developed for it in mid-2000s. Find me a 1994 PC game that had graphics and sounds as good as PSX game. You are gonna find VGA games with hideously blocky sprites and raycasting. Polygons? Forgot about it. PS1 had hardware acceleration half a decade before it really became mainstream on PCs (Voodoo graphics on PC was much better, but almost every PC in the heyday of PS1 had crappy S3 cards). Hell, the Sega Saturn and 3DO that both came out before the PSX had 3D acceleration.
PS2 from 2000 is capable of playing GTA San Andreas and Need for Speed: Underground 2. Would an average 2000 PC even run these games playably? Probably not.
It is only the most recent generation of consoles that are more or less tie or even inferior to PCs in gaming. PCs can do many more tasks than just games but many PC gamers try to pretend that console games are inferior to PC ones.
And don't call me a "console fanboy", I have never owned a console in my life due to my disability (my crippled hands are way better suited to keyboard control), but I've seen enough of games on consoles of my friends and played enough of them in emulators to see that say, an average 1994 hardware PC game is very much technologically inferior to a PSX game. The gap is much bigger when comparing NES vs. pre-VGA PCs:
Contra NES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWMyoNhGHbk
Contra DOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YxE73gQNA
Mega Man NES:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slD8IzS5kOA
Mega Man DOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXvQQZwKE1I
So what's the PC fetish all about? Hell, some people even think that the PC was always a gaming platform, even through up until 1990 nobody would even think of buying a PC for gaming because most of the games were worse than budget ZX spectrum tape games and the system lacked any raster control or sprites or even attributes whatsover.
I even saw 1 person claim that every console game is on the PC in much higher quality. Does anyone have Crash Bendicoot for DOS? Oh no, because it would be a raycasted FPS with no ability to look down or up and it would lag on then "high end" 486s. Or maybe it would be like Quake, with software rendered early 3DO quality textures.
PCs only competed when they ran games which took advantage of a frame buffer vs a tilemap. Try running something like DOOM or Privateer on a vanilla SNES. Then you had the games which used a mouse instead of a joypad. Try to imagine playing something like Civ or Master of Orion with a joystick, you'd end up slowly moving a cursor around with the d-pad.
Also, Jazz Jackrabbit was really well done for the time. I didn't realize it until I looked back at what that game was doing compared with other games.
Dwedit wrote:
PCs only competed when they ran games which took advantage of a frame buffer vs a tilemap. Try running something like DOOM or Privateer on a vanilla SNES. Then you had the games which used a mouse instead of a joypad. Try to imagine playing something like Civ or Master of Orion with a joystick, you'd end up slowly moving a cursor around with the d-pad.
Also, Jazz Jackrabbit was really well done for the time. I didn't realize it until I looked back at what that game was doing compared with other games.
Well, yes. But SNES had a 3.58 Mhz 65c816 based processor and did Wolfenstein 3D without Super FX chips. And after SNES, consoles had the edge in 3D acceleration (Voodoo on the PC was much better than the PSX 3D acceleration HW, but came later and was non-standard).
And by the time of Doom 3DO and Sega Saturn were already out, being both capable of far better graphics than Doom (although their Doom ports were terrible because of lazy development). A while later came PS1, which had an enhanced version of Doom. Et cetera...
Also, SNES came out in 1990 in Japan. A typical 1990 PC is a beepy 286 EGA box, well, 286 if you are lucky, 8088/8086 if you are not.
Anyways I am not a console fan against PCs, just tired of the "PCs were always better" bullcrap. Until 1995, Amiga was the best of both worlds in my opinion - a multimedia computer utilizing some "consolish" technology (2D acceleration cca 7 years before first accelerator cards for the PC even appeared) while being a full-fledged computer.
And it would be a miracle if the Doom run on SNES vanilla, because on PC it needs at least a 40 Mhz 386. The 65c816 has a far better Mhz/performance ratio (the 3.58 mhz 65c816 is approximately equivalent to a 286) but it is still a primitive 16-bit CPU with a 8-bit bus going against a 32-bit powerhouse. And it still beats the DOS 386 PC in most 2D and mode 7 (DOS PCs don't have mode 7 at all) games.
My god the Mega Man DOS version really does look like shit.
Beeper wrote:
When did this meme start?
1986, when the first indie developer got rejected by Nintendo. It took several years for a few rejected developers to figure out the negative voltage trick.
Quote:
why do some people pretend that computers were always super imba master race gaming machines?
Even if they weren't, past tense, they are, present tense, because they're the only modern gaming machines for which a beginning developer is guaranteed to be able to self-publish.
Quote:
PS1 came out in 1994
In the
Harry Potter universe. In the real world it came out in 1995.
Quote:
So what's the PC fetish all about?
PC == free speech. Consoles == only big companies can speak. From
console developer qualifications: "Nintendo looks for companies that are established game developers [...] working from a secure business location [...] not located within a personal residence."
"The 65c816 has a far better Mhz/performance ratio"
...and it would've had an even better Mhz/performance ratio, if only developers didn't intentionally sabatoge their SNES games for the sole purpose of marketing the Genesis version to an older "hardcore gamer" audience, and marketing the SNES version to a "kiddy" audience, who wanted easier slower paced games.
That's the one thing about buying gaming hardware. (both PC and video game systems) System specs don't mean shit when stupid marketing politics get in the way of what kind of games they make on the system.
The SNES could've used a 500 khz Z80, and there wouldn't have been a difference.
Bregalad wrote:
My god the Mega Man DOS version really does look like shit.
The Simpsons Arcade port (!!!) looks decent. The color may be watered down but at least most of the animation is there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnz_kKeXpck
Apparently, Japan is Harry Potter universe, because the console there came out on 3rd of December of 1994. Stop trying being funny when you are wrong please.
And "free speech" in regards to video games has lead to the great videogame crash in 1983. In fact 1 of the main factors why NES susceeded was that Nintendo did not allow crap games to be released legally.\
The gamers I see doing odes to PC are not indie game players. Rather they spout bullshit about how the PS3 verson of Skyrim sucks compared to the PC one because some tetures are not as sharp pn PS3 with 256 MB RAM as on their 8 GB RAM PC, disregarding that a 256 MB RAM PC would not even install the game and then declare consoles shit and PC thhe eternal king of gaming.
Beeper wrote:
Apparently, Japan is Harry Potter universe, because the console there came out on 3rd of December of 1994. Stop trying being funny when you are wrong please.
I find this sentence hilarious. He's right, so how is he wrong?
Beeper wrote:
Hell, some people even think that the PC was always a gaming platform, even through up until 1990 nobody would even think of buying a PC for gaming because most of the games were worse than budget ZX spectrum tape games and the system lacked any raster control or sprites or even attributes whatsover.
Maybe in the US, but I'm fairly certain that the UK had massive computer game scene.
Dwedit wrote:
Also, Jazz Jackrabbit was really well done for the time. I didn't realize it until I looked back at what that game was doing compared with other games.
+1
Also, I really like text based adventure games, which naturally leads towards PC. Graphic adventure games, too.
Beeper wrote:
PS2 from 2000 is capable of playing GTA San Andreas and Need for Speed: Underground 2. Would an average 2000 PC even run these games playably? Probably not.
You can't say average PC because Consoles are not average either. They are very specialized hardware. PCs have had advantages over consoles for a long time. Consoles likewise have their own advantages over PCs.
You can certainly find a 2000 era PC CPU and GPU that would play those games fine. I'm not sure where you are getting this. Each platform has its strengths and weaknesses.
Beeper wrote:
Apparently, Japan is Harry Potter universe, because the console there came out on 3rd of December of 1994.
And in Japan, the NES is called a computer, a Family Computer to be specific. For the record, I was referring to
Dudley Dursley's PlayStation.
Quote:
And "free speech" in regards to video games has lead to the great videogame crash in 1983. In fact 1 of the main factors why NES susceeded was that Nintendo did not allow crap games to be released legally.
Then how were video game studios supposed to get started making not-crap games other than on PCs?
Quote:
The gamers I see doing odes to PC are not indie game players.
Then I'll take a guess that you don't read forums where people discuss the latest Humble Bundle.
Quote:
Rather they spout bullshit about how the PS3 verson of Skyrim sucks compared to the PC one because some tetures are not as sharp pn PS3 with 256 MB RAM as on their 8 GB RAM PC, disregarding that a 256 MB RAM PC would not even install the game
That has two reasons. First, the PS3 OS is much lighter weight than Windows. (I'm told the Xbox 360 OS is even lighter than that.) It'd be possible to make a stripped-down game operating system for PCs (see Windows Embedded), but PC gamers have an ingrained expectation that a game will be able to multitask with other applications running on the same PC. Second, consoles allow constructing display lists and textures directly in the GPU's preferred format instead of in an architecture-independent format that the driver must translate to the GPU's format.
tepples wrote:
Quote:
Rather they spout bullshit about how the PS3 verson of Skyrim sucks compared to the PC one because some tetures are not as sharp pn PS3 with 256 MB RAM as on their 8 GB RAM PC, disregarding that a 256 MB RAM PC would not even install the game
That has two reasons. First, the PS3 OS is much lighter weight than Windows. (I'm told the Xbox 360 OS is even lighter than that.) It'd be possible to make a stripped-down game operating system for PCs (see Windows Embedded), but PC gamers have an ingrained expectation that a game will be able to multitask with other applications running on the same PC. Second, consoles allow constructing display lists and textures directly in the GPU's preferred format instead of in an architecture-independent format that the driver must translate to the GPU's format.
And the fact that the PS3 version of skyrim does suck because when the "objects file" gets so big, the PS3's architecture breaks with how the Skyrim version for PS3 works and then drops to about 1 frame per minute of out nowhere with only one solution: delete your game. And best of all bethseda promised it won't ever be fixed. This problem doesn't exist on 360 or PC at all, so IMO that's a huge and valid reason for it "sucking." I have also heard both consoles have texture loading problems, oh well.
3gengames wrote:
Beeper wrote:
Apparently, Japan is Harry Potter universe, because the console there came out on 3rd of December of 1994. Stop trying being funny when you are wrong please.
I find this sentence hilarious. He's right, so how is he wrong?
Look up freaking wikipedia for god's sake. The PSX
did come out in 1994.
3gengames wrote:
tepples wrote:
Quote:
Rather they spout bullshit about how the PS3 verson of Skyrim sucks compared to the PC one because some tetures are not as sharp pn PS3 with 256 MB RAM as on their 8 GB RAM PC, disregarding that a 256 MB RAM PC would not even install the game
That has two reasons. First, the PS3 OS is much lighter weight than Windows. (I'm told the Xbox 360 OS is even lighter than that.) It'd be possible to make a stripped-down game operating system for PCs (see Windows Embedded), but PC gamers have an ingrained expectation that a game will be able to multitask with other applications running on the same PC. Second, consoles allow constructing display lists and textures directly in the GPU's preferred format instead of in an architecture-independent format that the driver must translate to the GPU's format.
And the fact that the PS3 version of skyrim does suck because when the "objects file" gets so big, the PS3's architecture breaks with how the Skyrim version for PS3 works and then drops to about 1 frame per minute of out nowhere with only one solution: delete your game. And best of all bethseda promised it won't ever be fixed. This problem doesn't exist on 360 or PC at all, so IMO that's a huge and valid reason for it "sucking." I have also heard both consoles have texture loading problems, oh well.
This was only a freaking EXAMPLE. Substitute Xbox 360 for PS3.
But I can't use
UnrealEd in conjunction with my Dreamcast.
They both have ups and downs.
Beeper wrote:
3gengames wrote:
Beeper wrote:
Apparently, Japan is Harry Potter universe, because the console there came out on 3rd of December of 1994. Stop trying being funny when you are wrong please.
I find this sentence hilarious. He's right, so how is he wrong?
Look up freaking wikipedia for god's sake. The PSX
did come out in 1994.
Yeah, but like he said, that was in japan, it didn't come out here until a year later. Did the NES come out in 1983 or 1985 to the US?
Well, in general, PC gaming is better than any other console, in my opinion of course. Here in Brazil, a game for X360 is R$200,00 but the PC version is R$99,00 (or less). In hardware terms, for a desktop PC, you can upgrade it.
I got a decent desktop PC, a Core i5, just need to buy a decent video board later to kick-ass.
In short words, the PC is cool, but doesn't replace or beat a good X360. ^_^;;
Dwedit wrote:
Also, Jazz Jackrabbit was really well done for the time. I didn't realize it until I looked back at what that game was doing compared with other games.
I agree, also, Prince of Persia 1 and 2 were very well done.
Zepper wrote:
Well, in general, PC gaming is better than any other console, in my opinion of course. Here in Brazil, a game for X360 is R$200,00 but the PC version is R$99,00 (or less). In hardware terms, for a desktop PC, you can upgrade it.
I got a decent desktop PC, a Core i5, just need to buy a decent video board later to kick-ass.
In short words, the PC is cool, but doesn't replace or beat a good X360. ^_^;;
Maybe today. But for most of PC history PC gaming was abysmal. I remember playing crap EGA games on my dad's DOS PC and envying my friends... who had cheap chinese Famiclones that were the most popular gaming device here in Slovakia in the 1990s. Even the Famicom's 54 colors were like true color compared to 16 garish colors and the 4 voice sound chip sounded like HD sound to me compared with the PC Speaker. Later, when some of my friends got Playstations, it looked like a pinnacle of gaming and graphics to me. Price was not an issue, all games, whatever it was PC or consoles, were pirated, considering the average wage at the time was below 300 dollars per month and almost total lack of official games distribution channels (at least for the Famiclones, PS1 games were sold officialy, but would take third the average wage of a person in that time to buy, so out of reach for most people). Upgrades? We had an old 1991 386 until the year 1999.
Anybody who ever had a DOS or a Windows 95 PC knows these things were total crap until Voodoo graphics came along. And yes, a very hi-end PC from 2000 might run GTA:SA. That is, for cca 20x the cost of a 2000 Playstation 2.
Cost by cost, consoles win totally in gaming.
A set of this generation's consoles cost around 1,250 USD at launch. Remember the
memetic "five hundred ninety-nine U.S. dollars"?
The only place where consoles are still clearly cheaper is in local multiplayer. Major PC game developers seem to have the mentality that nobody owns a USB gamepad or a monitor larger than 17 inches, and each player should need a separate PC, a separate monitor, and
most importantly a separate copy of the game.
Anyways, sorry folks if I am behaving too agressively, but...:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqYpnKRM ... re=related
Quote:
PC textures look 10x better, and although it wasn't shown in this video, the interiors on 360 look like absolute shit compared to my PC.
All hail glorious PC master race.
This is what I am talking about, not some folks who play indie games. THIS is what makes me wish we should lobotomize some people[/quote]
And people who complain about some textures badly loading on the consoles in Skyrim don't get what the TES series is about. PC gamers also blame the lack of levitation in Oblivion and Skyrim on "consoles holding teh glorious PC games down", except that the original Morrowind had levitation on both PC and the first Xbox. Ooops.
tepples wrote:
A set of this generation's consoles cost around 1,250 USD at launch. Remember the
memetic "five hundred ninety-nine U.S. dollars"?
The only place where consoles are still clearly cheaper is in local multiplayer. Major PC game developers seem to have the mentality that nobody owns a USB gamepad or a monitor larger than 17 inches, and each player should need a separate PC, a separate monitor, and
most importantly a separate copy of the game.
Typically people will buy only 1 console of the generation, especially when they are budget constrained. And this means that even if you bought all 3 consoles it would cost only about 2/3 of my single computer. My computer rocks, but it is a 8 GB 8 core monster that I wouldn't have if my family did not have such an above average income. And it still crashes all the time and fails to run some games due to stupid driver incompatibility. Xbox360 (that has 512 MB RAM) would run the games I have just as well as my PC, just with a bit blurrier textures and not as fast framerate. So? If I hadn't had such a good PC, and if I had hands suited for a gamepad I'd buy the console. I find the graphics of many NES games nice, I wouldn't care about some texture being a tiny bit blurrier, I am not a graphics wh**e who compares tiny differences in screenshots of Skyrim on retarded fanboy Youtube vids and then proceeds to declare SKYRIM LOOKS BETTER ON MY 3000 DOLLARS PC THAN ON THOSE POORFAG CONSOLES ALL HAIL THE MASTER PC GAMING RACE.
Yes, a PC can be better than a console by having 4x more cores and 16x more RAM. That is the only thing PCs were ever good at, throwing megahertz on a thing until it was solved, unlike all the 8-bits, non-PC 16-bits and the consoles that actually had to make a decent architecture instead of being a piece of shit that lags with the newest ICQ on 2 Ghz PCs even if the original ICQ version run on 486s.
And bugs in the PS3 version of Skyrim are there because Bethesda is known for releasing badly buggy software sometimes (the PC-only Daggerfall was so bugged that it was actually impossible to complete without a patch).
And to respond to the "but in THE US PS1 came out in 1995..." (is everything outside US "Harry Potter universe" for some folks?).
Whatever. USA is not closer to me than Japan. What matters is that it runs 3D games on 1994 hardware. It came out in Europe in 1995 too, but it is a Japanese console after all. In Nigeria, the PS2 came out in 2008, does that mean PS2 is 2008 hardware?
And if it is not clear, I am not calling tepples a graphics w... only those dumbasses who think masturbating over PC gaming while writing a modified Nazi comment on the internet makes them cool or whatever.
never-obsolete wrote:
But I can't use
UnrealEd in conjunction with my Dreamcast.
They both have ups and downs.
I agree.
Bregalad wrote:
My god the Mega Man DOS version really does look like shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDZ3hzwfAic
And this, dear folks, was what you got if you hadn't got an EGA or VGA card (expensive in that time).
Quote:
I remember playing crap EGA games on my dad's DOS PC and envying my friends... who had cheap chinese Famiclones that were the most popular gaming device here in Slovakia in the 1990s. Even the Famicom's 54 colors were like true color compared to 16 garish colors and the 4 voice sound chip sounded like HD sound to me compared with the PC Speaker. Later, when some of my friends got Playstations, it looked like a pinnacle of gaming and graphics to me. Price was not an issue, all games, whatever it was PC or consoles, were pirated, considering the average wage at the time was below 300 dollars per month and almost total lack of official games distribution channels (at least for the Famiclones, PS1 games were sold officialy, but would take third the average wage of a person in that time to buy, so out of reach for most people). Upgrades? We had an old 1991 386 until the year 1999.
Thanks for this explaination about how things went in your area during the 90s.
I guess in the early 90s your country was very hurt because of the communism so it make sense you had Famiclones like Russia and China.
It's fun how you mention you had pirated NES and PS1, but not any pirated SNES or Megadrive. Did they completely skip this generation ?
I remember I also had my dad's old 486 PC up to year 2003 or so. Good old times... (or not). You bet I played very old games with it, and the only emulator fast enough for it was Nesticle.
MD was heavily pirated, a lot of console clones and pirate carts were made. SNES piracy was very limited, I saw only one console clone, and not sure if I saw any pirate carts (or maybe they were pirated so well).
Quote:
Thanks for this explaination about how things went in your area during the 90s.
I guess in the early 90s your country was very hurt because of the communism so it make sense you had Famiclones like Russia and China.
It's fun how you mention you had pirated NES and PS1, but not any pirated SNES or Megadrive. Did they completely skip this generation ?
I remember I also had my dad's old 486 PC up to year 2003 or so. Good old times... (or not). You bet I played very old games with it, and the only emulator fast enough for it was Nesticle.
I wouldn't really blame communism that much. The situation here (from what I know from older people around me) was not like in 1980s Poland, Romania or USSR where the foreign currency deficit crisis hit the hardest. The people who came immediatly after it were much worse. For what I know from people older than me the 90s were a lot worse than the 80s. There was some gaming in the 80s too, mostly on ZX Spectrum (we had a ZX clone called Didaktik with 80 KB RAM but some people had the original ZX too), Atari XL and C64. Not many people had it through, imports were hard to get and domestic Didaktik computers were in demand by schools and other organizations. Almost everybody learned some IT at school (and of course they played games when the teacher was not paying attention or allowed them). There were also PMD-85 computers that almost every school had and was basically like ZX Spectrum, but monochrome (well, 4 colors really but most software was done in monochrome as color TVs were not much available) and using an Intel 8080 clone instead of Z80 (TESLA MHB 8080).
I think comparing the NES to the C64 would be more fitting.
But seeing as how the C64 is basically a console with a keyboard and some IO chips added.
I know the Amiga was originally suppose to be a game console too, but again, commodore turned it into a computer...
Didn't the C64 start out as a game machine, but commodore ended up making it a computer?
I think comparing NES to the 80s IBM PC is fair, considering early PC was supposed to be so much more powerful but yet it sucked. And C64 games beat most PC games well into the 286 era. Still, graphics amd CPU speed are much higher on the NES than the C64 so the NES wins this contest as well.
Yeah I guess the NES was the best until the Amiga and the Megadrive were released... but then the SNES eventually came out and kicked their asses
(this might be biased through).
Bregalad wrote:
Yeah I guess the NES was the best until the Amiga and the Megadrive were released... but then the SNES eventually came out and kicked their asses
(this might be biased through).
I think Amiga is better than SNES
There's no such thing as a generic PC, so their arguments are unfalsifiable and kind of pointless.
Maybe it's partly because PC-only gamers have little to argue or compare about with their equipment, except maybe graphics cards, so they just say "the PC will beat any of those any day".
Consoles were certainly better gaming devices than IBM PC compatibles before the early to mid 90s, considering before there were
no graphical acceleration options available for them at all. Plus DOS was basically a bad 8086 port of CP/M, the Japanese did far better computers based on the x86 architecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lefHUdcn ... re=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1thWKQEDcI
Presently, well, compare the gaming capabilities of a say Xbox 360 or PS3 to same priced PCs. Ridiculous PC fanboys always compare their 4000 dollar PCs to consoles. Compare a 140-250 dollar PC (same price as the non-S Xbox 360 now) to a 140-250 dollar Xbox 360 and you'll see what I mean.
Hell, I've encountered 2 Ghz computers - that barely run Warcraft 3 in 800x600 due to an "integrated" Intel graphics card (basically reducing a 2 Ghz computer to a 500 Mhz Pentium II). Call of Duty 1 lagged on those and they were ridiculously virus infected. Warcraft 3 run on my 1 Ghz Celeron machine I had half a decade ago perfectly, in high details and resolution.
All the underperformance of Intel's integrated GMA (Graphics My [censored]) proves is that an Intel CPU isn't the best choice for budget PC gamers. NVIDIA and ATI make better integrated graphics.
But what answer do PC fanboys have to the propensity of Windows to become "ridiculously virus infected" other than the console solution, which is to assume all homemade software is potentially a virus?
PCs run slower the older they get. This doesn't happen with video game consoles.
psycopathicteen wrote:
PCs run slower the older they get. This doesn't happen with video game consoles.
It's more of an OS issue. A clean OS reinstall is blazing fast comparing to before you make this move, usually.
psycopathicteen wrote:
PCs run slower the older they get. This doesn't happen with video game consoles.
Not if you take good care of them. My previous laptop lasted 4 years without requiring hard disk formatting, it was just as responsive as the day I configured it for the first time. My desktop computers don't usually last as long, I usually format them every year or so.
The trick is to use a sandbox or a virtual machine for everything that's potentially dangerous. Need to install a program you'll only use once (to convert a file or something)? Use the sand box or a virtual machine, and don't pollute your OS with any of the program's crap. Visiting porn sites? Sand box or virtual machine. Afraid that the keygen for some software you stole is infected? Sand box or virtual machine. That's always the answer... Only use the real machine for things that are tested and known to be safe and necessary.
Of course, in the early days of Windows Vista, Microsoft had to make that hard. Virtual PC wouldn't run on the home editions, and the original EULA of the home editions banned running them inside a virtual machine. I'll say Windows is secure once it makes it point-and-click easy to set up a jail for a single desktop application. But Microsoft appears to want to go in a different direction in Windows 8 with the Metro Style apps, analogous to the model for Xbox Live Indie Games and the iOS Developer Program, where each developer has to pay Microsoft an annual fee to run his own code on his own computer.
I believe it started with PC Gamer, "the #1 video games magazine", which always has been run by a bunch of jerks. They preached console inferiority like a doctrine: infallible and so self-evident that no evidence was necessary. They see themselves as in competition with the consoles, and as such they are gonna malign them as seriously as possible. Even today, the PC tends to be the place where the really experimental games, like McGee's Alice, find a place to shine. Also, PC games are mostly created for a completely different audience than the consoles, mostly due to different traditions in the East and West. Developers in the West could make money making JRPGs, just as devs in Japan could make AD&D clones if they wanted. But they don't.
tcaudilllg wrote:
I believe it started with PC Gamer, "the #1 video games magazine", which always has been run by a bunch of jerks. They preached console inferiority like a doctrine: infallible and so self-evident that no evidence was necessary. They see themselves as in competition with the consoles, and as such they are gonna malign them as seriously as possible. Even today, the PC tends to be the place where the really experimental games, like McGee's Alice, find a place to shine. Also, PC games are mostly created for a completely different audience than the consoles, mostly due to different traditions in the East and West. Developers in the West could make money making JRPGs, just as devs in Japan could make AD&D clones if they wanted. But they don't.
I can't stand people who beleive one system is 100x more powerful than it's main competition, just because they cherry pick the system's biggest advantage, and pretend like it's the most important part of the system.