Oh boy guys

Yet another previously PC EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE moved to console. Sid was one of the last people I expected to sell out to the lazy 13 year old console playing moron market, but it finally happened.

Loyalty means zero when it comes to making a quick buck. Thank god there are still a FEW developers out there with the foresight to realize that not every single lazy American kid will be glued to the console and that the pc market is worthless.

Hey, wanna make civilzation for console? sure. great. Let those morons enjoy a civ game finally. But hey, who got the awesome idea to make it exclusive to console? Smart thinking. Not only do you alienate your ENTIRE pc fan base, you create a new generation of lazy civ fans that will continue to expect console garbage instead of what civilization has come to be known for.

Who's the rocket scientist that decided to keep a previously pc exclusive game OFF the pc, especially when Sid is quoted as saying "this is the game I've been dying to make". You've been dying to make a steaming pile of console filth that runs your franchise fanbase into the ground? Grats then, you've done it.

You want to take advantage of cutting edge graphics and performance that next gen consoles offer? Pfft. My PC trashes any console that has ever exsisted, and will continue to do so without breaking a sweat. XBOX360 and PS3 graphics are a joke. Console technology will NEVER even get within an eyeshot of PC.

So the only reason left to make a game console exclusive is money. Simple programming + even simpler marketing (the 6-13 year old crowd isn't tough to convince) = easy money.

The day I buy another game by Sid is the day I buy a Mac, start driving a hybrid, and start listening to fallout boy.

Did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or are you being particularly obtuse?

You do realize that Civ2 was also made for the console? And that this game is explicitly intended to attract new players to Civ? That the franchise isn't moving to the console? That this is not Civ5, and Civ5 will be out, for the PC, at a later date?

Fanboy, first of all I'm 13 and I'm NOT a lazy 13 year old console playing moron. I don't even own a console nor do I want to. Try do some research before you say such an idiotic dumb thing.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Secondly, I HATE fallout boy.

I'm guessing you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, then a monkey stole your wallet, then you stepped on a nail, then found out you just went bankrupt.

All before you had breakfast.:lol: :lol:

(CivII was ported to the console but not very well (the one Civ-series console port I've played no less).)

Did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or are you being particularly obtuse?

You do realize that... this game is explicitly intended to attract new players to Civ? That the franchise isn't moving to the console? That this is not Civ5, and Civ5 will be out, for the PC, at a later date?
What he said.

Sid was one of the last people I expected to sell out to the lazy 13 year old console playing moron market, but it finally happened.



SO us console gamers are lazy 13 year olds? huh!? . Better hope we never meet on the street or i''ll knock somthin hard into ya.

People need to calm down. This is actually good news. The game will attract more people to the franchise, and honestly, Civ 5 will still be a PC game. They'd be crazy to not design it around the PC.

There is more money (I find) in the whole console industry from gaming and game creation, but Civ 5 will definitely be a PC only title. It seems strange that we would get a Civ 5 on the number of consoles around a year or so after Revolutions.

Personally, bringing attention to the game, as well as Turn-Based Strategy, is brilliant, and will be buying it for either the DS or Xbox 360.

They'd be crazy to not design it around the PC.

You know it, I know it, and, most importantly, Firaxis knows it. ;)

Civ5 will be a PC game.

wow...why assume that CivRev will be bad?

I got hooked up Civilization because the original was available on the Super Nintendo...it was awesome, and turned on my love of strategy games. Who's to say that won't happen to countless 9-15 year olds when they play it? Sure it might be 'strategy-lite,'(although I doubt the strategy will be dumbed down at all) but that will draw in more people, get them interested, and then increase the fanbase for the PC versions as well...plus strategy-lite games can be very fun and satisfying as well.

I just want to know what the achievements will be :)

Dont hate consoles, i got learned to love civ playing civ2 on play station.

and the real reason i posted, Padma you and andy from shawshank redemption are the only people i know who say obtuse.

Hey bro, This Ain't a Scene, it's an Arms Race.

You act as if it is Dead on Arrival, but they are not Reinventing the Wheel to Run Themselves over. I mean, Sugar, Were Going Down to the consoles, but not forever. Sid isn't saying Thanks for The Memories to the PC, cause for Civ 5 he will say The Take Over, the Breaks Over and come back to PC. We'll all be like Hum, Hallelujah and everything will be Golden.

Wow, 8 Fallout Boy songs in one post.

He says his PC can trash any console ever made, well MOST PC's CAN'T do that. YOu have to pay like more than 2000$ if you want that good of one.;)

Wow, 8 Fallout Boy songs in one post.

Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but I hate you. (Well, not YOU, just Fallout Boy).

:D:D






:rolleyes:

you don't like fallout boy!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't either!!!!!!!!!

you notice fanboy never posted since.... he hasn't even been on since.......

*Cough*

Oops. I didn't mean to offend anyone! :P

I wasn't offended at all! I HATE fallout boy!

I admit i was slightly disappointed that its console exclusive but im sure they'll release a game for the pc next year

of course you can do it my way and be a console and pc user

Civ V will be for the PC.

This is just another game

Sid was one of the last people I expected to sell out to the lazy 13 year old console playing moron market, but it finally happened.
Didn't Sid "sell out" the day he started producing commercially retailed games? Isn't the very goal of selling a game selling out? ? Isn't it true that you are, in fact, using terms that you don't really understand? :rolleyes:

Civ a PC EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE? It is? when was this? dam then that game civilization 2 I played years back on the playstation 1 (and still have) wasn't really a civilization game at all... and just think if it wasn't for that game I wouldn't have gone and got civ1-3-4 hell I would still be playing grand theft auto... most gamers own a good pc and one or more games console, even most kids have a pc and a console or 2 in there home,

Ok were all p*#@ed that its not on the Pc but hey we can mod civ4 bet they can't.. or if they can then no where near the level we pc gamers can.

Also I don't think Sid has ever "sold out" just because one game hasn't come out for the pc if he had "sold out" then why would he have his name on each and every civ game? why would he put so much into something he cares less about? I think you should chill... its not like they put civ5 as a console only game... that would put the company in a bad way... Molotov cocktail anyone ;) lol

Play games, not systems.

I've enjoyed Civ for years (since the 2nd one), and plan on enjoying it from the comfy confines of my EZ chair on my 51" HD when it's out for my 360.

Some of us are well beyond 13 yo. and will never stop enjoying playing games regardless of the platform they are developed on.

(did not read through this entire thread, just responding to the OP ...)

I don't consider myself a brain-dead console player. I enjoy various platforms for game playing. Started with the ol' Atari 2600 when I was a pup, later gravitated to a Vic 20 & Apple ][e back in the day.

Fast-forward a few decades, and now I have a custom built PC that is smokin', and a PS3. The PS3 plays on a 1080p 46" 120Hz HD widescreen. Graphics are great & fluid btw.

Different strokes for different folks. Your mileage may vary, and you definitely carry a heavy-handed stereotype for the average demographic of console players, but I would suggest you open your eyes and broaden your horizons a bit. They're not all dead-brain 13 year olds, though those certainly exist as well as every other possible combo.

Late 30's here, and I'm looking forward to a Civ game on the PS3. I'll be the first in line buying it. Add me to the list of people who view Civ Rev as a positive thing.

Thanks to CFC for following this, Padma for traveling to Firaxis and providing us a report, and Sid for developing it :goodjob:

Firaxis sold out. It was bound to happen.

At least Paradox Interative still makes games 'that they want to play' instead of selling out and dumbing down a great IP so they can churn out a few extra bucks and jump into the console war.

Why oh why did Sid cancel the Wii version? He has a Wii in his office.

Why oh why did Sid cancel the Wii version? He has a Wii in his office.
It just delayed isn't it? Anyway, I believe that it was too demanding to be working on 4 systems at once.

Indefinite hold. That's code for "canceled unless the other ones make tons of money and there's still interest".

The reason why console games are better is because you don't have to worry about crashes, bugs, installation, or disk space; just pick them up and play! Although I still haven't FORGOT about the PC, but now I'm stuck playing junk like Command and Conquer: Generals.

The reason why console games are better is because you don't have to worry about crashes, bugs, installation, or disk space; just pick them up and play!

This is mostly true. There are exceptions of course. While developing for consoles has its own set of headaches, only having to deal with a few fixed well-defined configurations makes for much more stable code.

Call me crazy, but I'm looking foward to CivRev. Looks good. I'll be playing it on the XBox360

Why did he cancel the Wii version!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Firaxis doesn't have enough people to work on that many different versions of the game at once. They are a tiny little division of Take-Two.

I'm personally hoping that the PC will die out as the primary mode of gaming, and that consoles will someday soon support modding. PCs are too effing expensive, and there are too many conflicts with differing standards, hardware, applications, and just general compatibility issues for them to be an efficient, effective gaming platform.

As was mentioned several times in the previews, Firaxis can do so much more because they no longer have to worry about people with a low end computer, whether it will have to support DX9 and 10, whether it will be compatible with a wide range of ATI and NVIDIA cards, and whether nor not everyone has effing TNL.

So, yeah, PCs can go eff themselves in the face. Give me a nice console with a single standard that developers can go crazy with, and find a way to allow us to make mods with it -- most likely with a program downloaded to the PC and activated with a registration key of some kind.

Plus, I love my couch, my TV, and the camaraderie to be had sitting around with friends and playing there. Consoles are inherently inclusive, set as they are in the living room and generally supporting single system multiplayer, while PCs are generally exclusive systems, set up in offices or small rooms, without support for single system multiplayer... unless devs started adding in hotseat modes to games again.

I'm very happy about CivR. I had to stop playing Civ4 (I played it only a fraction of all other Civ editions) because my laptop (made for businesses) took too long between turns during the later years. And, the graphics look much much better.

I'm personally hoping that the PC will die out as the primary mode of gaming, and that consoles will someday soon support modding. PCs are too effing expensive, and there are too many conflicts with differing standards, hardware, applications, and just general compatibility issues for them to be an efficient, effective gaming platform.

As was mentioned several times in the previews, Firaxis can do so much more because they no longer have to worry about people with a low end computer, whether it will have to support DX9 and 10, whether it will be compatible with a wide range of ATI and NVIDIA cards, and whether nor not everyone has effing TNL.
Consoles also has their disadvantages. As for one (as you noted about mods) Sony, Big N, Microsoft totally rules their consoles so all mods, patches ,etc has to go through them. Thus PC gives gamers a lot more power to mod ( even fix some games) than consoles do. With a console game if there something you like to change you can forget it.
As for playing on the couch , No problem as I got a 15' HDMI cable and connect it to my 42" HDTV.

I'm very happy about CivR. I had to stop playing Civ4 (I played it only a fraction of all other Civ editions) because my laptop (made for businesses) took too long between turns during the later years. And, the graphics look much much better.

On my laptop Civ4 can be played with full detail and no slow down. In this case, the problem is your hardware, not the software. If you want a PC for gaming, buy that.

Having said that, I'm getting the DS version (and the graphics will look much worse than my PC version).

Let's also not forget about the Original Civ (Civ1) was also ported to SNES :p.

Civ2 was ported to SNES. ;)

Looks like CG just phailed on the Civ/SNES trivia. =P

Anyway, I don't get what the big deal is. If anything, the OP should be glad that consoles will get some Civ greatness once again.

...and maybe convince them to come to the light side and play Civ on the PC.

Well, personally, civ + achievements = pretty cool. Although I've NEVER liked any RTS/TBS on a console.

Actually, that would be interesting.

What do you think the 1000 achievement points are going to be?

I haven't the slightest clue. Probably winning each victory condition at least once or 5 times, then winning games on certain difficulty levels...

I kinda agree with the OP, but I certainly hesitate to use such harsh words directed at Firaxis. I have to admit that I am disappointed with the fact that Civ Revolution is a console-exclusive because I don't own any consoles, just my awesome PC right here. I could see someone responding to this post by saying something along the lines of "Why don't you go and buy one then?", to which I would say: I'm only 15 years old. I don't have the income to be able to purchase a $400 (or more) system. I'm still dependent on my parents for most of my things, and because I'm not spoiled, I can't just go and ask "Hey, Mom, I would really like an Xbox 360 or PS3 right now". The only reason I have a rocking PC is because I share it with my parents. They would have no real use for a console (they mainly use the computer for e-mail and internet), so they don't want to spend a ton of money on one.

I think that instead of making it console-exclusive, Firaxis should have developed it for PC AND those consoles. I understand that's easier said than done and that it would be like developing for 4 platfoms at once; but honestly, they would still get the new market of console gamers while retaining their tried-and-true demographic of PC gamers at the same time. It would make more people happy, and they would make more money.

Of course, I know that at this point nothing can change and that Civ Revolution is going to be console-exclusive. I still eagerly anticipate Civ V, but do we even have a confirmation on that yet? Sorry if I've been a little out of the loop, I've taken a break from Civ for a while.

In response to Aeon221, that is the biggest load of cheese I've ever heard. PCs are so expensive because they're so versatile. No console could ever compare with the PC for the sheer amount of customisation and variety of programs and games. The graphics on PCs are still dominating as well. Have you ever taken a look at Crysis before? Yeah, there you go. Also, in the middle of all this "effing" (especially in the face, apparently), when do you plan on trying to argue with the maturity of someone over the age of 10? The way I see it, you seem like an intelligent person, but you just can't quite make it past the line of maturity. For the record, your statement is impossible anyway, PC's don't have reproductive organs, hence they can't have intercourse with themselves...especially in the face. I can see someone responding at this point with a comment about male and female ports on a computer and its peripherals, but really, those aren't reproductive organs in any way, shape, or form; it's just a way to differentiate between the prongs and the holes that they go in on connectors.

Well this has been a long-winded post, but I really felt the need to get all of this out there. Don't get me wrong, I love Firaxis and all their games, but I really think they could have done a better job on planning for Civ Revolution.

the thing is..... you can only play crysis well if you have a near top-of-the-line computer, and those cost more than 1000 dollars.....I don't have that kind of money sadly......

Thor's Hammer, I plan on playing CivRev on my DS (which is not a $400 console). I have it on good authority that the main difference between that version and the 360 version is that the graphics are simpler. It also has the advantage of being able to be put in a pocket and toted anywhere.

CivRev is not Civ V. Everything I've read on it leads me to believe that it is a simpler, lighter game that the current Civ series on the PC. If it were to be released on the PC some might think that CivRev is the next in the series (V) and see it as a major step backwards (as most people expect Civ V (when it eventually ships) to be even more complex and deeper than Civ IV which CivRev will not be).

You carry a good point, warpstorm. I suppose I'm just upset to be left out of this whole thing. And yes, I just looked up the price of a DS and it's only $140 or so. I hope I didn't come off as a jerk in my previous post, I'm was just trying to defend my gaming platform.

Crysis doesn't require too beastly of a computer to run. To run WELL, yes, it requires a powerful computer. This computer that I have here was around $1000CAD (back in December) and it runs Crysis pretty much as smooth as butter at nearly maxed out graphics. So to run it at lower settings I'm sure it wouldn't be all that costly. Sorry to hear that your computer can't run it though...that really sucks. The point of me mentioning Crysis though wasn't "Go and play Crysis", it was just to cement the fact that PCs still have more impressive graphics than consoles, mainly due to the possibilities of the hardware on a PC.

From what I've read I interpreted the same as you; that the game is simpler, perhaps more streamlined and easy to pick up than a regular Civ game. I guess I'll just miss out on this one, hope you guys have fun. So does anyone know if Civ V has even been mentioned by Firaxis yet?

Question- if CivRev didn't carry the "Civilization" brand, would people be making this complaint?

Question- if CivRev didn't carry the "Civilization" brand, would people be making this complaint?


They'd be making a different complaint :

"ZOMG CIV CLONE!!!1!!1!!!11!!!"

I'm very happy about CivR. I had to stop playing Civ4 (I played it only a fraction of all other Civ editions) because my laptop (made for businesses) took too long between turns during the later years. And, the graphics look much much better.

Same here. I might get a new computer to run it faster (and to play games such as World in Conflict and Medieval II: Total War).

@Padma: Civ1 was ported to the SNES, but Civ2 was ported to the PSX.

Well, personally, civ + achievements = pretty cool. Although I've NEVER liked any RTS/TBS on a console.

Does that include Advance Wars?

Does that include Advance Wars?

I like Advance Wars. It's a refreshing little game. Lots of tactics in its combat system.

Does that include Advance Wars?

I didn't mean handhelds when I said consoles. Perhaps I should have clarified. AW is pretty good.

What about Fire Emblem?

See above.

I meant the Fire Emblem games on the home consoles, not the GBA!

I'd just like to say as a loyal pc gamer that has seen some of my favourite titles ruined by a shift to consol (don't get me started on Call of Duty) I was delighted to hear Civ was coming to the DS. I luv playing Civ IV and would like to play it during my lunch hours at work but I can't install it on my works pc and I'm not buying a laptop just to play Civ (yes I did think about it).
I currently spend some lunch hours with friends playing multiplay DS games over a coffee, now we can do Civ I think I just died and went to heaven.

Civ Revolution appears to be a cut down version of Civ IV so if anything the consol gamers are losing out not us, I'm sure there will be a Civ V and I look forward to it :goodjob:

I meant the Fire Emblem games on the home consoles, not the GBA!

Never owned. Didn't even take notice of them; the only Fire Emblem game I know of that was released to the states was for the GBA. Don't have a row about that, now.

Path of Radiance was on the GameCube and Radiant Dawn was on the Wii.

and they were both pretty similar to the GBA games, just different story/characters, and sweet graphics :) Fire Emblem games are awesome, and the early ones should be translated to english and released on the Wii Virtual Console!(*goes off muttering about the need for FE and Earthbound on the VC...)

I think that the achievements for the 360 version of CivRev will make it amazing for me...it might be the first game I'm able to hit 100% achievements on.

The original Fire Emblem will be included in the Masterpieces mode in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and it will also be remade for the Nintendo DS this year.

But you know what I'd like to play? Well, here are some silly names for strategy games I came up with.

Shining Force DS. Hey, Sega IS getting into the RPG craze on the DS with Sonic Chronices (made by the creators of hits such as Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Neverwinter Nights, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect). I'd like to play a Shining Force game, which is basically Sega's equivalent of the Fire Emblem series.

Grim Fandango: Live and Learn. This would be an action adventure game very similar to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, except that it would have some gameplay changing sequences, such as some FPS and TBS ones. Oh, and doesn't everybody think that Grim Fandango deserves a sequel?

The Legend of Zelda: Meteor Madness. VERY UNLIKELY, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT I DREAMED THAT BLIZZARD OR FIRAXIS OR VALVE WOULD BE MAKING THIS. Basicall, some meteors crash harboring an alien race that quickly takes over the world. And maybe there could be some FPS sequences using the Half-Life 2 engine?

Metroid: The Wrath of Khan. ONCE AGAIN, IMAGINED THAT BLIZZARD OR FIRAXIS OR VALVE WOULD BE MAKING THIS. The storyline could be that Samus Aran has long since died, with her son, Hannibal Aran, walking the desolate footsteps of a colony. Then the great Khan attacks his home planet, and he is enlisted to help him push the great Khan back. Once again, mostly TBS and FPS sequences.

The original Fire Emblem will be included in the Masterpieces mode in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and it will also be remade for the Nintendo DS this year.

But you know what I'd like to play? Well, here are some silly names for strategy games I came up with.

Shining Force DS. Hey, Sega IS getting into the RPG craze on the DS with Sonic Chronices (made by the creators of hits such as Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Neverwinter Nights, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect). I'd like to play a Shining Force game, which is basically Sega's equivalent of the Fire Emblem series.

Grim Fandango: Live and Learn. This would be an action adventure game very similar to The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, except that it would have some gameplay changing sequences, such as some FPS and TBS ones. Oh, and doesn't everybody think that Grim Fandango deserves a sequel?

The Legend of Zelda: Meteor Madness. VERY UNLIKELY, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT I DREAMED THAT BLIZZARD OR FIRAXIS OR VALVE WOULD BE MAKING THIS. Basicall, some meteors crash harboring an alien race that quickly takes over the world. And maybe there could be some FPS sequences using the Half-Life 2 engine?

Metroid: The Wrath of Khan. ONCE AGAIN, IMAGINED THAT BLIZZARD OR FIRAXIS OR VALVE WOULD BE MAKING THIS. The storyline could be that Samus Aran has long since died, with her son, Hannibal Aran, walking the desolate footsteps of a colony. Then the great Khan attacks his home planet, and he is enlisted to help him push the great Khan back. Once again, mostly TBS and FPS sequences.

Mass Effect is pure gold. I didn't know Sega could publish Bioware games as well. Probably won't be made by the same team, given the number of other projects they have listed as well. Then again, they own..

Sega isn't doing those games listed after Shining Force DS, BioWare is, the reason they are listed is because Sega is letting someone else work on the Sonic RPG :eek:

I didn't necessarily say that SEGA was going to do them. I just said that they are some games that I would like to see pop up.

Although you do have to agree with me that Grim Fandango REALLY deserves a sequel.

Sega isn't doing those games listed after Shining Force DS, BioWare is, the reason they are listed is because Sega is letting someone else work on the Sonic RPG :eek:

Yep, fixed my post above. It didn't come out the way it was supposed to. I know Bioware is developing it.

I never played Grim Fandango, but supposedly it's pretty good.

I tried playing but didn't really like it.......at all....

ah, well Sega isn't gonna be publishing anything else from BioWare, and Microsoft will only be publishing the future Mass Effect games...everything else will be published by EA...the company that may be publishing Civilization V, if things turn out how it looks like it will.

I tried playing but didn't really like it.......at all....

Is it that you don't like Adventure games? Why didn't you like Grim Fandango, anyway?

Idk.....I just like mario or zelda or star wars games better.....

zelda is adventure(well, action/adventure) :)

I actually never played grim fandango...my entire experience of adventure games is Bone From Boneville and Sam and Max.

Then you missed the best adventure game ever.

maybe they'll remake it for the Wii :) seems a perfect console for adventure games(and Sam and Max is being ported over!)

I could see that. The Wii controls would work well for the old-style adventure games.

I don't feel as hot about it as ConsoleFanBoy, but I find myself wondering how could Civ be as good on a console as on a PC. I started playing with Civ 3 on Mac and switched to PC...never played Civ 2 much and never at all on a console. So I admit I don't understand how Civ translates to a console. I haven't played anything on a console since early Nintendo, and for a couple of hours lately on my nephew's Wii (bowling). So I don't feel hostile to Civ Rev but more skeptical and at the end of the day indifferent. I probably won't buy Civ Rev because I'm not interested in buying a console (except maybe Wii 'cause bowling was fun). So more power to those who think Civ Rev will capture a new market for Civ. I'm already hooked and will continue to play, most likely exclusively, on PC...unless in a future forum PC players start raving about how great it is to play Civ Rev.

.... So more power to those who think Civ Rev will capture a new market for Civ. I'm already hooked and will continue to play, most likely exclusively, on PC...unless in a future forum PC players start raving about how great it is to play Civ Rev. This is probably one reason why Civ Rev isn't coming out for the PC since those who already a civ fan (as well a PC gamer) will not be too impress with playing Civ-lite compared to civ3 or/and civ4. While I can see Rev being fun to play when you just want to finish a game in a few hours ( multiplayer), I seriously doubt I'll be playing Rev. more than any of the other PC civ games.

I doubt I will play CivRev more than PC Civ, but just think: CivRev on the DS = Civ anywhere! :D I can play Civ even when I'm not at home in front of my PC!

Plus, CivRev was very fun to play. As I said in my Preview thread, that day at Firaxis playing CivRev was the most fun I've had in years!

I'm also a PC Civ player, but with the grim look at the selection of PC games these days I decided to go for my first console since the Nintendo 64. I think its just good that they go for a console version that is very different. Then it will be more likely that Civ 5 will be more optimal, revolutionary and fun. After the release of CivRev they will see what new features really work, and they can take this knowledge with them when making Civ5. Its easy to get stuck doing the same thing with new graphics and charging you full price for it, and we dont want that.

What do you guys have against Console gamers?

I enjoy shooting people on my Xbox, I'm not lazy, or a moron. Halo, Call of Duty,ect. arn't bad games, and sure they don't require much thinking like Civ, but they're still tons of fun.

This little predujice against Consoles here is starting to make me mad.

What do you guys have against Console gamers?

I enjoy shooting people on my Xbox, I'm not lazy, or a moron. Halo, Call of Duty,ect. arn't bad games, and sure they don't require much thinking like Civ, but they're still tons of fun.

This little predujice against Consoles here is starting to make me mad.

I agree. The only people who have something against consoles are people who are not owning them on their own. The trend we see today is that consoles are becoming more and more like PCs in terms of hardware.

How do console haters justify their opinion that console players are 13-year-old idiots who can't think for themselves when clearly there are lots of people like me who have played advanced PC-games like Civ and other classics since the 80's and today have both the PC and a console? I don't feel like a 13-year-old idiot at least :)

It is also quite funny how you can actually go as far as getting annoyed of people playing the typical console games. What is wrong with them? Why should you get pissed off that people find a game they like. It's not like every console game takes a couple of days to master if that is your complaint, its far from that.

What I've seen on several forums is that the sole reason for the console hating is jealousy because the PC isn't getting all the titles that the consoles get. Also the jealousy that a company a player likes spends time making games that this person cannot utilize is also a factor for hating the game, and then instead of saying "damn I wish they made a game for PC instead so that I could play it" people start coming up with ridiculous reasons why they should not make it for the console by throwing tomatoes at the console players claiming they are dumb. Can't people see this? :)

I've never understood the abuse some people direct at those they consider inferior on forums. I have 2 consoles, 1DS, 3 pcs and 1 laptop in my house. The kids use the Ps2, the family play the Wii for family fun, I play the pc for serious online gaming and take my DS to work for lunch time gaming with my buddies over coffee. I use them to suit my needs.

Whilst its true certain developers have ruined good games by switching the focus to consoles (Call of Duty 2 springs to mind), I can't see a similarity to civ. After all the console users get a cut down version of what we pc gamers already have, how does that hurt us? If this goes down the road of console targeted development for future games then fair enough we have an issue, but for now the console gamers are the poor cousins who get a taste of the full fat goodness that we pc gamers have had for ages.

At this point in time its a win win for me.

I've never understood the abuse some people direct at those they consider inferior on forums. I have 2 consoles, 1DS, 3 pcs and 1 laptop in my house. The kids use the Ps2, the family play the Wii for family fun, I play the pc for serious online gaming and take my DS to work for lunch time gaming with my buddies over coffee. I use them to suit my needs.

Whilst its true certain developers have ruined good games by switching the focus to consoles (Call of Duty 2 springs to mind), I can't see a similarity to civ. After all the console users get a cut down version of what we pc gamers already have, how does that hurt us? If this goes down the road of console targeted development for future games then fair enough we have an issue, but for now the console gamers are the poor cousins who get a taste of the full fat goodness that we pc gamers have had for ages.

At this point in time its a win win for me.

I wouldn't call it a cut down version because I feel like the developers that it is another type of game but I understand what you mean, it lacks features that for example civ4 had that I think we all like. I also understand the fear some have that the game would branch off into another direction and becoming worse.

Civ for PC with its epic matches is like the classic weekend board game days some people have. Not everyone has the time for this though and might not have friends that share your interest. Some console haters claim that "bringing in another crowd" means wanting to sell the game to stupid 13-year-olds. I think that it is just what I said, to make the game workable and fun for people who don't have that much time to spend on games but still want an epic experience with strategy, and I think that CivRev will deliver the most epicness and strategy that you can get for a 3-4 hour game session. Let's face it, the "dumb" people some talk about that only likes FPSs and action yaddayadda will not buy CivRev anyway, because it is not the most graphically advanced game out there and it doesn't show any hints on having unrivaled action gameplay which is mostly what the type of people being discussed are looking for in their games. No, CivRev is not aiming for a dumber crowd, its for people who want what Civ has always brought us but more compact and optimized for people with less time.

We will see if this is true when the game comes out :)

Nice summation, Magwill. ;)

I don't get why everyone assumes only kids play consoles. I'm 25 and I'm not a moron, I can't wait for Civ Rev and I play a 360. I'm excited for Civ Rev because I'll be able to play games against people without it taking forever, and after a while, Civ IV just takes way too long to control ALL your units. It gets boring and doesn't make for a good multiplayer game. Civ Rev is supposed to improve that, which makes it more desirable to me. I enjoy the strategy and micromanaging, and I expect there to be plenty of that in it, but the game has to reduce the amount of time it takes to manage all your units if it wants to expand to a larger audience.

I don't get why everyone assumes only kids play consoles. I'm 25 and I'm not a moron, I can't wait for Civ Rev and I play a 360. I'm excited for Civ Rev because I'll be able to play games against people without it taking forever, and after a while, Civ IV just takes way too long to control ALL your units. It gets boring and doesn't make for a good multiplayer game. Civ Rev is supposed to improve that, which makes it more desirable to me. I enjoy the strategy and micromanaging, and I expect there to be plenty of that in it, but the game has to reduce the amount of time it takes to manage all your units if it wants to expand to a larger audience.

Indeed I usually start getting bored when reaching the modern age because there are too many units and cities. I lose the love and caring for each unit/city the more the game advances.

Yeah, wow! Stupid game developers for wanting more people to play their game! Shame on them.

I was born in an age before consoles. By the time the Atari came out my parents would not buy it for me saying that I was too old for a kids game.

So now as an adult I own two consoles. I love civ to death and am looking forward to playing it on a console rather than a pc just for those days when I need to chill and need something light.

Now I can't wait for CivRev to come out! I will be getting it for Christmas.

While the tone of the OP was over the top, he was not wrong. Everything I have read about this game (despite the denials here) screams that it is a dumbed down Civ for the ADD crowd. It is to Civ what checkers is to chess (and that may be overly generous). I can't imagine why anyone who loves the Civ series on PC would want to play it; I sure don't (and I do have a PS3 and do some gaming on it, although it was primarily bought and used as a Blu-ray player). I can't blame Firaxis for going where the money is, but I don't have to like its implications for PC gaming, which is slowly dying.

While the tone of the OP was over the top, he was not wrong. Everything I have read about this game (despite the denials here) screams that it is a dumbed down Civ for the ADD crowd. It is to Civ what checkers is to chess (and that may be overly generous). I can't imagine why anyone who loves the Civ series on PC would want to play it; I sure don't (and I do have a PS3 and do some gaming on it, although it was primarily bought and used as a Blu-ray player). I can't blame Firaxis for going where the money is, but I don't have to like its implications for PC gaming, which is slowly dying.

Quite a statement. I'm interested in exactly what makes it dumbed down in your opinion.

You can always go further and include more and more advanced stuff and one can claim anything simpler is dumbed down. Why do you want to use the term dumbed down? If the game is more fun, then its a better game. Shogi (japanese chess) is more advanced than chess but it isn't a better game just because of that. And Chess isn't a dumbed down Shogi either, its another variant that plays differently.

I don't get why removing micromanagement is considered by so many to be 'dumbed down' civ...who seriously enjoys micromanagement? and if you do, then why are you playing Civ instead of Master of Orion 3? if that's the criteria, then civ is a 'dumbed down' version of MOO3, thanks to the miles less micromanagement needed.

I don't get why removing micromanagement is considered by so many to be 'dumbed down' civ...who seriously enjoys micromanagement? and if you do, then why are you playing Civ instead of Master of Orion 3? if that's the criteria, then civ is a 'dumbed down' version of MOO3, thanks to the miles less micromanagement needed.

Yeah. What you do with your fewer units and cities in CivRev certainly not removes the need of being smart and good at the game. I always love the first half of the Civ titles best because that is the time when you really bother to take care of everything. In the end as Thrallia says the micro management becomes so tedious that you are not playing optimally anyway.

I disagree completely with this topic. It's great that Civ is moving to console games, and I plan to be one of the first purchasers of this game (well, at least close to the first :lol:) This game will be enough to get those people who play games like "Need 4 Speed" to wake up and get hooked on a game which actually requires you to THINK and is fun at the same time. On the opposite side, this game will get those already loyal to the Civilization games to get ready and/or stay pumped for the date when Civ5 finally comes out. Needless to say, I doubt that Revolution will do anything to turn PC gamers away from the CIv title.

P.S. No, I'm not ratting on anyone who plays Need 4 Speed (I've never even played it), I'm just making a point.

need for speed is brilliant, well at least hot pursuit 2, i loved that game, dam i wish i could play it right now, maybe carbon will be alright.

Yeah, I don't understand why people here are saying that only kids play on consoles. I mean, then who's going to play Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Resident Evil 4, or God of War?

need for speed is brilliant, well at least hot pursuit 2, i loved that game, dam i wish i could play it right now, maybe carbon will be alright.

from what people tell me, Most Wanted was the best of the Need for Speed games that've come out since the hot pursuit subtitled ones.

yeah, underground 2 was horrible and carbon wasn't much better......the first underground was ok.....

underground was okay, but Hot Pursuit 2 was fantastic, the music, the feel of the car, as it charged thorugh traffic and smashed into the ground after the jump. If i could marry hot pursuit 2, I would! :D

Although i didn't really like the police chopper, it was annoying, still fun to see my car shoot through all it's foliage. (the mines)

SO us console gamers are lazy 13 year olds? huh!? . Better hope we never meet on the street or i''ll knock somthin hard into ya.
Playin' console kinda insinuates that the game doesn't have to be very advanced to be entertaining for you. But hey, you're a Mercan so I respect your choice. Don't let homeland security kick my bum, OK? :shifty:

Playin' console kinda insinuates that the game doesn't have to be very advanced to be entertaining for you. But hey, you're a Mercan so I respect your choice. Don't let homeland security kick my bum, OK? :shifty:

um...how is it that console means it doesn't need to be very advanced? Does that mean Bioshock wasn't 'advanced'? it was exactly the same on PC and console. Perhaps Command & Conquer isn't 'advanced'? Again, console and PC, both versions good. maybe Civilization I wasn't 'advanced'? It was on consoles and PC as well.

maybe the problem isn't with consoles, but with you...

Yeah I don't see how consoles implies the game is less advanced. Because you don't need a keyboard to play it? What if the controller can do everything that the keyboard can?

Yeah I don't see how consoles implies the game is less advanced. Because you don't need a keyboard to play it? What if the controller can do everything that the keyboard can? I noticed on other forums gamers complained about having to install DMC4 on PS3 HDD so most console gamers like everything to be very simple.
This is probably why there were more hardcore games on the PS than on PS2 and now the Wii is out selling both the ps3 and 360 combined. (Even many years ago (back in C-64) I found most console games were more simplifed including hardcore games like Silent Service.) I find that even some recent PC games seem to be dumb down a bit lately.

P.S. Both Civ1 and Civ2 were ported straight to consoles yet they didn't sale very well. Starcraft was also on the consoles (N64) yet never sold anywhere close to the PC version.

I noticed on other forums gamers complained about having to install DMC4 on PS3 HDD so most console gamers like everything to be very simple.
This is probably why there were more hardcore games on the PS than on PS2 and now the Wii is out selling both the ps3 and 360 combined. (Even many years ago (back in C-64) I found most console games were more simplifed including hardcore games like Silent Service.) I find that even some recent PC games seem to be dumb down a bit lately.

P.S. Both Civ1 and Civ2 were ported straight to consoles yet they didn't sale very well. Starcraft was also on the consoles (N64) yet never sold anywhere close to the PC version.

I'm ok with you using the SNES version of Civ as an example, but not starcraft or C&C for N64 because there was no mouse for that console and thereby the game was close to unplayable. I know because I own them both. Its like controlling 1 unit at a time all the time. So those prob sold bad mostly because you couldnt play with a good controller. C&C also had nice 3d graphics :)

Let's think about how the guy who worked with Sid on Civ1 is now making a Halo game.

Let's think about how the guy who worked with Sid on Civ1 is now making a Halo game.

Yeah, Bruce Shelley is trying his hand at a console RTS. (And quite a few of the artists who worked on Civ 1 have worked on console games also).

Is that the Halo Wars or something?

um...how is it that console means it doesn't need to be very advanced? Does that mean Bioshock wasn't 'advanced'? it was exactly the same on PC and console. Perhaps Command & Conquer isn't 'advanced'? Again, console and PC, both versions good. maybe Civilization I wasn't 'advanced'? It was on consoles and PC as well.

maybe the problem isn't with consoles, but with you...
I have a PS2 myself. I find that console games are stupid, dumbdowned license games from hell and that only a few games are worth mentioning. Also, PC games are much cheaper. I noticed your troll, BTW.
Yeah I don't see how consoles implies the game is less advanced. Because you don't need a keyboard to play it? What if the controller can do everything that the keyboard can?
It can't. Console games are for people who want action and sit in the couch. PC games are for serious gamers.

Show me a console game that can be fully modded, BTW.

well.........you're right in pretty much all things but there are some serious games on consoles............mostly open-world RPG's........

I have a PS2 myself. I find that console games are stupid, dumbdowned license games from hell and that only a few games are worth mentioning. Also, PC games are much cheaper. I noticed your troll, BTW.

It can't. Console games are for people who want action and sit in the couch. PC games are for serious gamers.

Show me a console game that can be fully modded, BTW.

Now you are out on thin ice my friend :) Serious gamers? If you look at time spent, there are people playing console games during their whole free time. If you're looking at competitions, there are competitions for Halo for example. I don't see any other seriousness involved. If you are dedicated into becoming a great player in a game (which there are lots of people doing with console games, who do you think write all the GameFAQS?) then you are doing it seriously.

And what does modability has to do with the seriousness of playing games? UT3 has quite a nice range of mods on the PS3 right now if you're interested, although I don't see how it is involved in the discussion.

I want all types of games on my PS3. It has good hardware, it has keyboard and mouse support, it has online play, what more can I ask for? You can make any type of game for that system and it will probably sell really good today since many PC users now buy next gen consoles. Its just a matter of finding a good part of the customers and satisfying them and you will become a great company, but many game companies are bad.

well.........you're right in pretty much all things but there are some serious games on consoles............mostly open-world RPG's........
I hope you are not referring to Oblivion since it was clearly dumb down for console gamers. (Xbox 360) This rpg was very shallow especially since a 2 level character could do and go pretty much everything a 20 level character could. (the world leveled up with the character so why bother leveling up?) Thankfully there are mods for the PC which did give the game a little depth.

Developers of Vagrant Story learn a long time ago on the PS you can't add too much depth to a RPG as one of the biggest complaint was it was too hard. VS wasn't hard at all if you spend a few minutes to understand that you need to use and level up more than one weapon during the game.

oblivion was trash on every system.

Quality games of seriousness on consoles :

GTA Series, Final Fantasy Series.

Both quality console series games for a 'serious' gamer

(Most of the GTA titles are now avaiable of PC, and the first 2 GTA's were PC exclusive, but the console versions were far better in my opinion)

It can't. Console games are for people who want action and sit in the couch. PC games are for serious gamers.

If PC games aren't for people that want action then how come nearly every PC game released these days is either a FPS or a RTS?

If all "Loyal PC gamers" are like this then it's no wonder why Sid wants to distance himself from them.

If PC games aren't for people that want action then how come nearly every PC game released these days is either a FPS or a RTS?

If all "Loyal PC gamers" are like this then it's no wonder why Sid wants to distance himself from them.
Since when are FPS and RTS games about action?! :dubious:

I'm guessing you're either trying to be sarcastic or you've never played those kind of games?


Summary of FPS: Shoot guys with guns, shoot explosive barrels, shoot monsters, etc

Summary of RTS: Build gatherers, gather resources for a couple of minutes then build a bunch of tanks/soldiers/monsters and destroy the other guys base while killing all of his soldiers.

Sounds like action to me.

well.........you're right in pretty much all things but there are some serious games on consoles............mostly open-world RPG's........

Then there are games called Metroid Prime, Halo, Twilight Princess, Super Mario Galaxy, Knights of the Old Republic, Metal Gear Solid, God of War, Resident Evil, etc.

Personally I find it more of a nice reward for having supported the series from 2-4. Being able to play Civ on my DS at work? Thank you :D

(Most of the GTA titles are now avaiable of PC, and the first 2 GTA's were PC exclusive
GTA and GTA2 were both on the PS1, as was the GTA: London expansion.

Also, I'm not sure what this "serious gamer" thing being thrown about is. I fail to see how a 100-hour epic like Final Fantasy isn't serious while something like Unreal Tournament is. (Don't get me wrong, I love UT, but it's not exactly epic.)

Freedom Force can't really get all that serious, but what is the only game system that it's available for?

And then there are those epic Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Halo/Deus Ex/Half-Life/Resident Evil/ICO/Final Fantasy/God of War/Castlevania/Metal Gear Solid/Baldur's Gate/Rainbow Six/Splinter Cell/Ninja Gaiden and all those console games.

I'm not a serious gamer. I like to have fun when I play. :)

I'm guessing you're either trying to be sarcastic or you've never played those kind of games?


Summary of FPS: Shoot guys with guns, shoot explosive barrels, shoot monsters, etc

Summary of RTS: Build gatherers, gather resources for a couple of minutes then build a bunch of tanks/soldiers/monsters and destroy the other guys base while killing all of his soldiers.

Sounds like action to me.
You've obviously never played an RTS or an FPS.

You've obviously never played an RTS or an FPS.
An odd accusation from someone claiming that, say, Quake or Dawn of War are games devoid of action. :rolleyes:

I hope you are not referring to Oblivion since it was clearly dumb down for console gamers. (Xbox 360)


na, that one looks pathetic, I was talking about morrowind which is WAY better.....

I noticed on other forums gamers complained about having to install DMC4 on PS3 HDD so most console gamers like everything to be very simple.
This is probably why there were more hardcore games on the PS than on PS2 and now the Wii is out selling both the ps3 and 360 combined. (Even many years ago (back in C-64) I found most console games were more simplifed including hardcore games like Silent Service.) I find that even some recent PC games seem to be dumb down a bit lately.

P.S. Both Civ1 and Civ2 were ported straight to consoles yet they didn't sale very well. Starcraft was also on the consoles (N64) yet never sold anywhere close to the PC version.

um..the reason they were complaining is because 360 owners didn't have to do that, and because they are stuck with 20-80GB harddrives, so having a Blu-Ray install itself on your harddrive takes up a large chunk of your available space
Civ2 and Starcraft on consoles were crap. Civ1 was good, but it was a very low key series at the time, with a very low key release...I didn't even know that Civ1 was a PC game originally until a couple years after I'd bought Civ2 for PC.

I have a PS2 myself. I find that console games are stupid, dumbdowned license games from hell and that only a few games are worth mentioning. Also, PC games are much cheaper. I noticed your troll, BTW.

It can't. Console games are for people who want action and sit in the couch. PC games are for serious gamers.

Show me a console game that can be fully modded, BTW.

I wasn't trolling any more than anyone else on this thread that states consoles are for lamers/non-gamers/etc...seriously, the fact that last year's console gaming industry produced over 17 billion dollars of sales in the US alone says that the problem is not with consoles, but with anyone who bashes them the way you and others have

As for the number of games worth mentioning...if you hadn't noticed, both consoles and PCs have about the same ration of trash:goodness in games...price of PC games? Last I saw, they normally cost $39.99-$49.99 new...consoles are $39.99-$59.99...not really a price difference.

Action vs Serious games: um...you do realize that the two genres that are considered the mainstay of computers are FPS and RTS...and the entire purpose of those types of games is action...yes?

As far as modding goes, it really doesn't matter if you can or not, because until this generation, systems didn't have on-board storage space(XBOX notwithstanding...) so moddable games were impractical. If you want an example of one that will be out this year, try LittleBigPlanet...the entire game is simply a massive mod.

You've obviously never played an RTS or an FPS.

I'd say you've never played one if you really think there's no action in Warcraft, Starcraft, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Quake Wars, Unreal Tournament, Half Life, Command and Conquer, etc...

I hope you are not referring to Oblivion since it was clearly dumb down for console gamers. (Xbox 360) This rpg was very shallow especially since a 2 level character could do and go pretty much everything a 20 level character could. (the world leveled up with the character so why bother leveling up?) Thankfully there are mods for the PC which did give the game a little depth.

Developers of Vagrant Story learn a long time ago on the PS you can't add too much depth to a RPG as one of the biggest complaint was it was too hard. VS wasn't hard at all if you spend a few minutes to understand that you need to use and level up more than one weapon during the game.

um...the very reason for that was that it was a wide open world...you could do what you wanted, when you wanted. It makes a lot more sense gameplay-wise to make the game not dependent upon you grinding to level up, and more dependent on your skill choices, personal skill, and combat abilities(the world levels up with you in Final Fantasy VIII too, did that game have no depth or reason to leveling up?). Besides, leveling up does still have a point...if you do not level up your skills, you will never be able to win the game, no matter your skill at playing, because you'll be missing out on any advanced in-game abilities, and just because you are level 3 and the rest of the game is always the same number of levels above/below you, does not mean it is just as easy as if you are level 20...1 level difference at level 3 is a much greater difference than 1 level difference at level 20.

How does depth=hard in an RPG? Vagrant Story was a great game, and the developers of it have continued to make great, deep RPGs for consoles.

This is crazy how you guys all get into this discussion.

I'll just add my two cents.

PC's are becoming consoles and consoles are becoming PC's.

I've been a die hard PC gamer for a decade now and have finally made the switch to a next gen console. I'm not saying which. But I made the move because looking at bang for the buck, the consoles now meet my financial, gaming, and lack of time.... needs.

A maxed out PC is the best gaming platform handsdown. But for the time and work(keeping latest OS, drivers, hardware, etc) and $$$ to make that happen, it just isn't worth it to a lot of people. And there are just a whole lot of Positive facts for both PC and console argument but down the road, there are just going to be more Positives to go for the consoles and the industry knows this.

Now, back to the trolls.

Hey I remember Vagrant Story :) Although I played it on an emulator about a year ago. I think that perhaps it was too deep for the typical console player back THEN in the late 90s but things have changed. I know for sure that if I had had a PS instead of a N64 at that time I would have bought Vagrant Story because it was really nice although it suffered from a couple of gameplay issues.

No, you shouldn't be afraid of adding too much depth into console games today because the standard is already higher. With big screen TVs we will also see that more people will accept a bit more deeper menu systems and so on because you have more room for it.

...No, you shouldn't be afraid of adding too much depth into console games today because the standard is already higher. With big screen TVs we will also see that more people will accept a bit more deeper menu systems and so on because you have more room for it.
The opposite is what often happens which is why so many Morrowind fans were so disappointed with Oblivion. I haven't seen console games increase in depth since the PS days. Even many FPS they seem a little more shallow and more easy. There are a few exception but not many.
PC WOW has been a huge hit because it's casual approach and just when I thought MMORPG couldn't get more shallow.
With the cost of console games ever increasing developers have to appeal even more to people than those during PS,N-64 days. Yet I wish what you said was really true since I would love a sequel to VS with even more depth.

The opposite is what often happens which is why so many Morrowind fans were so disappointed with Oblivion. I haven't seen console games increase in depth since the PS days. Even many FPS they seem a little more shallow and more easy. There are a few exception but not many.
PC WOW has been a huge hit because it's casual approach and just when I thought MMORPG couldn't get more shallow.
With the cost of console games ever increasing developers have to appeal even more to people than those during PS,N-64 days. Yet I wish what you said was really true since I would love a sequel to VS with even more depth.

Another problem is that there is so much work involved in making 3D graphics today that people can't really focus making a great story and revolutionary gameplay.

um...the very reason for that was that it was a wide open world...you could do what you wanted, when you wanted. It makes a lot more sense gameplay-wise to make the game not dependent upon you grinding to level up, and more dependent on your skill choices, personal skill, and combat abilities(the world levels up with you in Final Fantasy VIII too, did that game have no depth or reason to leveling up?). Besides, leveling up does still have a point...if you do not level up your skills, you will never be able to win the game, no matter your skill at playing, because you'll be missing out on any advanced in-game abilities, and just because you are level 3 and the rest of the game is always the same number of levels above/below you, does not mean it is just as easy as if you are level 20...1 level difference at level 3 is a much greater difference than 1 level difference at level 20.

How does depth=hard in an RPG? Vagrant Story was a great game, and the developers of it have continued to make great, deep RPGs for consoles. I never stated that VS was hard yet a lot of gamers hated the depth of it's combat system. VS was hard only if you didn't level up your weapons correctly. I wish it did have a hard difficulty level.
Also I hated FF8 for the same reason. I found a lot agree FF8 was one of the worst of the FF series including it's story. A RPG "not dependent" on leveling up is like a FPS that doesn't require you to aim a weapon.
Yes Oblivion had an open world yet when it comes to do your chores (quest) they were simply straight forward. No brains required, kind like washing dishes.

P.S By the way, the most depth I've seen in RPG was back in C-64 days. (which is a shame) Anyone here ever played "Knights of the Legend" by Origin (also the makers of Ultra series)? Man that game was deep. For example during battle if you character gets hit in the right arm you could no longer swing your sword with full force. Also the more hit overall you take (as well as swinging a two-handed sword like a mad man) the slower and weaker your character becomes until they could rest and heal up.

I'd say you've never played one if you really think there's no action in Warcraft, Starcraft, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Quake Wars, Unreal Tournament, Half Life, Command and Conquer, etc...
I'm not sure about those other games (I've never played them) but I know for a fact that Battlefield 1942 is more about strategy than action.

if you think that you must be one of the noob's always camping somewhere (strategy) until you get killed easily in a fair fight.

if you think that you must be one of the noob's always camping somewhere (strategy) until you get killed easily in a fair fight.
Don't come call me a noob! I'm a member of an elite Russian clan! :p

So bf1942 is more strategic and serious then other console fps' because it is on the PC?

Battlefield 2, when it comes down to it, is the same gameplay. And it's on consoles as well as pc.

So taking your above argument about bf1942 and applying it to BF2(same gameplay basically). Then BF2 is a strategic and serious fps on PC's. BUT it is also on the consoles.

Therefore, leading to the conclusion that there are serious and strategic gamers on the consoles. I am one of them.

You have been served.

The same can be applied to RPG type games. Example. KOTOR. People can get pretty serious about their KOTOR console version of the game which is pretty much identical to the PC version.

P.S this is coming from a main PC gamer who also has a PS2 and xbox360. And if you have never played Warcraft, Starcraft, Half Life series, Call of duty, Unreal, Command and Conquer. Not all of them are needed but at least if you have not played most of those. Then you really should stop discussing gaming. Because.... Swedishguy, you are not a gamer. Keep your discussion to what you know, Civilization.

Swedishguy, you are not a gamer.
No, those games listed are mainstream garbage! I'm a member of PC Gamer, of course I'm a gamer!

Ah, you're trolling. I understand your crazy talk now.

Ah, you're trolling. I understand your crazy talk now.
Woke up on the wrong side of the bed?

No, those games listed are mainstream garbage!
Ah, the old "mainstream = bad" argument. Flimsy enough at the best of times, but particularly feeble when applied to the games industry. Bravo.

yeah, Crysis become pretty mainstream and it only is computer

No, those games listed are mainstream garbage! I'm a member of PC Gamer, of course I'm a gamer!

The Civ games are pretty mainstream too. You better start hating them now because they're popular.


On Morrowind Vs Oblivion

Morrowind is a boring game with generic NPC's who when it comes down to it are just Wiki's tailored for that specific area and dull and tedious combat that amounts to clicking repeatedly and praying one of your attacks hits so you can chip off a tiny bit of their life bar.

Oblivion is the above only with generic landscapes instead of generic NPCs and attacks actually work most of the time.

ok, I don't know why you even decided to start going on whether Morrowind vs. Oblivion but WTH, these are master-crafted RPG's man........

Some other guy bought it up.

but still, they're not FPS or action, they're RPG's and focused on the story, which they do perfectly......

but still, they're not FPS or action, they're RPG's and focused on the story, which they do perfectly......

However the wastelands of morrowind were a bad choice simply because it was boring and in Oblivion it was boring as hell at the part where you had to run into the same type of dungeons all the time (the oblivion gates).

P.S this is coming from a main PC gamer who also has a PS2 and xbox360. And if you have never played Warcraft, Starcraft, Half Life series, Call of duty, Unreal, Command and Conquer. Not all of them are needed but at least if you have not played most of those. Then you really should stop discussing gaming. Because.... Swedishguy, you are not a gamer. Keep your discussion to what you know, Civilization.

No, those games listed are mainstream garbage! I'm a member of PC Gamer, of course I'm a gamer!

um...being a subscriber to PC Gamer does not a gamer make.

And if you claim to be a 'PC Gamer' then how come you've never played any of those games? hm? All are PC games, I would have thought that all of those would have been converted by you into reasons why 'PC is better'

Warcraft=one of the best RTS games ever, and home of some of the largest professional gaming tournaments in the world
Starcraft=same as Warcraft...only in space :D and with nukes!
Half-Life series=won more awards with just 2 full games(and 4 smaller games) than any other series in gaming history
Call of Duty=best WWII FPS series hands-down. It originated the historical FPS, and it revolutionized FPS multiplayer with CoD4
Unreal=one of the most popular multiplayer FPS series ever, considered to have some of the most balanced multiplayer of any FPS
Command and Conquer=Highest Rated RTS series, great multiplayer, great, over-the-top stories, and Kane...you can't beat a series with Kane in it.

If you haven't played ANY of the above series, you really can't call yourself a 'serious' gamer...especially not a 'serious' PC gamer.

Uhm guys, let me fill you in on a little fact about Swedishguy.

His favorite RTS is Impossible Creatures, and from what I heard at Gamespot it's much stronger on the side of actually creating your troops (in that game you can mix creatures and get, for example, a tiger with lobster claws) than on the side of taking them into battle.

And also, there can be strategy in console games.

For example, in Metroid games, sometimes you can't just keep shooting enemies; you have to lure them somewhere to move on.

In Zelda games, you will always need to figure out what to do next, and it's a HUGE world. In Twilight Princess, for example,
Midna tells you that there's a way to get to Hyrule Castle from Telma's Bar when you think you may not need to know that, but it will come very handy soon after you tackle the Lakebed Temple.

In Mario games, you sometimes need to figure out how to get from point A to point B and back. Basically true for all platformers.

In Rayman games... Uhhhh, Deep Thought, could you come here and tell me what "strategic" parts there are in Rayman games.

Although maybe what Swedishguy said about Battlefield 1942 is the reason why IGN continues to put so high on their Top 100 Games Lists...

I don't even know how to respond to this thread.

If spending 3 or 4 times the dough for your rig for a marginal performance increase makes you feel better about yourself, by all means, proceed.

I personally don't know what more you need that Call of Duty 4 on XBox Live, but that is just me.

Yet still, I hope strategy games thrive on the PC far into the future.

well, they've been thriving since computer got enough power to handle them so......I think they'll be alright......

Uhm guys, let me fill you in on a little fact about Swedishguy.

.....

In Rayman games... Uhhhh, Deep Thought, could you come here and tell me what "strategic" parts there are in Rayman games.

Although maybe what Swedishguy said about Battlefield 1942 is the reason why IGN continues to put so high on their Top 100 Games Lists...

Strategy in rayman, well before you sit down to play rayman, you first have to plan a strategy on how to regain your self respect and then you can play rayman.

@Swedishguy: You cited Battlefield 1942 as an example of how PC games are more strategy oriented than console games (which is not always true). Now cite an example of how console games are just about action.

Computer Games=crazy because sometimes your computer can slow down or do some weird stuff, and then there's all the worrying about graphics cards and RAM etc.
Console Games=fun because you don't have to worry about anything mentioned with Computer Games, and you can enjoy most of the best franchises right there.

Yawn; I'm going to sleep.

Although you don't have to worry about ram or graphics cards, consoles can crash jsut as much as pc's. in fact probably more, especially in the case of my old ps2, heap of junk.

um...being a subscriber to PC Gamer does not a gamer make.

And if you claim to be a 'PC Gamer' then how come you've never played any of those games? hm? All are PC games, I would have thought that all of those would have been converted by you into reasons why 'PC is better'

Warcraft=one of the best RTS games ever, and home of some of the largest professional gaming tournaments in the world
Starcraft=same as Warcraft...only in space :D and with nukes!
Half-Life series=won more awards with just 2 full games(and 4 smaller games) than any other series in gaming history
Call of Duty=best WWII FPS series hands-down. It originated the historical FPS, and it revolutionized FPS multiplayer with CoD4
Unreal=one of the most popular multiplayer FPS series ever, considered to have some of the most balanced multiplayer of any FPS
Command and Conquer=Highest Rated RTS series, great multiplayer, great, over-the-top stories, and Kane...you can't beat a series with Kane in it.

If you haven't played ANY of the above series, you really can't call yourself a 'serious' gamer...especially not a 'serious' PC gamer.

So... if one doesn't care for Real-Time Strategy games and First Person Shooters, then one cannot be a "serious" PC gamer?

Yeah, you pretty much can't be a serious PC gamer if you don't care for Strategy Games or Shooters.

I have to say that Swedishguy is right on that FPSs and RTSs are not necessarily about action. RTSs don't even need explaining (Real-Time STRATEGY, people?). And as far as shooters go, you need strategy to win ANY shooter (actually, pretty much any game) or else you'll die easily or get stuck easily (which used to happen to me alot until I found IGN's game guides). And Half-Life is basically the Zelda of FPSs (meaning that it is more about puzzles than about combat).

D'oh. We should have all known that.

I disagree, most RTS Games require more reflexes and knowledge of hot keys then any other game. While most FPS games are mindless killing sprees without much strategy beyond "Shoot enemies, reload, kill enemies, pick up ammo and heathkit's, find more enemies".

Hand-eye coordination != strategy

Games like Half-life are the exception and not the norm.

Edit: Oh and why even bring up a console vs pc war here when everyone knows only children play the Wii so they can't argue their point and the 360 players are too busy getting high to bother. (lolmoreliekxbox420amirite?)

I have to agree with Oatse on the RTS. When I was working on CNC3:KW, the guys with the "micro" skills always beat those of us "strategists".

Yeah but you can't just mindlessly send an army; it'll get shredded easily.

Yeah but you can't just mindlessly send an army; it'll get shredded easily.

"Teh Micro" is all about sending out an army and very rapidly controlling every unit as fast as possible hoping to out-shoot your opponent.

Masters of "Teh Micro" wipe the floors with those who do not have the blazing fingers of doom in CNC3.

So... if one doesn't care for Real-Time Strategy games and First Person Shooters, then one cannot be a "serious" PC gamer?

The person I was talking to can't be...he does play FPS games and RTS games(supposedly), and claimed that he'd never played those games(and that none of them had any 'action'


Edit: Oh and why even bring up a console vs pc war here when everyone knows only children play the Wii so they can't argue their point and the 360 players are too busy getting high to bother. (lolmoreliekxbox420amirite?)

um...hello crazy troller. I am the proud owner of a 360, a Wii, and a personally built PC. I am not a child nor am I a druggie. I actually am a game programmer...so...yeah. Trolls should stay under the bridge.

Like Thrallia, I own a few DS's, a 360, a Wii, a few PCs, an old XBox, a GameCube, a PS2, and a lot of older systems that nobody cares about anymore. I might even get a PS3 as it could be a decent Blu-Ray player for the price. Just because this is a Civ forum, doesn't mean that we don't own consoles also.

um...hello crazy troller. I am the proud owner of a 360, a Wii, and a personally built PC. I am not a child nor am I a druggie. I actually am a game programmer...so...yeah. Trolls should stay under the bridge.

You're realy good at detecting sarcasm.

You're realy good at detecting sarcasm.

ah yes...because sarcasm is soooo easy to detect on forums as opposed to out loud...especially in a thread that was originally dedicated to trolling on console owners...[/sarcasm]

ah yes...because sarcasm is soooo easy to detect on forums as opposed to out loud...especially in a thread that was originally dedicated to trolling on console owners...[/sarcasm]

[QUOTE=Oatse;6714785IEdit: Oh and why even bring up a console vs pc war here when everyone knows only children play the Wii so they can't argue their point and the 360 players are too busy getting high to bother. (lolmoreliekxbox420amirite?)[/QUOTE]

How could anyone see it as anything but serious?

Must be all that pot. :rolleyes:

lol unfortunately, I could see that as serious because, sadly, there are a lot of PC vs console fanboys who post that type of stuff on other forums and mean it.

lol unfortunately, I could see that as serious because, sadly, there are a lot of PC vs console fanboys who post that type of stuff on other forums and mean it.
I think his point was that very few of them end their posts with "lolmoreliekxbox420amirite?", at least not when the rest of their post is in proper English... :rolleyes:

I thought he was serious as well.

my inet sarcasm detector must be faulty.

Yeah, you pretty much can't be a serious PC gamer if you don't care for Strategy Games or Shooters.

I was originally going to take issue with that idea, but then again I don't really do much gaming on the PC anymore.

I used to be a pretty serious/dedicated PC gamer throughout the 90s, when I could play Ultima, Civilization, Master of Magic, Master of Orion, Sierra and LucasArts graphic adventures, Bioforge, SimCity, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate, Might & Magic 3 through 5, Thief, Wing Commander, and several dozen more games that are currently boxed-up in a closet at home. The most recent PC games that I own are Civ 4, Beyond the Sword, Age of Wonders Shadow Magic, Galactic Civs 2, and Vampire: The Masquerade: Buglines, er Bloodlines.

I have to say that Swedishguy is right on that FPSs and RTSs are not necessarily about action. RTSs don't even need explaining (Real-Time STRATEGY, people?).

I've rarely enjoyed an RTS game. In single-player games, it's "real time" for the computer, but not really for the player, as the CPU doesn't have to cope with an interface. It knows where all of its units are all the time, and doesn't have to physically scroll around the map constantly. Eventually, the player gets proficient enough with the UI such that any advantages that the CPU has in that area are overshadowed by its weak AI.

For multi-player matches, it's always felt to me that strategy is less important than the ability to scroll the map and select units and buildings extremely quickly so that nothing is ever sitting there idle when it could be doing something. Perhaps when you get to the level where you can do that without even having to think about it then strategy would play more of a role, but that requires more time spent mastering the UI than I am willing to spend when I could be playing a new and different game.

And as far as shooters go, you need strategy to win ANY shooter (actually, pretty much any game) or else you'll die easily or get stuck easily (which used to happen to me alot until I found IGN's game guides). And Half-Life is basically the Zelda of FPSs (meaning that it is more about puzzles than about combat).

Even simple games like Tetris or Pac-Man require some degree of "strategy" in order to perform well, but it often boils down to rote memorization of patterns more than anything else. Most FPS games don't feel particularly strategic to me, other than multi-player matches where team strategies and tactics are pretty instrumental to doing well. But I don't enjoy these type of matches either, as it starts to feel insanely repetitive very quickly (restarting on the same map a dozen times in a single game, for example). Not interested in playing the same handful of small maps dozens upon dozens of times so that I can memorize the layouts perfectly. The rare times that I do play in one of these matches, the players who excel seem to be the ones who know the level layouts as well as their own houses and can distinguish a 10-pixel high model of a teammate from an enemy at a glance.

As a player, I like to explore game worlds and just take in all of the new and interesting experiences that a game has to offer. Mastery holds very little value to me, as it generally requires a great deal of repetition and I don't really get off on being able to demonstrate great skill at playing a video game. I would much rather play something new (or play something that was really cool over again) than play segments of the same game over and over again just to get better at it. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to achieve mastery; it just isn't my style. I never play Civilization beyond the "Noble" level; it ceases to be fun for me and mistakes and experimentation can become very costly. After that point, the game starts to feel (to me) like it's about optimization and not about just enjoying the experience.

That probably blew any remaining "nerd cred" that I may have had. :) I'd probably do a lot more PC gaming if it wasn't dominated by RTS, FPS, and MMO games. I can't handle the mind-numbing repetitiveness of MMOs, and the only FPS-type games that I have ever really enjoyed are Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Invisible War (first was way better but still liked the second), System Shock 2, Bioshock (the little bit that I played), and Metroid Prime.

Tetris especially!

Yeah, same here with RTS games. I still want StarCraft, though.

IMO does Metroid Prime refer to the entire trilogy or just the first one?

As for those games you mentioned, they're not really FPSs so much as they are Adventure Games (Metroid Prime trilogy) and/or RPGs (System Shock and Deus Ex series).

And thanks for bringing RPGs up! I don't think I've ever played (a great) one in my entire life! The ones that I would like to play the most are KotOR and WoW.

I don't think there is anything essentially wrong about RTS's or TBS's on consoles. RTS's on consoles probably have some because of the rapid game, but with a great user interface they can likely be countered, but I am not an expert on that. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (turn-based) is my favourite Game Boy game ever; I own DS and FFTA is still the game I play most. Of course FFTA is nowhere near Civilization in complexity, but if Firaxis can make a good UI. If I am correct, Firaxis's making Revolution more straightforward than the main Civs, right?

More straightforward? Well, the game flow is simpler. So I suppose, yes. There is still a lot of complex strategy going on, though. ;)

Even simple games like Tetris or Pac-Man require some degree of "strategy" in order to perform well, but it often boils down to rote memorization of patterns more than anything else. Most FPS games don't feel particularly strategic to me, other than multi-player matches where team strategies and tactics are pretty instrumental to doing well. But I don't enjoy these type of matches either, as it starts to feel insanely repetitive very quickly (restarting on the same map a dozen times in a single game, for example). Not interested in playing the same handful of small maps dozens upon dozens of times so that I can memorize the layouts perfectly. The rare times that I do play in one of these matches, the players who excel seem to be the ones who know the level layouts as well as their own houses and can distinguish a 10-pixel high model of a teammate from an enemy at a glance.

As a player, I like to explore game worlds and just take in all of the new and interesting experiences that a game has to offer. Mastery holds very little value to me, as it generally requires a great deal of repetition and I don't really get off on being able to demonstrate great skill at playing a video game. I would much rather play something new (or play something that was really cool over again) than play segments of the same game over and over again just to get better at it. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to achieve mastery; it just isn't my style. I never play Civilization beyond the "Noble" level; it ceases to be fun for me and mistakes and experimentation can become very costly. After that point, the game starts to feel (to me) like it's about optimization and not about just enjoying the experience.

That probably blew any remaining "nerd cred" that I may have had. :) I'd probably do a lot more PC gaming if it wasn't dominated by RTS, FPS, and MMO games. I can't handle the mind-numbing repetitiveness of MMOs, and the only FPS-type games that I have ever really enjoyed are Deus Ex, Deus Ex: Invisible War (first was way better but still liked the second), System Shock 2, Bioshock (the little bit that I played), and Metroid Prime.

I like you. I agree with the entire quoted statement here. One beef: I never really think of Metroid Prime as a shooter. It's really an adventure game shown from a first-person perspective. Which is why I like it. I get bored of shooters outside of multiplayer.

I also dislike MMORPGs. They are far to incouraging of munchkinism for my tastes.

Tetris especially!

Yeah, same here with RTS games. I still want StarCraft, though.

IMO does Metroid Prime refer to the entire trilogy or just the first one?

As for those games you mentioned, they're not really FPSs so much as they are Adventure Games (Metroid Prime trilogy) and/or RPGs (System Shock and Deus Ex series).

And thanks for bringing RPGs up! I don't think I've ever played (a great) one in my entire life! The ones that I would like to play the most are KotOR and WoW.

WoW isn't really an RPG as much as an MMO. If you want a good, open world RPG, you should try the KotOR series, Mass Effect, Diablo(wow, getting old school here), Elder Scrolls, and Fallout. Baldur's gate was ok, but I didn't like it as much. If you don't care if it is open world or not, add ChronoTrigger/Cross and Final Fantasy to your list(VII, IX, and XII are the best of them so far, IMHO).

baldur's gate was great, but it's a bit old now, try out neverwinter nights (1 and its expansions or 2 but not the expansion for 2 that was rubbish) its a very similar game.

Yeah. My Wii library is pretty complete, so I want games like StarCraft (I just hope it doesn't ruin my PC) and KotOR. I have Total War (not sure which one, probably Medieval II) as a backup.

I guess I'm a dreaded evil console gears of war/halo 3/madden player then. I've been pretty highly ranked in the last of those, also (top 100 in NCAA 2005, top 1000 in every game since.)

I've come the other direction, back into civ, but I play everything. Usually I have no problem with what people put on the forums, but the OP is pretty uncalled for.

Hey OP: It's business sense. If the market is there, you'll probably see it on the PC too. Games are still made for PC's...hell the consoles are starting to look like PC's themselves. It's still gaming, I don't see the issue. If you don't like 13 year olds, don't play with them. Admittedly, I tend to avoid certain game modes they frequent too (*cough* sniper heavy game modes *cough*).

PC vs Consoles. The battle will rage on but the truth is the two are coming closer together all the time. I've been a PC games for, well forever. I'm only a recent convert to consoles thanks to my kids. And while most of my gaming is still PC it is possible to play both and enjoy both. Wii, PS2, PS3 and two PC's what could be better than variety. I'm looking for a good used 360 now and then there's nothing out there I can't play. I'm looking forward to Revolutions as a worthy addition to the Civ family.::D

:eek: 9 pages of this...

BTW, everybody knows that Penguin Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Wars) was the quintessential moment in strategy gaming...

EDIT: In all seriousness, I propose that Command HQ (http://www.mobygames.com/game/command-hq) should receive honorable mention. Penguin Wars was a fun game, by the way.

I just discovered that PC Zone Magazine's Top PC Game was NOT either a shooter or a strategy game (though it is a First-Person game). Here were the results of the poll, posted on January 2007.

1. Deus Ex
2. Half-Life 2
3. Civilization IV
4. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
5. Half-Life
6. Rome: Total War
7. System Shock 2
8. Battlefield 2
9. DOOM
10. The Secret of Monkey Island

I'm quite stunned that games like StarCraft, X-COM, Pirates!, and Star Control II didn't make the list.

I just discovered that PC Zone Magazine's Top PC Game was NOT either a shooter or a strategy game (though it is a First-Person game). Here were the results of the poll, posted on January 2007.

1. Deus Ex
2. Half-Life 2
3. Civilization IV
4. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
5. Half-Life
6. Rome: Total War
7. System Shock 2
8. Battlefield 2
9. DOOM
10. The Secret of Monkey Island

I'm quite stunned that games like StarCraft, X-COM, Pirates!, and Star Control II didn't make the list.

That's because PC Zone doesn't know a classic when they see one...you notice every single one of those other than System Shock and Monkey Island are less than 4 years old?

Try checking PC Gamer or Metacritic...here's Metacritic's list of top 20 PC games:

Rank/Title/Year/Score
1 Half-Life 2 2004 96
2 Out of the Park Baseball 2007 2007 96
3 Orange Box, The 2007 96
4 Half-Life 1998 96
5 Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn 2000 95
6 BioShock 2007 95
7 Command & Conquer 1995 94
8 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City 2003 94
9 Civilization II 1996 94
10 Quake 1996 94
11 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94
12 Grim Fandango 1998 94
13 Diablo 1996 94
14 Civilization IV 2005 94
15 Company of Heroes 2006 93
16 Unreal Tournament 2004 2004 93
17 Grand Theft Auto III 2002 93
18 Homeworld 1999 93
19 Team Fortress 2 2007 93
20 Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2003 93

...starcraft is ranked #118, but it got an 88 average review score...Metacritic ranks them by the average review score at the time they came out...so lasting value for the various games are not considered in their list.

IMO does Metroid Prime refer to the entire trilogy or just the first one?

The first and third ones, anyway. I still haven't played Metroid Prime 2.


As for those games you mentioned, they're not really FPSs so much as they are Adventure Games (Metroid Prime trilogy) and/or RPGs (System Shock and Deus Ex series).

Yup, that's sort of my point -- which is why I referred to them as FPS-like or FPS-type or something like that. The FPS-style interface and control setup is fine, but I need more adventure-style elements to keep me interested. Bioshock was also pretty cool from the couple of hours that I got to spend with it, but I don't own a 360 yet, and my PC is too old to handle the game in a manner that I would find acceptable.


And thanks for bringing RPGs up! I don't think I've ever played (a great) one in my entire life! The ones that I would like to play the most are KotOR and WoW.

KOTOR was awesome, and is one of my favourites (I played it on the Xbox). On the PC, my faves are: Ultima VII: The Black Gate, Ultima VII Part 2: Serpent Isle, Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, and Betrayal at Krondor. I think the newest of those was released in 2000 (BG2) -- I just haven't been terribly thrilled with PC RPGs for a while now, although Bioware's upcoming Dragon Age looks good.

That's because PC Zone doesn't know a classic when they see one...you notice every single one of those other than System Shock and Monkey Island are less than 4 years old?
Doom isn't. It's a good 14 years old now (and if you say "what about Doom 3" then god help me I will reach down the internet and beat you to death with your own keyboard! :p).

I like you. I agree with the entire quoted statement here. One beef: I never really think of Metroid Prime as a shooter. It's really an adventure game shown from a first-person perspective. Which is why I like it. I get bored of shooters outside of multiplayer.

I also dislike MMORPGs. They are far to incouraging of munchkinism for my tastes.

Thanks! :-)

I don't really think of Metroid Prime (or Deus Ex, or System shock, or Thief) as a shooter either, and that's why I don't get bored with it after 15 minutes.

I played Ultima Online for about 9 months when it first came out, and that was the end of my interest in MMORPGs. Tried Everquest during the beta and hated it, and I signed up for a free 3-day trial of WoW sometime last year. Played for 3 hours and was bored out of my mind, and didn't bother logging in again. Too much repetitive grinding, and there's no way for people like me, who might be interested in logging in for a 2-3 hour session once every couple of weeks or once a month, to be able to do anything interesting when you have people who play 4-6 hours per night dominating the game.

As for the whole "PC vs console" war, I just plain don't get it. A great game is a great game, regardless of what system it's on. My first electronic gaming was with the Intellivision in 1982, and I didn't get a computer until 1989 (C-64) when I already had an NES.

I preferred PC gaming for a few years, as I enjoyed the generally more complex and freeform gameplay. However, that was when I was in my late teens and early twenties, attending high school and university, single, and living with my parents.

Today, I'm approaching the age of 34, married, and working full-time as a game designer for a major studio (Rockstar). I'm just looking for something different in my games now than I did 10-15 years ago. After spending 8+ hours a day on the computer at work, I want to just kick back and relax on the couch in front of the 52" TV instead of hunching over the computer keyboard and mouse. I just want to turn on a game, play for a couple of hours, and enjoy it, with the absolute minimal amount of troubleshooting or configuration/optimization. The PC gaming market just seems to be moving in the opposite direction than what I'm looking for now.

So, you got to work on Grand Theft Auto IV?!!!

And add Morrowind to that list. Oblivion is too violent for me.

Well people I guess have their own opinions. I mean one of my friends loves open-world RPGs but he hates KotOR (partly because he doesn't like Star Wars).

yeah, MORROWIND'S GREAT!!!!!!

Doom isn't. It's a good 14 years old now (and if you say "what about Doom 3" then god help me I will reach down the internet and beat you to death with your own keyboard! :p).

lol I thought it said Doom 3...the original Doom was the best of the Dooms, I agree. I never understood all the fuss about Doom 3...it wasn't anything spectacular...just a graphics demo of the Doom engine lol

Doom 3 simulates all the fun of a power outage.

Console players aren't necessarily 13 years old, or morons. Console games typically have different priorities to computer ones. The best console games have exquisitely honed, balanced and tested gameplay straight out of the box. Probab