Console games you like to see a petition for to be released on PC

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Gears of War 3
Jack & Daxter series
Red Dead Redemption
God of War series
Monster Hunter
A lot more, but I kinda forgot which, I should probably be thankful for that.

Hazy992:

Daystar Clarion:
If there are several games on consoles that you wish were on PC.

Why don't you just buy the console?

Cause then the PC master race would have to admit that consoles are worth buying too. We can't be having that!

Because then I couldn't use mods.

Because then I'd have to buy 3 $800 machines to play everything instead of 1 $800 machine and 3 free emulators.

Because then I'd have to buy a separate $2,000 monitor instead of the one already attached to my laptop.

Because then I'd have to pay $10-$20 more for virtually every game.

Because then I'd be stuck with a joystick-based system instead of being able to use both a joystick AND a mouse whenever I choose.

Because then I'd have to buy 3 separate controllers and learn all 3 of them instead of using a single PS2 controller, a $7 USB adapter, and custom key mappings that makes the single PS2 controller capable of controlling every emulator.

Because then I couldn't run all of this on battery as I can now, and I couldn't play any of it when the power goes out.

Because then if the game is broken, as almost all are, I'd have to re-apply a patch every time I load the game rather than installing it once and being finished with it.

Because then I am limited by the graphical capabilities of a box with little-to-no heat dissipation instead of being able to upgrade anything and everything whenever I choose.

And last but not least...

Because then everyone wouldn't think I'm nearly as 1337 as they do now. (This is the only joke on this list. Seriously.)

Any more questions?

EDIT: Forgot one.

Because then I'd have to drop the security on my router from WPA2 a.k.a. "Cracked in 2 trillion years" to WEP a.k.a. "Cracked faster than I can make a cup of coffee."

EDIT2: I should also clarify that, while I do not own any of these, I actually did BUY a Wii, a 360, and a PS2. I don't play anything on the PS3 currently, the Wii is the lake and my Mom uses it for Yoga, and the 360 is on permanent loan to a friend. Considering my previous piracy reprimand I just wanted to clarify that yes, I am using all of this legally.

I've been wanting a multiplayer Monster Hunter game on PC for so long. =(

I have waited and waited for Fable 2 to be released on PC. It's maddness that Fable and fable 3 are on the PC but fable 2 isn't

/end of rant

Daystar Clarion:
If there are several games on consoles that you wish were on PC.

Why don't you just buy the console?

Because it's a $200 premium on top of the games I want. I don't want them bad enough to break my tiny bank account.

None.

Current PCs can emulate PS2, Xbox, Wii and older games flawlessly and being lax of concience I have no problem emulating consoles and games that I own. As for the current gen, current top of the line PCs could run a PS 3 emulator that is optimized on par with the current PS 2 emulators, if there is no working proyect it has more to do with copyright issues and lack of interest.

The only game that tempted me to buy an xbox was Dark Souls actually, almost went for an xbox sale this xmas as they were 140 bucks, but paying 200 dollars for a single game seemed kind of excessive. I know there are some wonderfully crafted games for consoles, but they don't interest me, that is the reason i don't own a console in the first place.

chuckdm:

Hazy992:

Daystar Clarion:
If there are several games on consoles that you wish were on PC.

Why don't you just buy the console?

Cause then the PC master race would have to admit that consoles are worth buying too. We can't be having that!

Because then I'd have to buy 3 $800 machines to play everything instead of 1 $800 machine and 3 free emulators.

Wow, the places you are buying your consoles are screwing you over.

According to Amazon.com, you can purchase new versions of all three current generation consoles for 650 U.S. Dollars, plus the cost of shipping. That means you have enough food for a month after you get done purchasing the game consoles.

And with the next generation, which is usually in the rebuttal, until we know more them when they are available. So, it is a waste of our time to speculate about pricing for things that are not available yet. We will cross that bridge when the time comes.

Can't believe I'm gonna humour you but OK here we go:

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't use mods.

Some people don't care about mods. Next!

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy 3 $800 machines to play everything instead of 1 $800 machine and 3 free emulators.

$800?! What world do you live in because no console costs $800. Also, good luck trying to run a 360 emulator that works as good as the console on an $800 machine, which by the way the legality of is questionable

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy a separate $2,000 monitor instead of the one already attached to my laptop.

Again, what? Do you really think you need a $2000 TV (I assume that's what you mean by monitor) to play consoles? This isn't 2005 you know. My TV cost 150 (about $250) and it outputs at 1080p.

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to pay $10-$20 more for virtually every game.

I can buy used and sell my games when I'm done with them XP

chuckdm:
Because then I'd be stuck with a joystick-based system instead of being able to use both a joystick AND a mouse whenever I choose.

You can use a keyboard and mouse on a console. It's personal preference anyway so it's irrelevant.

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy 3 separate controllers and learn all 3 of them instead of using a single PS2 controller, a $7 USB adapter, and custom key mappings that makes the single PS2 controller capable of controlling every emulator.

The controllers usually come with the console so you don't have to buy one. Is it really so hard to use both a PS3 controller and a 360 controller? Is that really so much of a chore?

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't run all of this on battery as I can now, and I couldn't play any of it when the power goes out.

Uh, what? I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

chuckdm:
Because then if the game is broken, as almost all are, I'd have to re-apply a patch every time I load the game rather than installing it once and being finished with it.

No you don't, you only have to install a patch when there is one, not every time you turn the console on. And are console games the only games with problems? Wait don't answer that because the answer is no

chuckdm:
Because then I am limited by the graphical capabilities of a box with little-to-no heat dissipation instead of being able to upgrade anything and everything whenever I choose.

OK I'll sorta give you that one because the graphics are better, but let's be honest; it seems the people complaining about graphics are PC gamers.

chuckdm:
Because then everyone wouldn't think I'm nearly as 1337 as they do now. (This is the only joke on this list. Seriously.)

HAHAHAHAAHAHAH *claps*

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to drop the security on my router from WPA2 a.k.a. "Cracked in 2 trillion years" to WEP a.k.a. "Cracked faster than I can make a cup of coffee."

Pretty sure my PS3 uses WPA2 or whatever it is.

Why? So they can complain how badly they screw up the PC ports of the games they wanted in the first place? /sarcasm

None.

I'm in favor of platform exclusive titles. The main thing is that each exclusive gives a system an identity.

As a gamer, I think industry wide. If there is a game on the console that I want to play, I do not bitch if it is on a platform I do not own. I also do not sign petitions to get one game on the platform I prefer. Instead, I wait until I'm in a position to get that platform and that game, the I buy it.

Daystar Clarion:
If there are several games on consoles that you wish were on PC.

Why don't you just buy the console?

Some of us don't have the $200+ to buy a new console. I bought my PC about 3 years ago, and even then it was rather poor as a gaming rig. It's seriously starting to show it's age. If I were to drop a large sum for gaming purposes, I'd buy a new vid card. $40-60 every month or so for a new game isn't too hard to come up with, but if I were to try and save up for a console, I'd end up using the money on something else that would inevitably come up. It's one of the reasons I love Steam so much. My family is barely above the poverty line, and Steam lets me continue my favorite pastime without it being a huge drain on my wallet due to its massive sales. It's one of the reasons I was disappointed when they announced that Dark Souls would be released for GFWL instead of through Steam. It's a game I would really like to try, but I can't justify the full-price purchase in my budget. I'd rather spend it on something I know I'll enjoy.

Hazy992:
Can't believe I'm gonna humour you but OK here we go:

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't use mods.

Some people don't care about mods. Next!

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy 3 $800 machines to play everything instead of 1 $800 machine and 3 free emulators.

$800?! What world do you live in because no console costs $800. Also, good luck trying to run a 360 emulator that works as good as the console on an $800 machine, which by the way the legality of is questionable

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy a separate $2,000 monitor instead of the one already attached to my laptop.

Again, what? Do you really think you need a $2000 TV (I assume that's what you mean by monitor) to play consoles? This isn't 2005 you know. My TV cost 150 (about $250) and it outputs at 1080p.

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to pay $10-$20 more for virtually every game.

I can buy used and sell my games when I'm done with them XP

chuckdm:
Because then I'd be stuck with a joystick-based system instead of being able to use both a joystick AND a mouse whenever I choose.

You can use a keyboard and mouse on a console. It's personal preference anyway so it's irrelevant.

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy 3 separate controllers and learn all 3 of them instead of using a single PS2 controller, a $7 USB adapter, and custom key mappings that makes the single PS2 controller capable of controlling every emulator.

The controllers usually come with the console so you don't have to buy one. Is it really so hard to use both a PS3 controller and a 360 controller? Is that really so much of a chore?

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't run all of this on battery as I can now, and I couldn't play any of it when the power goes out.

Uh, what? I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.

chuckdm:
Because then if the game is broken, as almost all are, I'd have to re-apply a patch every time I load the game rather than installing it once and being finished with it.

No you don't, you only have to install a patch when there is one, not every time you turn the console on. And are console games the only games with problems? Wait don't answer that because the answer is no

chuckdm:
Because then I am limited by the graphical capabilities of a box with little-to-no heat dissipation instead of being able to upgrade anything and everything whenever I choose.

OK I'll sorta give you that one because the graphics are better, but let's be honest; it seems the people complaining about graphics are PC gamers.

chuckdm:
Because then everyone wouldn't think I'm nearly as 1337 as they do now. (This is the only joke on this list. Seriously.)

HAHAHAHAAHAHAH *claps*

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to drop the security on my router from WPA2 a.k.a. "Cracked in 2 trillion years" to WEP a.k.a. "Cracked faster than I can make a cup of coffee."

Pretty sure my PS3 uses WPA2 or whatever it is.

First, you asked about >>>ME<<< not the gaming public at large. So yes, some people don't care about mods. Some people also ONLY play games on ONE of the current consoles, and ONLY on a 20" TV. For those people, they could certainly get a Wii and a small flat screen TV and save a whopping $100. So before I begin, good work, for a section of the public even smaller than PC enthusiasts, you have now defeated 3 of my points. Now for your other points.

The PS3 was $899 upon initial release. The initial price of the 360 was just $599 and the Wii was $299. Google it. So yeah, you're right, $1,797.00 is SO much cheaper than my laptop, and you're right, all of these consoles can emulate a PC. Oh wait...nope and nope! Of course, I could wait 3+ years after release and buy all the consoles today, then you WOULD be right. But then, at that rate, I could wait only 6 months on stable emulators too...

As to the cost of hardware, my laptop is an ASUS G72gx. It is capable of running a 360 emulator on one monitor and a Wii emulator on a secondary monitor (same size, same 1600x900 resolution as the native panel) at the same time. I got it re-certified on NewEgg for $729. This was almost 2 years ago. The only flaw is a small scratch on the lid. So yeah, PC is still cheaper unless you're one of those idiots who pays an extra $2,000 for hardware that's 10% above this. I'm not one of those idiots, but neither would I pay more money for 3 consoles that can't emulate a PC when I could just buy a PC that can emulate 3 consoles.

Next...console games are never made to work with a keyboard & mouse. Yes, some CAN, but virtually every console release is designed to work with a controller. There is a major difference between "support for" and "this is what the developers use." To experience this difference yourself, try out Deus Ex: Human Revolution on a PC. First, play with a keyboard and mouse. Then, play with a controller and a USB adapter. Notice how the game performs equally well with each control system. Now, play DXHR on your console of choice. First, use the controller for your console. Works great, right? Now try it with a keyboard & Mouse. Yeah, pretty damn awful. So, PC works well with either system, console never works well with keyboard/mouse.

Yes, every console comes with 1 controller so you can play with you, yourself, and the wall. Want to play with a friend? That'll be $79. Or you could get the knockoff that'll FUBAR sooner for $39! Now you want to play a game on another console with the same friend? Oh, well then that's another $39-$79. Repeat for each console and again for each friend. With 3 consoles and 3 (additional) controllers for each one, you just spent $351. Of course, you could just take the free included controllers from each one and USB them into your computer for $21 (assuming you didn't buy the $9 multi-port adapter) and now you can all play ANY of those games for no extra cost.

Yes, buy used games so that the fine folks at EA can tell you you don't have a valid code and you miss half the content. Don't get me wrong on this one, I agree with you, but there are MANY games now where used just isn't an option unless you want to get only half the content. Until the industry changes, used isn't always an answer. Also, while you COULD buy a used console title for $10, yanno what else works? Buy a NEW PC title from somewhere like Office Depot or Wal-Mart 1 year later for the same $10. And without missing half the content too!

No, switching between 3 different button configurations isn't MUCH of a chore, it's fairly minor. But why would I want to endure ANY chore? I'm playing a damn video game because I want to do something I enjoy. Any chore is, by definition, not enjoyable. Seems silly to pay more money for 3 separate controllers, and learn 3 of them, when just 1 of them has all the buttons I need in all the right places. Why would I want to do it any other way?

The point about battery life wasn't very cryptic so I'm not sure why you don't get it, but I'll try to explain. I had one of the re-branded PSOne's for a while, and a battery pack for it. It was great. I could literally take that (and the addon screen) and carry it around with me. When a game came out for the PSOne I didn't have to stay home. I could take it to a friend's house and play it there for up to 4 hours with a friend. It really was swell. That said, it was also expensive - another $159 for the battery, not to mention $89 for the portable screen. My laptop, on the other hand, does all that, for all 3 current consoles and PC titles, and it INCLUDES a battery at no extra charge. Now I spend more time gaming with friends, and less time gaming alone, because my 4-in-1 magical gaming box has a BATTERY and is PORTABLE. You really should give it a try!

Your point about bugs is false. All console patches are applied in real time as the game is played. Nothing in the hardware of a 360, PS3, or Wii is capable of remastering a disc on the fly, so by definition the game as it exists on the disc is forever bugged. Only by re-applying the patch, as you play it, do you not experience the bug any more. This means if you sell your game (as you seem to do) others will experience the bug you thought you patched, and if you loan it to a friend, so will they. PC games do not have this problem, mainly because you can't resell or trade them in (for the most part.) However, this also means that you don't have the minor performance hit from trying to patch a game on-the-fly. Patch once and done.

You're right, the ones complaining about graphics ARE PC gamers! Guess why? Because we're the ones who have seen the better graphics! Can't complain that you're missing something if you don't know what you're missing. This is like spending your entire life in a world where there is no sunlight, then communicating with people on a world that actually has sunlight. It's not something you can appreciate until you've acquired it, then lost it again. (Though personally I always prefer overcast weather.)

Glad you thought my one and only joke was funny.

And finally, yes, the PS3 can use WPA2. I'm actually not sure about the 360, but the Wii cannot use WPA2, and is instead locked to either WPA or WEP. The DS, even worse, only supports WEP. I also remember that my old GameCube Wifi Module ONLY supports WPA - neither WPA2 nor WEP. This, of course, means you cannot use both the GameCube and a DS on the same network at the same time.

And this is the core of the issue. Console 1 can do A, B, and C. Console 2 can do B, C, and D. Console 3 can do C, D, and E. But a PC can do everything from A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and 000000 to FFFFFF. This is why PCs are superior. It's not that we can do one thing or another. It's that we can do EVERYTHING. That level of choice and freedom - especially when it can be bought for the same price, much less cheaper - is indisputably preferable to limiting yourself for no obvious reason.

The only console exclusive title I can think of that I would like to see to be released on PC is Red Dead Redemption and perhaps Journey.

chuckdm:
First, you asked about >>>ME<<< not the gaming public at large. So yes, some people don't care about mods. Some people also ONLY play games on ONE of the current consoles, and ONLY on a 20" TV. For those people, they could certainly get a Wii and a small flat screen TV and save a whopping $100. So before I begin, good work, for a section of the public even smaller than PC enthusiasts, you have now defeated 3 of my points. Now for your other points.

Actually you can buy a PS3, a 360 and a 32inch 1080p for about $850 so I don't know what you're on about.

chuckdm:
The PS3 was $899 upon initial release. The initial price of the 360 was just $599 and the Wii was $299. Google it.

No it wasn't it was $599. Google it.

chuckdm:
So yeah, you're right, $1,797.00 is SO much cheaper than my laptop

Those prices (which you made up BTW) were five to six years ago so it's hardly fair. How much do you think it would have cost for a PC with your laptops specs six years ago? A fucking lot!

chuckdm:
and you're right, all of these consoles can emulate a PC. Oh wait...nope and nope!

Never claimed they could, so what are you talking about?

chuckdm:
Of course, I could wait 3+ years after release and buy all the consoles today, then you WOULD be right. But then, at that rate, I could wait only 6 months on stable emulators too...

So you think you'd have been able to get a PC six years ago that could run 360 emulators stably six months after release? Bullshit.

chuckdm:
As to the cost of hardware, my laptop is an ASUS G72gx. It is capable of running a 360 emulator on one monitor and a Wii emulator on a secondary monitor (same size, same 1600x900 resolution as the native panel) at the same time.

And I bet it runs those brilliantly!

chuckdm:
I got it re-certified on NewEgg for $729. This was almost 2 years ago. The only flaw is a small scratch on the lid. So yeah, PC is still cheaper unless you're one of those idiots who pays an extra $2,000 for hardware that's 10% above this.

Yeah I agree if you pay $2000 for a console and a cheap 1080p TV then you're an idiot. Good thing we don't live in Bizarro World then.

chuckdm:
I'm not one of those idiots, but neither would I pay more money for 3 consoles that can't emulate a PC when I could just buy a PC that can emulate 3 consoles.

Who cares if a console can't emulate a PC? It's not designed to, and you need a really high end PC to run a 360 emulator properly. And when I say properly I mean at the same level as an actual 360. I bet you don't have Live support.

chuckdm:
Next...console games are never made to work with a keyboard & mouse. Yes, some CAN, but virtually every console release is designed to work with a controller.

Yeah so? Consoles use controllers so they don't do it natively. What's your point? Last time I checked there's a fuckton of PC games without native controller support.

chuckdm:
Yes, every console comes with 1 controller so you can play with you, yourself, and the wall. Want to play with a friend? That'll be $79. Or you could get the knockoff that'll FUBAR sooner for $39! Now you want to play a game on another console with the same friend? Oh, well then that's another $39-$79. Repeat for each console and again for each friend. With 3 consoles and 3 (additional) controllers for each one, you just spent $351. Of course, you could just take the free included controllers from each one and USB them into your computer for $21 (assuming you didn't buy the $9 multi-port adapter) and now you can all play ANY of those games for no extra cost.

Can you play games with your friend on your PC without buying extra controllers? Uh, nope.

chuckdm:
Yes, buy used games so that the fine folks at EA can tell you you don't have a valid code and you miss half the content.

Don't buy EA anyway ^_^ Besides I can still play single player. You can't even do that.

chuckdm:
Don't get me wrong on this one, I agree with you, but there are MANY games now where used just isn't an option unless you want to get only half the content.

Still plenty of games where it is though. And it's still better than none at all.

chuckdm:
Also, while you COULD buy a used console title for $10, yanno what else works? Buy a NEW PC title from somewhere like Office Depot or Wal-Mart 1 year later for the same $10. And without missing half the content too!

No, but then I have to wait a year to play it, you can't buy used at all.

chuckdm:
No, switching between 3 different button configurations isn't MUCH of a chore, it's fairly minor. But why would I want to endure ANY chore?

I'm surprised it's even a chore at all. I have absolutely no problem switching from a 360 controller to a DS3. None at all.

chuckdm:
I'm playing a damn video game because I want to do something I enjoy. Any chore is, by definition, not enjoyable.

I find K+M a chore.

chuckdm:
Seems silly to pay more money for 3 separate controllers, and learn 3 of them, when just 1 of them has all the buttons I need in all the right places. Why would I want to do it any other way?

You find them in all the right places, I don't - personal preference. And as I've already pointed out the console comes with controllers.

chuckdm:
The point about battery life wasn't very cryptic so I'm not sure why you don't get it, but I'll try to explain. I had one of the re-branded PSOne's for a while, and a battery pack for it. It was great. I could literally take that (and the addon screen) and carry it around with me. When a game came out for the PSOne I didn't have to stay home. I could take it to a friend's house and play it there for up to 4 hours with a friend. It really was swell. That said, it was also expensive - another $159 for the battery, not to mention $89 for the portable screen. My laptop, on the other hand, does all that, for all 3 current consoles and PC titles, and it INCLUDES a battery at no extra charge. Now I spend more time gaming with friends, and less time gaming alone, because my 4-in-1 magical gaming box has a BATTERY and is PORTABLE. You really should give it a try!

How many people want to play a console on the go anyway? Kinda misses the point of a home console. And you're in a minority anyway as most PC gamers are on desktops.

chuckdm:
Your point about bugs is false. All console patches are applied in real time as the game is played. Nothing in the hardware of a 360, PS3, or Wii is capable of remastering a disc on the fly, so by definition the game as it exists on the disc is forever bugged. Only by re-applying the patch, as you play it, do you not experience the bug any more. This means if you sell your game (as you seem to do) others will experience the bug you thought you patched, and if you loan it to a friend, so will they.

You can't 'remaster' a PC disc either. It doesn't make a difference anyway, once the patch is installed you don't notice it.

chuckdm:
PC games do not have this problem, mainly because you can't resell or trade them in (for the most part.) However, this also means that you don't have the minor performance hit from trying to patch a game on-the-fly. Patch once and done.

I've never noticed a performance hit from a patch (unless the patch itself had a bug which was later fixed). Never.

chuckdm:
You're right, the ones complaining about graphics ARE PC gamers! Guess why? Because we're the ones who have seen the better graphics!

Well why the fuck do you care then? You've got the better graphics and console gamers are happy for the most part, so the only reason to complain is to be condascending.

chuckdm:
Can't complain that you're missing something if you don't know what you're missing. This is like spending your entire life in a world where there is no sunlight, then communicating with people on a world that actually has sunlight. It's not something you can appreciate until you've acquired it, then lost it again. (Though personally I always prefer overcast weather.)

Again why are you, the one who has supposedly 'seen the light', complaining?

chuckdm:
And finally, yes, the PS3 can use WPA2. I'm actually not sure about the 360

]I think the 360 does too actually.

chuckdm:
but the Wii cannot use WPA2, and is instead locked to either WPA or WEP.

It's only the Wii though so who cares? The consoles with decent online services use it.

chuckdm:
The DS, even worse, only supports WEP. I also remember that my old GameCube Wifi Module ONLY supports WPA - neither WPA2 nor WEP. This, of course, means you cannot use both the GameCube and a DS on the same network at the same time.

Now you're comparing PCs to an 8 year old handheld? How on earth is that fair?

chuckdm:
And this is the core of the issue. Console 1 can do A, B, and C. Console 2 can do B, C, and D. Console 3 can do C, D, and E. But a PC can do everything from A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and 000000 to FFFFFF. This is why PCs are superior. It's not that we can do one thing or another. It's that we can do EVERYTHING.

Good for you, but stop looking down on people who are happy with consoles. If they're fine with what consoles do, who are you to tell them otherwise?

chuckdm:
That level of choice and freedom - especially when it can be bought for the same price, much less cheaper - is indisputably preferable to limiting yourself for no obvious reason.

No it isn't cheaper. It just isn't. It only seems cheaper because you just made the prices up.

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't use mods.

if the game offers a 'mod kit' they are hiding behind it to me, might as well have said 'its shit, fix it for us'

Hazy992:

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy 3 $800 machines to play everything instead of 1 $800 machine and 3 free emulators.

$800?! What world do you live in because no console costs $800. Also, good luck trying to run a 360 emulator that works as good as the console on an $800 machine, which by the way the legality of is questionable

with Hazy on this, pretty much word for word. with the addition of reminding people ^^ emulation takes a LOT more power then one thinks if you going for anything more current then the PS1.

chuckdm:
Because then I'd be stuck with a joystick-based system instead of being able to use both a joystick AND a mouse whenever I choose.

that's a preference thing, nothing more. keyboard and mouse isn't the best for all games, least, the games i play anyway. screw FPS and RTS games :p

chuckdm:
Because then I'd have to buy 3 separate controllers and learn all 3 of them instead of using a single PS2 controller, a $7 USB adapter, and custom key mappings that makes the single PS2 controller capable of controlling every emulator.

i see where your going with this but .... still sounds stupid. probably how it's worded .... as there isn't any kind of 'learning curve' for controllers in my experience gaming

chuckdm:
Because then if the game is broken, as almost all are, I'd have to re-apply a patch every time I load the game rather than installing it once and being finished with it.

if your game is broken :D stop buying from Bethesda, simple as that

chuckdm:
Because then I am limited by the graphical capabilities of a box with little-to-no heat dissipation instead of being able to upgrade anything and everything whenever I choose.

ah ... the 'graphics argument', makes me lol every time from just how misguided it is. as to the upgrades, meh, only matters if its a need upgrade imo, anything else is a waste of money

iBagel:
Metal Gear Solid (Please!)
Halo 3 (for multi-player)

Those are the only 2 I can really think of..

Metal Gear Solid is out for the PC, as is MGS2.

Jet Set Radio Future, Rez, Ikaruga, Bangai-O, Crackdown (the 360 one) and Bayonetta.

I'm really happy that Jet Set Radio is coming to PC, even though I do prefer the sequel. I hope that SEGA make enough from the PC versions of their Dreamcast games that they start looking at releasing some of the Saturn classics too.

It's a sin that Rockstar has so far refused to port Red Dead Redemption for the PC. Makes no sense either, there's a reason why many developers want to do their games for as many platforms as possible, you get a much larger consumer base and will sell many more copies than if you made an exclusive title.

The game is already developed, they would just need a very small team to bring it over to the PC, pretty much pure profit.

Lunar Templar:

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't use mods.

if the game offers a 'mod kit' they are hiding behind it to me, might as well have said 'its shit, fix it for us'

I'm going to go ahead and guess you haven't used mods much, most of the games that have (and needed) unofficial patches don't have mod support.

Neverhood 2

DazZ.:

Lunar Templar:

chuckdm:
Because then I couldn't use mods.

if the game offers a 'mod kit' they are hiding behind it to me, might as well have said 'its shit, fix it for us'

I'm going to go ahead and guess you haven't used mods much, most of the games that have (and needed) unofficial patches don't have mod support.

nope, i have not. but I'm not talking about a mod like you NEED for KoToR 2, or bug fix mods made by fans cause the devs can't be asked for what ever reason.

I, am talking about games like Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3. games that have pretty much nothing else really going for them cept the world is big and looks decent, and you have 'dev tools' to fiddle with it. so the devs want me to do they're job they where to inept to do? um, no. if the game needs '15 mods before its good', then the game is just not good. a good game dose not NEED dicking around with to be made better, a good game is good on it's own with out any extra incentive.

"a game must be able to stand on single-player alone" are the wisest words i've seen on this site, but take that with a grain of salt i suppose, I'm still very much a console gamer at heart, retro-console to be accurate (when shit got done right the first fucking time) even though i've switched to the PC

chuckdm:
But a PC can do everything from A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and 000000 to FFFFFF.

At least my PS3 is 64-bit. Way more than that 24-bit computer you're using.

z121231211:

chuckdm:
But a PC can do everything from A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and 000000 to FFFFFF.

At least my PS3 is 64-bit. Way more than that 24-bit computer you're using.

The atari jaguar is 64-bit! Which means it's more advanced. Jaguar, Jaguar, JAGUAR!

On the topic, i enjoy my consoles and i enjoy my video games. If you want to play PC, that's okay, because you also want to play video games just like me. We all like video games, so why can't we all just like video games together?

Regnes:
It's a sin that Rockstar has so far refused to port Red Dead Redemption for the PC. Makes no sense either, there's a reason why many developers want to do their games for as many platforms as possible, you get a much larger consumer base and will sell many more copies than if you made an exclusive title.

The game is already developed, they would just need a very small team to bring it over to the PC, pretty much pure profit.

I too have always wondered why Red Dead Redemption has never been released on PC, yet the GTA series and even L.A. Noire are out on PC.

It's like I said in my OP. Alan Wake was already successful on the 360, but when it came over to PC this year, the sales for the PC version were great, and if Dark Souls on the PC gets great sales as well, I think it's time that developers look at this and bring some of their console-exclusive games to the PC.

I'm not saying that every single game on console should be released on PC. Games like the God Of War series, the Devil May Cry series, the Ninja Gaiden series, Super Street Fighter 4, and Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 definitely belong on the console for a good reason, I'm just saying that I think that there are some console-exclusive games that have the potential to do well on the PC, as well as consoles.

Timesplitters series
Conker Live and Reloaded
Saints Row 1

Lunar Templar:

DazZ.:

Lunar Templar:

if the game offers a 'mod kit' they are hiding behind it to me, might as well have said 'its shit, fix it for us'

I'm going to go ahead and guess you haven't used mods much, most of the games that have (and needed) unofficial patches don't have mod support.

I, am talking about games like Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3. games that have pretty much nothing else really going for them cept the world is big and looks decent

So you're talking Bethesda RPGs. All of which do exceptionally well on consoles and from what I gather most people play through first without mods. What mods do in those cases is add immense replay value, just look at what people have done to pretty up Morrowind and make that still playable to people who weren't around when it came out and couldn't otherwise handle the old gameplay/graphics as they're clunky compared to what is out today.

It's not that the game is shit on release, it just means people will be playing it for a hell of a longer time afterwards.

Lunar Templar:
"a game must be able to stand on single-player alone"

I don't agree with that, but that's because I grew up playing Quake and things over a 56k modem, so most of my greatest gaming nostalgia comes in groups of friends and lots of frags. (There's another game that wouldn't still be played had there not been support for the immense amount of custom maps and gametypes, but most certainly wasn't shit on release)

Lunar Templar:
I'm still very much a console gamer at heart, retro-console to be accurate (when shit got done right the first fucking time)

That however should make a comeback. Even though there obviously were bugs back then, the good ones weren't sent out prematurely. But the good ones still do get patched eventually, it's not the mods that fix Beth RPGs, it is the constant year of patching.

DazZ.:

Lunar Templar:

DazZ.:
I'm going to go ahead and guess you haven't used mods much, most of the games that have (and needed) unofficial patches don't have mod support.

I, am talking about games like Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3. games that have pretty much nothing else really going for them cept the world is big and looks decent

So you're talking Bethesda RPGs. All of which do exceptionally well on consoles and from what I gather most people play through first without mods. What mods do in those cases is add immense replay value, just look at what people have done to pretty up Morrowind and make that still playable to people who weren't around when it came out and couldn't otherwise handle the old gameplay/graphics as they're clunky compared to what is out today.

It's not that the game is shit on release, it just means people will be playing it for a hell of a longer time afterwards.

well, i've long since figured out those aren't my kinda games, nether are sand box games actually. still irks me hear 'mods make everything better' though .... clearly I'm out of that loop XD

Lunar Templar:
"a game must be able to stand on single-player alone"

I don't agree with that, but that's because I grew up playing Quake and things over a 56k modem, so most of my greatest gaming nostalgia comes in groups of friends and lots of frags. (There's another game that wouldn't still be played had there not been support for the immense amount of custom maps and gametypes, but most certainly wasn't shit on release)

i can respect that, i was playing the SNES and such during that time, so i was all about the single player, still am to

Lunar Templar:
I'm still very much a console gamer at heart, retro-console to be accurate (when shit got done right the first fucking time)

That however should make a comeback. Even though there obviously were bugs back then, the good ones weren't sent out prematurely. But the good ones still do get patched eventually, it's not the mods that fix Beth RPGs, it is the constant year of patching.

:D YAY!! some one that gets it!! FINALLY!! -.- true, they do get patched, but in Beths case, there are still WAY TO MANY bugs at launch, and to many other publisher just use the 'well we can patch it later if its a problem' attitude. what ever happened to taking some fucking pride in they're work, they'd a never gotten away with this crap even a decade ago. >.> *shakes cane* now get off my lawn!! XD

I want these game on PC too.

Red Dead Redemption
I Am Alive
DMC
Dead Or Alive 5
No More Heroes
Catherine
Lollipop Chainsaw
And even the upcoming The Last of Us

Goldeneye =D With a full HD update.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked