Well, it's a while since I visited this site. For various reasons I've been away from my PC (like a camping holiday at the seaside where it rained about 75% of the time - hooray for wetsuits and the fact that the sea is already wet, so rain doesn't affect play).
Once again, I've ended up annoying people on forums related to PC games. It can be a frustrating place to debate the current state and direction of PC gaming as many members will simply pick at minor points in your argument or statement, just for the sake of finding something to disagree with. Still, I find myself at constant odds with the PC gaming press and their lack of depth regarding reportage of the gaming industry. The PC gaming press still champion the excessively priced GFX cards without realising the implications.
The forthcoming release of Bioshock should have rang a few alarm bells once the system specs were announced. Firstly, we all know that 'minimum specs' don't actually relate to playing the game, just merely getting the program to run. After well over 15 years of PC gaming, I find that the recommended specs for any game should be treated as the minimum needed to play the game at a reasonable framerate etc... So, the rec specs for Bioshock on the PC are quite hefty, a dual core CPU, 2Gb RAM and a 512Mb GFX card ro the sort that are on the market for 250+. To run the game on full detail settings, I expect even the rec specs to struggle. The question is, why should I buy this game for the PC, when I can buy it for the xbox360 and not have to suffer from poor/unpredictable framerate and reduced visual details; details which I find are often worse than those of games optimised for lesser PC's (eg UT2004 and even DOOM3). In fact, CPU/GPU intensive games of the past like Oblivion, which was released when no PC was capable of running it at full detail, will look better and play smoother than a modern game on heavily reduced detail - go figure? The old argument of expensive console games is no longer valid now that supermarkets here in the UK sell popular games at much reduced prices. Also, what difference does price make when the cheaper PC version will play poorly on my PC which doesn't quite measure up to the rec spec? However, there is a new argument against playing such games as Bioshock on a consolse that costs less than a 'decent GFX card that will be outdated in less than 18 months'. That is, that I need a 1000 HDTV to get the best out of my console. This is, pardon the phrase, absolute bollocks! When my xbox360 can output a VGA signal to my 19" monitor, I don't really need a HDTV, 1280x1024 is still a higher resolution than a lot of HDTV's. Hell, even my mothers 200 LCD widecreen TV will display the lower scale HDTV resolution (720) and suits gaming (and indeed anything PC) perfectly fine. It's almost if the gaming press are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'la-la-la-la can't hear you, can't hear you'. Fine, keep you heads either buried in the sand or up your own anus; anything to avoid the reality of where Popular (and therefore, market driving) PC gaming is headed. Still, I suppose I can understand, potential journalists will use media like gaming magazines for nothing more than climbing the career ladder; a few years of hard work will get you the editorship of a gaming mag, another 12-18 months will allow you to screw the format around and add another line or two to your CV before moving onto something more serious. On the other hand, there are the handful of people who want to write for the gaming press because they love gaming, not because it's just another rung on the journalist ladder. The problem here though is a lack of objectivity as you slowly lose touch with those people who really make gaming possible - the punters who actually buy and play games. And of course, the pay is crap. Only the freelance journalist can afford to look at anything more in depth than the next upcoming AAA titles. However, by not following the diktat of large games publishers, or the magazine publishers which rely on games publishers for 'material', you're liable to find your freelance talents surplus to the needs of the magazine.
Of course, this is pure conjecture. However, the only other reason for such blinkered 'journalism' is to believe that those involved with the gaming press are just plain ignorant and stupid. I don't believe this is the case, but I only have my observations of many years with which to draw such conclusions.
So, back to bioshock, should I upgrade my PC AGAIN to run Bioshock 'the way it's meant to be played' by shelling out hundreds of pounds on 'not even the cutting edge' upgrades, or just buy the xbox360 version? The answer would seem obvious, and to be honest, I probably will buy the xbox360 version because the game sounds fun, imaginative and involving (although it's been 'consolized' to a large degree compared to the System Shock games it's related to. There's to be more shooting and less cerebral exercise, sadly). However, I will be missing out on all the things that make the PC one of the best gaming machines on the market, and that is the modifications made to the game by the highly imaginative, general public. Despite the intentions of modern consoles to encourage user created content, they're still handcuffed by having such content authorised by the console manufacturer. After all, you'll never see any of the user created 'adult' content on anything but the PC, and bu adult, I mean the full spectrum of adult content, from serious issues all the way to the 'amusing vice erotic' naked mods which appear for almost any game.
So whose fault is it that by buying the xbox360 version, I'll not only miss out on the aftermarket scent that makes PC games so good, but I'll also be convincing publishers and developers that PC games are selling less and less. Well? Ultimately, it's my fault for either not wanting to constantly fully upgrade my PC every 18 months, or most likely, not being able to afford to fully upgrade my PC. Admittedly, PC upgrades are a fact of PC life. However, as components become increasingly more expensive, and expansive in number, it actually costs more in real terms to upgrade a 'gaming' PC. As a note, there never used to be such a thing as a 'gaming' PC; there used to be just PC's that could play games.
So, it's my fault for being unable to afford PC upgrades, especially when a dedicated gaming machine will run the AAA, cross platform titles with the minimum of fuss, and at least meet some minimum standards for a quality gaming experience with regards to hardware (ie, the minimum of 30fps that all xbox360 games are supposed to adhere to). However, the responsibility of keeping the PC alive as a gaming platform has been taken out of my hands. Before, I would not buy a game if it wasn't fun to play, or didn't have that quality that makes a good game, a 'good game'. Now, I'm forced to look elsewhere as a consumer of games. The responsibility lies ultimately with the publishers and developers. However, they're not going to get the message that the PC is still the best and most ubiquitous gaming platform, because the sales figures will (for the above reasons, and probably plenty more that I've not thought of) not show it. Therefore, that leaves us with the gaming press, the only media which connects the industry to it's market on a large scale. At the moment, the gaming media is little more than a filter in which news from the developers and publishers is dripfed to the consumer. To make matters worse, the gaming magazines are in a slow decline (with particular emphasis on PC gaming) due to the fact that most of the information a gamer wants, is available in large quantities on the net, either at specialist sites, or directly from the devs/publishers/games website.
Gaming magazines initially appeared for one reason - reviews. I don't need to go into the reasons for this, as they're quite obvious. These days, with the internet, magazines need a few more tricks up their sleeves, particularly (with reference to the UK market) as these reviews are failing to include important technical information, vital to a potential PC gaming buyer in favour of humour and a need to express individuality (see earlier ramblings on climbing the journo career ladder). The decline is not helped by their blinkered vision (either intentional or not) on the current direction of PC gaming, ie, the PC becoming an expensive console in order to make cross platform development easier and more cost effective. A few well intentioned articles on 'indie' or (say it without squirming if you can) 'casual' gaming isn't really enough. It's bad enough that independant development tends to get less column inches that retro gaming, but the interpretation of 'indie' is somewhat misleading. After all, many of the early PC classics were made by small, dedicated teams, or even one person. With the current trend for ever more complex presentation in gaming, the large development teams cannot keep the 'vision' of a games creater sufficiently in focus, unless a very strong figurehead is leading an experienced set of individuals. With PC gaming heading in it's current direction, the future is not so much bleak, as bland, as many of the more interesting titles will no doubt be cross platform.
It is my feeling that the gaming press needs to help change the mindset of not only the devs/publishers, but the gamers themselves, particularly those who are fairly new to the PC gaming scene. There is also a new demograph emerging - the veteran gamer - that is not (IMHO) catered for by any media that I can find, be it on paper or the net. What I call the veteran gamer is someone at least 30 years old (heheh, at the time of writing this) but has been playing video games in the home almost all their life. Whilst there are now many gamers who fall into the 30+ age category, the veteran gamer is an emerging demograph that cannot have existed until now, and, without intending to sound patronising, probably has more experience of the gaming hobby than many journalists in the gaming press, with differing interests, attitudes and expectations of what is 'a good game'.
The veteran gamer may or may not be interested in retro gaming. Either the veteran gamer isn't interested in games they've already experienced, or, on the other hand, may enjoy a bit of nostalgia for 'the good ole days'. There's no denying that retro gaming has taken off in recent years. Could it be younger gamers finding an experience not previously available to them, much like a music lover will eventually become interested in the music of previous generations, or older gamers wanting to share the games of their youth? Despite this, retro gaming has helped 'indie' developers find a market; Geometry Wars Evolved is a fair example of this phenomena. However, more needs to be done to expand the diversity in PC gaming (or even gaming on the whole), a diversity that is below par with what it was 10 years ago. Constant regurgitation and homogenisation of popular titles and inevitable sequels has done little to reinvigorate the imagination in the market. A market that is slowly losing its soul. Whilst this may not be a problem with the younger gamers who know little else, what is there for the veteran gamer?
Whilst the veteran gamer may now be in a lifestyle position to constantly upgrade their PC with more and more expensive hardware, they become more reluctant to do so, particularly when there are consoles that provide a similar experience at a fraction of the price (albeit without a mouse and keyboard). However, they know that the PC is capable of more than console ports or cross platform games. The 'indie' scence helps to some degree, but again, the problem here is that the veteran gamer is still a small yet growing demograph. A demograph that will eventually become the largest, as if you're still playing video games in your thirties, you're unlikely to ever give them up, even with a career, partners and children taking up your time. Only the stagnation of games themselves will turn a veteran gamer away. At the moment, a large percentage of the gaming industry are happy to constantly plug sequels and 'shiny' games at the younger generation. However, unless the industry starts looking towards veteran gamers, they're not going to progress the industry at any noticable rate aside from the obvious technical advantages offered by new technologies. Also, as mentioned earlier, veteran gamers will be a growing demograph and a rich source of income for the industry, as long as they can unlock what makes the veteran gamer tick, and produce engaging titles that they will buy. (note: Veteran gamers are not older gamers new to the scene, but gamers who have moved into their thirties and need newer and/or deeper experiences to get their kicks - apologies for reiterating this point).
There is one positive to the industry regarding the veteran gamer. Whilst their needs may be more difficult to cater for, they don't need expensive marketing campaigns, the latest graphics or gaming gimmicks to hook them. They do need engaging entertainment, solid programming and reliability; things that are easily provided by small, intimate programming teams. The sort of teams that are only emerging amongst the independant industry.
As I alluded to earlier, one of the biggest problems in the industry is communication between the creators of the game and their potential market. Oddly enough, there is also a definate need for a magazine & related website to cater for the veteran audience. I'll be honest here, the 'indie' scene is currently viewed amongst many (admittedly younger) gamers as a source of free, albeit different, games. Very similar in fact to how those gamers view the retro gaming scene. Whilst the 'indie' scene will no doubt progress, it will always be overshadowed by the mainstream in a similar way to music in the 1980's. There's no doubt that the independant developers need support, both financially and ultimately in distributing their product, but currently, there's a lack of 'middle man media' for communication between developer and buyer. Whilst Manifesto Games is a fine example of a website attempting to bridge this gap, there's no independant, easily available media available to the public which can act as a mouthpiece and ear to both developer and gamer. What does this mean?
Yes, you've guessed it. Whilst the PC gaming magazines are struggling to shift copies, there's an obvious gap in the market yet to be exploited. With the focus away from (but not ignoring) the traditional format of 'big title' reviews, a magazine could be created that would cater for both the independant developer and the veteran gamer. With a more mature 'broadsheet' mindset, rather than the usual 'cheeky, schoolboy humour' of current magazines, the magazine could offer a lot more than just the benefits to indie dev & veteran gamer. For a start, by not concentrating on the industries big players, they can take a more objective view of their output. Also, the magazine can scrutinise technology on a more realistic level; no matter how powerful a piece of technology is, there's a certain financial threshold that's dictated by competeting technologies that, if gets crossed should result in the item being avoided, be it CPU, GPU, RAM, MOBO etc...
There are magazines that cater for the gaming hardware enthusiast, the younger gamer, the late teens-twenties gamer, and even the PC newcomer, but very little that caters for the veteran gamer. Those magazines that tick some of the boxes are always multi-platform (no bad thing as a veteran gamer is likely to have several gaming platforms), but in being multi-platform have to spread their content, resulting in little depth.
Alternative Gamer - it doesn't exist, but it should.
- apologies for spelling errors, grammatical errors and Tony B.Liar
Once again, I've ended up annoying people on forums related to PC games. It can be a frustrating place to debate the current state and direction of PC gaming as many members will simply pick at minor points in your argument or statement, just for the sake of finding something to disagree with. Still, I find myself at constant odds with the PC gaming press and their lack of depth regarding reportage of the gaming industry. The PC gaming press still champion the excessively priced GFX cards without realising the implications.
The forthcoming release of Bioshock should have rang a few alarm bells once the system specs were announced. Firstly, we all know that 'minimum specs' don't actually relate to playing the game, just merely getting the program to run. After well over 15 years of PC gaming, I find that the recommended specs for any game should be treated as the minimum needed to play the game at a reasonable framerate etc... So, the rec specs for Bioshock on the PC are quite hefty, a dual core CPU, 2Gb RAM and a 512Mb GFX card ro the sort that are on the market for 250+. To run the game on full detail settings, I expect even the rec specs to struggle. The question is, why should I buy this game for the PC, when I can buy it for the xbox360 and not have to suffer from poor/unpredictable framerate and reduced visual details; details which I find are often worse than those of games optimised for lesser PC's (eg UT2004 and even DOOM3). In fact, CPU/GPU intensive games of the past like Oblivion, which was released when no PC was capable of running it at full detail, will look better and play smoother than a modern game on heavily reduced detail - go figure? The old argument of expensive console games is no longer valid now that supermarkets here in the UK sell popular games at much reduced prices. Also, what difference does price make when the cheaper PC version will play poorly on my PC which doesn't quite measure up to the rec spec? However, there is a new argument against playing such games as Bioshock on a consolse that costs less than a 'decent GFX card that will be outdated in less than 18 months'. That is, that I need a 1000 HDTV to get the best out of my console. This is, pardon the phrase, absolute bollocks! When my xbox360 can output a VGA signal to my 19" monitor, I don't really need a HDTV, 1280x1024 is still a higher resolution than a lot of HDTV's. Hell, even my mothers 200 LCD widecreen TV will display the lower scale HDTV resolution (720) and suits gaming (and indeed anything PC) perfectly fine. It's almost if the gaming press are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'la-la-la-la can't hear you, can't hear you'. Fine, keep you heads either buried in the sand or up your own anus; anything to avoid the reality of where Popular (and therefore, market driving) PC gaming is headed. Still, I suppose I can understand, potential journalists will use media like gaming magazines for nothing more than climbing the career ladder; a few years of hard work will get you the editorship of a gaming mag, another 12-18 months will allow you to screw the format around and add another line or two to your CV before moving onto something more serious. On the other hand, there are the handful of people who want to write for the gaming press because they love gaming, not because it's just another rung on the journalist ladder. The problem here though is a lack of objectivity as you slowly lose touch with those people who really make gaming possible - the punters who actually buy and play games. And of course, the pay is crap. Only the freelance journalist can afford to look at anything more in depth than the next upcoming AAA titles. However, by not following the diktat of large games publishers, or the magazine publishers which rely on games publishers for 'material', you're liable to find your freelance talents surplus to the needs of the magazine.
Of course, this is pure conjecture. However, the only other reason for such blinkered 'journalism' is to believe that those involved with the gaming press are just plain ignorant and stupid. I don't believe this is the case, but I only have my observations of many years with which to draw such conclusions.
So, back to bioshock, should I upgrade my PC AGAIN to run Bioshock 'the way it's meant to be played' by shelling out hundreds of pounds on 'not even the cutting edge' upgrades, or just buy the xbox360 version? The answer would seem obvious, and to be honest, I probably will buy the xbox360 version because the game sounds fun, imaginative and involving (although it's been 'consolized' to a large degree compared to the System Shock games it's related to. There's to be more shooting and less cerebral exercise, sadly). However, I will be missing out on all the things that make the PC one of the best gaming machines on the market, and that is the modifications made to the game by the highly imaginative, general public. Despite the intentions of modern consoles to encourage user created content, they're still handcuffed by having such content authorised by the console manufacturer. After all, you'll never see any of the user created 'adult' content on anything but the PC, and bu adult, I mean the full spectrum of adult content, from serious issues all the way to the 'amusing vice erotic' naked mods which appear for almost any game.
So whose fault is it that by buying the xbox360 version, I'll not only miss out on the aftermarket scent that makes PC games so good, but I'll also be convincing publishers and developers that PC games are selling less and less. Well? Ultimately, it's my fault for either not wanting to constantly fully upgrade my PC every 18 months, or most likely, not being able to afford to fully upgrade my PC. Admittedly, PC upgrades are a fact of PC life. However, as components become increasingly more expensive, and expansive in number, it actually costs more in real terms to upgrade a 'gaming' PC. As a note, there never used to be such a thing as a 'gaming' PC; there used to be just PC's that could play games.
So, it's my fault for being unable to afford PC upgrades, especially when a dedicated gaming machine will run the AAA, cross platform titles with the minimum of fuss, and at least meet some minimum standards for a quality gaming experience with regards to hardware (ie, the minimum of 30fps that all xbox360 games are supposed to adhere to). However, the responsibility of keeping the PC alive as a gaming platform has been taken out of my hands. Before, I would not buy a game if it wasn't fun to play, or didn't have that quality that makes a good game, a 'good game'. Now, I'm forced to look elsewhere as a consumer of games. The responsibility lies ultimately with the publishers and developers. However, they're not going to get the message that the PC is still the best and most ubiquitous gaming platform, because the sales figures will (for the above reasons, and probably plenty more that I've not thought of) not show it. Therefore, that leaves us with the gaming press, the only media which connects the industry to it's market on a large scale. At the moment, the gaming media is little more than a filter in which news from the developers and publishers is dripfed to the consumer. To make matters worse, the gaming magazines are in a slow decline (with particular emphasis on PC gaming) due to the fact that most of the information a gamer wants, is available in large quantities on the net, either at specialist sites, or directly from the devs/publishers/games website.
Gaming magazines initially appeared for one reason - reviews. I don't need to go into the reasons for this, as they're quite obvious. These days, with the internet, magazines need a few more tricks up their sleeves, particularly (with reference to the UK market) as these reviews are failing to include important technical information, vital to a potential PC gaming buyer in favour of humour and a need to express individuality (see earlier ramblings on climbing the journo career ladder). The decline is not helped by their blinkered vision (either intentional or not) on the current direction of PC gaming, ie, the PC becoming an expensive console in order to make cross platform development easier and more cost effective. A few well intentioned articles on 'indie' or (say it without squirming if you can) 'casual' gaming isn't really enough. It's bad enough that independant development tends to get less column inches that retro gaming, but the interpretation of 'indie' is somewhat misleading. After all, many of the early PC classics were made by small, dedicated teams, or even one person. With the current trend for ever more complex presentation in gaming, the large development teams cannot keep the 'vision' of a games creater sufficiently in focus, unless a very strong figurehead is leading an experienced set of individuals. With PC gaming heading in it's current direction, the future is not so much bleak, as bland, as many of the more interesting titles will no doubt be cross platform.
It is my feeling that the gaming press needs to help change the mindset of not only the devs/publishers, but the gamers themselves, particularly those who are fairly new to the PC gaming scene. There is also a new demograph emerging - the veteran gamer - that is not (IMHO) catered for by any media that I can find, be it on paper or the net. What I call the veteran gamer is someone at least 30 years old (heheh, at the time of writing this) but has been playing video games in the home almost all their life. Whilst there are now many gamers who fall into the 30+ age category, the veteran gamer is an emerging demograph that cannot have existed until now, and, without intending to sound patronising, probably has more experience of the gaming hobby than many journalists in the gaming press, with differing interests, attitudes and expectations of what is 'a good game'.
The veteran gamer may or may not be interested in retro gaming. Either the veteran gamer isn't interested in games they've already experienced, or, on the other hand, may enjoy a bit of nostalgia for 'the good ole days'. There's no denying that retro gaming has taken off in recent years. Could it be younger gamers finding an experience not previously available to them, much like a music lover will eventually become interested in the music of previous generations, or older gamers wanting to share the games of their youth? Despite this, retro gaming has helped 'indie' developers find a market; Geometry Wars Evolved is a fair example of this phenomena. However, more needs to be done to expand the diversity in PC gaming (or even gaming on the whole), a diversity that is below par with what it was 10 years ago. Constant regurgitation and homogenisation of popular titles and inevitable sequels has done little to reinvigorate the imagination in the market. A market that is slowly losing its soul. Whilst this may not be a problem with the younger gamers who know little else, what is there for the veteran gamer?
Whilst the veteran gamer may now be in a lifestyle position to constantly upgrade their PC with more and more expensive hardware, they become more reluctant to do so, particularly when there are consoles that provide a similar experience at a fraction of the price (albeit without a mouse and keyboard). However, they know that the PC is capable of more than console ports or cross platform games. The 'indie' scence helps to some degree, but again, the problem here is that the veteran gamer is still a small yet growing demograph. A demograph that will eventually become the largest, as if you're still playing video games in your thirties, you're unlikely to ever give them up, even with a career, partners and children taking up your time. Only the stagnation of games themselves will turn a veteran gamer away. At the moment, a large percentage of the gaming industry are happy to constantly plug sequels and 'shiny' games at the younger generation. However, unless the industry starts looking towards veteran gamers, they're not going to progress the industry at any noticable rate aside from the obvious technical advantages offered by new technologies. Also, as mentioned earlier, veteran gamers will be a growing demograph and a rich source of income for the industry, as long as they can unlock what makes the veteran gamer tick, and produce engaging titles that they will buy. (note: Veteran gamers are not older gamers new to the scene, but gamers who have moved into their thirties and need newer and/or deeper experiences to get their kicks - apologies for reiterating this point).
There is one positive to the industry regarding the veteran gamer. Whilst their needs may be more difficult to cater for, they don't need expensive marketing campaigns, the latest graphics or gaming gimmicks to hook them. They do need engaging entertainment, solid programming and reliability; things that are easily provided by small, intimate programming teams. The sort of teams that are only emerging amongst the independant industry.
As I alluded to earlier, one of the biggest problems in the industry is communication between the creators of the game and their potential market. Oddly enough, there is also a definate need for a magazine & related website to cater for the veteran audience. I'll be honest here, the 'indie' scene is currently viewed amongst many (admittedly younger) gamers as a source of free, albeit different, games. Very similar in fact to how those gamers view the retro gaming scene. Whilst the 'indie' scene will no doubt progress, it will always be overshadowed by the mainstream in a similar way to music in the 1980's. There's no doubt that the independant developers need support, both financially and ultimately in distributing their product, but currently, there's a lack of 'middle man media' for communication between developer and buyer. Whilst Manifesto Games is a fine example of a website attempting to bridge this gap, there's no independant, easily available media available to the public which can act as a mouthpiece and ear to both developer and gamer. What does this mean?
Yes, you've guessed it. Whilst the PC gaming magazines are struggling to shift copies, there's an obvious gap in the market yet to be exploited. With the focus away from (but not ignoring) the traditional format of 'big title' reviews, a magazine could be created that would cater for both the independant developer and the veteran gamer. With a more mature 'broadsheet' mindset, rather than the usual 'cheeky, schoolboy humour' of current magazines, the magazine could offer a lot more than just the benefits to indie dev & veteran gamer. For a start, by not concentrating on the industries big players, they can take a more objective view of their output. Also, the magazine can scrutinise technology on a more realistic level; no matter how powerful a piece of technology is, there's a certain financial threshold that's dictated by competeting technologies that, if gets crossed should result in the item being avoided, be it CPU, GPU, RAM, MOBO etc...
There are magazines that cater for the gaming hardware enthusiast, the younger gamer, the late teens-twenties gamer, and even the PC newcomer, but very little that caters for the veteran gamer. Those magazines that tick some of the boxes are always multi-platform (no bad thing as a veteran gamer is likely to have several gaming platforms), but in being multi-platform have to spread their content, resulting in little depth.
Alternative Gamer - it doesn't exist, but it should.
- apologies for spelling errors, grammatical errors and Tony B.Liar