Is this the greatest year for PC gaming ever?

It''s a nice theory but even the most die hard old school gamers will admit that many of our old school games do not age as well as we''d like to admit..

That has nothing to do with their quality at release. It''s sort of a non-argument, most Console games don''t age well, especially when they have a huge budget. So console games making more money must mean they''re all gonna suck, right?

But the days of a single man cranking out a AAA title with the level of graphics and level design we now come to expect is pretty much gone.

People have said this again and again about various industries and it''s always untrue because technology is a double edged sword. It makes new things possible and it also makes them easier to do. I bet in the mid nineties everyone thought the garage software maker was dying because of GUIs being so complex to make, then Microsoft comes along with VB. Rapid, easy development led to a boom in garage software. .NET is having the same effect, as is Open Source, HTML, PHP, ect. When XAML hits it''ll have a similar effect. Programs get more complex, but they get easier to make.

Same thing with games. So what if PC game budgets plummet? People will adapt. When graphics technology plateaus and gets ""good enough"" an open source graphics engine will be completed that will commoditize the engine. Millions of dollars of development suddenly removed from the budget requirements. A standard engine will mean a few robust, standard scripting languages and a familiar codebase. Suddenly each project isn''t a complete technology build up from ground zero, and your experience can translate easily to the next project.

Or lets say people figure out a way to start building games from a more community oriented development model. Art assets can be supplmented with Fan Art, given a sufficiently talented and active community. Same thing with sound or models. Maybe even run contests with cash prizes, open source has proved there''s plenty of starving college kids just dying to cut their teeth, and it''s still way cheaper than a full time artist.

Turning creation of PC games into a smaller business just means there''s alot of room for innovation, not that it''s dead. As we know it, the monolithic publisher with the proprietary developer, it''s probably dying. It doesn''t mean PC gaming is dead, not by a longshot.

I wouldn''t want to say that this clearly is the best year PC gaming ever had because 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 were some great years as well. They saw games like Civilization, X-Wing, Ultima VI, Ultima VII + Add-ons, Ultima Underworld I&II, Syndicate, Secret of Monkey Island I&II, Sam&Max, Indy IV, Day of the Tentacle MUDS, Mad TV, Falcon 3, Chuck Yeager''s Air Combat, Gunship 2000, Sim City 2000, Railroad Tycoon, King''s Quest V, Space Quest IV, Larry V, Links, Lemmings, Alien Breed, Wolfenstein 3D, Alone in the Dark, Speedball I&II, Gods, Pushover, Settlers, Might&Magic III, Lost Vikings, StarTrek: 25th Anniversary&Judgement Rites, Great Courts 2, Commander Keen series ... well, there are at least another 10-15 other great games I remember offhand which could be added as well. And surely some more which I forgot right now.

That has nothing to do with their quality at release. It''s sort of a non-argument, most Console games don''t age well, especially when they have a huge budget. So console games making more money must mean they''re all gonna suck, right?

Wasnt what I was trying to get across.. was trying to say that the old school games that were created by a small team or one individual do not hold up well to time.

I understand what your saying and your right as tools get better and easier to use in theory the teams required to build these complex games will shrink. But I can''t imagine they will get easy enough to reduce the need for 45+ people on a single game to 1-2. But again I''m not much of a software developer so what do I know.

My biggest problem with PC''s vs Consoles is that consoles keep getting more powerful and stay the same price and can have a shelf life of 2-3 years while PC''s have top of the line videocards that cost $550-$600 (GF6800 Ultra, Radeon XT:PE). If the next round of consoles next year offer similar level of graphic performance and on HD sets people will be hard pressed to see any difference between Console and PC games.

While the PC has a superior range of input choices I think Console makers have made great strides with certain genres. For me I find the Stealth FPS much better suited to dual analog joysticks than the mousewheel/digital keyboard.

Look anyone can simply say.. oh dont worry some other developers will come and PC gaming will always be great. For me I can only look at the facts and the trends. And in the current system more developers/publishers are devoting current and future resources to this generation of consoles and (more importantly) the next generation. Retailers are devoting more shelf space to console and accessories and less to PC games. More magazines and web sites are talking about consoles than PC''s. The younger generation sees the console as the top gaming platform and not the PC. Thats what they talk to their peers about.

was trying to say that the old school games that were created by a small team or one individual do not hold up well to time.

What about Braben and Bell''s Elite? You don''t get much more Garage, nor have I yet seen a game that holds up as well. It''s a good RPG, it''s a fun space combat game, it''s a fun exploration game, it''s a fun trading game, and it''s greatly replayable due to the fact that the entire universe is a random number.

God damn Elite.

Ruined most of my teenage years. And I would do it all again in a heartbeat.

Not trying to offend anyone in particular, but could all the soothsayers please stop dangling intestines in front of me?

''04 is indeed an interesting year for PC gaming because a lot of heavily anticipated titles are going to be released. This means also that it''s almost impossible to predict the development of this part of the gaming market after that point.
If D3, HL2, Vampire, WoW, CoC, and the likes hit in close succession, each garnering ample profits, this might well spark a rise of the PC market - console or computer, games move units.
If most of these AAA titles flop, the exact opposite might be the case.
The matter of fact is that neither of us can truly predict how much money each of these games will make, though, so I suggest we restart this discussion next January.

I think it''s close with September being one of the best months on record. NASCAR 2005, Street Racing Syndicate, Burnout 3, Locomotion, ESPN NHL 2K5, Juiced, Madden for PC, Silent Hill 4, Call of Duty United Offensive, Fable, Rome: Total War, Sims 2, Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault, Men of Valor, Silent Hunter 3, Star Wars Battlefront, Tiger Woods 2005, Warhammer Dawn of War, Evil Genius, Myst 4, Xbox Live Arcade, Leisure Suit Larry 5.

Holy cow, I don''t make enough money!

I think the problem with the gaming industry in general is that there seems to be this sort of need to cash in on sure things anymore. Sequels, sequels and more sequels (too bad most companies that do that *cough* EIDOS *cough* lend themselves to mediocrity) are constantly coming out.

Add to that all the problems that the goverment and parental activists (mind you, I''m talking about the morons who don''t know any better, not the parents like many of you who know what should and should not be played by kids) and we''ve got a form of entertainment that''s got serious problems.

Now, specifically to PC games, do I think they''re going to die out? I think they''ve got to worry about competition as always, but I still maintain that it''s all apples and oranges to me. Somedays, I say I couldn''t possibly play anymore PC games, and I''ll sit down and play Suikoden II all day long. And some days I''ll say I couldn''t touch my Playstation, and run off to play Morrowind all day. They are two completely different forms of gaming.

I mean, take for instance, me and my old roommate (the psycho, not the jew). I was playing Vice City on my PC and he was playing it on his PS2. He couldn''t get past a shooting mission to save his life, but I was done with it in like 1 try. It was cake with a mouse. Input totally changed the gameplay. Not to mention, that was about the most thought-involving game he owned. That for me, was one of the least, compared to games like Morrowind, Rise of Nations, and KOTOR.

I''m not saying PC Gamers are smarter than Console gamers or anything so stupid as that. I''m saying that due to more sophisticated input mechanisms, we''ve got more sophisticated and involving games. And, even with my OLD vid card, my copy of Vice City looked better than his did.

That said, the mouse and keyboard is no way to play Super Mario Bros. It''s a pain in the ass! There are some games where the D-pad and the A and B buttons are the only thing that works.

That said, unless the console undergoes a major revolution or control pads become stylish for the PC, neither side will ever really win. Admittedly, consoles are raking in more money, but that''s cuz the games are more streamlined and more appealing to the public.

Just the way it is. I know when I listed the top 10 games I''d take with me to a desert island, all but 3 were PC games... and that seems like a good indicator, at least from my perspective.