| Yes | 57% | 57% - 41 | ||||
| No | 42% | 42% - 30 | ||||
| Total: 71 | ||||||
Thankfully we are getting closer to 3. Surely after Black Ops and MoH in the same like 6 month period after MW2 and BC2 that are not even a year old that is enough high profile modern war with no uniqueness and all in deserts or russia games to get people weary.Lucien wrote:
We're somewhere in-between 2 and 3, Call of Duty being the original game.
Last edited by jord (2010-06-27 04:42:53)
I reckon it depends on the gameplay. For multiplayer, Modern wins all the time (Except for MOH:AA), but games like Brothers In Arms make the WW2 theme amazing. Play those games full volume on the hardest difficulty and you'll see what I mean.jord wrote:
I prefer modern war, ww2 weapons are boring.
I do too, but it isnt making the games any better.jord wrote:
I prefer modern war, ww2 weapons are boring.
WW2 weapons had variety.jord wrote:
I prefer modern war, ww2 weapons are boring.
Not really, there's the same amount of catagories of weapons now than then but there's more varients.Miggle wrote:
WW2 weapons had variety.jord wrote:
I prefer modern war, ww2 weapons are boring.
Circle of friends.Jaekus wrote:
I don't understand why more ppl voted yes.
I know more people who game on PC than console, which is the reverse from 5-10 years ago.
My old place, my flatmates have a Wii. I think out of all the gaming that they did, 10% was on the Wii, the rest on PC.
My current place, we all have PCs and there's an XBOX 360 in the lounge room. One of our flatmate's brothers plays it more than all of us combined, and he visits once a fortnight-month. A couple of my other mates play PC, one has a Wii and the rest don't game unless it's at someone else's place. If anything PC is more popular, or maybe that's just my circle of friends.
I do not, but I see potential in them. (remember the 128 player BF2 that never happened).Spearhead wrote:
Did anyone mention MMO's yet? That's definitely one thing PC has over consoles... if you like them that is.
And plus factions were much more unique with their weapon choices. Germans had k98 as primary rifle, USA had m1 garand a semi auto obviously, Germans had a g43 as a secondary as a response to m1 but not as popular as k98, Germans have MP40 as primary SMG, USA has a Thompson which is far superior, Germans have StG44 which is a nice merge between rifle and smg, Americans have M1 carbine which merges pistol and rifle and has same range as StG44 just has crappier stopping power than the Thompson and StG44 but better than the MP40, USA has the m1919 as a MMG and BAR -which is a good merge between rifle and machine gun- as a lmg, Germans got mg42 which can fill either the HMG or LMG role, etc. One thing I like about ww2, especially USA vs Germany.Miggle wrote:
WW2 weapons had variety.jord wrote:
I prefer modern war, ww2 weapons are boring.
This is the truth.Lucien wrote:
It's not the death of PC games. The trend towards accessibility and "fair" games has caused game developers to focus on making games that let the players feel they're doing well from the first time they play. Games like BF2, UT, CS, and the like are all incredibly hard on new players and give experienced players the chance of actually getting good at the game. If you dumb down your game so new players can get into it easier and old players are not so willing to stick around, then the game itself and more importantly its sequel(s) are much easier to sell. Then there's the fact there are loads more gamers who are a lot more casual overall. They simply don't want to have to actually learn the game. Their attitude is often "I have a right to win" and devs are willing to support this.
MP40 is always better than the M1A1 dude.War Man wrote:
And plus factions were much more unique with their weapon choices. Germans had k98 as primary rifle, USA had m1 garand a semi auto obviously, Germans had a g43 as a secondary as a response to m1 but not as popular as k98, Germans have MP40 as primary SMG, USA has a Thompson which is far superior, Germans have StG44 which is a nice merge between rifle and smg, Americans have M1 carbine which merges pistol and rifle and has same range as StG44 just has crappier stopping power than the Thompson and StG44 but better than the MP40, USA has the m1919 as a MMG and BAR -which is a good merge between rifle and machine gun- as a lmg, Germans got mg42 which can fill either the HMG or LMG role, etc. One thing I like about ww2, especially USA vs Germany.Miggle wrote:
WW2 weapons had variety.jord wrote:
I prefer modern war, ww2 weapons are boring.
This.Trotskygrad wrote:
tbh it's a cycle
First all gaming was on the PC
Then Came the Nintendo Game Boy. All Games were developed for that, they got all the media's attention, etc. etc.
Then back game the PC with multiplayer online gaming with HL:DM and CS
Then the PS2/PS3/360 came back, and the PC game industry declined a bit again.
IMO, in a couple years, people will simply get pissed off paying for content on the consoles and go back to PC after Sony/MS steps up the XBOX Live/PSN charging too much
Or, the console's graphics will age and the PC will surpass it.
As long as the PC Game industry gets their shit together and starts releasing standardized-ish PCs that just work with no troubleshooting (that's a problem).
Another possibility is the face that mobile device gamers (iPhone/iPod) will migrate to the PC, in order to retain the free DLC that many mobile games provide...
Nay, Thompson has better stopping power, ROF, and decent accuracy. Plus you can have 50 round drum mags, can't do that with the mp40Doctor Strangelove wrote:
MP40 is always better than the M1A1 dude.
you're assuming that people are going to be willing to pay PC hardware and PC game prices as the pc 'cycle' comes back to fruitionJaekus wrote:
This.Trotskygrad wrote:
tbh it's a cycle
First all gaming was on the PC
Then Came the Nintendo Game Boy. All Games were developed for that, they got all the media's attention, etc. etc.
Then back game the PC with multiplayer online gaming with HL:DM and CS
Then the PS2/PS3/360 came back, and the PC game industry declined a bit again.
IMO, in a couple years, people will simply get pissed off paying for content on the consoles and go back to PC after Sony/MS steps up the XBOX Live/PSN charging too much
Or, the console's graphics will age and the PC will surpass it.
As long as the PC Game industry gets their shit together and starts releasing standardized-ish PCs that just work with no troubleshooting (that's a problem).
Another possibility is the face that mobile device gamers (iPhone/iPod) will migrate to the PC, in order to retain the free DLC that many mobile games provide...
The OP mentions that 5 years ago when BF2 came out there was all this buzz etc. Since then we've had the PS3, Wii and XBOX 360 released. Being relatively new, of course the market is going to move in that direction. Then, when PC gets better and better (as it always does) people will gradually move back over to PC, until the next new consoles come out, and so the cycle starts once again.
The challenge here (as it's always been) is for certain developers to make games that really are best on PC, and console porting just seems like a second rate game, or at best a great game but without the customisation and features to can get only on a PC game.
Indeed.Uzique wrote:
the piracy-scapegoat is a very tired and overused excuse for the completely non-related decline in game production quality
as has been previously summarized: the design-aims and ethos of game companies is now slamming for the coffers of the lowest common denominators - as well as the cross-platform dollar.
