Billy you have proved nothing with your megacritic scores, reviews mean jack shit, A crap game can get a high 80' s low 90' s score, if the releases that week or month happen to be on the slow side, or if the reviewer happens to get a nice freebie or 2 from the dev house, reviews are as biased as they come, games sell if they are in a particular genre that you the consumer enjoy.

Reviews mean media acceptance, which is apparently the most important thing that can happen to a video game. In any case, Metacritic also proves that more PC games are coming out, and more kinds of video games are coming out. More games + More kinds of games = Larger amount of good games.

There are games that a PC is better at playing at the moment, but once control systems are researched and improved on the consoles then, the PC will not be so superior to the console in that respect, however for sports sims,FPS,driving games,sandbox games, then the PC is no way a better platform, the PC becomes cumbersome with the number of keystrokes required to do a move or a jump. The console is as people have reiterated in this thread, is simple and that what people tend to want these days.

Okay, sure, your objective opinion has permanently changed my mind on the matter. Good job.

Consoles are simple. I guess that' s why Billy doesn' t seem to understand why a console in some ways are better as games machines. Billy is not a simple person. He makes everything uneccesarily complicated. Just like PC' s.

Please don' t have recourse with me in the future, I can tell you' re way too insufficient for dialogue.

Just stop, you' re trying to be intelligent but come across as a pompous idiot who doesnt even know the meaning of what he' s saying.

You' re exact statement was along the lines of " those games are a dime a dozen on console(s)." . You said that talking about good racing games, then you went on to mention a few racing games for PC that are also on console. What did you prove? That PC has a few good racing games, and consoles have more, and the best (GT, Forza).

Way to go and make yourself look stupid.

Spent a good wedge on my PC a couple of years back because I wanted to play HL2 at high settings. The problem with PC gaming is that the amount of decent games available don' t justify the cash outlay (not for me anyway) - it just feels like a bottomless pit for your cash a lot of the time.

Also, the advent of HD console games took away a lot of the unique appeal PC games had for me - and I' ve never gotten into RTS games.

I should add that PC gaming always becomes more appealing for me towards the end of a console generation when the consoles are starting to look weak.

Just stop, you' re trying to be intelligent but come across as a pompous idiot who doesnt even know the meaning of what he' s saying. .

Right, caught me, this is all an act meant to feign intelligence on a fucking third rate forum for video games.

You' re exact statement was along the lines of " those games are a dime a dozen on console(s)." . You said that talking about good racing games, then you went on to mention a few racing games for PC that are also on console. What did you prove? That PC has a few good racing games, and consoles have more, and the best (GT, Forza).

Wow, you are really fucking dense. I was responding to somebody who said that the PC didn' t have racing games. The PC does, of course. The fact that consoles have the " best" racers means nothing. I was speaking generally, the PC platform has the most amount of games, therefore the highest quality/most diverse. The nature of the platform makes it even more susceptible to creativity.

The fact that the consoles may have an upper hand in one genre (racing, 3D fighting, Turn based RPG) means nothing in the scheme of the big picture. The PC has the most, period, and the largest amount of good games, period. This was, as I reiterate yet again, to counter the idiot notion that the PC didn' t have any good games, or the same amount of quality games.

Way to go and make yourself look stupid.

You' ve said nothing in this post to indicate that you said something that " got" me or a point I made. So, you are telling yourself that I' m stupid in your head without any logical reasons as to why.

Don' t pretend like you know what the shit is, cause' you don' t. Your posts are lacking in coherence as well as content. You haven' t said anything in this entire thread that wasn' t completely a result of determined ignorance. Everything you' ve said has been trash.

was speaking generally, the PC platform has the most amount of games, therefore the highest quality/most diverse. The nature of the platform makes it even more susceptible to creativity.

It may or may not be true that due to sheer volume the PC, I suppose by the law of averages, would have the highest quality games, but I think this is essentially a qualitative judgment and not something that can be definitively proven. For the sheer enjoyment of asserting an opinion I' d say that every platform, in its lifespan, usually ends up having only a handful of truly great games -- games that are historically important for having advanced the art and science of game design. But because PCs are pieced together I' m not sure how you could compare them one-to-one with consoles (which have clearly delineated " generations" ).

As a platform, the PC does have the advantage of being much more accessible to indie developers and small teams, even individuals, who can make innovative games that would be too cost prohibitive for consoles. I don' t expect XNA to really change this scenario much, although it will be interesting to see what student teams at game design universities are able to produce for consoles.

But anyway, back to indie game development for PCs -- in my experience, having posted and updated detailed threads on the Independent Games Festival, only one forum member here has even responded to these posts. The vast majority of gamers on this forum only pay attention to big-budget console games which are handed to them on a silver platter via 5, 6 and 7-digit advertising campaigns.

So in my observation you can continue banging your head against a wall of indifference if you enjoy it here, but it would be more interesting if you dial back the aggression and frustration factor in your demeanor because it just makes you seem like you' re suffering from PMS and/or dehydration. This thread is interesting but I can' t understand why people take it so personally when others don' t share their preferences. I look forward to a return to discussion about the content of games rather than arguments about tech specs which cannot be resolved.

It may or may not be true that due to sheer volume the PC, I suppose by the law of averages, would have the highest quality games, but I think this is essentially a qualitative judgment and not something that can be definitively proven.

Well, right, it' s all subjective when we react to that level. But, as people in this thread have stated (unfortunately) as if it were fact, that the PC doesn' t have the amount of good games as the consoles do. MC combines opinions into useable scores, MC says otherwise.

On an objective level, it is impossible to say that the PC doesn' t have the largest amount of good games, doesn' t have any good games currently, or doesn' t have any good games in the future. Impossible.

For the sheer enjoyment of asserting an opinion I' d say that every platform, in its lifespan, usually ends up having only a handful of truly great games -- games that are historically important for having advanced the art and science of game design.

I' d say this is accurate. The only next generation game for a console that fits into what you said is GEOW, and it doesn' t look like that will be topped anytime soon.

But because PCs are pieced together I' m not sure how you could compare them one-to-one with consoles (which have clearly delineated " generations" ).

Game genres typically have generations, though it' s not easily defined nor as important, in my mind.

As a platform, the PC does have the advantage of being much more accessible to indie developers and small teams, even individuals, who can make innovative games that would be too cost prohibitive for consoles.

Exactly, that' s why I have problems with people saying that the PC doesn' t compare to the consoles game wise.

I don' t expect XNA to really change this scenario much, although it will be interesting to see what student teams at game design universities are able to produce for consoles.

XNA is a start, and it' s usually (don' t ask me to back this up) student teams at game design universities who create the best indie games. However, I doubt XNA will be a real platform for creating and distributing games. That said, time is the king shit of this domain, and I' m merely an irrelevant tool.

I' d say this is accurate. The only next generation game for a console that fits into what you said is GEOW, and it doesn' t look like that will be topped anytime soon.

Gears of War - good game with pretty graphics but doesn' t offer anything new. Hardly a game that breaks new ground.

I' m merely an irrelevant tool.

You said it!

As a platform, the PC does have the advantage of being much more accessible to indie developers and small teams, even individuals, who can make innovative games that would be too cost prohibitive for consoles.

Exactly, that' s why I have problems with people saying that the PC doesn' t compare to the consoles game wise.

I agree. I have to say though, that the innovative title that I' m most looking forward too is LittleBigPlanet! I admit, that could be due in part to the fact that other small indie games coming out don' t get as much attention payed to them, but regardless, I' m still really anticipating that game.