It's funny when you think about it, actually

It's funny when you think about it, actually.

But the most retrograde force in the history of video games were the video game consoles.

Have a counterexample: Turrican 3 / Mega Turrican looked much better on the Mega Drive than on the Amiga.

I can understand if this is subjective to some people but I find Chaos Engine for the Megadrive the superior version even over the original Amiga version. That higher resolution makes all the difference.

more impressive technical advancements and better game design always happened on consoles first. This more has to do with Japanese developers than anything.

I wouldn't say it was because of Jap devs.
Consoles had limitations. Often, severe one's, since the top-notch hardware was on the PC first albeit at prices so high, only really big corporations could afford to have a few computers with it

Limitations are great for development: they force devs to work around them, find ways to implement what's considered impossible. Develop certain tricks to push past the competition. Oh and that too. It helps when there's actually competition, when you have limited tools but really need to squeeze a few more polygons out of your engine onto that screen or at least, make it look like those polygons are there.

Nowadays I'd agree consoles are not being used like this. The limitations are accepted, "it's just works like that" and "sorry 27 fps is the best we can do".
Consoles might be terrible for a consumer, but they are great oportunities for devs. An oportunity that is being squandered.
I mainly use a computer for gayming though. The last time I saw something impressive was on the PSone and to some extent, the PS2 aswell.

Care to name a few examples?

Weren't things like vertical scrolling still considered impressive technical achievements for PCs in the early '90s? You had shit like Jazz Jackrabbit and Commander Keen trying to compete with Super Mario World and Sonic 3. PC games were absolute shit compared to console games until very recently.

Smooth scrolling wasn't possible on a specific generation of IBM PCs since they were unable to draw a whole screen in one frame.

That's really just one very specific instance of PC tech being behind consoles. For the vast majority of history PCs were way ahead.

And yet PC versions of games were almost always shittier versions of the ones you'd see on the current consoles of the era. This went all the way up to PS2 era. I still remember making fun of my friend who said Spider-Man 2 was his favorite game, and then when I finally went to his house, it was some piece of shit completely different game on his computer.

It was really only the last few years that windows/dos games even became comparable to console games. Until then, there was a strong contrast between "computer games" and what most people actually called video games. "Computer games" were like those Tiger electronic games. Shitty things you'd get as a present from your grandparents because they heard you liked "computer games" and didn't know the difference. Or maybe you're just some weird european faggot whose parents didn't love you enough to get you real video games, so you'd go to school and pretend that Jazz Jackrabbit was an actual competitor to Sonic the Hedgehog. This is probably why PCfags are so bitter to this day. They could never join in on the real good video games, so now that they've almost caught up, they have to pretend they're better. Too bad they only caught up right around the time video games went to shit anyway. But at least now they're starting to get workable emulators for consoles that came out 15 years ago, so they can finally experience actual good games from that era.

There were a couple PC games that actually reached further than most and became legitimate games, but you can probably count all the pre-2005 games that fit that criteria on your fingers. And a lot of those will just be sequels (a bunch of Dooms and Warcrafts/Starcrafts). Because really it was like four or five series that could compete with real games, and that was it until normalfags flooded to PC because of The Orange Box memegames like Portal, TF2, and Left 4 Dead.

At the time devs were paid like shit and most ports were fucking ass unlike today where even shit ports are superior to console versions.
Music was still kickass though tahnks to fags like Jeroen Tel

Up until recently, PC versions of games were not ports at all, but completely different (worse) games with the same names. Like how last gen you had Wii games with the same names as real games on PS3 and 360, but the Wii version was actually just shovelware with the same name. The Wii just took over what PC games had been doing up to that point.

Like what?
Licensed games like Spiderman 2 and Harry Potter?
Consoles had the short end of the stick by the mid 90s nigger.

You're gonna say Spider-Man 2, the real Spider-Man 2, isn't a fucking fantastic game just because it's a licensed game? Have fun convincing people of that.

And have fun convincing yourself that whatever you were playing was even comparable to Mario 64, Crash Bandicoot, and other games people actually gave a shit about in the mid '90s. Most of the best games ever are not only console games, but console exclusives. Your Marios, your Sonics, your Crashes. Practically nothing even comes close. And while you might have a couple on PC by the mid '90s that started to reach those levels, you had dozens on any of the then current consoles.

Evy platform had its own exclusives
Whats your point?
Most multiplat ports at the time were already of the same quality if not better than consoles.
Expensive as shit though, unlike today

lol, you joking m8?

Shitty ports != the platform is shitty.

So you've already mentioned RTS and FPS being better on PCs. There's also turn-based strategy, grand strategy/4x, flight sims, space sims, racing sims, RPGs, aRPGs, Stealth games, and everything to do with online or competitive games.

But yeah, Jazz Jackrabbit wasn't as good as Mario. But Sonic was shit, cmon. I'll also give you Fighting games as being better on consoles. That's two genres. Great show.

No, fuck you nigger

To your average normalfag that thinks only rocket sciences can put computer hardware together, it is still expensive as shit.

Thats what they nearly pay at launch
And normalfags are off the table, this isnt their mingling place.
it shouldnt be anyways

Who told you that? The media that gets money for promoting enduring series from the big publishers?

What a joke.

It's odd that I never played this back then, I rented shit constantly and it had top tier box art.

It was barely shilled

Yeah might be that, I'm just surprised it didn't catch my eye at the handful of rental stores I used to frequent. I bet it didn't even get ads in comic books.

Every normalfag cuck is going to aim for a 32GB RAM, InTelAviv i7 computer that has 3 1080s, dedicated sound card, a legimitate copy of Windows 10™ and Norton only to play Minecraft and Skyrim.

Just because soulsfans like you and me can make a Wonderful 101™ gaymen rig for only $600 doesnt mean it's the same for everybody.

My point you dumb nigger was that, realistically, computers and parts were extremely expensive.
Even the low tier ones
Which isnt true nowadays.
How new are you?

That PC only had a couple that reached to the level of console exclusives.

Well that's simply not true and you know it. But even then, the exclusives are where it's at anyway.


If it doesn't have good games, then yes, it's shitty. You can argue about tech specs as much as you want, but it doesn't matter if the best games are elsewhere. Or did you get suckered into the Jaguar because it was 64 bit? Because it doesn't matter that it didn't have good games, right?

All those genres you listed are games that nobody gives a shit about, and, yes what I'm saying is subjective, but you're going to have a hard time convincing that anything you're talking about lives up to Mario 64. All that shit you're saying was super niche, and thus had less competition, and didn't have to excel as hard to get success. Plus they were reaching for lower levels of success anyway, since they were so niche.

Sure thing, bud.

Fighting games aren't competitive, though, right?

And if we're talking about the mid '90s, online was barely a thing anyway. You had some, yes, on PC, but don't act like it was a huge factor back then.

Genres that were booming at the time and made up an incredibly large number of games.

For sure. Nobody likes console RPGs from the mid-'90s and earlier. Nobody likes Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest or Phantasy Star or Mother. Console RPGs were nothing but shit. Not like they had the most successful and influential games on the market.

Is this a joke? Especially if we're talking about the mid '90s still.


Yeah it is expensive as shit. Five hundred and ninety nine US dollars was a meme for years when Sony did it.


I wish.

I remember my dad brought home a computer with 60GB with a good graphics card I played Unreal tournament for the first time and it was awesome.

dude you can make a really high end computer that cost $700-$750 and that computer will last you for 8-10 years. the only thing you would need to upgrade would be your graphics card after 5 years but its not mandatory.

And my point is that it doesn't matter how cheap hardware is today, for someone with basic IT knowledge, computers are still expensive as shit for the average mouthbreather.


No doubt about that, and regarding video cards, one will last you a pretty fucking long time unless you're a graphics whore that wants to play anything on the best graphics setting available, at 144FPS for a 144hz display.

-Wizardry
-Masters of Orion
-Dungeon Keeper
-Might and Magic
-C&C
-Diablo
-DOOM
-Half Life
-Soldier of Fortune
-System Shock
-Daggerfal
-Deus Ex
-Fallout
-Terra Nova
I was an idort until the 7th Gen, kill yourself you retarded consolefag.


I remember my father buying an MSI MOBo and AMD GPU just so I could play Allied Assault on his 2x256 sticks of RAM.
Good shit, Omaha Beach blew my fucking mind at the time, especially since I had just come out of playing Half LIfe.


You do know that prebuilds are selling awfully unlike parts which are rising each year, right?
You're wrong son, blatantly wrong

Also that guy has a pathetic monitor. What kind of chump settles for less than 3 4k screens?


Playing your brother isn't competitive.

Doom, 1993. Huge for MP, if you weren't playing it online you were having LAN parties or playing at work.
Quake, 1996. Even huger MP. Huge enough that MP-only mods were made like Team Fortress.
X-wing vs. Fighter, 1997. First game that I know of basically designed for online play, so clearly it was big enough in 1996 to justify starting the development of a whole game for it.

For you.

You do realize that jRPGs are basically all based off earlier wRPGs like the Ultima and Wizardry series, right? jRPGs are basically stuck as 1980s wRPG clones and have hardly progressed at all. Not that that's a bad thing, fuck most of modern AAA RPG crap, but its a sad thing that games like Fallout or Wizardry 8 or Daggerfall didn't make it to Japan to influence them a bit. And no, having multi-million dollar marketing campaigns doesn't make your game better.

Hes a retarded consolefag user
Likely underage or jailbait

This is one of the most retarded things I've heard on Holla Forums this week. Congratulations, I'm genuinely impressed.

Let's also not forget games like
Civilization
Sim City
Betrayal at Krondor
X-Com
Warcraft 2
Mechwarrior 2
Star Control 2
Thief
Jedi Knight
Tie Fighter
Duke Nukem 3D
Freespace
Syndicate
Total Annihilation

But hey, none of these were the face of a whole multi billion dollar console company, so I guess they can't be as good as Mario.

are you actually serious faggot

You're a goddamn moron. Consoles were only beating PC's during NES Era. after the AMIGA PC was released PC's were beating consoles left and right ever since.

...

...

It should be noted that consoles were only beating western PCs during this time. Jap PCs still had more advanced technology than the NES. Stuff on the PC-88 is still absolutely beautiful and came as early as 1983.

FWIW this was because Japs literally needed higher resolution displays for their writing system to legible. We didn't, so we didn't bother making more powerful PCs (at least in terms of resolution and graphics).

PC specific designed games don't work well om console. I don't get the point of this thread really. And games that were made for pc played in very interesting ways. I wouldn't enjoy a DF on console for instance. The game is designed around a keyboard. Things like Diablo 2 had keyboard and mouse in mind. And let's not talk about all the fps games. If we're going for the older era of games, point and click was dominant on PC. There were a bunch of extremely impressive open world racing games on pc. Rogues and dungeon crawlers were a powerful standard as well.
Basically, consoles are good when games are designed for them. Pc's are good when games are designed for them.

The vast majority of European computer games sucked ass and are only liked by nostalgic yuropoor oldfags. It's no coincidence that kids can pick up a NES game today and enjoy it, but nobody bothers with the libraries of the C64, Speccy, Amiga, etc.

Consoles were not more limited in a practical sense. Tiled scrollable backgrounds, copious hardware sprites, and direct execution from ROM all helped make programming work easier, save precious memory, and greatly reduce the processing time required per frame. On the contrary, earlier computer games felt far more hamstrung by most early computers' unsuitability for 2D action games. It gave birth to a European cottage industry of programmers wanking over impractical graphics effects and artists badly mimicking Frank Frazetta, while phoning in the game design. OP's embed, Shadow of the Beast, is the quintessential example of this overrated gaudy Amiga style. In comparison Japanese devs were way ahead of their time, with staff that played the shit out of games and understood what made them fun, and even quite a few dedicated game designers.

Western computer gaming didn't really get good until the early 90s on the IBM PC. VGA allowed for colorful, detailed graphics with a conveniently manipulable framebuffer format, and increasingly powerful x86 processors made 2D easy and put early 3D rendering within reach. American PC devs took off and for whatever reason understood game design far better than their European counterparts. Maybe it's because we didn't have the demoscene culture of technical oneupmanship that we got more "outsiders" that wanted to make games, not impress each other. Or maybe we just had more money and a more well-rounded populace.

I read this somewhere. When is a Tiertex game ready to ship? As soon as it compiles.

Just because the tides are beginning to turn in that regard doesn't mean that user's point isn't still correct as of now. Maybe in a few years you'll have more of a point, but it will take at least a few years. Probably more.


It's not a subjective opinion. Platformers and fighting games fucking ruled the landscape in the early-mid-'90s. I don't mean in a quality sense, that's subjective. But they were undeniably two of the most popular genres of the time. Like how a few years ago fucking everything was an FPS/TPS.

I didn't argue it did. But not having those marketing campaigns doesn't make your game better, either. You're the one bringing up marketing.


If you don't know what jailbait, of all things, even means, you probably shouldn't be on this site at all. Or on the internet in general.


Well no, they weren't as good as Mario. Practically nothing is as good as Mario. Some of those games you listed are very good, but not as good as whatever Mario game was coming out around the same time. That series in particular is one that always gets the utmost effort put into it and is always a hugely influential and successful game.


Sure thing, pal. Go ahead and try to convince anyone that Amiga had a library anywhere near as good as SNES, or even NES.

Britbong guaranteed. It's shit and your little amiga scene sucked. Shadow of the beast is a joke. Psygnosis did make some great console games though. Really great.

One of the biggest consoles in history with super easy emulation has more nostalgia for it then a computer that takes a lot more effort to emulate? Who saw that coming?

Remember when Nintendo hired an 18 year old british kid to create the superfx chip and starfox? I don't think you do.

wasn't he the man that created argonaut? I remember his company got fucked hard by nintendo. glad to see that man is doing well.

The real problem here is things like the death of Quality Control(or the PC's complete lack thereof, especially in places like steam), publisher's obsession with PC DRM, or the fact that everyone in the business today are just a bunch of very inept kikes who don't know/care about games.


Oh so that's why every star fox since 64 was shit.

Genesis has better colors hands down.

"Make a game" "Not really interested" "Make a game" "Still don't really want to" "Make a game" "The guy in charge of it now can do it" "Make a game" "I would still rather not, thank you" "Make a game!" "I moved on with my life, go try Namco" "MAKE A GAME! "I don't really like the Wii, no thanks"

lmao
The man gets it.

The SuperFX chips were the best selling RISC processors for years because of the volume of them shipped in SuperFX games.


Point is, you can take a kid that has never even seen one of these consoles in person, hand him a game from something like a PC-Engine/TurboGrafx-16 that is practically unknown outside of Japan, and there is a good chance that he will enjoy it. You will be very hard pressed to do the same with an Amiga or ST game, even if you set everything up for them. The games just weren't that good once you take off the nostalgia goggles.

And the point is you're wrong. There are plenty of shit games on both systems.

Turbo Grafx has a really solid library, actually, being mostly a bunch of hand picked jap games. You have to be hard pressed to find a particularly shit game on it.

Better grafx, sure, but that doesn't matter when the damn thing can barely handle the game.

You're right. The difference is, consoles had some good games too.

It's acceptable outside of town in combat areas.

Keep in mind it's playing at 640x400 vs. the NES's 256x240. That's over 4x as many pixels.

And yet it's not actually any more appealing. Once again, you're not going to sit here and argue the Jaguar is better than the SNES or Genesis, despite the fact that the Jaguar has 4x as many bits.

Shadow of the beast is fucking garbage, only good thing about it was the music. Grow out of it you manchild, you proably still use that stupid Amiga.

not when the ZX Spectrum and the PCjr once existed

This irks of shilling but why shill dead platforms and companies

user even niggers with no previous experience can into PCs, just look at the terry crews video
Maybe you're a nigger

Shilling would imply that those games aren't some of the most acclaimed and successful games ever. But I suppose they aren't good, because they aren't on your platform of choice. Everyone else is wrong. Fuck Sonic 2. Zool was where it was at in 1992. Everyone knows Amiga was better than Genesis.

This just shows what a bubble you live in. First of all Terry Crews is rich, so the cost would not intimidate him. And although he gives off the impression, we have no reason to think he's as retarded as the average normalfag. How many threads do we have of peoples' parents or siblings using disc drives as cupholders and shit? You know full well that the average normalfag is retarded. But even if they weren't, they would still have to do research to build a proper PC, which they don't want to do to play video games. Being ready out of the box is a big thing for the average consumer. And you'll argue that it's very easy, but they don't care that it's easier than they think. They care that they have to do any research whatsoever. And it doesn't even stop at finding what parts to buy, what each part is for, how to actually put them together, making sure they all actually go together. Then they need to deal with software issues. At this moment there are probably dozens of threads up of PCfags whining about various software issues with whatever game they're trying to get going. And you figure they're mostly easy to work around and worth it in the end. But the average consumer just sees that, and then sees that on a Nintendo, you put the game in and start playing, you don't have to fuck with settings and download new programs or even do the basest amount of research, which is what puts them off.

was5dollarsshortsoisoldmynikes.jpg