The lights are on
In my opinion I think PC gaming has a greater variety of replayable Genres. Although I believe the amount of MMOs constantly being release its becoming the center point of PC games.
For my answer to my question. I'd really love to see some true Turn Based strategy games. Which is why XCOM Enemy Unknown (suppose to be turn based) Is my most anticipated game of the year.
I will have to say. if your wanting more MMOs then your obviously not aware of all the games out there. if you need to find them go to one of the biggest sources. http://www.mmorpg.com
I would personally love to see a return to WWII fps. I'm growing tired of all the modern shooters out there, and i'm a WWII enthusiast so that would make me happy.
I5 3570K - MSI GD65 Z77 - CORSAIR H100i - CORSAIR HX-850w - GALAXY GTX 660TI GC SLI - CORSAIR 500R - 8gb KINGSTON HYPERX BLUE 1600mhz - 120GB KINGSTON HYPERX SSD
I think the balancing issue has more to do with dead zone than aim assist. I'll play CoD online on my 360 and turn off aim assist and it works better for me. In fact in almost any fps I play I turn off aim assist, and there are no issues with the gamepad at all and accuracy on consoles. The real problem is that PC games are made strictly with M/KB in mind and then when gamepad support is added it's only an afterthought at least most of the time. BF3 for example has horrible gamepad support for singleplayer, any quick time events can't be done with a gamepad at all and when looking down sights thumbstick movement is a little testy when aim assist isn't set on. I think it would be nice if developers would just put a little more effort into gamepad support, especially when it's a developer that's porting not only to pc, but consoles as well. It leaves me scratching my head when the pc port doesn't have good gamepad support and the console version feels like bliss as for example BF3. But that's pc, love it or hate it, that's just the way it is.
yeah I wouldn't mind seeing more of the WWII FPS games. I myself havn't played a descent WW2 game since the PS1. To have some really nice ones move to PC or be made at all would be awesome. One thing I'd really like to see in all FPS game. Is that they need the campaign to be a lot longer. I haven't played a fps game since the PS2 that the single player lasts more than 7 hours to complete. Seriously PC has the ability to contain more data. So their should be no problem in the making the single play quite lengthy.
I want to see a return of the space flight simulators, something along the lines of Wing Commander, Freelancer or Freespace2. I would love to see a new or remake of the old Tie fighter games. Shame because Lucasarts would try and force the prequels into the game and ruin it. There have been several new "indie" simulators recently but none of them had the production value I am looking for.
Up until a few months back I would have said the Mechwarrior games but looks like we are getting 2 of those soon.
As for MMOS I am actually looking forward to giving Planet Side 2 a go. The first one was tons of fun just the technology was not there yet. Unfortunetly I have little faith in SOE, and the F2P model has me concerned about balancing.
We're sorta like 7-Eleven. We're not always doing business, but we're always open.
Steam - palor700 XBL - LooneyPilot paxgaming.com
I'm getting excited about Xenoblade, I haven't played a solid JRPG in a while.
check out my blog!
Rainheart, I'll never forget you.
I have to agree with that. FPS games are definitely lacking in length. When you finish a game in 4-5hrs it's pretty lame. Gearbox is making Brothers in Arms: Furious Four, which is a WWII game, though not a serious one in terms of history, but it looks like it should be great, and i'm pretty sure it's coming to PC.
If you're looking for an WW2 game, I suggest Red Orchestra 2 then. It recently came out last year, and it's an online shooter. That and Battlefield 3 were among the highlights last year for PC shooters, although RO2 was marred at launch by bugs, but I've been told the game is a lot more balanced now.
I myself am looking forward for Planetside 2 as well. As for a genre, I have to agree with Palor, I'm itching for a developer to make an space fighting game. I guess we're going to have to wait a little longer.
Yea I'm really excited about Furious Four!
I havn't attempted to try R02 mainly because I heard the controlls are just as hard to get used to as Arma, and I hated that game because of the complex control scheme. Plus i'm not a mouse and keyboard kind of person so i'm not sure if paying for a game I can never get used to playing is a worth while endeavor... not trying to make the same mistake as I did with ARMA II.
Well RO2 isn't nearly as complex as ARMA II, but it's right around there. You can try to get it when it is on sale on Steam, but that's if you want to give it a whirl.
If you did not like Arma 2 I find it highly doubtful that you would like RO2. It will not be playable with a gamepad. I haven't played the seconds one but I did spend a good bit of time with the original and its many mods. It is a rough game with an especially deep learning curve. It has a very hardcore community that unfortunately I found to not be very friendly to new players. Since their is no cross hair or aim assist or fancy scopes the game is all around player skill. If you prove you are good and know how to play they will accept you. But it can be some very frustrating hours learning the game and maps.
@Redmafia: I am just curios do you play BF3 or CoD on PC using gamepad? If you do what are your thoughts? Do you feel it puts you at a disadvantage?
Deep storytelling (Final Fantasy)
@Palor: Well I suck at BF3 online, so mouse/keyboard, gamepad doesn't really make a difference in the end. lol. My accuracy may be a bit off, but my reflexes are quicker with a gamepad. In the end it evens out.
As for CoD I play that on my 360, so no opinions there, though i'm sure it wouldn't be an issue for me personally.
I know most PC gamers swear by the mouse and keyboard, but i've been a console gamer since the NES and I'm just more comfortable with a gamepad, but for most games that don't have native support, the M/KB is fine, just not the ultra complicated ones like ARMA.... where just moving around the map takes practice to perfect.
hmm I just think it can be somewhat of an interesting topic. I am personally one of those die hard KB/M people when it comes to a FPS, RTS and the such. I am not so foolish as to not have a 360 controller for racing games and 3rd person shooters.
But that is not so much what I was inquiring about. Your post brought back a memory of when Crysis 2 released. It came out with full aim assist on PC if you used a controller. Which ended up giving people using controllers a fairly sizable advantage. Very quickly they removed all aim assist which then put the controllers at a disadvantage.
I am not so elitist as to think pc gamers are better than console gamers or anything like that. I imagine the best player at a certain game on console are probably at the same skill level as those on PC. I was reading an article the other day about Dust 514 and they were saying it looks like CCP will end up bringing it to PC in a year or so. They had little evidence of this, mainly things like no one would say with certainty that it wasn't and that it will ship with KB/M support. Basically they were saying that it is shipping as a PS3 exclusive.
So that brought up the question of how do you balance consoles against PC. If they go with no aim assist at all PC player would probably destroy all but the best console gamers. The opposite would be true if they overdo the aim assist on the PS3 side. So I was figuring a good baseline to stat would be playing on PC with a gamepad and no aim assist. You can get a general idea of if KB/M is actually more precise and so on. It would be nice if they can find a good balance. Going forward we could have 1 large multiplayer base where PSN, XBL, and PC gamers could face off against each other. Probably will never happen because Sony and Msoft wont want to play nice with each other.