Hello, fellow Star Wars gamers. I'm new to this forum (but not to Star Wars gaming, my first was Lucasfilm Games Star Wars on the NES), so please have a little patience before you start flaming.

I've always been a fan of Lucasarts Star Wars games (JK is my favorite) and their original games as well (Grim Fandango the one I most enjoyed of these).

What is begining to bother me is that in five "new" game announcements by Lucasarts for E3 so far, four of them are for consoles and only one (which doesn't impress me very much) is for the PC. For the last 7 years I've bought most Lucasarts games for the PC and I was never disapointed (that includes TPM, which I enjoyed, despite it's flaws).

I do feel (especially after Obi-Wan's cancellation for the PC), however, that Lucasarts doesn't care much for the PC gamers that for the past decade bought their games and kept their company in business.

Sorry for this long post but I had get this out of my system. Also, I'd like to hear the opinions of the more experienced members of this forum about this.

What would you say if paulbarnard gave you enough money to buy an x-box instead of doing what I know he's going to do to you...

I'd say "No, thank you very much. Not interested in consoles." and wait to see what he's going to do.
Why? Is he the professional flamer of this forum?

Old Jedi Ben Kenobi: I share your concerns.

I do not own a console, nor do I wish to, yet many games developers/publishers seem to be trying to push us in this direction, LEC included. It is a trend that I believe will continue, due to some comments made by game developers themselves.

They argue (probably rightly) that consoles are an easier platform for development, because they are dealing with set hardware specifications, and it is therefore easier to iron out most of the bugs. There are no compatibility issues, for which the PC gaming platform is notorious.

This is why consoles are becoming so attractive. Their technology has advanced (except for the X-Box, which as far as I am concerned is an entry-level PC), so they are more capable of delivering an enhanced gaming experience. However, I do not personally believe that consoles will ever match the depth, quality and configurability of PCs in relation to games.

I cannot say that I have bought every LEC game developed for the PC, because I haven't. My favourite game genres are FPS/TPS (Third-Person-Shooter), and RPGs with similar viewpoints. As you are probably aware, the last Star Wars FPS was the MoTS expansion pack for Jedi Knight...a few years ago.

I was hoping that Obi-Wan would fill the obvious gap in the genres being catered for by LEC, but since they announced their plans to make it X-Box only, I have pretty much lost interest.

I don't know if you read the forums at www.obi-wankenobi.net) (http://www.obi-wankenobi.net) but assuming you do not, our forum regulars have uncovered information that LEC has recently registered a domain name for Bounty Hunter. I can only hope that this is an FPS game for the PC, but time will tell.

I also believe (as many do) that Dark Forces 3 should be made, at the very least to round off this highly successful franchise as a trilogy, and to give us an even more advanced Jedi Knight game.

However, LEC is in the business of making money, and they will no doubt focus their main efforts in titles that sell well to the masses, regardless of quality or depth.

I just think it is a totally wasted opportunity not developing the FPS genre within the Star Wars universe. The Dark Forces series was very successful, and is still played by many gamers - four years after original release. This must surely indicate the PC gaming market is still viable.

I think that if LEC are not interested in making these types of games themselves, they should seek out other developers, offer a license, and allow other developers to make the games that we hardcore gamers wish to play.

BTW, welcome to the forum. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by StormHammer (edited May 10, 2001).]

This gets a bit long, ignore if you like:

I guess to be perfectly honest, it doesn't bother me so much the platform a games come out on verses another.

The problem is actually if I want to play the game.

For example, let's say I read about a game that sounds fantastic, and I'm all set to buy it. Then I notice it only runs on Mac OS. So that means I have to dig up a Mac OS emulator or buy a Mac computer ($900-1500). I figure, it's not worth it, and so I don't buy it.

Or let's say it comes out for a console I don't own. That means I have to save up $90-200 depending on the system in order to play the game. That will usually deter me from buying it.

Of course this is all in addition to the $30-50 I would be charged for the game itself.

Now if the games comes out for the PC or a console I already own, all I have to lay down in order to play the game is the $30-50 it costs. That's much more attractive.
; )

If I was filthy rich (and also had plenty of freetime I wanted to spend on playing all the games) I'd have all the consoles and computers I wanted, so that any game I wanted to play would be within my grasp. But that's not the case, so I have to be selective.

Yeah, all things being equal, there are a few nice things about being able to play the game on my PC.. convenience, less clutter. I don't have to get up and go switch the cables on the TV in order to play it, etc.

Online play is another consideration. If the game has online play, and it's on a console, chances are I have to subscribe to whatever service that console supports (so I'd be paying double for internet, since I already have a connection to my computer). Plus chances are the service would not be as fast as what I currently have on my computer anyway (640K DSL and ethernet LAN), so again I'd be downgrading.

Controllers MIGHT be an issue, in that with the console, I am limited to maybe two controller types in most cases. Whereas with a computer, I'm still limited, but there's a larger assortment I can buy out there.

On the other hand with a console, I can usually be sure that the game itself will work really well with the system it was designed for. And if there are bugs and problems, I usually can't expect a patch to be made available...

The main concern I think though is $ for me when it comes to the platform. If it's going to cost me an arm and a leg, I just won't bother.

True, the launch titles for any system are designed to try to "sell" the system, but right now, none of the PS2 games have me convinced by buy a PS2. Obi-Wan for the Xbox looks great, but I'd have to weigh the costs and benefits of the system, and read some reviews of the finished game (or play it myself in its finished state) to be sure.

Still, it's only one game...

Kurgan

Well...about paul...you could call him the profesional flamer here. I could lose my job for saying this. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

------------------
No!
I am your father.

Thanks for your replies.

StormHammer, you share my concerns. And you do understand that it seems Lucasarts is deserting us, PC gamers. Regarding the Bounty Hunter rumor, the concept would make an interesting game, but I'd still prefer to play the role of a Jedi Knight like in JK.

Kurgan, regarding Obi-Wan, I'd sure like to play it, but I'm not going to, because I don't want to waste money on a console. I've already paid enough for a Geforce 2 to play the latest on my PC. And as you said, it's just one game.

The problem is that for E3 only 1 in 6 games announced by LEC is for the PC and, quite frankly, Galactic Battlegrounds isn't very impressive. It seems to be 2D, based on Age of Empires. As for Galaxies, might actually be great, but I'd still like to have one of those good old single player experiences as in DF, JK, MOTS, XWA and others. Besides, in my country (Portugal), it's almost impossible to play online as most internet connections are still a bit expensive for continuous online play. As for Bioware's RPG, might be great to play, but based on previous games by them, it will most likelly be 2D. Now the point is, why don't they use the best for the PC? Have I bought my 3D accelerator for nothing (when it comes to LEC games)?

Anyway, that's just my two republic credits.

PS: Don't worry, Pedro, I won't tell. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Old Jedi Ben Kenobi (edited May 11, 2001).]

hey, at least EVERYBODY will be able to play galactic battlegrounds instead of 'just the people with expensive 3d accellerators'.

I'm very excited and waiting for Galactic Battlegrounds to come out. I'll probably be the first here who gets it.

Your point is well taken, Garindan.
However, I get the feeling that your comment was made because I said I had a GeForce 2. It's actually a GeForce 2 MX, the cheapest of the nVIDIA chipsets, so it's not an 'expensive 3d accellerator' like the GTS, Pro or Ultra versions.

I just feel that they should try to make games with the best they could get for most people. Most gamers by now have some sort of 3D accellerator. Of course, most don't have GeForce card but quite a few people by now have Riva TNT level cards which are quite good at 800x600.

Anyone who cares about games *should* have a graphics card. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif) Otherwise there isn't much of anything you can run. Were getting into an age were if you don't have 128mb of ram and a 32mb 3d card your screwed. But hopefully with the Good ol' Bill working on the next generation of computers, "ones designed to only perform specific tasks like surf the net and play games" Everyone in the next 10 years should be able to run pretty much anything the damn well please. {/end rant}

------------------

I calculated the odds that this would work versus the odds that I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway.

Here's the flaw with your argument, everyone should have one. No, not everyone should have one, but everyone does want one. Not everyone is a dependent (getting supported by their parents). Some of us are on our own and well if we can't afford it, guess what, do without. Sucks, but that's life. That doesn't make these people less serious gamers, it makes us disgruntled and pissy.

Console games are aimed strictly at kids (idiots when you grow up you'll see this) with disposable income. Instead of investing, saving or putting that money to better use, the parents (equally moronic in this case) give their kids 50-60 dollars to spend on a new video game for the month. It is brining about the downfall of the US economy (we actually now spend more than we earn per month).

While I accept most of your counter-argument, a basic graphics accelerator card does not exactly break the bank these days. And yes, I do have a job, and a family to support, and a crap wage. I'm paying for my own PC over 3 years on terms...just like I did with the last one.

I agree that the high-level GFX accelerators are just too expensive...and unfortunately it is these we will need to get the best out of the next crop of games.

I will probably leave upgrading my own accelerator until some time early next year - post-Christmas, when prices usually fall slightly anyway.

Originally posted by paulbarnard:


Console games are aimed strictly at kids (idiots when you grow up you'll see this) with disposable income. Instead of investing, saving or putting that money to better use, the parents (equally moronic in this case) give their kids 50-60 dollars to spend on a new video game for the month. It is brining about the downfall of the US economy (we actually now spend more than we earn per month).


Well, that's why there's a store called 'Electronic Boutique', so people can buy preowned games for like $15 and below, same price as pc games. I'm enjoying some of the shooters on my n64, i've been playing armorines, and having a blast at it, and who cares if consoles are for kids, as long as they bring decent games out for them, it's ok with me. Now, you can't play Turok 3 or Armorines on pc now, can you? none of the pc games interest me, except for the star wars ones, and those all run on my cpu, except for force commander.

For pc though, i agree, everyone should have a 3d video card, i think i got one, but it came with the cpu, so i don't really know which one it is., i need more ram to get more out of it i think. (i only got 63 lousy megs http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/frown.gif) )

Hey, Garindan...

How do you work out you've got 63Mb of RAM? It should be 64Mb.

And if you want to check what drivers are installed for your graphics, right-click on your desktop to pull up the display dialog, click on settings, click on the advanced button (if available), and on the next dialog, click the Adapter tab. It should tell you there what card is installed.

The other route is through Settings, Control Panel, System, Device Manager, Display - and that should tell you which card is installed. You should be able to work out if it's an accelerator or not... http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

i got the kinda card that force commander doesn't support, it's the kind that says 'if less than 65 megs, force commander won't run* or something like that. let me check. ugh never mind i can't find it.

Console games quality...I think I heard a funny, wait that's not funny. That's utterly ridiculous and untrue. What planet are you on?

heaven i think, and you?

I am from Never-Never land and I think you should completely disregard what I am saying right here

------------------
Ooh Wah Fah Pah
Kneblowac Mi Kims Lyska
from Uutont Fжr Uulion the Cookie Maker, Jedi Knight

I'm from Ragol since a while. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif)

------------------
No!
I am your father.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore 'quality' is based on ones perspective. YOUR perspective may be that consoles don't have quality games, but that doesn't make it fact, it makes it YOUR opinion.

I'm not much of a console fan, but I found games like Goldeneye to very good for their time. It was a 'quality' game in my opinion. Just because someone thinks differently than you, doesn't make them 'wrong'. They simply have a different perspective. I think ALL platforms put out a certain amount of quality games, although I believe that there are FAR more quality games of the PC.

I do however think that consoles are a waste of time. Until they are hardcore, online gaming machines, to me, they are worthless.

I agree with some of you above though. I recently purchased Tribes 2 in hopes of playing some hardcore CTF with some friends online(even though I'm an HPB) and at my local lan-event(LANWAR). Now I find out, after not doing my homework early enough, that I will have to buy a new 3d card just to play it. It seems that my Voodoo 3 can't handle it. I'm working full-time at a decent job and am still having trouble affording anything decent, such as a GeForce 2. I've been putting money aside for a few weeks now though and being that I manage my money well, I should be able to get something soon.

I but and play good console games just because I want a fallback if/when my computer is acting up and/or my comp is too stupid to play the games. Lets face it, unless you have a lot of spare money, it is nearly impossible to keep caught up when it comes to PC gaming. Just when you think you have the "top of the line" comp and are ready to play whatever comes out, three months later you need an upgrade. With consoles, you don't. I'm not saying consoles are better, I'm just saying they can be a decent alternative when needed. And every once in a while I do find a game I actually like better on a console.

Originally posted by paulbarnard:

Console games are aimed strictly at kids (idiots when you grow up you'll see this) with disposable income. Instead of investing, saving or putting that money to better use, the parents (equally moronic in this case) give their kids 50-60 dollars to spend on a new video game for the month. It is brining about the downfall of the US economy (we actually now spend more than we earn per month).


Not everyone runs themselves into debt on buying games. Where did you get that idea? Those that do perhaps are not very smart, putting luxuries above necessities

I would say a person would be behaving stupidly in the same way if they ran themselves into debt buying games (not being essential after all) regardless if they were for the PC or console. Would a PC gamer that racked up debts buying computer parts or PC games be any dumber than one who did it with console stuff? I don't think so.

And even in your example of kids buying games for themselves (whether or not the money was simply given by their parents or their parents bought the game they picked out for themselves), as for me, my parents could have afforded to buy my lots of games if they had wanted to. But instead most of the games I ever got I bought myself, with money I earned doing chores and odd jobs (before I was old enough to have a "real job" of course). They weren't handed to me on some silver platter at my parents' expense. I would imagine there are other gamers out there that had similar conditions.

But that's not the point. The point you seem to be making is that all of a certain group of gamers are dumb (ie: console gamers).

One way in which this doesn't stack up is when I consider console games I liked as a kid that I STILL enjoy today as an adult.
I recently bought a Saturn system with some games in near mint condition for really cheap, and I have gotten a huge amount of enjoyment out of them. So does that make me a "kid" and an "idiot"? Surely not.

I don't buy the generalisations people like paulb proclaim that imply or explicitly state:

Console gamers = idiots/kids

(as opposed to, one would assume:

PC gamers = geniuses/adults)

There are console games aimed at kids and adolescents, there are console games aimed at adults. There are PC games aimed at adults, and PC games aimed at adolescents and kids.

And there are both adults and kids among console and PC gamers.

So both in terms of "who" all gamers are, and who they are aimed at, can be just about anyone with the means to buy the games.

Whether or not someone is an "idiot" for buying something you don't care for, is merely a matter of opinion. I'm sure Deer Hunter fans would be offended if you called them idiots, but I've heard that argument before.. that the majority of PC gamers wouldn't know quality if it bit them in the.. well you get the idea.

I mean really.. I've met some PC gamers that seem like very stupid people, but by your logic it is only the console gamers that are "idiots."

It seems to me that this small elect in the PC gamer community that are truly smart and mature and know what good games are (whatever you define "good game" as of course), it must be the hardcore community, as I think you can see from the sales figures that most PC gamers buy mass produced games that usually get panned or mocked by "hardcore" groups (ie: Barbie/fashion games, Hunting games, Sims, Myst, etc). According to the hardcore groups, these people are idiots for buying these "crappy" games. So that means most PC gamers are idiots too.

If you're going to relegate some elite minority in the PC gaming community as the only arbitrator of quality, then I guess 99.9% of us in the gaming community are just idiots then, and have no hope except to appeal to this invisible empire of elites.

Personally, I think in terms of what one chooses to spend one's leisure and resources on in terms of entertainment is purely up to the individual tastes and preferences of that individual. And they can choose to like whatever they want, so long as they don't actively try to prevent someone else from exercising their own free choice in this regard. So if you like Pokemon, that's okay. And if you don't like Pokemon, that's also okay. That is my position. It's not for me to tell you what you can and cannot enjoy.

I don't view console gamers as a whole as "idiots" anymore than I view PC gamers as a whole as "idiots." Nor do I confer godhood on any elite group of gamers either. I can and will disagree with anyone who dares say what games I can and cannot enjoy playing.

I reject your definitions, because I am both a console gamer AND a PC gamer. I do not by any means run myself into debt buying games either, but I enjoy both. Suprised? And I don't think either makes me "dumb" or an idiot, and I am by no means a child by any definition.

While it may be Mr. Paul B's frank opinion that certain groups are more "idiotic" than others, and it is duly noted, but as I see it, rests not on anything factual, merely his own personal predjudices, and I heartily disagree with them, which is okay.

Rant over.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited May 15, 2001).]

*standing ovation* I couldn't have said it anywhere near as good myself. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif) But indeed, you can't throw a person in either one of 2 groups based on what system he has(and what are the ppl that have both than eh?) and also, every person is unique, and you can't just put something unique in a group now can you http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif).

------------------
No!
I am your father.

Yeah, what Kurgan said...

Just to clarify my earlier response, I just blanked out the second paragraph of PaulB's response in my mind. I was responding to his comments about graphics accelerators...not about console gamers.

To summarise Kurgan's response in my own words...

Anyone has the right to play any game on any platform they choose if it brings them some enjoyment. It's their choice...so Happy Gaming! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

Wow Kurgan. *Claps*

hmm paul as usualy your arguments are a tad one sided, which is annoying becuase a lot of people have forgot to mention that PC games suffer frim stupid flaws, that could be easily resolved, but are more than often not.

1) bugs. Why is it that 99% of console games have no bus in them? That's becuase someone went and playtested it, then they playtested it again and again. PC developers seem to think they can get away with it, because people can d/l patches off the internet. This practice is downright lazy and stupid. It should have ended a long time ago.

2) The old argument of compatibility. Someone earlier mentioned that the min. or acceptable spec or 128mb and a 32 graphics card. Give it another year and it'll have gone up. People have argued that they don't have enough money to shell-out for console. Well, do i have enough money to shell out for a new graphics card and ultimately another Ј1000 for a computer? no i don't

people who say consoles are for kids have a valid point, but that doesn't mean to say they don't produce quality games. Just because it doesn't have a learning curve steep as hell, or have lots of stupid jeyboard movements to master, that it is not intended for a 'serious gamer.' and could someone define serious gamer? is it someone that knows all those button combinations on falcon 4? is it someone that can pull off a 10 hit combo on tekken tag?
no my friends, it's someone who knows a good game when they see it, regardless of platform.


------------------
"All these moments will be lost.......like tear in rain."
Roy Batty, Blade Runner : TDC

[This message has been edited by andy_nighthawk (edited May 15, 2001).]

You don't seem to appreciate the difficulty of making games for the PC. The reason that many games are buggy for some people is that there are millions of possible combinations of different computer parts that can exist. PC games are probably tested more rigorously than most console games, in an attempt by the developers to make sure that the games will work on most combinations, but the dev team can't catch every single error. That's why there are bugs in PC games, not a lack of testing, but a much greater difficulty in accounting for all possibilities.

Hate to break it to you guys, but consoles games HAVE BUGS and glitches of all sorts (Jedi Power Battles/TPM anyone?).

But, they may often be less noticable, in most cases, because of extended testing, which is because they can't patch it later, but with PC games you can, etc.

Yeah, we know how that works.

As I said before, calling consoles "for kids" ignores the fact that many console games are MARKETED AT OLDER AUDIENCES.

Unless of course you're going to tell me that it's another conspiracy to sell "Mature" rated games to kids (by "kids" do you mean people under 13? 15? 18?) and not adults.

And by the same token there is a large market of PC games targetted at younger audiences.

Of course that's not to say that some games don't have general appeal: that is, both "kids" and adults can and do enjoy them.

Kurgan

you mean like umm...the turok games? those rule. i finally beat turok 1 yesterday, i played all the way through level 8 without dying, i beat the t. rex with only losing ONE life, and the campaigner and i only lost 1 life to him. Now i'm trying to beat Turok 2 and am only on level 5 (i skipped level 2 and am going to beat it later).

oh, the next block was the archive of lucasarts games! I WAS RIGHT!!!!! YAY!!!!!

Where do I get the notion that the US consumers go into debt buying games? Simple, three seperate government reports by the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve Bank, and General Accounting Office. Americans are spending $1.01 for every 1.00 they earn. Games are not a necessity (prove to me how they nessitate the biological and social ability to function). The report was about savings and the US. We aren't saving. When we aren't saving, the economy will fall. The economy falls, and well really bad things will happen.

and then china take over http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif) j/k

That's all well and good to say that paulb (some up-to-date links would be nice of course), but does that really show a causal relationship between the buying of video games and the general debt of consumers?

People spend time and money on other luxury goods and services besides games, after all.

*I* don't rack up debts buying games, so what are you preaching at me for? I'm just curious.

You can draw your own conclusions of course, but I think the trite old saying about what happens when you "assume" applies here...

I don't think you can blame the entire collective debt of the American public on video games. But if you can give a convincing thesis on the subject, I'd love to see/hear it (provided it is logical and based on actual figures and facts of course).

Kurgan