Number of Games: 1005
Average GameSpot Score: 7.7
Preferred Platform: PC (406)
Estimated Collection Value: $20,089.95
I've said this before, but while I do have a large amount of PC games, I hate that they are all lumped together given that some aren't even playable on a current PC. Just becuase PS1 titles were playable on the PS2 doesn't mean that all the titles get lumped under the generic PS platform. Same should apply with PC titles, esp with DOS games. I think that each PC game should get associated with the most recent supported OS, but hey what do I know.
duncanr2n
I get what you're saying, I've got a lot of PC games myself and it's hard to put something like Space Quest I next to the latest system hogs, but I think in practice it would be difficult to split them up. Too many games are equally supported on multiple OS and it would just get confusing to have some of them listed under Vista, some under XP, some under 95/98... when they may work perfectly well on all three. These days it's easy enough to get DOS titles working on a modern OS too... it's all a rather foggy area.
I think it's near-impossible to break PC gaming into discrete, standard set-ups. With consoles it's easy: there was the PS which was a standard system across the world, there was the PS2 which was the next standard system, and now the PS3 is the standard. One PS2 is the same as another PS2 (well, more or less). But PC systems are ever-evolving and no two systems are really the same. Where does one draw the line between one 'generation' (so to speak) and the next? I suppose you could go with the most recent supported OS... but there's really too much cross-over and scope for confusion. In my opinion, of course :P
Then there's those games that were releases as seperate DOS and Windows versions. Should there be two listings?
Hmm.
Log in to comment