[QUOTE="danish-death"][QUOTE="haberman13"]
I appreciate the case you're making, and with the console crowd I think you're right, they prefer sticking with old mechanics and simplistic games.
But ... take the CS beta VS Quake example. Why did the PC crowd insta-migrate to CS?
Layers of complexity and 'more' were added. Guns with recoil, objectives, etc.
So while more != better, depth and addition to the meta game (for PC gamers) is better. Clearly the 'head in sand' crowd doesn't care, but frankly they probably couldn't handle PS2 anyway.
haberman13
Who cares if console games Are somewhat simplistic compared to a few select PC games? Your arguments with Quake doesn't hold up either. CS did a lot of things right, true, but can you honestly find a source that claims PC gamers prefered a more "complex" game and not because people just ended up liking the more realistic police vs terrorist scenario better? BF 3 offers a much more complex gameplay over COD and yet they both appear to be able to co-exist on consoles, having sold millions each. If complexity is all you care about why don't you hype Arma 3 instead?Complexity:
|consoles------------------------------------------------------------------------|sweet spot--------------------Arma3---------|
As with everything there is a balance, consoles are on the far end of the scale, ARMA 3 is on the other end. Arma games (IMO) trip over the 'good complexity' into 'why is this so obtuse?'
Had CS simply been Quake with CT/T skins/guns it wouldn't have taken off. BF3 console gamers are future PC gamers :)
How do you know that? It's impossible to know that the ""complexity" of CS compared to Quake is what made people switch and not many other factors. By this logic PS2 is about to become super popular. It's going to make people switch from BF3/COD ((PC version of course) to PS2. All PC gamers, who appear to be higher beings, will go for the clearly superior, complex and deeper game. This is all according to your logic. 
Log in to comment