Video games have a long and storied history on the personal computer. For years it has been the home of bleeding edge graphics and gameplay innovation. The golden age of PC gaming was glorious; a person could walk into a video game store and be hard pressed to choose a bad game. The games were original, well-made, and have stood the test of time. Many are still considered to be the benchmark or standard of perfection that should be aimed at today. But over the past few years PC gaming has begun to decline, and there does not seem to be any way to prevent it from continuing to fade away into history.

The "golden age" of PC gaming started in the early to mid 90's and lasted until about 2002. The men and women that created and worked on many of the games that came out during that time period went on to create development studios of their own and many are still working in the gaming industry today. Video games had existed for years before this "golden age" but were seen as novelties and kids toys. The games of this era pushed the envelope in any and all ways possible. These games became the foundation of what is now a multibillion dollar industry, an industry that is steadily growing with no signs of slowing down any time soon.

The decline is due in large part to home video game consoles – hardware created specifically to play video games. These systems are much cheaper, more user friendly, and can cater to a more diverse audience than a personal computer. The large technology gap that used to separate computer and console games is rapidly closing; a side-by-side comparison of the latest console and PC games shows very little if any difference in quality. Consoles are even beginning to challenge the monopoly the PC has always had on online multiplayer gaming.

As home gaming consoles become more popular and advanced, the glaring problems with PC gaming become more obvious and pressing concerns. According to the game developers, the biggest issue with creating games for the PC is piracy. It has been estimated that up to fifty percent of game sales are lost to piracy. This is a scary statistic, especially if you are considering what platform to develop a game for. Investors are not going to support a product on a platform that almost guarantees loss of revenue to theft. As a result of this, many game companies that once made games exclusively for the PC now make games on all popular gaming platforms, PC and console. As a result, the PC versions of these games get less attention than the console versions, almost as if they are an afterthought for a fan base that put the company on the map. Many of these new multiplatform games lack the optimization on the PC required to ensure they will function properly on a broad spectrum of systems. It is obvious the developers are counting on the revenue coming from the console versions of their games.

While piracy is a big concern, there are other problems with PC gaming that need to be addressed. A big one is the lack of a standardized foundation developers can build on. There are thousands of unique component combinations that make up all the different personal computers that will try and run a specific game. The developers need to be aware of this and do their best to make the software work without conflict on as many systems as possible. This is a headache that is not present in a console game. The console offers hardware that the developers can be confident will be exactly the same for every person that plays the game.

It is also much easier for developers to create a game for specific hardware. The constraints and boundaries of the hardware are easily determined; this makes it easier and quicker to create a game for a console. A game can take anywhere from two to five years to create; there have been situations where developers have had to overhaul a PC games graphics engine because technology had changed so drastically while the game was in development. Such a concern would not be an issue for a console game; no matter how long the game development takes, the hardware will be the same when the game is released.

Another concern is the price of staying up to date with the current PC technology. To play the latest and greatest PC games requires at least a new video card every year, and a new CPU every two years. Not including other components that must be purchased to make these new upgrades work, this can cost a thousand dollars or more a year. A console is a one-time purchase between three hundred and six hundred dollars. When many, if not all, of the same games that are available on the PC are also available on a console, which one will the average consumer choose to purchase? The consoles do not have to be assembled and maintained, if broken they are covered under warranty to be fixed or replaced. Most people do not have the patience, time, or knowledge about computers to configure and maintain a gaming quality PC.

Ironically, another nail in the coffin of PC games is a genre exclusive to the PC. The Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG) dominates the PC market today. These games are designed to keep players playing for as long as possible and can only be played online. They charge players a monthly fee, usually around fifteen dollars per month. Because of the potential for so much profit if a company can keep players playing, there is a glut of these games being made. The downside is that this focus on online only games has made it hard to compete for companies not cashing in on this concept. These persistent online worlds ensnare players and keep them playing for years, players who might otherwise be interested in buying new games.

All of these concerns add up to the obvious choice of creating games for consoles, and phasing out the personal computer as a gaming platform. An unfortunate side effect of this is the simplifying of games in general. Consoles cater to a more mainstream audience, where PC gaming has always been the realm of the truly hardcore. Games did not used to cost millions of dollars to create, so these PC gamers were enough to make a profit. But now games can cost as much if not more than a big movie to create. The demand for profit means game developers take less risk, and investors are more interested in a "sure thing" rather than creating a new and engrossing video game.

The decline of PC gaming heralds a new age of video games. Gone are the days of games being a social stigma. Now we are bombarded by advertising from the latest gaming phenomenon, much like the next popular movie. Games are no longer about innovation; it is a money making industry that is being refined to earn as much possible. Where before games were developed by gamers for gamers, now games are created by teams of hundreds of professionals, from animators and programmers, to writers and orchestras.

There are a few hopes for PC gaming, but they may not be enough. One is digital distribution, being able to purchase and download any game onto your computer, without needing a hard copy. Combined with this is weekly software verification. Much like Windows XP needs to verify that it is a legitimate copy to function properly, certain games require a working internet connection to run a check every week. If this check fails, the game stops working. If the majority of game purchases are digital, and these games have this verification check built in, it could drastically reduce piracy. Unfortunately the PC gaming community has not responded well to this verification software. Most likely many of those opposed to it are those that don't want to lose the ability to pirate games, but any company that decides to fully embrace this software is going to be met with harsh criticism.

Games will always exist on the PC, but in a few years it will be only a shadow of its former glory. Where once a profit could be made by catering to the hardcore PC gamer, they are now left out in the cold as the industry shifts to the mainstream. The games for the PC are being released fewer and farther between, and almost none of them are exclusive to the PC. Where once console gamers were overjoyed to get a PC game converted to console, computer gamers now hold out hope that developers will bring some of the popular console games over to the PC. It will be interesting to see if this shift in the industry has any effect on the way technology progresses from this point on.

What game are all the reviewers playing? The Neverwinter Nights 2 I got is an ugly, glitchy, horribly generic piece of junk. Yet GameSpot has it winning a "Best Story of the Year" award, and other sites continue to sing its praises. What the flippin heck is going on?!
The game performs very poorly on even the most robust gaming systems. Mycomputer more than equals the recommended specs, but I had to modify the gamesfiles, use two or three workarounds, and launch the .exe from a separate program to get the game to a playable state. And that is with almost all of the graphics settings set to low or off. As long as a game looks decent, I can overlook graphical flaws. But when I can't even play the game due to low framerate and glitches, it's not worth my time.
Once you unwrap the game from all of its technical problems, you find a generic take on all things D&D that gets old before it even begins. The tutorial is HORRIBLE! They set you up with a starting point that would only logically suit a Human or Elf ranger, any other class or race feels out of place and odd.
Most of the reviews I have read have pointed out the character interaction in NWN 2. From what I have read I have come to the conclusion that one of two things must be true:
1. Either these reviews don't read anything other than video game text, and would accept fan fiction written by a 13 year old as "epic and engrossing."
or
2. Someone has paid these reviewers to write the things that they have about this game.
I found myself wanting to leave all my characters at the inn. The only interaction they had with each other was to whine and complain, as if they were all mentally below ten years old. They were all cliché D&D characters with not one whit of intrigue or charisma. It felt like I had already met these characters, they were all too predictable. Not to mention that they were more a hindrance than a help with the horrible AI.
This game is a joke, far from being a worthy successor to the original Neverwinter Nights. I was stupefied by GameSpots original review score, but now I’m ticked off that they would award this trash with “Best Story of the Year.”

I expressed my distaste for the tournament settings before it started, and they proved to be flawed. Changes were made after the first round was played with the flawed settings. Not only is this completely unfair to anyone that played in those matches, it is un-professional. I can't think of any competition in the world that would make such a change, and not replay any match that was completed with the bad settings. Then again, Gamespot lets players advance due to absences as well, which is a horrible policy and unfair to every player involved.

Most game genres allows for very lenient settings in competitive play, having a clear cut definition of what should be allowed and not. Trying to create tournament settings in an RTS game that deviate dramatically from ranked play is inviting imbalance, not to mention foolish. Gamespot either does not care, or lacks experienced RTS gamers to set up their RTS tournaments. So far fairness has not been a concern, nor has balance; the only important factor is having a live broadcast for the final match.

I have hope for the impending third RTS tournament, not much hope, but some. If Gamespot cannot get the proper people setting these things up, they need to just give up on RTS tournaments. The only reason they have not been called on it yet is because this is only the second RTS tournament, and that there are not many veteran RTS gamers actively involved in the Gamespot community. If these trends continue, there will be people more vocal, and less formal than I, demanding answers for the shoddy planning and execution we saw in the BFMEII and now CoH tournaments.

After playing since beta I finally got around to reviewing the game.

Looking back, it was fun, but disappointing. The game could be so much better. If Blizzard would do something ambitious and create a server where every town other than the capitol cities could be taken over by either faction, the game would be perfect. They would attract a much more diverse player base as well.

At the moment WoW is populated by mindless zombies unique to the game. Most of them fit into three categories:

One, WoW is their first real foray into gaming, and has become the holy grail. These players are fanatics, and best avoided.

Two, they have played every MMORPG to come out since time immemorial, and consider themselves gaming gods due to their vast amount of virtual wealth (wasted time). These players form "uber guilds" and run in groups, don't try to be logical with them, its impossible. They will always have the best gear in the game before anyone else.

And three, the WoW uber "PvPer." Ah yes, I had a lot of negative encounters with these guys. They have reached the highest PvP ranks, and thus by Blizzards standards are the best PvPers in the game.

PvP in WoW is a joke. It does not take skill to climb the rankings, only forsaking school, family, and work to stay in the battle grounds 24/7. You don't even need a decent kill/death ratio. There is no death penalty, and no real penalty for losing. Even the PvP servers feel lame.

So congratulations, you reached rank 14. Out of all the anti-social misfits playing the game, you are the worst!

Feh, give me a RTS or FPS game any day. Login, cap some noobs, and still get in 18 holes of golf.

I lost by 22 seconds! Bah.

I would have held on for those extra twenty seconds if DeadDorf and Terrin had not decided to attack at the same time, I could not hold both of them off and keep the hill.

I heard tournament TV commenting about my lack of units. This was only my second time playing as Elves, and I'm still not used to them. I'm a Men of the West player, and the Elves units cost more and take much longer to build. I was trying to run a MoTW economy and build order with the Elves.

It has been obvious throughout the tournament that winning a KoTH 1v1v1 match requires a certain amount of good fortune combined with skill. There is no strategy that can guarantee a win, the third player is a wildcard that can win it or lose it for you. So I figured out an early hold strategy that would guarantee me at least second place, with the chance that things would swing my way and I would win. They did not, but it was close.

It was a great tournament, I really enjoyed it. It was my first tournament on GameSpot, and now that I know what they are like, I'm looking forward to the next one.