Alan Wake PC Cancelled; X360 More Compelling

[belardo]

Post deleted by Moderator

 

[raised_fist]

I'm with you Belardo with the Amiga. I had a lot of fun playing on Amiga. My A2000 is still running by the way.
Too bad for Alan wake, I waited for this game, then forget it and now canceled. Someone said it's better to be canceled than a bad pc port, I kind of agree. Bioshock 2 is a good example, not that bad but totaly not a 2010 pc game. Clearly a console game in the design and very easy to play.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]Vermil[/nom]Now this is a sentiment I cannot understand. I have four consoles. PS2, PS3, XB, XB360, and there are some game genres which are well suited for consoles. But every PC gamer who have something better than 'Intel GMA' knows that PC games are much better experiences. Take any RPG or FPS for instance, which is released both on console and PC. There's no comparison. The PC version is a vastly superior. Even better again, are games which never were meant to be released on console in the first place, and thus are not crippled in their original version. Night & Day.So there's every reason to be interested in what platform a game is released on.[/citation]

Take some time. You'll understand. I'm sure Alan Wake is well suited for a console because it was made for it. As far as graphics cards go, if visuals actually affect your "gameplay experience", then you probably don't focus on gameplay as much as you should. In fact, I'm willing to bet you think Crysis is a game instead of tech-demo. Also, if a game is released solely for a console, that is the original version.

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Not everyone has an XBox, I don't. I also much prefer the Mouse & Keyboard interface over the gamepad controls. That is why people like him and I are only interested in PC games.[/citation]

Not everyone has a powerful PC. As far as controls go, for an FPS, a mouse and keyboard are unquestionably the best. For RPG's, its debatable. It depends on the kind. Actually beayn, there is big difference between why he is interested in PC games and why you are. He fails to understand that regardless of the platform for which a game is released, the best games are works of art. Who cares whether they look better on PC. Enjoy the artistry and dedication that goes into it and accept it for its strengths, not for its lack there of.

I've never been a fan of a game that has been ported from console to PC because of how awful they turn out (Invisible War i'm looking at you) but if a game I really want to play is released for a platform I don't have, I will eventually find a way to play it, whether it be through friends or family. I won't miss out on a good game because I'm not closed minded.

In case you were wondering, I've been building PC's since the mid 90's. My current specs are:

Core i7 920 @ 4 ghz
6 gb OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800 mhz
4870x2 (Soon to be Hemlock)
PC Power and Cooling 750 Quad

 

[realheadcrusher]

The irony is that I play pc games on a 42 inch TV sitting on a couch!

 

[nebun]

bull crap. a game on a pc will always pawn any game on any console hands down, not to mention it's a lot easier to control characters with a mouse and keyboard. if you do a lot of racing on pc then get a game pad, it's that simple. i have had both x360 and ps3, and guess what?, i sold them both, lol. PC is that much better.

 

[Vermil]

[citation][nom]hotsacoman[/nom]...if visuals actually affect your "gameplay experience", then you probably don't focus on gameplay as much as you should. In fact, I'm willing to bet you think Crysis is a game instead of tech-demo.[/citation]
Cute with semantics? Nah, don't be silly, Crysis is a game. As disappointing as it was, after Far Cry, its gameplay is still far beyond any console shooter.
I was specifically thinking of gameplay. Consoles severely cripple gameplay in many ways. This is the major reason why games are so disappointing these days. The games (regardless if they're released on PC or not) have been 'fitted' into the consoles constrictions. First, we have memory. Secondly, we have the console CPUs, which are fine enough for shuffling blocks of data and simple, unconditional manipulations. What they are abyssmally poor on, however, are tasks like AI, pathfinding and similar tasks. Thirdly, we have the controller. Mouse and keyboard are so much more of everything, for a sophisticated game. If the elements, that need to be manipulated, gets too complicated, it becomes an annoying chore with a gamepad. So the game UI has to be designed with this in mind, in turn - this severely affects gameplay. Fourth, the quality of display also affects the UI and consequently gameplay design in turn. You have to be able to read texts and discern icons, for example. 720p is bad enough, but there are people who have complained about visibility in recent games, because they are playing on old lo-res TVs. You know what the developers say? "Well, we'll see what we can do and ofc we have to consider this in the future." (shudders)
In summary, it's very proper and apt to say that games are "dumbed down" for consoles. They really are. A lot!
And graphical splendor doesn't even enter into the discussion sofar. That's next chapter...

[citation]In case you were wondering, I've been building PC's since the mid 90's. My current specs are:Core i7 920 @ 4 ghz6 gb OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800 mhz4870x2 (Soon to be Hemlock)PC Power and Cooling 750 Quad[/citation]
(I'm not wondering, but just to make a point My last build is about a year old. It runs any existing game (1920 X 1200) and any everyday application in the same comfort and user experience as yours. It has never crashed. Not even once. It is almost completely silent. It, most of the time, runs on just a couple of hundreds Watts, if even that. And the total hardware cost was $800, then. Including case and no 'inherited' re-used parts. To top it all off, it comes with more memory than yours, and ethical relief, as it carries an "Intel Outside" sticker.
If needed (which it isn't, yet) I can upgrade to a HD5970 and have ultimately better game performance than you, and still (I bet) stay comfortably well inside your original budget.

 

[rantoc]

I bet the developer didn't want to release the game on PC with the weak graphics of a console, rather than loose reputation a simple excuse were made...

Hope MS wakes up soon and create an updated Xbox (pref with Dx11) since too many developers are too lazy/unskilled to create DX10+ games. MS are partially to blame for situations like this since its been no update to the weak console... Not that the rest of the competition is anywhere a true pc anyway!

 

[ryanegeiger]

Halo was originally an Xbox exclusive because it didn't meet up to the standards of PC FPS's at the time; as evidenced by the reception of the PC port when it actually DID come out. PC gamers laughed at its simplicity and kindergarten-level difficulty. They had all the tools to create cross-platform online multiplayer, but it would have been completely unfair to the console crowd.

This game however is feeling the MW2 disease. Simply put, companies make more money on consoles. Plain and simple. No use trying to speculate.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]Vermil[/nom]Cute with semantics? Nah, don't be silly, Crysis is a game. As disappointing as it was, after Far Cry, its gameplay is still far beyond any console shooter.I was specifically thinking of gameplay. Consoles severely cripple gameplay in many ways. This is the major reason why games are so disappointing these days. The games (regardless if they're released on PC or not) have been 'fitted' into the consoles constrictions. First, we have memory. Secondly, we have the console CPUs, which are fine enough for shuffling blocks of data and simple, unconditional manipulations. What they are abyssmally poor on, however, are tasks like AI, pathfinding and similar tasks. Thirdly, we have the controller. Mouse and keyboard are so much more of everything, for a sophisticated game. If the elements, that need to be manipulated, gets too complicated, it becomes an annoying chore with a gamepad. So the game UI has to be designed with this in mind, in turn - this severely affects gameplay. Fourth, the quality of display also affects the UI and consequently gameplay design in turn. You have to be able to read texts and discern icons, for example. 720p is bad enough, but there are people who have complained about visibility in recent games, because they are playing on old lo-res TVs. You know what the developers say? "Well, we'll see what we can do and ofc we have to consider this in the future." (shudders)In summary, it's very proper and apt to say that games are "dumbed down" for consoles. They really are. A lot!And graphical splendor doesn't even enter into the discussion sofar. That's next chapter...[citation]In case you were wondering, I've been building PC's since the mid 90's. My current specs are:Core i7 920 @ 4 ghz6 gb OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800 mhz4870x2 (Soon to be Hemlock)PC Power and Cooling 750 Quad[/citation](I'm not wondering, but just to make a point My last build is about a year old. It runs any existing game (1920 X 1200) and any everyday application in the same comfort and user experience as yours. It has never crashed. Not even once. It is almost completely silent. It, most of the time, runs on just a couple of hundreds Watts, if even that. And the total hardware cost was $800, then. Including case and no 'inherited' re-used parts. To top it all off, it comes with more memory than yours, and ethical relief, as it carries an "Intel Outside" sticker.If needed (which it isn't, yet) I can upgrade to a HD5970 and have ultimately better game performance than you, and still (I bet) stay comfortably well inside your original budget.[/citation]

Well since you think Crysis actually qualifies as a game, I don't think you know what a game is, ha. If a developer blames piracy for his low volume of sales instead of sub-standard gameplay, then I'm afraid he doesn't know eit

 

[lothdk]

This is kind of funny, so the game that was supposed to be _THE_ dx10 game, never made it to release, but the decision wasn't made until the release of the next evolution of dx was here, dx11.

 

[Guest]

Sorry for the double post.

Continuing from my last post, we can all try to convince ourselves that Crysis sold poorly because of high system requirements, but the truth is quite clear. I think Cevat Yerli should look at Half-Life, Thief, Deus Ex etc before even trying to make another...well whatever it is that Crysis was. Actually it makes a huge difference whether or not a game is released for both console and PC because those are the games that are crippled and the ones that PC gamers complain about (myself included). If a game was only developed for a console, that is the original version and there will be no PC version. Of course its "fitted into the consoles constrictions." Only with ports of console games, are we aware of some of these constrictions and can speculate about others. You make it sound like every game being developed these days are done so strictly with consoles in mind. If that's the case, let me point you to a little studio called Valve. Memory...zzzzz. CPU...zzzzz. Point me to a game that has revolutionary AI and pathfinding on the PC that's due to its CPU being more powerful(we all know Crysis doesn't). To this day, only the really demanding rts games have fully utilized quad-core processors (World in Conflict, Supreme Commander) and their AI and Pathfinding is something to behold I'm sure, ha. Mouse and keyboard for all shooters and rts of course. RPG's, thats another matter. What do you mean by sophisticated? More actions? More spells? More anything? "You have to be able to read texts and discern icons." What?? If you can't do that, you need more than higher resolutions to save you. I don't know of anyone who has a Low-res tv anymore that doesn't choose to have one. If by "dumbed down" you mean more accessible then yes, I can see that. Once again, Alan Wake is not going to have a PC port; its original (and supposedly final) version is for the 360.

My last build is about a year old too. Never said anything about user experience being different on mine than yours. My computer never crashed either, but then I decided I needed an operating system on it lol. Mine's silent as well and probably runs at a steady 350 - 400 watts at idle. Don't see what your point here is. My total hardware cost was 1000 flat...one year ago. Got my 4870 x2, new, for 260 from a business in Burbank. My i7 was picked up from Microcenter for 200. Both, a year ago. Wow, more memory? You have the bigger penis I guess. You have stickers?? You definitely have the bigger penis. If you can trade in your current video card and get a Hemlock for less than 200 dollars, then you can stay within my original budget. Hmmmm...

 

[Vermil]

[citation][nom]hotsacoman[/nom]This should be: "We made good games in the past (Mp 1 and 2) and we want to support our families and stay in business. However we can do that the most effectively will be our course of action and we're hoping that those of you who were fans of our previous games will be fans of our upcoming game!" Here you go, fixed it for you![/citation]
@ hotsacoman This earlier statement of yours was quite the product of a thinking mind.
Since then, your logic has become increasingly deranged. Let's do a recap to attempt some order: I noted that there are good reasons to note what kind of platform a game is released on. Not the least, this is also an outcome of our personal real experiences, so it's a little bit silly to try argue against. You then assumed that I was only concerned about graphics. I then explained that, on the contrary, I was thus far only considering gameplay. You then bothered us with your opinion of Crysis, which no one has asked for, and which is just as irrelevant for everything as your Valve fanboyism, and tried to 'build' your argument by making the moronic statement that Crysis is "not a game" and that I don't know "what a game is". You also offered us, again unsolicited, your equally irrelevant system specs. At that stage, I did become a bit nasty, and "my point" (which you asked for) was to hint (in an admittedly slightly nasty way) that I wasn't the least impressed.

(Since you make some obscure comments, the following information might, or might not, be of value to you. It's offered regardless: A computer is the sum of hardware and software, in this case the OS. OS'es almost never crash by themselves. Not Windows either. The common real causes are a faulty video driver, pirated Windows, or flaky hardware.)

You then make a lot of my previous explanations your own argument, "of course" in something that looks like a rant. There's where we are now.

As for your other implied question: The restrictions in console CPUs performance frequently affect console gameplay design, regardless if you think there are PC games with "awesome" AI or not. There's for instance a reason why everything moves like on rails in the COD games. But of course, you've already agreed that consoles cripple games.

To add something old to this debate: The problems for PC gaming are hardly due to "crappy" games. If that was true, why wouldn't it affect console games? They're crappier and cost more.
Nope, that's just a lie, something pirate scums tell each other, when they sit in their little thieving sects, and twist reality to what is more comfortably and helps their feeling of entitlement.
The bitter truth is that piracy really is a big part of the problem. Now I happen to think it's not all of it. I also think Microsoft's lack of interest in PC-gaming is also an issue.

 

[matt87_50]

what an idiotic thing to say. my computer monitor is bigger 40cm away than my 46" tv is a few meters away!! xbox is just like PC, but with worse controls for this type of thing. I think they are just desperately trying to claw back some real xbox exclusives as the finally realise that any of their "exclusives" aren't really because they come out on PC, always confirming my belief that if you have a Gaming PC, there is NO reason to own an xbox! I find this MS artificially creating exclusives worrying,

 

[mlopinto2k1]

There was a video I remember watching that specifically talked about how it was going to utilize quad-core computer setups. Those bastards all need to be fired.

 

[belardo]

Well... I've been censored. I've seen the F-bomb S*** used here before without being deleted. And for Microfart - I felt it was appropriate for it here. Did someone from monkey-man company complain?

My post should NOT have been deleted... if the F-Bomb was too much (it was 100% x3 directed at MicroPoop) - then insert **** or delete the F-Bombs. If Tomshardware has an issue with F-words, turn on a filter. Too techie?

My points about MicroDoDo is valid... and important.

That is the truth. WHO Needs Microsoft for home computers once the 3D games are gone? I HOPE with ALL my heart that linux / Google comes up from behind and kills Windows.

Because All Windows will be... a support system for MS-Office. And most home users DON'T need a $120~600 MS-Office suite. Open Office doesn't compare to Office2010... but OO is GOOD enough for most people to write a letter and do some spread sheets.

Then We can buy computers for less because they won't have to include MS-Windows... and High end systems won't be needed.... NO games... no need for $500 video cards inside $250 cases with $600 CPUs.

 

[Guest]

Hi Vermil. It seems as though you forgot your original post. Perhaps I should refresh it for you as you've done mine.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]raised_fist[/nom]I'm with you Belardo with the Amiga. I had a lot of fun playing on Amiga. My A2000 is still running by the way. Too bad for Alan wake, I waited for this game, then forget it and now canceled. Someone said it's better to be canceled than a bad pc port, I kind of agree. Bioshock 2 is a good example, not that bad but totaly not a 2010 pc game. Clearly a console game in the design and very easy to play.[/citation]

If you remember... AlanWake was promoted as THE DX10 game when that crappy OS vista came out. 4 years later... no Alan Wake. before PC gaming got this bad... there was no problem of making a GOOD PC game. And its well known that console shooters have auto-aimers because the limited control of a joy-pad.

I've tried the joypad with shooters... I hate the auto-targeting, it takes NO SKILL... and without it, aiming is horrible.

I never played BIOSHOCK 1 or 2... I tried the Bioshock1 Demo... but it didn't work... and thats how I found out about their root kits & DRM games with SecuROM and limited installs. So I had to go inside and clean out my system of the infection.

GTA games were always better on PC than the PS2... but GTA4 was messed up for PC.

AGAIN: When there are NO MORE AA title games for Windows... DO NOT buy an XBOX. Microsoft want PC games dead... fine. DON'T reward microsoft. Hurt them by getting a PS3 or PS4.

I've bought all my Unreal games.... UT3 sucked because the idiots at Epic de-graded for the xbox. The game is fixable, the engine and controls are generally good... but its been made retarded. Its already rumored that UT4 will be console only. In the console business... a crappy game can sell millions of units... while a TOP end PC game may sell 50~100,000 units... the other 100~300K units, pirated.

So yes... I think a PS3 will be in my home in the near future... The PS4, for sure since there won't be any games or any need for an ATI 7850 or GeFarce GTX 885 Ultra.

Hey... can the PS3 consoles disable voice-chat? All I hear about is nothing buy 10 year olds who love to hear themselves say F***.

- - - -
I have my Amiga 1000 (love it) and Amiga 3000. Never liked the keyboard computers (I grew off that after my C=128) and the 2000 was so big. The AGA Amigas were so horrible... I knew C= screwed up. I had a choice: $600 A1200, $700 A3000 or $1500 A4000. I might have considered an A1000 type AGA Amiga for $800... but the A3000 had a faster CPU, more memory and far better quality de-interlacer (AGA sucked in that).

Hey, theres a company that sells an Amiga emulator that runs on XP~Win7... not bad for under $100. It'll emulate various Amiga models. Easier than firing up my old computer...

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]Vermil[/nom]But every PC gamer who have something better than 'Intel GMA' knows that PC games are much better experiences. There's no comparison.

And on your last post:

[citation][nom]Vermil[/nom] I then explained that, on the contrary, I was thus far only considering gameplay.

I can clearly decipher from your first post that you had only considered gameplay. Though I pose a question to you. Exactly how does one use a graphics card to control a game and how does that affect gameplay? Please explain. I've never plugged a graphics card into a USB port so I'm not quite following you. As far as I can tell, if you were seriously considering gameplay, you would have had no need to mention something better than 'Intel GMA', unless of course you were speaking of visuals, which would make perfect sense. Now whose deranged, ha?

As far as mentioning Crysis, this is the exact reason I did. For the fact that you only mentioned visuals and somehow tried to pass it off as considering gameplay. I mentioned Valve because all their games are released to PC, therefore your experience won't be tarnished. I never mentioned my system specs to impress you, ha. I simply mentioned them because the sheer number of solely PC-gaming imbeciles that frequent this site is quite staggering. I apologize for thinking you were one, but you're close!

In case you wondering, the majority of crashes for Windows are caused by poorly coded third-party software, a lot of which is useful, but poorly coded nonetheless.

Actually on the issues that you think I'm making my argument, I'm simply agreeing with you.

Moves on rails? Oh, you mean linear gameplay and scripted events. That is based on the choice of the developer, not on the system specs of which are they working.

You don't seem to understand the issue here. As of right now, Alan Wake is an XBOX 360 exclusive and there are no plans for a PC version. Whether or not you think this kind of game is suited for PC, it is suited for the 360 because that's where its going to be released. Enjoy the art form for what it is, not for what you want it to be.

 

[aford10]

PCs will be around longer than the xbox. Bad business move.

 

[da_syentist]

"we ultimately realised that the most compelling way to experience "Alan Wake" was on the Xbox 360 platform"

Traduction : Microsoft trow so much money to make it xbox360 exclusive that we didnt have much choice !

lol remember when intel was showing of alan wake at IDF (dont remember the year) saying " those graphic are so intense that they need an intel quad core cpu to have THE full experience" too much funny !

 

[belardo]

I guess MS is saying that the $200 Xcrap360 is more powerful than intel's $600 i7 CPU...


When a product sucks or not needed... it doesn't sell...
In Japan, the JUST released Final Fantasy 13 has BOMBED... its mostly nothing but cut scenes. The whole game is liner. There are pictures in Japan of shelves full of unsold boxes. In a matter of weeks, the price of the game has been cut in HALF... and still, it does not sell. Also, the game has bugs.

They'll be unloading that junk game to the PC market soon. They'll break even - but they won't make another FF game.

 

[Mousemonkey]

My post should NOT have been deleted

Would you have preferred a ban instead?

 

[JCCIII]

More Propaganda from Microsoft

Absolutely disingenuous manipulative nonsense coming from Microsoft again.

Here are three lines:

*Uh-oh, you know nobody has his or her PC running an HDTV,

*None of us can sit on our couches while playing a Windows based PC game.

*I never use my wireless controller to run my PC games.


I don't know about you guys and gals but Microsoft's so-called team leaders and product managers are creating a disdain in me for the company, but somebody tell Microsoft we are not so stupid as to believe such nonsense. We all know graphics cards are suited to connect to HDTV; they're outfitted with HDMI, there is a world of wireless controllers available to the PC interface, and the machine is superb far beyond the Xbox 360 for running any game.

Joseph C. Carbone III
Los Angeles, California

 

[cptnjarhead]

what is the end game here? (no pun intended)
phase out PC games .. on a platform they own?
why would they bite a hand that is feeding them?
as stated in other post... they were pushing this as a DX10 showcase a few years ago but now its 360 only?... 360+DX9 = DX9 games right?
just a marketing decision?
maybe the pc game window has passed.. because the took so long for development.

 

[oblivionlord]

This is for Hotsacoman

"Alan Wake is an XBOX 360 exclusive and there are no plans for a PC version. Whether or not you think this kind of game is suited for PC, it is suited for the 360 because that's where its going to be released."

Just because a game is developed and released for a console doesn't mean that it's "suited" for it over a PC. The PC 'CAN' mimic anythi1ng a console can do. You can use quite a number of third party devices out today for the PC to accomplish the same thing as a console. Therefore there is nothing less suiting about the PC for this game to what the 360 has to offer. You even heard from the replies of the many people here that are already using a game-pad on their HTPC which they view on their large HDTV. That renders any reasoning to say this game is less suiting for the PC since clearly there isn't anything more than just the gamepad used for the XBOX 360 unless they release this game alongside with Netal with feature specifics only for this platform.

Clearly it comes down to the fact that consoles make more profit than PC games. That's simply it.

Furthermore.. isn't this game supposed to be somewhat similar to Max Payne except with a more open area and a different atmosphere? Max Payne was a huge success on the PC and had a successful sequel.

Also about the Graphics card...

What you fail to realize about it that greatly widens the spectrum to gaming which consoles are completely stagnant at is Physics parallelism. It's true that you can design physics to be ran on off the CPU instead of the GPU, but not everyone has a quadcore to really utilize this feature if that were true since dualcore processors just wouldn't be a practical option because a lot of games are utilizing 2 cores as it is. Since the majority of gamers do have dual cores then it's only suiting to allow the physics to run off the shader processors of the GPU. Why wouldn't you want to do this since the results have proven time and time again?

The only problem is development which is the sad part which is why not all games can utilize it. I dislike that Supreme Commander only runs off 1 physics thread. That 1 thread is the reason why the game runs horribly slow when there are a lot of units on board. However if the game had a physics engine that had the capabilities of being ran off the GPU, then I'm quite positive to think that the game will run a hell of a lot more smoother. The game has 2 main threads which is why you get no benefit from a quad over a dual. It needs a redesign in code of it's physics engine which in that game is called the 'Simulation' thread.

Also keep in mind that to utilize the physX, one only needs a G80 core on up. You can witness the physX in Mirrors Edge using an 8600GT at the very least and at smooth framerates providing you lower the graphic details and run it on a somewhat fast cpu. I think that says alot.

Physics to me really changes the game, but it really stinks that developers don't use it to higher extents. Since games sell better for the console then this is a moot issue because they already know the limitations set from the hardware as opposed to PC's which are much more vast.

I don't quite like the game Red Faction: Guerrilla, but what it does offer is a lot of diversity to imaginary methods in killing your enemy instead of just aiming at the enemy and shooting with a gun. Even HL2 offers quite a bit of diversity in using objects to kill enemies. With more emphasis on physics, you can greatly utilize a huge assortment of environmental effects which Guerrilla displayed to a point, however the game is quite demanding for consoles and you can see why this is true when you play it on either the 360 or ps3. The framerate goes anywhere from the 20-40's on the consoles.

On the other hand, the PC Port was no exception. Clearly it was a horrible port because even with a beefy system, you are still limited to the performance you get on a console. If the game were coded for the PC originally then it would run much smoother.

You can read this on the issue of the PC vs console in Red Faction...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-red-faction-guerilla-pc-tech-comparison