Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

New Gears of War 2 Details, No PC Version 63

IGN has an interview with Cliff Bleszinski, design director for Epic Games, in which he discusses the achievements and unlockable content in Gears of War 2. He mentions that the game won't be getting a PC version as its predecessor did. Gamasutra has a related interview with Epic's Rod Fergusson, who talks at length about developing the new game after experiencing the popularity of the old one, and how he manages the franchise's growth into other forms of media. He also explains the decision-making process behind issuing Title Updates.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Gears of War 2 Details, No PC Version

Comments Filter:
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Friday August 29, 2008 @11:16PM (#24805859)
    Three game press releases in a row? C'mon editors - got anything for the dozen or so real geeks still reading this site every other day?
  • Re:No PC version? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cathoderoytube ( 1088737 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:17AM (#24806281)
    Yes I see your point. It's completely logical to pay to have a game that's no longer making any money ported to another platform where piracy is commonplace. It's not like game developers are beginning to focus on consoles because of higher sales and no piracy.
  • Re:No PC version? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Saturday August 30, 2008 @12:24AM (#24806367)

    From what I understand, it takes relatively little effort to port from the 360 to the PC. So, it really boils down to: "small" chance of making money > zero chance of making money.

    And plenty of developers are still making games for the PC. The market isn't going to die just because some doom and gloom prophets say so, they've been saying that for a while now.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2008 @02:14AM (#24807113)

    Is that because 'real geeks' don't play games now? Or because 'real geeks' can only like things that aren't 'mainstream'? Help me out here. This geek is 46 now and I'm unsure what kind of uncool you think I need to be to be cool now.

  • by dunezone ( 899268 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @03:03AM (#24807515) Journal
    You got caught up in being spoiled by the hype. Its a great game but when you hear nothing but people saying its amazing, and awesome, you kind of psyche yourself out. You expect every part of the game to be the best of the best. And instead of actually enjoying the game, you are forcing yourself to enjoy the game cause everyone else did.

    Ill bring up a recent experience I had. The Dark Knight. I was told by many people this movie was amazing, that this would be "The Empire Strikes Back" of my generation. I didn't see the movie till about three weeks after its opening. By the time I saw it, my head was filled with so many people saying how great it is, how amazing, and the fact that a few people were comparing it to one of the best sequels ever made, that I psyched myself out. I was now sitting in a seat in a movie theater trying to enjoy movie instead of actually enjoying the movie. I expected every scene to be amazing. I felt as if the movie was spoiled because everyone said it was amazing and instead of judging it myself, I let others judge it for me. And instead I was criticizing the movie all the way through.

    The other issue is aging a game. Some games just don't age properly. Some last years and years, some only a few years. Goldeneye was amazing back in 1997/1998. But try getting someone new to play it now for the first time and they wont get it. Try getting someone to play Half-life now for the first time, they wont get it(and I am talking original build not the Source stuff). Now yes, Goldeneye is from 1997 and Gears of War is from 2006. Its only been two years, but there are so many games that carried mechanics (gameplay, graphics, etc) from it since then, its nothing special anymore. The reason gamers go back to old games is not to play them for the first time, its to play them again. Its tough to go back in time and attempt to play a game with graphics that are considered laughable today. With AI that is simple look and shoot. For a lot of games, there's a window of opportunity to play them, and if you miss that window, you've screwed yourself.
  • by Werthless5 ( 1116649 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @03:40AM (#24807785)

    You are wrong on so many levels.

    1) Piracy is commonplace on consoles, too, you just don't hear about it as much

    2) Very few game developers have completely abandoned PC - these developers were gemerally butt-hurt from poor sales after producing a few shitty titles. See Valve, Blizzard, and Stardock, for a few big names

    3) If porting the game generates some profit, it will be done. Since porting the game costs effectively nothing, doing so will churn an enormous profit.

    Yes, it is completely logical to have a game that's no longer making any money ported to another platform where it can generate additional profit.

    It is completely ILLOGICAL to not port the game.

    As we've seen time and time again, 360 exclusive games are eventually ported to PC 90% of the time

  • by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @04:47AM (#24808139)

    Well, major hype is part of the market isn't it? I had the same reaction with Halo: "it's ok". Not a bad game by any means, but not a revolution either. The level design was pretty crappy with its endlessly repeating identical corridors and floors. The two-weapon system was in my opinion just a workaround for not having a lot of keyboard keys to easily select weapons, rather than a wicked strategic choice. The enemy AI didn't really seem all that much smarter than that in other contemporary games.

    So, not a bad game, but just one of a great many similar games, with no particular outstanding features. The thing I enjoyed most was driving the warthogs. But it is way, way overhyped...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 30, 2008 @05:34AM (#24808349)

    A PC port of GoW2 would generate some profit, but I think spending their resources on a different, console project would generate even more profits. Gears of War PC didn't sell well. That and the PC port had many bugs. Not so easy and cheap to port, is it? Half-assed ports and games tend to piss off your buyers and would decrease future sales. For example: EA.

    All in all, a PC port is not as logical as you make it out to be.

    PS: Did you even buy the PC port of GoW? I'd venture no. You just seem to be "butt-hurt" over developers abandoning the PC.

  • Re:No PC version? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mex ( 191941 ) on Saturday August 30, 2008 @11:32AM (#24810569)

    "The market isn't going to die just because some doom and gloom prophets say so, they've been saying that for a while now."
    Yeah, at least 10 years. I remember Evil Avatar saying "PC games are dead! Dying soon! " a few years ago...

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...