Oh, you can play Day of the Tentacle using the SCUMM engine. You can play all old LucasArts games with that.

And Grim Fandango has a community made
launcher. Don't know if it works on Vista but they run fine on Win XP. SCUMM even runs on OS/2 and Amiga.

Never heard about Polda. Looks nice though.

Ah yes... Day of the Tentacle. Now, who remembers Maniac Mansion? :p

I do! Never finished it though...
Damn! I should never have sold my Commodore 64!

i agree, if you try to please everyone then the game will suck. The level of computers is far too diverse and would hinder the game greatly.

I haven't noticed Crysis sucking. And that game definitely doesn't cater to everyone's rig.

In fact, it looks to me like they are trying to please just about everyone *except* PC gamers. Hell, they are making *separate* versions of the game... and they couldn't hire one more team? I believe someone else pointed this out already.

But hey... as it usually goes with titles like these, we PC gamers will get an upgraded version eventually so... :p

Because I've actually been paying attention to the previews of it. It is a console-style action game, much like the 3D Prince of Persia games or Assassin's Creed. These games do not play nearly as well on PCs compared to consoles, and they do not appeal to the traditional PC gamer.



What about the 5-6 other games you were just talking about buying?

Besides, by now, you should know whether you're a console-only gamer, a PC-only gamer, or a real gamer (one who cares not what platform a game is on. The game is what matters to this person).



Yes, they could have hired yet another developer to build yet another specialized version of the game for one more platform. However, consider this:

The Wii version is selling to a console base that is literally exploding. I'm talking exponential growth here; they sold 700,000 Wii in North America alone in April. April is a slow month in the game industry, yet here are sales that would be perfectly acceptable in October or even November. Also, because the platform is relatively low-power, you don't need to spend as much on art assets (models, textures, etc). High install base + low development costs = likely profit.

The PS2 version requires similar development costs, but is selling to an install base of 100+ million. Again, likely profit. Same goes for the DS and PSP versions: low dev costs and high install base = likely profit.

So, now we come to the PC version. Because it would be built by another team, one separate from the 360/PS3 versions, you're looking at what is basically a game developed for the PC from "scratch." It will likely borrow assets from the 360/PS3 version, but it will involve heavy programmer time. It will also need artists to make scaled-down versions of those assets, so that the game could run on weaker PCs. And after all that, what is the number of PC gamers who would actually want to play the game on their PCs? 3 million? 5 million? Remember, this isn't an FPS, where the game experience is fundamentally better on PCs thanks to the interface. This is an action game; the experience is almost always worse on PCs thanks to the interface.

Significant development costs + Relatively low install base = I hope I break even. Even if they do make money, is it enough to really bother with it? The Wii/PS2/DS/PSP versions will all likely provide a significant profit over their development costs (30-80% or more). How much can they expect from the PC sku? 20%? Maybe 30% if they're lucky?

I'd be happy with a 360 port of the game for my PC.

Looks like I might have to get a 360 now... Oh well, I want to play Fable 2 also when it is out.

That really angers me. Especially since I can't afford some fancy gaming system, my comp is up to date and can run most all high end games on medium/high settings (runs Cryis on a mix of meduim-high settings, kinda laggy though). CURSE YOU MICROSFOT!

And I was really looking forward to playing this game too.

Err... what? Assassin's Creed plays very well on the PC. I don't know about you, but when you are able to defeat about 30 guards in under 60 seconds with the HUD turned completely off in a game that actually has an interesting approach to melee combat and is not that easy, I'd say that game has no control issues whatsoever.
Keyboard-and-mouse control, properly setup is vastly superior to any controler. The keyboard gives you more ergonomic options, the mouse is a precision device. Can't beat that.




Well, it so happens I do not have unlimited amounts of money falling out of trees where I live so I sort of have to pick and choose what to play. And buying gaming platforms I generally dislike just to try out a game I *might* like certainly doesn't constitute a good reason for spending cash.

Look, you are totally wrong about the action games being worse on the PC because of the interface. This only happens if they leave the clunky, overlarge and poorly responsive interfaces from console versions in. Every good port will overhaul that, like Mass Effect did.
What matters in an action game is its responsiveness. You want the gamer to feel not like they're pulling strings on a puppet. You want them to feel like they have direct and unhindered control over their character. First person or third person, it doesn't matter. I played Jedi Knight 2 in theird person exclusively after I got the lightsaber. I know many people who did the same. It felt great, and natural, especially when I slowed the duels down to slow motion for that cinematic feel.

Shooters and FPS games aren't that fundamentally different. For a Jedi game, where much of the action will come from Force dueling and saber combat, it makes perfect sense to use a 3rd person view throughout the game, and I can hardly imagine anyone griping about that. For a game with Lots of Guns, firt person perspective offers greater precision, though I have to say that the new cover system used by the games such as Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas makes leaning obsolete (you can't lean effectively in 3rd person view).

Your profit analysis might be accurate though.
I won't argue with that - all I can say is: it is sad to see creativity curbed, and long-term fans being ostracized because of profits.
Ah, nothing new here. The same reason why Galaxies went down the drain, the same reason why over-glorified garbage keeps being spouted out of game studios - the accountants are in charge, not the designers and artists.

WONDERFUL discussion, guys! I've very much enjoyed reading through this. I am of the same group of PC Gamers that is completely dissatisfied with L.A.s' attempt to wash their hands of a PC version - their excuse is just that... an excuse and nothing more. It is not a display of working logic at all as multiple individuals in this thread have severely and clearly debunked their "logic" as to why they can't release a version for PC.

This is in regards to Alfonse:

"Because I've actually been paying attention to the previews of it. It is a console-style action game, much like the 3D Prince of Persia games or Assassin's Creed. These games do not play nearly as well on PCs compared to consoles, and they do not appeal to the traditional PC gamer."

And also in regard to your other comments about 3rd Person gaming only being pertinent for Console platforms.

I have ZERO clue where you're getting these opinions from. Honestly, I'd like to curse you out because your absolute cluelessness infuriates me to no end... and the fact that there are people with this level of ignorance in the gaming world pisses me off even more.

FYI, I have a monster gaming rig - solid hardware, it's a concept Project atm in XP/DX9 land... close to 240 top notch >'00 games INCLUDING a # of 3rd person ORIGINALs and PORTS.

Guess what buddy.... a 3rd person game is a 3rd person game is a 3rd person game no matter if it's played on the console or PC. All 3 of the latest Prince of Persias play perfectly on the PC. All 4 recent Splinter Cell titles, all 3 recent Hit Man titles, Assassins Creed, Bloodrayne 2, Gears of War, Resident Evil Series, Silent Hill Series, GTA III (IV will be the same) series, need I go on... seriously?

They all play the SAME... guess why... because developers don't go and make RADICAL changes to the way the player moves/fights/etc from one platform to another (not any of the 3rd person titles I've got anyway).

And get this, Toto.... most games that are ported to PC come with extra goodies half the time - better textures, revised gameplay even sometimes, and higher resolutions most of the time.

You seem to have things backwards, Alfonso: it is the Console that is limited in it's abilities, not the PC. I have a dual analog controller for my PC... guess what capability that grants me... guess...... hmmm, lovely innit.... now, for a mere $25: I have the exact same controller capability as the precious console.

Can you get a mouse for your xbox or your ps2.... same # of options as I have for my PC... didn't think so.


So it's juuuust like Manshooter says: it's about "money" as usual.
And to the man that made the comment about PC gamers MAKING Lucas Arts who they are - AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!! We sure as hell did didn't we...

My FIRST PC Game ever (on my own computer, MINE) was SWOTL, so I've been behind L.A.s for quite a while.

They lost my confidence completely if they don't decide to rectify their decision at some point later on this year... and with that loss of confidence: I will NEVER buy one of their games new again... I'll simply wait for them to show up to Half Price Books for $5-10 or I'll grab 'em on Ebay for $10-20.



BTW: (had SinsOFaSE installed since it came out... juuust got a chance last night to check it out) I am IN LOVE with Sins of a Solar Empire!! WOWOWOWOWO!!!

I got stuck at a certain point.... couldn't advance much further (building/logistics wise), and only had one planet to call my own.... still played for about 3 hours with only one planet. Was loads of fun!





Chr*s

Oh yeah.... there's nothing "traditional" about 3rd person gaming. Just because there are more 3rd person games made for console on average doesn't negate the fact that they'll run just as well if not even better on a PC.

The PC can house any controller it wants.
The console cannot say the same for itself.



Who has more titles?
Who has more FPSs?
Who has more top notch looking software?

Last I checked, software isn't designed, coded, or initially tested on consoles.

These functions are performed on PCs/Macs.

Unless I'm mistaken.

How lame... I was looking forward to another Starwars 3rd person/1st person shooter. I enjoyed the Jedi Knight series on the PC. Their excuse is beyond belief... If, truely, they didn't want the game to lose its feel in order for low-end PCs to play it, why could they not just release it for high-end PCs? Its not like other games aren't already doing that. I wish i knew what their REAL reason was.

I THINK IT'S TEH AEWSOMEZ



Because they wanted to piss all the whiny computer gamers off. And guess what? It worked!

Well, I'm sorry, Alphonse and SanChonino, but scaleability has always been a component of the making of PC games. So, yes, it's lame that a company that has as much money as LucasArts couldn't be bothered to produce a PC version.

Think about it this way: if a PC version were released simultaneously with console versions and you had both systems, which one would you buy for? It boils down to either cheap, lazy, or both.

How is creativity being curbed by them not making a PC port?



You can't rely on that. You can't assume everyone will be using a proper analog-stick-based controller. Therefore, you must design for the lowest-common-denominator.

If I'm making a Wii game, I can assume that the player has the Wii Remove and Nunchuck; if they don't, they have more serious problems than my game not working. If I'm making a PC game, I can't assume my audience has a joystick; I have to make the game functional with a keyboard and mouse setup.



Depends on your definition of "top notch looking," but I would say consoles.



Let's assume for the moment that this is true. Development houses can pick and choose what the PCs they're developing on are. Therefore, they can choose the most performant machine out there. And since they're developing for a console with fixed hardware, they don't have to be concerned about scalability.

In short, they still can't sell the product as a PC game because it isn't a PC game yet. It's a game that runs on the PC, but it has none of the scaling features that PC games need.

More importantly, the prior assumption is patently false. Any console development house is always constantly running the game on at least one of the platforms of interest. While many console developers do have PC versions for early testing, these are usually abandoned about a third of the way through the project. Graphics programmers have to see what their shaders and so forth are going to do on the actual platform. Gameplay programmers have to make sure that their AI isn't killing performance on the target platform. Sound programmers need to be testing on the actual hardware. Artists need to see how their lighting profile will actually look on the console in question. And so on.

DevKits may be attached to PCs, but console developers don't actually run the game on the PCs. That's what the DevKits are for.



Because there's no money in that.



Why do so many people feel like they're entitled to having a game on their platform of choice? You made your choice; live with the consequences or make a new one. But either way, they're making the game for the platforms that they feel with give them the best profitability. If that's not yours, tough.

It wasn't that long ago that there wasn't going to be a Wii version of TFU. They changed their mind because the Wii sold 25 million world-wide in a year and a half; clearly the opportunity for profit is there. If they felt that the PC port would be worth the effort, they'd make one.



Console, without question.

+1.

The only things worth playing on a PC are strategy games. Anything else, I'd prefer the console version, thanks.

A. I can't.... lol... wake up Alfonso, it's 2008. If someone can afford $1000 for a computer, I

t
h
i
n
k

they can afford a $25 Analog Gamepad Controller.

Step 2 to "ensure they're properly equipped for the game" - hmmm, here's a thought... just throwin this out there for shits n giggles... maybe put a sticker on the box that says, "works best with analog gamepad"... nah... that would stupid.


B. At first I thought..... nah... he's shittin geese with that hoopla, but nopers: you're being serious so please direct yourself to C.


C. You're permanently dismissed from speaking to me.

Only Strategy games.... hmmmm.... you're being serious too.

Yeah... I love very much to play FPShooters with a gamepad because it feels oh so natural. Also... playing simulators such as IL2 with a gamepad... oh wait.. PC only.


Sarcasm to the side for a moment... you do realize that all 3 of the GTAs came out for PC with higher resolution quality? You do realize that lots of ports to PC get touch ups similar to ^?



On the subject of FPSs... the day you can mess with me on your console using an aim assisted gamepad is the day PCs become obsolete.

Keep paying $60 for games so I can wait for my titles to simmer down over a 6 month period to around $20-30.

THANK you so much.


Toodles

But you can't make someone buy one; you cannot ensure that they possess one. The most you can do is strongly encourage them to have one.

The interface is part of the experience of a game. If you're making a product that plays better with a gamepad than a mouse&keyboard, then does it not make since to make this product for the platforms that ensure that the player will be using a gamepad?



It would also be incredibly ineffective. Would you buy a whole controller just to play one game? That's why joysticks, and the games that only play well with them, aren't terribly popular at present.

Mouse&Keyboard is nothing next to Wii Remote&Nunchuck. Point-and-click gameplay got upgraded.

QFT. I want to play Force Unleashed with the Wii and swing that bitch around like a real lightsaber.

Err... no? I don't know about you, but I sort of dislike when developers imagine they know my preferences better than I do. Maybe I'm the sort of freak who enjoys playing with the "worse" controller and enjoys the game more for it? Hell, I play some flight sims by using keyboard and mouse because it feels better than using a decent joystick I have.
I sure would not have liked if the developers said "oh, you HAVE to use a joystick because you will enjoy the game more". Translated, that means "we are too lazy to thrown in multiple control schemes".

In fact, LucasArts is not new to this idea... I seem to remember having to go and buy a friggin' joystick for one of their space sims, can't remember which one it was. Maybe X-Wing Alliance.

A good game has multiple control schemes. This does not apply to consoles which are limited in that regard. But when it comes to controls, nothing beats the PC, simply because it can use practically anything. I wouldn't be surprised to see a plug&play Wii clone controllers soon as well.

Using the Wii controller might be fun, but it would be a fucking nightmare for most games.

This is the mentality behind the typical PC gamer. They're never satisfied with having an actual, well-crafted game; the developer must spend their precious time to ship dozens of slightly different games that you switch between with a gigantic options screen.

It's like demanding that movie directors, when shooting at 2.35x1 screen ratio, should spend a lot of time lining up their shots so that the pan&scan 4:3 version will look decent. I recall Stanley Kubrick looking at the pan&scan version of 2001 and then wanting to destroy them all for ruining his movie.

If you want to damage your gameplay experience as defined by the developer of the game, the developer is not obligated to help you do so. If you happen to like playing a game designed for a joystick with a keyboard&mouse (thus destroying the immersion and simulation that the game developer was trying to create), the game developer is not obligated to make this possible.

The game developer is free to be nice to you by providing alternate control schemes and such. And you are free to reward "nice" developers with your business and punish less "nice" developers with the absence of your business. But that doesn't make it wrong for them to exert reasonable control over how you experience their work.

I would also point out this.

An FPS designed for consoles, because of the limitations of the interface, are not just ports of PC FPS's. When you expect your players to use mouse&keyboard, when you know your players will be able to spin around quickly to respond to threats, you design your game differently. If you know that it will take an average player 3 seconds to turn around and fire an aimed shot at something behind him, then you're going to use different challenges in the game than if you know that an average player can do it in 1 second.

An analog stick is different from a joystick. Though they're both analog, a player can be expected to more effectively control the middle areas of the analog regions. Whereas analog sticks are very difficult to do more than just "1/3rd full, 2/3rds full, and full". If you design a game that needs the full analog range from the user (like most flight sims), using an analog stick ruins the effect and makes the game, if not outright unplayable, more difficult than it needs to be.

Control affects gameplay and game design. Knowing what your players will be able to use goes a long way in informing what your game design can do.



First, I'm sure Nintendo has some non-trivial patents covering the Wii remote, so I doubt you'll be seeing a direct knock-off in the near future.

Second, the pointing functionality of the Wii remote doesn't work if you're sitting at a desk; it's designed for use in living rooms at normal viewing distances from the TV. So the typical posture most PC gamers use for their gaming (sitting 6-12 inches from the monitor) is not workable.

Most importantly third, the Wii remote is a ''Bluetooth'' device. So #1 is ultimately immaterial, since you can already use it with a PC.