modifiable/hackable/extractable, have more variety in game genres: strategy,
action, adventure, RPG, simulation, etc, and are MUCH more cost effective
(PC vs console). Consoles are for kids and immature ***s who can't handle
REAL *** machines: PCs--PERIOD.
Most PC mods never got off the drawing boards. The modability of PC games
is greatly overstated.
The action genre comes down to "first person shooters" on the PC. There's
not much else. Maybe Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project will give the PC action
genre some diversity.
Consoles have most of those genres you listed, with the possible
exception of sims and strategy games, but even then, I have seen Civ II for
Playstation. Shigeru Miyamoto (Mario creator) is suppossedly working on
Pikmin, which will be sort of a strategy game for Nintendo. Part of the
problem is that strategy game is so narrowly defined by PC gamers. There
are sims for the Playstation, but most of them are Japanese only (like
Densha De Go- a train simulator) Some of those driving games probably border
on being simulations.
PC's more cost effective? I could probably build an Athlon 1700 with a
GeForce 3 or Radeon 8500 for around 500-600 dollars, but add on a monitor,
and you have something around 700-900 dollars at the very least (lets not
forget if you buy these through somebody like Falcon or Dell, you could
spend thousands). You don't need a new computer like this to read e-mail (a
five year old computer would work fine)... only to play games. For 200-300
dollars you can buy a game console system and the rest of the money you can
use to buy/rent games... You do the math.
PC's have never been great *** platforms. They have been passable, but
never great. I think the Commodore Amiga was probably the best game machine
that was still a home computer. It had all kinds of games (including
strategy and sims), and it had arcade quality graphics and sound. The IBM
PC on the other hand, at the time, gave really crappy graphics and sound,
yet cost alot more.