Why were PCs inferior to consoles until Doom and Myst came out?

Seriously. Why did it take all the way until 1993 to have PCs (DOS) outcompete consoles in every category (except audio)?

Sure, PC games tended to have freeware (glorified demos), and significantly better audio quality, but the games themselves, especially ports, tended to age like poop compared to the consoles. Was less effort put into them because the consoles were more popular, or is it due to advances in Genesis and SNES emulation that those versions are, in retrospect, ignored? I mean PC trounces consoles in almost all categories (with the three exceptions being optimizations due to the billions of possible setups, 20 year old games not being guaranteed to work properly, although since 2002 or so, almost all games work as intended with one of the only things needed modified is widescreen support, and rampant cheating and "hacking" in online multiplayer games), but this wasn't exactly the case until those two games decided to kickstart the PC gaming master race. Consoles were poop too when arcades dominated the scenes, but I can squarely blame that on Atari pushing the extremely primitive (even when it first released), 2600.

Attached: DOS.jpg (1061x889, 300K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/9qXHicrtLJU
youtube.com/watch?v=iD9xk3SDSYc
youtube.com/watch?v=Mk983938TY8
youtube.com/watch?v=qca_bXtxIe4
youtube.com/watch?v=rAONnDAYJOE
youtube.com/watch?v=oclRt-7p6us
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Was less effort put into them because the consoles were more popular
Yes.
If you were an up-and-coming dev who wanted to make money you wanted nothing to do with PCs.
PC was too expensive to be marketable for gaming.

Because IBM PCs were literally made for spreadsheets and office work and were very expensive.

Its graphics hardware was very simple and didn't support advanced features like scrolling and sprites until the VGA in the early 90s. Computers that were more focused on games like the Amiga or Atari ST were leagues ahead of both IBM PCs and consoles at the time.

Hope you learned something today, zoomer.

Attached: lgr.jpg (1200x662, 113K)

This, also take in mind that most consoles didnt have a bitmap based framebuffer, all graphics were tilebased

>VGA in the early 90s
Didn't CGA and EGA also support this or am I not remembering it right?

So games that were ported to absolutely EVERYTHING, such as The Lost Vikings for instance, was best played on consoles with all other versions suffering

This, it was 85% the hardware, consoles were built to rapidly push 2D sprites and backgrounds, PCs were very bad at it, and had poor sound capabilities as well. As you note platforms like Amiga had much better support for genres like platformers because of the hardware, but they were mostly weird European titles that nobody here ever heard of.

PC gaming was built around genres like RPG, strategy, single screen action, and sim where pushing graphics around quickly was not a high priority. And of course the markets evolved around that so even when PC got better hardware those were still the popular genres. Even when I was getting PC Gamer in the late 1990s they would frequently put shit like flight sims on the cover.

Scrolling could be done but it wouldn't be very smooth or fast since it wasn't supported by hardware.

Clever people like John Carmack managed to create smooth scrolling in EGA by doing unintentional things with the hardware, for games like Commander Keen.

It's not that they couldn't compete, it's just that they didn't try. PCs back then were like the hardware mentality of modern Macs but with the software of linux. Everything was focused around spreadsheets, programming and office work, hardware was built around the CPU and they had incredibly barbones GUIs. They could've made mainstream computers that pushed graphics more (which would probably result in expensive PCs that ran games similarly to late 80s arcades), but IBM didn't care about it.

You know the crazy thing is that when the NES came out it was called the Famicon in Japan, short for Family Computer. It's kind of a ringer for the times as computers were not considered an appliance for the average household.

Same reason why PCs aren't popular in Japland. They were seen as a work machine, and the prospect of using them for games was for foolish hobbyists.

Carmack that's why

Attached: featured-1024x683.jpg (1024x683, 53K)

>Amiga or Atari ST were leagues ahead of both IBM PCs and consoles at the time
This.

What the FUCK was his problem?

Attached: 301212-ghen_riven.jpg (300x440, 17K)

Imagine home PC games that looked as good as arcade titles of the era. Arcade games already looked as good as the SNES back in 86/87.

youtu.be/9qXHicrtLJU

Apple took the same approach, wanting to look more boring and "business oriented" compared to the "whimsical" Windows platform which Microsoft had ALWAYS pushed for gaming being a primary focus starting with Windows 95.

It's funny how things turned out.

The NES and the Amiga 500 were both released in 1985 in the US

NES looked like pic related and Amiga 500 runs this in realtime: youtube.com/watch?v=iD9xk3SDSYc

No competition

Attached: super-mario-bros-nes.png (1024x896, 9K)

>except audio
..eh.. i don't know about that. it's mixed.

what the fuck are you talking about nigger, games like ultima and wizardry were aldready made in the 80s

There is a difference between the two. The NES had games that were more or less in line with other titles that had contemporary releases. The Amiga demo was created this year, using an emulator, and using modern techniques and possible exploits of the system that were entirely unknown when the computer was first released, so its a modern tech demo on old hardware.

>comparing early nintendo release to a 2019 demo

Wait what? a cellphone in 1985? were the programmers time travelers?

go to the end of the video you dingus

Yes, they had cell phones by 1985

getting a game to run before that was a roll of the dice.

PCs where inferior to consoles until around 2010 when console exclusives stopped being releavent.

What is the Sharp X68000?

Attached: 368La1fSsTsY6WA7rJZvJGdRhd9ggTP9uHXzyWu5dZ5utQY3NwwTZnU6U1VUEWP5gBHzyhp1UWWFGftmPYhoLua6.jpg (640x480, 70K)

Show me a comparable NES game/demo

i mean it took them awhile just to figure out how to scroll the screen. developers were losing their minds when nintendo figured that shit out.

Not 100% comparable, as the amiga is definitely more capable, but it'd be good to do similarly set comparisons to make your argument more honest and irrefutable.

youtube.com/watch?v=Mk983938TY8
This one uses a few faux-3D techniques

wow eurofags blown the fuck out

Personal Computers were insanely expensive wayback, no one besides rich people would buy one just for "fun." So the audience for PC Games was greatly lower.

Just to compare the original NES was sold for a scant $200.

Attached: old pcs.jpg (718x1032, 98K)

>the amiga is definitely more capable

Oh wow you understood my point after all, good job

Something that never came out anywhere but Japan retard and something that you've never used before.

It's unfair to compare an amiga 500 to a 1986 gaming laptop.

I can feel the seethe,let me add some more of it

youtube.com/watch?v=qca_bXtxIe4

I think you have this wrong. I love the X68000 but to use that in this argument is retarded and so are you.

Too many PC brands competing and there wasn’t a unified OS/general software.

Stop shilling for this fucking asshole.
I swear, you summer flags are always worshipping random assholes, because you gib the, all your hard earned paper route money.
KYS!!!

I'm just showing that PCs in the late 80s/early 90s could run what consoles at the time couldn't,you just needed to pay good dosh.
Oh and the X68000 actually had plenty of good games that are still worth playing today compared to most computers so there is that.

Was this done by the people who made the original Star Fox? The visual similarities can't just be coincidental.

Nope but they developed PS1's launch title Jumping Flash which is really similiar to Geograph Seal

youtube.com/watch?v=rAONnDAYJOE

Which further proves that the 32 bit era was still too damned early for polygonal titles.

No plenty of PS1 3D games looked and run well,some even run at 60 FPS while modern console games can barely stay at 30

youtube.com/watch?v=oclRt-7p6us

Arcades were the graphics king until the early 00s, when PCs outperformed them permanently.