Pretty much how I see it too. DRM'd only = "Sadly this game has no PC release".

Understood.

If the development history/legend is to be believed, Code: Veronica was supposed to be the third game before Nemesis actually got the number in its title. I wished it had been reversed since the story that happens in Code: Veronica makes sense in terms of progression from the original version of the second game with Claire going on to look for Chris.

For me it would be:

Fallout series
GTA series
Duke Nukem (also, including the console games)
DOOM
Commander Keen

understood.. I was never really invested in the modern-day stories. Although AC games aren't always my favorite games -- and I hated the annual installments they tried (thank goodness that's over) -- I've never played one that I didn't like whatsoever.

My biggest complaint was the series didn't go RPG sooner.

I loved the first game and thought the 2nd was fine, but lost interest about half-way through the 3rd. It's an interesting world but I just fell out of love with the combat system. Still, a series worth the time.

Prince of Persia - Sands of time trilogy
Mass Effect 1-3
Duke Nukem
Doom
Bloodrayne 1 & 2(My guilty pleasure Halloween games)

Eh, I meant that for me personally but some might dislike it a bit so I tried to be respectful of that and went with saying maybe. :)
=========================

Eh, I don't mind if they are mediocre as long as they are fun to play for a bit(any series)....and I am guessing many feel the same way when they find that "sweet spot" series they like.
==========================

I think for many games such cinematic look adds to the gameplay(if the cutscenes are skippable of course) experience.

As for simplistic I meant in terms of graphics/etc.

I didn't mean it's PC as in desktop computer.....they are still(iirc) considered PCs(or computers) in that they have similar hardware internally/etc.

You can choose to boycott whatever you want, but to say they're not PC games is silly. World of Warcraft is one of the most popular PC games of all time and requires not only a constant internet connection but also a monthly subscription. Yet still... a PC classic, whether you're down with it or not.

PC game literally just means a game you play on a home computer.

Broken Sword
Bioshock
Mass Effect

Yes, agreed.

Heard a person talk years ago about the idea of series. He said that every iteration of a series tries to recapture some of the feeling of the original -- that initial spark -- but end up degrading the overall experience of the series. In essence, the more iterations of a series, the less "valuable" the individual iterations.

Not really; the CPU in most smartphones is an ARM CPU, whereas the one in PCs are x86; they are not similar CPUs, as the instruction set architecture is different. (This means that you can't take code compiled for one and expect it to run on the other without emulation, which is slow.)

Edit: Why the low rating?

Doesn't matter, they both have basically the same structure/setup.....cpu/memory/etc.

Heck, even most modern consoles just use PC hardware in their designs.

Anyway, back on topic, on a more analytical approach, judging pros and cons, and if the barrier for entry is just two games, I'd say Knights of the Old Republic comes up on top for me. But when it comes to overall impression left despite the cons and frustrations, Gothic, though this is also hampered by the fact that I just fully played the first, NotR making 2 too hard for me and I never played 3 (ignoring Forsaken Gods or Arcania, those don't count). Did play the first Risen, but it's not a reason to hold it in such a high regard, so just going by Gothic 1 and (as far as I could get) 2.

Eh, ol' Atom SoC is still around. . . breathing its last gasp. I'm not sure whether chip-architecture or peripherals is particularly relevant to the colloquial definition of a PC. I had a IBM 386 once, with OS/2 Warp on it. . . couldn't handle a good many things that you'd expect from a PC, due to software/driver limitations. . . decent OS, no compatibility with Windows applications. . . same with some Linux OSs, Maybe if Intel wasn't asleep at the wheel, smartphones would be running Windows 7/8/10 (some abridged mobile version). Form factor and input would be different, but functionality and outcome would be very similar.

So, I guess the more I think about it, isn't a PC any chip-architecture that runs Windows? I don't even think there is a seperate kernel for AMD and Intel anymore.

GOLDEN AXE