console and PC

[Diamond]

The idea that children and teens are the main market for games, console or otherwise, has always struck me as pretty silly though, since gaming does require a certain amount of disposable income, and a lot of games are adult oriented.

 

Eighty-three percent of all games sold in 2004 were rated "E" for Everyone or "T" for Teen.

and

Eighty-seven percent of game players under the age of 18 report that they get their parents

[Diamond]

To summarize my thoughts: I'd rather rely on statistical data (to a certain extent, of course) rather than on someone's (including mine) experience.

[Missy]

At first i thought you were talking about your boyfriend's wife .

 

A lot of the current crop of adult gamers grew up with games. Despite being kids many still play adult oriented which are paid for by parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is true. I think that really I was thinking less of the statistics and the fact that kids play adult rated games than of people like my boyfriend's dad ranting about us being childish and that games are for kids.

[Walsingham]

1500 is a very respectable commercial sample, where I come from. But it does miss what I believe is the key factor - money spent. It is my observation that young under 20s gamers spend more (or have more spent on them) than older gamers. We will often buy a couple of games a year and get really into them.

 

~

 

 

I take the point about quality games coming from just a couple of guys. There aren't many. But they do exist. I can't name any right now, so I will accept a slap, but we all know they have been out there. In particular in the RPG and strategy genres. I don't think I have even heard of a small development house in console games. My point being that small houses sometimes are dumb enough/lean enough/free to make revolutionary steps forward.

 

Also, I do accept the mouse/keyboard thing. My point was really the complexity and speed with which a variety of instructions can be sent. A cognitively complex game requires a lot of varied instructions to operate. Simple controls militate against complex games.

[Diamond]

Yes, PC gamers buy less games according to this survey (however it is an online one and doesn't show sample size).

[CoM_Solaufein]

Noob Saibot = Tobias Boon spelt backwards, a dev and the guy that would pop up and shout "TOASTY!!" in a high pitched voice if you didi loads of uppercuts or something.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was so cool. I always liked the Mortal Combat games.

[Dhruin]

My point being that small houses sometimes are dumb enough/lean enough/free to make revolutionary steps forward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are some relatively small console dev teams but the opposite is far more likely - and will only increase going forward. For the PC, in theory anyone with the talent can develop their game and shop for a publisher or sell it online. For a console, you need approval from the platform holder (Sony, MS, Nintendo), expensive dev kits to do the work on and be able to pass certification. All of these are barriers that make it near-impossible for very small outfits.

 

This is both a pro and a con for both sides. PC's potentially get games that just wouldn't have existed otherwise while consoles are likely to have a more uniform level of polish.

[Surreptishus]

As an example can somebody provide the name of a game for PC made by a small dev house that has gone on to be successful? Made in the last few years.

 

I'm not being provocative it is just that two people so far have mentioned the scenario without giving a specific example.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Surreptishus

[Missy]

As an example can somebody provide the name of a game  for PC made by a small dev house that has gone on to be successful? Made in the last few years.

 

I'm not being provocative it is just that two people so far have mentioned the scenario without giving a specific example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Darwinia - maybe.

[Surreptishus]

Thank you.

 

You are a nice mod.

[alanschu]

Geneforge and Galactic Civilizations were both made by small teams as well.

[Missy]

Geneforge and Galactic Civilizations were both made by small teams as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was just trying to remember the name of the people that did Galactic Civilisations.

[metadigital]

...

If games in general appear dumber today its because the gaming market is massive. In order to maximise sales i would assume a game would have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. This is irrespectve of console or PC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... Or, the developers can make a multi-level game, that appeals to many audiences, just as the Pixar films have done in that medium, and just as Shakespeare managed to entertain everyone from the street urchins to Queen Elizabeth with the same play.

 

It's just fast and cheaper to produce developerrh

[Diogo Ribeiro]

A bit late but what the frag...

 

2) A console game typically has onlya few buttons, compared with the scads of buttons on my PC keyboard. Surely this means the console will never have as complex games?

 

Correlation, causation, etc. Problem here seems to be using large amounts of input options as the definition for 'complex'. A PC is a multimedia and multifunction machine; it requires by nature an input device that enables the user to take full advantage of what it offers, videogames and otherwise. On the other hand consoles are more limited in their uses (which isn't necessarily bad), and their primary use is for gaming and entertainment - you don't require anything as complex as a keyboard when a handful of buttons will just do the job.

 

Moreover, an input device is not reflective of the complexity the games it allows you to play; a game can be complex and only utilize a handful of buttons, but of course, it all depends. Typing of the Dead is not a complex game simply because it requires you to use almost all the buttons of your keyboard, it's in fact a pretty simple game. The Sims 2 is a fairly complex game as it involves micromanaging many aspects of each Sim, yet it only requires a very small amount of buttons to succeed. A shooter where you can only change weapons with four different keys as opposed to using the mouse wheel to cycle between weapons isn't necessarily more complex gamewise.

 

Also, with the advent of streamlining videogames - which happens in all platforms to some extent - what are the odds that you'll actually get to use all the buttons in a keyboard as opposed to all the buttons in a gamepad? Most PC games nowadays only require players to use a very small number of buttons: if you add to it the ability to customize controls, and the extra control methods you have (ie, mouse input, combining keys, mouse wheel).

Edited November 11, 2005 by Role-Player

[LoneWolf16]

Noob Saibot = Tobias Boon spelt backwards, a dev and the guy that would pop up and shout "TOASTY!!" in a high pitched voice if you didi loads of uppercuts or something.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could have sworn he said "Whoopsy!". Maybe my hearing's just screwed up...all the loud music...and explosions.

[alanschu]

He also said it when you scorched people with Scorpion's finishing move, while flashing "Toasty" on the screen, so I'm pretty sure it's "Toasty"

[Gabrielle]

He also said it when you scorched people with Scorpion's finishing move, while flashing "Toasty" on the screen, so I'm pretty sure it's "Toasty"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was. Great game.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Noob Saibot = Tobias Boon spelt backwards, a dev and the guy that would pop up and shout "TOASTY!!" in a high pitched voice if you didi loads of uppercuts or something.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could have sworn he said "Whoopsy!". Maybe my hearing's just screwed up...all the loud music...and explosions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This reminds me of back when I played Sunset Riders in the Genesis and could swear the cowboys went "Whopee!" in the end of the stage, while everyone else told me I was wrong and that they actually shouted "Yeeha!".

[CoM_Solaufein]

Mortal Combat for the win! Get over here!!

[Walsingham]

Apologies for not responding to what I'msure are good points. But I was up all night drinking. And more like some sort of fool with antlers than a loose-tied private eye.

[metadigital]

A bit late but what the frag...

 

2) A console game typically has onlya few buttons, compared with the scads of buttons on my PC keyboard. Surely this means the console will never have as complex games?

 

Correlation, causation, etc. Problem here seems to be using large amounts of input options as the definition for 'complex'. A PC is a multimedia and multifunction machine; it requires by nature an input device that enables the user to take full advantage of what it offers, videogames and otherwise. On the other hand consoles are more limited in their uses (which isn't necessarily bad), and their primary use is for gaming and entertainment - you don't require anything as complex as a keyboard when a handful of buttons will just do the job.

 

Moreover, an input device is not reflective of the complexity the games it allows you to play; a game can be complex and only utilize a handful of buttons, but of course, it all depends. Typing of the Dead is not a complex game simply because it requires you to use almost all the buttons of your keyboard, it's in fact a pretty simple game. The Sims 2 is a fairly complex game as it involves micromanaging many aspects of each Sim, yet it only requires a very small amount of buttons to succeed. A shooter where you can only change weapons with four different keys as opposed to using the mouse wheel to cycle between weapons isn't necessarily more complex gamewise.

 

Also, with the advent of streamlining videogames - which happens in all platforms to some extent - what are the odds that you'll actually get to use all the buttons in a keyboard as opposed to all the buttons in a gamepad? Most PC games nowadays only require players to use a very small number of buttons: if you add to it the ability to customize controls, and the extra control methods you have (ie, mouse input, combining keys, mouse wheel).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, I think Mr Walsinger has already admitted that might have been a hasty remark.

...

I do accept the mouse/keyboard thing. My point was really the complexity and speed with which a variety of instructions can be sent. A cognitively complex game requires a lot of varied instructions to operate. Simple controls militate against complex games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would argue that a simple control system (i.e. one that strives to limit complexity) helps make a better game, and this may very well include make the gameplay more complex. All the olympians do on a diving board is jump, but they are able to perform innumerable dives of almost infinitely variable difficulty, for example.

 

However, one can't get around the fact that consoles are a fixed platform. They may be ahead of the average PC when they are released (but then, so is every new PC), alas, though, they cannot compete after a couple of years. Don't forget that the monitor has a many times higher resolution: I can run games in 16000 x 12000 widescreen now, HDTV won't do that in this generation of consoles. (I don't particularly like playing games on a tv, personally, but that is my own preference.)

 

Secondly, regardless of whether consoles may be better value than a PC, the games are costed to include this initial subsidized investment, so the console's relative value is inversely proportional to the amount of games played on it. So the games do not get better and the value of the gaming system drops with every game played.

 

Thirdly, the ability to add content (either from the developer or the community) means that there is extra value in the PC game.

 

*cough* What about variance then? 

I can't seem to find any variance information.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

variance

[mkreku]

I can run games in 16000 x 12000 widescreen now, HDTV won't do that in this generation of consoles.

Your monitor must rock! Not to mention your GPU..

[Kalfear]

I would argue that a simple control system (i.e. one that strives to limit complexity) helps make a better game, and this may very well include make the gameplay more complex. All the olympians do on a diving board is jump, but they are able to perform innumerable dives of almost infinitely variable difficulty, for example.

 

However, one can't get around the fact that consoles are a fixed platform. They may be ahead of the average PC when they are released (but then, so is every new PC), alas, though, they cannot compete after a couple of years. Don't forget that the monitor has a many times higher resolution: I can run games in 16000 x 12000 widescreen now, HDTV won't do that in this generation of consoles. (I don't particularly like playing games on a tv, personally, but that is my own preference.)

 

Secondly, regardless of whether consoles may be better value than a PC, the games are costed to include this initial subsidized investment, so the console's relative value is inversely proportional to the amount of games played on it. So the games do not get better and the value of the gaming system drops with every game played.

 

Thirdly, the ability to add content (either from the developer or the community) means that there is extra value in the PC game.

 

*cough* What about variance then? 

I can't seem to find any variance information.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

variance

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1) We agree, controller or keyboard doesnt make a game harder or easier.

 

2) While you might run at 16000 im sure most people in general do not. How do I know this? I just purchased a 60" WS HD TV (huge money) and it cant acheive anywhere near what your saying. Since computer monitors typically cost MORE then its TV countermarks, Id say the AVERAGE person is not spending 4k on a 19" monitor that can acheive that type of resolution.

 

I finally bought a new flat screen monitor for puter last year and it was $1000.00 and cant come close to the resolution your suggesting. $1000.00 is pretty steep for a computer monitor from everyone I speak/spoke to (but I spend a good portion of day in front of it so extra cost justified).

 

So yes there is better computer monitors out there, doesnt mean they are at all common place on peoples systems though. Altenatively, wide screen tvs with hd ability are becoming more common now as their price drops and reachs affordable levels for families and people.

 

3) Yas know, Im tired of this "Console Games cost more". Jade Empire (limited edition) on its first day of selling costed me $71.00 after tax. Civ 4 a week after release costed me $56.00+tax (15%)... so thats $64.40. A grand whooping diffference of $6.60.

 

So lets see, typically I only buy 3 brand new games a year. So your arguement is the $1000.00+ EXTRA cost of computer and equipment is equal to the $19.80 extra in console games had I purchased the PC version? Sorry but im not following the math here.

 

4) As for adding content, I fully admit that WAS a issue. But since XBox 360 COMES with (FREE) the ability to DL patches and or content and chat online (just cant play online, need to purchase the gold membership for that), your content arguement doesnt hold water. Heck there is (as you know) regular xbox and PS2 games that already have extra downloadedable content.

 

So again not following the thinking here. Downloadable content will but up to the developers (so I guess they can choose not to offer any like Obsidian did for KotOR2) but doesnt by any stretch mean its not available or wont be available. Chances are D/L content will play a huge role in the new PS3 and Xbox 360s.

[alanschu]

I know what variance is meta.

[Walsingham]

[Many edits]

 

As Meta points out, I did accept that the keyboard was a slightly stupid example. But as I also said I stand by the notion that the PC permits a more complex set of nputs, and an easier one.

 

Example 1: strategy games of any substance require many complexities of operation. A keyboard and mouse fit well with this, because you can have a lot of graphical interfaces with the mouse, and assign hotkeys for complex functions.

 

Example 2: There was a hacking games out a couple of years ago that involved both pointing and typing. I forget the name as some swine stole my copy. The typing in particular meant the potential range of actions was huge. Not actually that big, but potentially so.

 

I am trying to establish the principle that a PC can have a richer mental landscape, while the console (I accept) comes out of the box with a prettier visual landscape.

 

I don't hold with with worrying about the visuals at all. After about ten hours on any one game I rarely notice the visuals, having simplified the environment down to its operating implications. The longer I play the less I notice. I believe this to be true for most people.

 

~~

 

Additionally to all the above, is it possible to mod console games? Since I discovered mods I love 'em. They multiply tenfold the exploitable gameplay in a single purchase, as well as giving an outlet to my own enthusiasm.

 

~~

 

I totally accept Kalfear's point about money in other respects. Given the outlay required to have a gaming paltform for three years, a couple of quid on each game, and maybe 9 to 15 games in the same period make little difference.

Edited November 12, 2005 by Walsingham