Doom 3

[OB1]

Well nobody cares about them.

[A Black Falcon]

Retailers and game developers do...

[OB1]

Do you?

[A Black Falcon]

I care inasmuch as it's interesting to see what people buy and that I have to recognize that if a lot of people buy a game there has to be SOME kind of appeal. Oh, casual gamers often buy things that aren't that great... but some of those you can see why they have appeal. Not violent, not as challenging in many ways... Doom doesn't exactly appeal to everyone while Rollercoaster Tycoon does. Deer Hunter of course was just an abysmal game that was the only one of its kind and hit a market no one new existed.

[Great Rumbler]

Still, the fact is that a lot of good FPSs have been released in the past year.

[A Black Falcon]

That is certainly true. And they are one of the PCs most popular genes. But the point is that they aren't the only one, not even close.

[OB1]

There are the most popular among harcore PC gamers. If you look at the monthly sales charts there's always a bunch of FPS's and the obvious casual title like the sims.

[A Black Falcon]

And some strategy games, OB1, and some strategy games...

For instance, here are two lists from weeks in July..

week ending July 10
http://pc.ign.com/articles/532/532687p1.html

week ending July 3
http://pc.ign.com/articles/530/530063p1.html

[OB1]

Once in a while, but it's almost always shooters at the top.

[Great Rumbler]

In each one of those charts 4 of the 10 games are FPSs.

[A Black Falcon]

The first has four FPSes, three RTSes, two 'casual' games (Sims and MS Flight Simulator), and a MMORPG. The second has four FPSes, two RTSes, three 'casual' games (those two and Harry Potter), and the MMORPG. Supports my opinion, I'd think.

February 2003. Top 20.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/390/390054p1.html

Four RTSes, three Sims, four FPSes, MMORPG, racing, TBS, third-person action, three more 'casual' strategy games, harry potter, spongebob...

[OB1]

Yeah you're picking out one or two odd months. Look at the annual sales charts.

[A Black Falcon]

No, I just picked a random month. And that seems like just about what I see in PC sales charts. Some FPSes, some RTSes, some other miscelaneous games, and a bunch of stuff for casual users. Quite typical.

[OB1]

Dude, just look at the stupid annual sales charts and you'll see what I mean.

[A Black Falcon]

Then post some! :) But I've been looking at PC game charts for a long time and am certain that I am right.

[OB1]

You post them!

[A Black Falcon]

I've posted links to three or four lists, all of which look exactly like most PC game lists I've ever seen. You overestimate how many FPSes show up on these lists, OB1. I've been reading PC game sales charts for many years and know what they typically look like.

January 10th-16th, 1999. http://pc.ign.com/articles/066/066660p1.html

1 Starcraft: Brood Wars Havas
2 Baldur's Gate Interplay
3 Deer Hunter II: 3D GT Interactive
4 Half-Life Havas
5 Cabela's Big Game Hunter Activision
6 Flight Simulator Microsoft
7 Myth II Bungie
8 Wheel of Fortune Hasbro
9 Deer Avenger Havas
10 Combat Flight Simulator Microsoft

The only true FPS is Half-Life. Though I guess Deer Hunter is one too... :)

Best selling games of 1998. http://pc.ign.com/articles/066/066602p1.html

Rank Title Publisher Average Price
1 Starcraft Havas $42
2 Deer Hunter GT Interactive $18
3 Myst The Learning Company $18
4 Flight Simulator Microsoft $44
5 Deer Hunter II GT Interactive $18
6 Titanic: Adventure Out of Time Havas $24
7 Lego Island The Learning Company $25
8 Frogger Hasbro $31
9 Diablo Havas $27
10 Age of Empires Microsoft $37
11 Riven The Learning Company $39
12 Cabela's Big Game Hunter Activision $19
13 Monopoly Hasbro $23
14 Unreal GT Interactive $38
15 Barbie Riding Club Mattel $31
16 Quake II Activision $45
17 Scrabble Hasbro $28
18 Return of Arcade Microsoft $27
19 Rocky Mountain Trophy Hunter GT Interactive $19
20 Barbie Nail Designer Mattel $17

December 2002. http://pc.ign.com/articles/383/383478p1.html

1) The Sims Deluxe (Electronic Arts)

2) The Sims: Unleashed (Electronic Arts)

3) Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets (Electronic Arts)

4) Roller Coaster Tycoon 2 (Infogrames)

5) Zoo Tycoon (Microsoft)

6) Backyard Hockey (Infogrames)

7) Age Of Mythology (Microsoft)

8) The Sims: Vacation (Electronic Arts)

9) Zoo Tycoon: Marine Mania (Microsoft)

10) Warcraft III: Reign Of Chaos (Vivendi)

11) Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault Spearhead (Electronic Arts)

12) The Sims: Hot Date (Electronic Arts)

13) Backyard Football 2002 (Infogrames)

14) Medal Of Honor: Allied Assault (Electronic Arts)

15) Dark Age Of Camelot: Shrouded Isles (Vivendi)

16) Backyard Baseball 2003 (Infogrames)

17) The Sims Online (Electronic Arts)

18) Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone (Electronic Arts)

19) Backyard Basketball (Infogrames)

20) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring (Vivendi)

As all of the lists I have posted have proven, it's often about half and half hardcore and casual games. Often more casual than hardcore, really, but sometimes it's the other way around. Casual games are a mix of strategy titles, MS Flight Simulator titles, bad games (like Deer Hunter...), liscenced junk, etc... while hardcore titles are mostly strategy games (heavy on RTSes) and FPS games. As well as a few others, like some MMORPGs. :)

Anyway, I've proven my point. I don't know what ratio of titles you expected, but I've been reading these lists long enough to know what kind of mix goes into top lists of PC games better than you.

[OB1]

Those aren't annual charts, dork.

[A Black Falcon]

Look at my edited post, OB1. 1998 annual list. :) And December 2002.

[OB1]

That was 1998. 2004 is not 1998.

Hey look, the number of replies in this thread is almost the same as the number of views. Amazing.

[A Black Falcon]

2004 isn't 1998, but PC game buying habits haven't changed very much. Console habits haven't, so why should PC?

[OB1]

That's a very ridiculous claim. Just look up the 2003 chart.

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay, just thought I'd add this. The ATI 4.9 drivers, full version, are now out. They claim to do a much better job of handling Doom 3. Anyway, having used them, I can say they fixed all the glitches in the beta, and more to the point, there are no longer any transitions between various modes (such as playing a DVD to normal, where before the screen would black out for a second, now it's smooth). Anyway, just thought I'd mention it.

Oh yes, there is a Doom 3 demo now (it was inevitable). I'm downloading it myself to see how it runs on my machine, and also how it plays period.

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay, got it, played it for a bit, and now have an opinion.

First off, my computer can almost handle it perfectly at top quality with resolution of 1024x768. I say "almost" because the game has finally pushed my system just beyond what it's capable of. Either A, my video card needs more RAM, or B, that's not the issue, the issue is my mother board doesn't transfer data between my system ram to the video card fast enough. I KNOW I have enough system ram (a gig should do it even for this game), it's gotta be one of those two things. I have 256MB of video card ram, so next time I get a card, a few years from now, I'll aim for either 512 or a gig. Anyway, the main issue is whenever some new model is being loaded for the first time (excluding the stuff automatically loaded into ram when the level loads up), the game freezes for a couple seconds until it's done. After that, no issues though.

So, having seen this game at full capacity... well, I am not THAT impressed. It looks good but, eh, it's not jaw dropping or anything... Yes, it's got a lot of texture levels on every model, yes there's a lot of detail, and yes those various effects do look nice but, well... I guess I expected more... I think it might be the art style. It's so... typical of American games. And, the sad thing is American game developers, by and large, are FINALLY growing out of this whole style themselves. Everything just seems so... bland. Detailed, but bland. I think it's a lovely engine, but I would like to see it used on some actual decent environments. Load up something based on the Mana game's art style and let me run around there... killing demons with shotguns.

Anyway, the game does have a nice creepyness to it, decent anyway. The idea that putting away the flashlight leaves me with a menacing sillouette heading towards me is nice. I will say this. It's actually SCARY as opposed to the first two Doom games. I'm not even talking about how the art style is laughable to any adult, I'm talking about how it's pure action with not a single bit of scariness in it, at all. It's like a fight scene in a movie. That part itself is never scary, it's the part where the guy is behind the other guy and you catch a glint of the knife. Of course, that example is cheesy, but at least it's standard scary. That about describes the spookiness of this game, cheesy, but decent. They did seem to add a lot of interactivity with the various files. The story, for what it is, also seems to be told well enough. Too bad it's Doom here. I mean, the idea of opening a portal into the demon world is a concept that COULD work, even if it's scientists who do it. That in and of itself could still make a good story. However, when every single demon is a bloodthirsty braindead creature out to kill all humans, every single chance for the story to be good, at all, has just flown out the window forever.

Sooo, I guess I'll get back to the demo later and go beyond the room where I decided to see if going into a bunch of gears in the floor would be deadly or not. I'm only like halfway through the second level of the demo (maybe halfway, not really sure). The demo has 3 levels total, so not much left. If I'm not wowed, this demo is going bye-bye when I'm done with it, and I'll be left not wanting to buy this game at all. Also, there's no multiplayer demo.

[OB1]

Yes, the engine is very nice but the game doesn't look all that great, thanks to the terrible art. And the lighting, which is supposed to be the most impressive aspect of the engine, is barely shown off in the game as everything is just pitch black.

[Dark Jaguar]

And now I've completed the demo. It played pretty much the same in the 3rd level as in the first. I suspect meeting up with my teammates in the real game will be put off for about 5 levels, and at the very moment I meet the only one who survived, that guy will die some horrible death (or be possessed) and I'll be going it alone into the underworld.

Anyway, it's certainly a major step up from the original (not saying much). But, well... honestly, this demo has not convinced me to buy the game. It's just not worth the cash. If someone tells me the rest of the game is far far superior to the first 3 levels, then maybe. Also, if someone tells me the multiplayer is "awesome", then maybe. But, as of now, that demo is being deleted.

[A Black Falcon]

OB1, can you manage some kind of admission here?

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_040722.htm

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_040126a.htm

http://www.npd.com/dynamic/releases/press_050119.html

[OB1]

what?

[A Black Falcon]

Just proving you can be wrong, how little you like to admit it... well, until you redefine your arguement until you're right again...

[OB1]

What in heaven's name are you referring to?

[A Black Falcon]

Isn't denial wonderful?

[OB1]

What does this have to do with Doom 3 you weirdo!

[A Black Falcon]

Look at the top 80% of page two...

[OB1]

...

Oh about the FPS in the charts thing? Why didn't you say that in the first place! You posted links to console charts, you weirdo.

Anyhow, I believe I said "aside from Sims games". And aside from Sims games and Warcraft, there are just FPSs.

And I'd be willing to bet the farm that 2004 has a lot more FPSs in the top ten. Doom 3, Far Cry, HL 2, Battlefield Vietnam, Riddick, etc.

[A Black Falcon]

Actually, the 'top selling games of 2003' list I linked has both console and PC charts. The 2004 one is just consoles because as I said I didn't see a 2004 PC list... only one from the previous week.

Anyhow, I believe I said "aside from Sims games". And aside from Sims games and Warcraft, there are just FPSs.

EXACTLY as I said. If you can't win, redefine your position until it's correct without admitting that you ever said something wrong! I've proven well beyond reasonable doubt that FPSes are not the only popular PC gaming genre, as you first asserted. Then you said 'well except for casual sim games'. Now you add Warcraft. Just replace that last one with 'RTSes and some MMORPGs' and you'd pretty much have driven yourself into what I'd say is the correct interpretation of PC gaming sales charts. :)

The point is, why can't you just say 'I was wrong to say it's just FPSes.'? Why must you amend what you say without ever admitting that what you originally said was inaccurate or wrong? It's pretty annoying.

As for why I didn't say more when I posted the links, I had no time to (had to go right then) or I would have said more.

[OB1]

Nice try, stupid, but my position hasn't changed at all. Look what I said last page:

Right, but look at the top ten lists. Mostly FPS's throughout the year. Aside from The Sims.

And that's still true. I said mostly FPS's not counting Sims games. MOSTLY means a large percentage, not EVERYTHING. I know you have trouble understanding the English language sometimes, but look it up if you don't believe me.

If those Sims games did not exist then you would see a whole lot more FPS's. The Sims get those numbers because of casuals, and if you took them out and looked at the top 20 you would see a whole lot more shooters.

[A Black Falcon]

30% is not "mostly", never has been "mostly", and never will be "mostly"! 50% or 60% also does not qualify for "mostly" (which is what the ratio of FPS-to-RTS/RPG is, on average, I'd say). So no. That term is definitely not correct. "Mostly" implies some kind of significant majority which does not exist when you look at the sales lists. "Half or so of hardcore game sales that show up in best-selling games lists"? Now that I wouldn't argue with. But "most of PC game sales"? I've proven that that is wrong!

Sure, you use the excuse "sims/"casual" games don't count." Of course I find that premise absurd. Of course they count! Do the games casual gamers on consoles buy not count by the virtue of them being casual gamers? Can we discount whole genres just because of their popularity? Of course not! Now, saying 'let's also look at the "hardcore" games seperately", okay. But you cannot act like sim games don't exist or that when you're looking at what games sell you can ignore them. Especially if it's games that are as critically acclaimed as The Sims... popular game it is, but also obviously very well done for any gamer interested...

[OB1]

Mostly, NOT INCLUDING SIMS GAMES. *repeats same sentence in mock-retard speach*

[A Black Falcon]

I added a bunch to the previous post, read it over...

[OB1]

I don't care if you say that they "count" or not because that's not what we're debating. I originally said that the highest-selling PC games are FPS's, NOT INCLUDING SIMS GAMES. I still maintain that. I just didn't think that the top ten lists would have so many Sims games, so you'll have to look at a top 20 list for a more accurate reading. The PC gaming industry really is going down the crapper.

[Great Rumbler]

At least Simcity 4 made it to the top ten...

[A Black Falcon]

I don't care if you say that they "count" or not because that's not what we're debating. I originally said that the highest-selling PC games are FPS's, NOT INCLUDING SIMS GAMES. I still maintain that. I just didn't think that the top ten lists would have so many Sims games, so you'll have to look at a top 20 list for a more accurate reading. The PC gaming industry really is going down the crapper.

This is probably the closest I'll ever get to getting an admission of anything from you... so it's nice to hear... As I said from the beginning, I have better knowledge of this because I've been looking at PC sales lists for years. You hadn't before you talked about PC game sales. Oh well, you should know better now...

Anyway, OB1, FPSes have a much more limited appeal than The Sims does. Can't you understand that? Sim games (SimCity, The Sims, management simulations like ____ Tycoon, etc) have very wide appeal. Almost everyone likes them. Fewer people like first-person games where you shoot people. And since the PC gaming industry is the one with the largest userbase, obviously the games with the widest appeal have a better chance of making top-10 lists. So PC charts will have a higher ratio of casual-to-hardcore games -- everyone has a PC, after all, and only people who want to play games have consoles.

If you go back and look at that 1998 list, you'll see that the PC market has always had a large percentage of casual titles.

But really, I'd say that the biggest thing that showed that you hadn't actually looked at many sales lists wasn't forgetting about casual games. It was forgetting about strategy games. RTSes show up on these lists almost as frequently as FPSes do, after all, as those lists show, and your forgetting them was surprising... MMORPGs are usually games that just show up for a little while every so often, like adventure games do whenever a Myst title comes out (unless it's a Blizzard MMORPG of course... WoW is selling amazingly well...), but RTSes? They're pretty much always in the top 10 and are probably a close second to FPSes in terms of sales and popularity on the PC. Saying that FPSes are a 'vast majority' of hardcore game sales is a massive misrepresentation of the facts... even when we ignore the fact that seperating 'hardcore' from 'softcore' games can be tricky when the 'softcore' ones are also great games, like The Sims or SimCity are.

At least Simcity 4 made it to the top ten...

That's a "casual" game, GR... a good game, but "casual" by the way the term is usually defined. Like The Sims (though a better game, IMO).

[Great Rumbler]

That's a "casual" game, GR... a good game, but "casual" by the way the term is usually defined. Like The Sims (though a better game, IMO).

What do you mean by that?

[A Black Falcon]

"Casual" game -- a game that people who are normally not gamers still often like. See: The Sims, Myst, SimCity, probably Tetris, etc... games which "real" gamers might not buy just because of the stigma of them being 'casual' games... and OB1 made it clear that he doesn't think casual games should "count" when we discuss which genres of PC games are the most popular. Which is a silly decision of his, but it's what he said...

[Great Rumbler]

Simcity 4 is an awesome game...

[A Black Falcon]

How many people do you know of who play The Sims or SimCity but very little else?

...

Yeah, see what I mean now?

[OB1]

This is probably the closest I'll ever get to getting an admission of anything from you... so it's nice to hear... As I said from the beginning, I have better knowledge of this because I've been looking at PC sales lists for years. You hadn't before you talked about PC game sales. Oh well, you should know better now...

Anyway, OB1, FPSes have a much more limited appeal than The Sims does. Can't you understand that? Sim games (SimCity, The Sims, management simulations like ____ Tycoon, etc) have very wide appeal. Almost everyone likes them. Fewer people like first-person games where you shoot people. And since the PC gaming industry is the one with the largest userbase, obviously the games with the widest appeal have a better chance of making top-10 lists. So PC charts will have a higher ratio of casual-to-hardcore games -- everyone has a PC, after all, and only people who want to play games have consoles.

If you go back and look at that 1998 list, you'll see that the PC market has always had a large percentage of casual titles.

But really, I'd say that the biggest thing that showed that you hadn't actually looked at many sales lists wasn't forgetting about casual games. It was forgetting about strategy games. RTSes show up on these lists almost as frequently as FPSes do, after all, as those lists show, and your forgetting them was surprising... MMORPGs are usually games that just show up for a little while every so often, like adventure games do whenever a Myst title comes out (unless it's a Blizzard MMORPG of course... WoW is selling amazingly well...), but RTSes? They're pretty much always in the top 10 and are probably a close second to FPSes in terms of sales and popularity on the PC. Saying that FPSes are a 'vast majority' of hardcore game sales is a massive misrepresentation of the facts... even when we ignore the fact that seperating 'hardcore' from 'softcore' games can be tricky when the 'softcore' ones are also great games, like The Sims or SimCity are.

Of course there have always been great-selling casual titles. I never contested that. What I've said from the beginning of this debate is that FPSs are the best-selling games amongst the more hardcore PC gaming crowd. I said that two pages ago and I'm saying it again. I've been completely consistent with my opinion on this. The reason why I brought that up was to illustrate my point that PC gamers do not care about new and innovative gaming experiences like hardcore console gamers do. You will never see games like Katamari Damashii sell as well on the PC as it did on a console. And as someone who can only make games for the PC in the foreseeable future, that worries me. I want there to be a market out there for different kinds of games. That fact is made even more difficult by the fact that most PC gamers don't want to get gamepads, and making different kinds of games for the kb&m severely limits what you can do.

[A Black Falcon]

Of course there have always been great-selling casual titles. I never contested that. What I've said from the beginning of this debate is that FPSs are the best-selling games amongst the more hardcore PC gaming crowd. I said that two pages ago and I'm saying it again. I've been completely consistent with my opinion on this. The reason why I brought that up was to illustrate my point that PC gamers do not care about new and innovative gaming experiences like hardcore console gamers do. You will never see games like Katamari Damashii sell as well on the PC as it did on a console. And as someone who can only make games for the PC in the foreseeable future, that worries me. I want there to be a market out there for different kinds of games. That fact is made even more difficult by the fact that most PC gamers don't want to get gamepads, and making different kinds of games for the kb&m severely limits what you can do.

The gamepads thing is because most people who want to play console-style games simply buy consoles. Most games are designed for the type of system they are on and PC games are on PC so most of them are made for keyboard and mouse, just as they should be. If most PC games used gamepads what would be the point of playing them on PC? And anyway, I absolutely reject the idea that the keyboard/mouse combo is a bad one for playing games on. There are a lot of genres that are ideal for keyboard/mouse play, and the PC has plenty of games in those genres and does them well. Complaining because it doesn't do some other types of games, which are more peripheral to the PC gaming experience, well is kind of silly when there is such a massive breadth and depth of PC games as it is...

Originality? I don't think that the PC market is any worse than the console one, overall... there are a lot of niche titles out there. The main problem is selling them at retail. Going that route does often seem to lead to games that follow in the footsteps of past successful titles (same as it often is on consoles)... but where the PC is different is online sales and freeware. That allows people to make anything, including all those kinds of games that simply would never get retail distribution. It won't show up on top 10 lists, probably, but staying away from the big publishers allows for more originality and uniqueness (or simply a game designed in a classic manner in a genre which the big companies are convinced doesn't sell anymore,such as the use of online sales for genres like wargames that no one wants to publish in stores).

Anyway. Is the hardcore PC market dominated by one genre, FPSes? No, it is not. You were wrong to say that. Is it dominated by a few genres? Yes. FPS, RTS, and sim games dominate. Myst-ish adventure games, TBSes, RPGs, MMORPGs, third-person action games, console ports, etc. are often successful. Many fewer titles are released in other genres like classic-style graphic adventures, flight/tank/boat sims, wargames, etc (wargames have mostly survived through online sales). Sure, not many PC titles fall outside the big categories, except for the occasional console port. But it's not a one genre dominated market, OB1. Never has been, still isn't.

Back to originality. It really depends on what you mean by the term. On the one hand yes, probably most PC games are derivitive. But most console games are too! Yes, there are exceptions. But don't pretend to think that the console market is bursting with original titles... it simply is not... yes, there are some. But Nintendo has been saying for years that a big part of the Japanese videogame downturn is because of a lack of originality and when you look at most of the titles produced they probably have a point. America? We have the same lack of originality, but not as many people trying radical things because here that formula is still working fine. No downturn yet. (Which is, of course, why Nintendo's constant statements about having to save gaming from its doom of unoriginality fall flat here... people haven't tired with games as they are as much as they have in Japan.) Anyway... true, PC gaming doesn't have Katamari Damacii and it probably wouldn't sell too well. Hardcore PC gamers are a very different market from console gamers and a lot of them react very badly to any title that feels too "console-ish" (see, for instance, the reaction to Deus Ex 2...). Hardcore PC gamers expect more complexity from their games on average than console gamers do, and when games are designed for consoles too they often see the titles as dumbed down and not as good as a result. True? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but there's definitely truths behind why people feel that way. It is definitely true that console games are on the whole simpler and PC games more complex.

PC gaming innovation is less about innovative new control schemes or add-on controllers or stuff as it is about just using what already exists in different ways... console games do this too of course, but with their additional complexity perhaps PC games have more room to do this in. Of course sometimes a game comes along that changes everything game mechanics-wise (Wolfenstein 3D, Homeworld, Dune 2, etc), but those aren't too common (and even then such games are often at their core a game of a familiar genre, just done in a new way). So perhaps PC games do have fewer totally unique games than consoles do. However, I would probably say that within genres that already exist PC games do at least as well at innovation as console games do and probably do better. Look at RPGs... console ones have some changes, certainly, and a few that try to be different, but there are so many more varieties and complexities in PC ones...

So in short, what I'd say is that when games are relased in established genres PCs and consoles are pretty close as far as innovation goes. Perhaps I'd say PCs are ahead of consoles, by virtue of greater variety among PC games in the same genres as seems to be the case much of the time on consoles. But in the category of 'totally original games' yes, consoles probably win. People thought of most of the genres that PCs can do well quite a while back and given how many of those there are and how many possible gameplay experiences (and how many innovative ideas you can include in titles in existing genres) most new games fall into one of those. Just like it is on consoles, except for a few titles (mostly Japanese) that are unique and perhaps don't have a great PC analog... PC games are often unique or innovative in story, setting, theme, the details of gameplay, etc, but not in the base type of game the title is. If I had to say something, though, I'd probably say that the closest analog to such things would be freeware. From Japan. :D

[OB1]

The gamepads thing is because most people who want to play console-style games simply buy consoles. Most games are designed for the type of system they are on and PC games are on PC so most of them are made for keyboard and mouse, just as they should be. If most PC games used gamepads what would be the point of playing them on PC? And anyway, I absolutely reject the idea that the keyboard/mouse combo is a bad one for playing games on. There are a lot of genres that are ideal for keyboard/mouse play, and the PC has plenty of games in those genres and does them well. Complaining because it doesn't do some other types of games, which are more peripheral to the PC gaming experience, well is kind of silly when there is such a massive breadth and depth of PC games as it is...

There is a reason why there are only a few main dominant genres on the PC, ABF, and why there aren't any new gameplay experiences. The keyboard and mouse is good for a few genres and that's it.

Originality? I don't think that the PC market is any worse than the console one, overall... there are a lot of niche titles out there. The main problem is selling them at retail. Going that route does often seem to lead to games that follow in the footsteps of past successful titles (same as it often is on consoles)... but where the PC is different is online sales and freeware. That allows people to make anything, including all those kinds of games that simply would never get retail distribution. It won't show up on top 10 lists, probably, but staying away from the big publishers allows for more originality and uniqueness (or simply a game designed in a classic manner in a genre which the big companies are convinced doesn't sell anymore,such as the use of online sales for genres like wargames that no one wants to publish in stores).

You would never, ever see a game like Katamari Damashii on the PC, and have it sell well. Again, there is a reason for that.

Anyway. Is the hardcore PC market dominated by one genre, FPSes? No, it is not. You were wrong to say that. Is it dominated by a few genres? Yes. FPS, RTS, and sim games dominate. Myst-ish adventure games, TBSes, RPGs, MMORPGs, third-person action games, console ports, etc. are often successful. Many fewer titles are released in other genres like classic-style graphic adventures, flight/tank/boat sims, wargames, etc (wargames have mostly survived through online sales). Sure, not many PC titles fall outside the big categories, except for the occasional console port. But it's not a one genre dominated market, OB1. Never has been, still isn't.

FPSs are the majority among the non-casuals. That is a fact. If strategy games didn't take so much longer to make then perhaps that would not be the case. But unfortunately that is the case, which is why the FPS is the most dominant non-casual genre on the PC.

Back to originality. It really depends on what you mean by the term. On the one hand yes, probably most PC games are derivitive. But most console games are too! Yes, there are exceptions. But don't pretend to think that the console market is bursting with original titles... it simply is not... yes, there are some. But Nintendo has been saying for years that a big part of the Japanese videogame downturn is because of a lack of originality and when you look at most of the titles produced they probably have a point. America? We have the same lack of originality, but not as many people trying radical things because here that formula is still working fine. No downturn yet. (Which is, of course, why Nintendo's constant statements about having to save gaming from its doom of unoriginality fall flat here... people haven't tired with games as they are as much as they have in Japan.) Anyway... true, PC gaming doesn't have Katamari Damacii and it probably wouldn't sell too well. Hardcore PC gamers are a very different market from console gamers and a lot of them react very badly to any title that feels too "console-ish" (see, for instance, the reaction to Deus Ex 2...). Hardcore PC gamers expect more complexity from their games on average than console gamers do, and when games are designed for consoles too they often see the titles as dumbed down and not as good as a result. True? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but there's definitely truths behind why people feel that way. It is definitely true that console games are on the whole simpler and PC games more complex.

Believe me, I know more about the sad state of gaming on all platforms than you do. Most games on consoles are just copies of other successful titles, and EA is the prime example of that design philosophy. But there are truly different and innovative games that come out pretty regularly on consoles, far more than there are for the PC. Damashii, ICO, Viewtiful Joe, DK Jungle Beat, Mojib Ribbon, Rez, Mark of Kri, Lumines, and the upcoming Wanda and the Colossus just to name a few. And that's just from the last few years.

And as for your simple/complex comment, we've been over about how you can't tell the difference between depth and convolution before. And what complex games are there for the PC? Sims and strategy games. That's it. And for those I give you the Romance of the Three Kingdom series.

PC gaming innovation is less about innovative new control schemes or add-on controllers or stuff as it is about just using what already exists in different ways... console games do this too of course, but with their additional complexity perhaps PC games have more room to do this in. Of course sometimes a game comes along that changes everything game mechanics-wise (Wolfenstein 3D, Homeworld, Dune 2, etc), but those aren't too common (and even then such games are often at their core a game of a familiar genre, just done in a new way). So perhaps PC games do have fewer totally unique games than consoles do. However, I would probably say that within genres that already exist PC games do at least as well at innovation as console games do and probably do better. Look at RPGs... console ones have some changes, certainly, and a few that try to be different, but there are so many more varieties and complexities in PC ones...

PC gaming has remained largely static for more than a decade because of the fact that everything has to be worked around the archaic kb&m control setup. There is a very good reason why consoles have had to have new controllers each generation, and why Nintendo wants to change the way we play games with new types of control devices. Right now all change is restricted by each platform's respective control type, and true innovation won't be seen until that is changed. That's why I hope the revolution turns out to be amazing. The DS, even though it has yet to really prove itself, has an unbelievable amount of potential. The right developer will be able to create a completely new type of gameplay experience with that handheld, and I just hope that that happens sooner rather than later. We've only seen tiny glimpses of what is possible with the hardware.

So in short, what I'd say is that when games are relased in established genres PCs and consoles are pretty close as far as innovation goes. Perhaps I'd say PCs are ahead of consoles, by virtue of greater variety among PC games in the same genres as seems to be the case much of the time on consoles. But in the category of 'totally original games' yes, consoles probably win. People thought of most of the genres that PCs can do well quite a while back and given how many of those there are and how many possible gameplay experiences (and how many innovative ideas you can include in titles in existing genres) most new games fall into one of those. Just like it is on consoles, except for a few titles (mostly Japanese) that are unique and perhaps don't have a great PC analog... PC games are often unique or innovative in story, setting, theme, the details of gameplay, etc, but not in the base type of game the title is. If I had to say something, though, I'd probably say that the closest analog to such things would be freeware. From Japan.

Are you trying to say analogy? You keep on writing "analog". I do not know what you're trying to say.

But whatever the case is, I think the top 20 lists of PC games shows just how little innovation there is. To suggest that PCs are actually ahead of consoles in that regard is complete and utter stupidity on your part. 7 of the 10 games at the top are Sims expansions! Then you have your standard RTS (Warcraft III) and some bland shooters. Wee!

[Great Rumbler]

How many people do you know of who play The Sims or SimCity but very little else?

Uh...none.

Yeah, see what I mean now?

No.