Doom 3

[A Black Falcon]

And on that note, I am finished with this thread! It is not worth all of the time that I put into these replies, especially when I cannot teach you anything. So just continue to believe all of the falsities that you cling to so hard. You are only hurting youself by not wanting to know the actual truth. You can reply to this, but know that I will not look at your reply.

I think that this is going much better than usual for us, actually. It hasn't gotten into a pure arguement-fest... I'm right on some things and you on others... where is the big problem?

I hope you don't leave, it seems to me like we're definitely getting somewhere... but if you want we could break the arguement into several parts, it is kind of like three or four discussions merged into one which is a big part of why the posts are so long.

If you do insist in not replying again, though, at least get ion MSN sometime...

You're really stretching. My car also has a computer in it, but I don't consider that another platform. We're talking about personal computers (that's what PC stands for, believe it or not) and home consoles.

First really popular personal computer: Apple II, released in 1977.

First really popular console: Atari 2600, released in 1977.

Now you're changing your previous point! First it's "RTSs are close to FPSs in terms of sales" and now they're equal?

Amazing.

Yeah, because before I was basing it off my bad addition (16 RTS, 20 FPS) while now that I know it's 19 RTS and 20 FPS, essentially equal numbers, 'equal' seems like a fine label. I said 'equal' back in page 2 when I first cited some sales lists, if you look back, and looking at that data again I realize that I was right then and wrong to say that FPSes had a noticable advantage. I clearly stated this several times in my last reply so I'm not sure why you're so confused... other than to desperately try to find some ground where you can say you weren't wrong on the issue when you obviously were.

Right, and I suppose Mario 64 didn't either because Bubsy 3D was released before it, even though the two titles play nothing alike?

With a fundamental change as great as SMB's, a change that is far greater than any two PC games in the same genre that you can mention, to deny that it created a new genre shows incredible bias and ignorance on this subject. I know people who would throw stones at you for making such insanely idiotic comments.

If you really get that angry over a statement that was almost repeating what you had said back at you, then you really need to rethink how you go about being at a place like Tendo City. It makes no sense and helps no one.

My fundamental question is this. "If the platformer existed before SMB, and it existed (in changed form) after SMB, and SMB did not branch off and create a new subgenre of platform games, then how did SMB CREATE a genre or subgenre"?

The answer, I believe, is that it did not. It just changed the direction that all future platformers would follow... but like, say, with Doom in the FPS genre (though to a greater extent, of course; Doom is closer to Wolf 3D than SMB to Pitfall) that fact did not also mean that the game created a new genre.

Here's a question. After SMB came out were there some 'SMB-like' platformers and other 'Pitfall-like' platformers?

As for Bubsy 3D, it came out after Mario 64!

http://www.mobygames.com/game/sheet/p,9/gameId,3533/

http://www.mobygames.com/game/sheet/p,6/gameId,4948/

It was also awful, and forgotten, and no one cared, so even if it HAD come out before Mario 64 it wouldn't have done what Mario 64 did to the genre because of the total lack of quality and interest, but... it came out afterwards. :)

I'm not saying that each game created a new sub genre, genius. I'm saying there are dozens of terrific platformers you never played that either created a new sub genre, took the genre to new heights, or were simply innovative.

And you're very dumb if you think that all innovation "changes the genre for good". Games like Deus Ex are really innovative yet we still see the same crappy shooters. It did not change the genre.

Of course innovation doesn't always change the whole genre! I didn't imply that! I meant the innovations that DO do that...the most important innovative games aren't the ones that were just solo titles that no one ever tried to do again but the ones that truly changed gaming, after all.

And if we want to talk about games we've played that the other hasn't I'm sure that there are just as many games at least I've played that you haven't so you shouldn't be the one to talk oh so often about it.

It was just an example that I thought you would be familiar with.

Yes, because I have such a limited knowledge of gaming that I'd never recognize a more obscure or earlier example.

What would you say would have been the first games in those two subgenres?

What about them?

As in is it a subgenre of platform games or a subgenre of action games or both...

Those titles are guaranteed sales because like you said they target a niche market. We were talking about weird Japanese games that publishers have taken risks on that failed to do well, and made them forever cautious about releasing similar titles.

The point is that those were only successes by releasing numbers that fit the market. Release those in full American release by a big publisher and you have a failure at the same number of unit sales that a limited release company would call a success. That's often how the 'weird' games that come out here get released... by publishers that know they won't sell huge numbers of units so they only ship small numbers. Usually that caution is justified.

If that was true then why didn't Ubi Soft spend the time and effort into making good dual analog support for the PC port of BG&E? It definitely would have sold better with decent controls, right? I wish you were right, but the numbers don't add up.

As I've said every time we discuss this game, it's because they were lazy. Pretty simple. That fact is also borne out in the fact that they left out gamepad controls as well. They should have either included gamepad controls or redone it to fit the keyboard. They did neither so of course it was messed up.

Yeah exactly, you can't play a 3d action/adventure game on the PC unless it controls like a damned FPS. That's my point.

So? Seriously, why is that a bad thing? If it works...

And if you have to use keyboard for BG&E, FPS controls almost certainly would have worked better than what we got.

SNES: Shoulder buttons. Put to usethe index fingers which were never used before. That was a huge revolution in gameplay design, though you may think nothing of it. Before that gamepads only used the thumbs! That's it! The shoulder buttons opened up many possibilities. One of Nintendo's greatest contributions to gaming, definitely.

Dual Shock: Two analogue sticks. Imagine Pikmin without two analogue sticks. Wouldn't be possible. You'd have to move the cursor with the face buttons, which would have made play very clunky and a pain in the ass to do. It also made the FPS work exceptionally well on a console. Same thing goes for space shooters (Colony Wars for the PSX... only possible with two sticks), games like Katamari Damashii, and camera control for 3D games that much easier to do. It wasn't as revolutionary as the shoulder button, but it made 3d gaming that much easier to do and opened up new gameplay possibilities because of that.

Shoulder buttons... yeah, I thought of that. That's what the SNES added, you are right. But I just wouldn't call that a big enough change to make a massive impact on the gamepad and how games are played with them. Yes, it allowed for more buttons and was a nice improvement, I guess, (I've never loved shoulder buttons, really... I much prefer triggers...) but just adding more buttons isn't really a revolution worthy of this list... Same with dual analog.

As for uses for your other fingers, PCs of course used them all along... both on keyboard/mouse and on joysticks... :)

Pikmin with single analog? It'd be like an N64 game: one of the controls is on the digital controls of the C-buttons. A bit clumsier but still usable... (I'd recommend making the analog stick for the circle movement and the c-buttons for movement, probably, though have it as a choice). You just have to have some diamond-shaped key layout on the right side (which is why Smash TV on NGC is unplayable with the face buttons and must be played with dual analog -- it doesn't have a diamond key layout so you can't hit all of the button combonations like you have to be able to!), but given that you have that or some approximation then it can be done, if with less precision.

Ok first of all, this isn't about the different kinds of genres on the two different platforms. Again you have failed to understand what I said. I'm talking about how well each platforms' games work on each other's systems.

I tried to do that too...

Strategy: Starcraft worked perfectly fine on the N64. Sorry, but you're wrong about this.

Sure, SC worked fine on N64. Without the movies. Without the voiceovers. Without most of the unit speech. With extremely blurry units that were very hard to distinguish from eachother. With a harder to use interface. With four unit hotkey sets instead of nine. With a dramatically less precise control (analog stick, not mouse). Etc. Yeah, I think you get the picture... look. If SC64 was REALLY such a success, why is it that it was that very product that convinced Blizzard that console ports of its PC games was a waste of time that resulted in unsatisfactory products that did not live up to the games they were supposed to be ports of?

Yeah, because it had major problems that are unavoidable on consoles until everyone has HDTVs and mice and keyboards for their consoles. :)

RPGs: Morrowind and KOTOR prove yet another point of yours wrong. Both work exceptionally well on a console, and both are PC RPGs.

That proves nothing, you know. Console RPGs almost always can translate over just as well if a bit of effort is put into it... as for those games, though Morrowind works because the game concept always had a strong base of simplicity that was simplified even more for consoles(button-mash combat). The game has massive amounts of depth, but the series didn't have as complex an interface as some RPGs and what it did have could be simplified with only some gameplay possibilities lost... (see: the removal of swing-mouse-to-attack). So yes that series translated over well. As for KotOR, I've described how they did that many times... simplify the controls, consoleize the interface, reduce some of the functionality, and simplify the game system. It works great, once you accept that it doesn't (and probably cannot) have all of the depth of a true PC RPG.

But as I said, console RPGs aren't much harder to translate to keyboard and mouse than PC ones are to translate to gamepads... FFVII and FFVIII were only better with gamepads because Square didn't want to spend the time to fully make them PC-ized.

Wargames: C&C worked great on even the PSX's non-analog controller.

Uh, so? C&C is an RTS, not a wargame... have you ever played a wargame, actually?

As I said, Koei released a few on SNES (P.T.O., Operation Europe, War 2410, etc) and perhaps PSX. Those are the only ones I know of on consoles.

Adventure games: You nuts? Monkey Island 4 worked wonderfully on the PS2!

I know. I said so. Twice. In the very thing that that was a reply to. Unless you didn't know that Monkey Island 4 used the Grim Fandango control system? (problems like that is why I gave game examples for every single category... not my fault if you don't know the references. :))

modern direct-control adventure titles (this is the one subgenre of adventure games that is designed to run best on gamepads) (Grim Fandango, Broken Sword III, etc), etc.

Other than that last category, again these games do not work well at all.

Card, board, and puzzle games: Um.... ... you do realize that--never mind. It's probably best to not let you know...

I was including all genres, not just hardcore ones. And those are genres. (You know, it's kind of unfair to rule out some PC genres because of their popularity while no console genres, which are as a rule more popular than PC games and genres, don't get anything eliminated because of "too much popularity"... yes, I would put casual titles in a somewhat different category, but I wouldn't leave them out totally. Yes, some are bad, but not all... SimCity is a great series with lots of depth for hardcore gamers to love, for instance.)

First-person games: All done, really well, on consoles. I don't exactly know what you're trying to say here...

I said that it's a debatable one but that there are good arguements to say why the genre is better on PC.

First/Third-person games: PC third-person action games control like FPSs. 'Nuff said.

True. Why is this a big problem?

*sigh* I think you lost track of what you were trying to do here... that or you had no idea what I said. Or both.

The former is kind of true... I noticed it well before posting (or finishing it, as I said in the last paragraph), but didn't want to waste all that work... and it was kind of related.

Dude... again... I'm talking about playing them with a mouse and keyboard!

Uh, yeah, I know... why do you think I talked about older shareware platformers like Commander Keen? That's a keyboard game through and through.

Yes! That's exactly right!

I swear, if your mother isn't an alcoholic then I don't know what the deal is!

Racing, platform, and action games are the reasons that I buy PC gamepads...

Mark of Kri would literally be impossible to do with a kb&m. Same goes for DMC.

Yes, of course, OB1. Because this is CLEARLY saying that I think that those games would control well on keyboard! Yup!

-"Action games that do NOT control just like a FPS (i.e. Mark of Kri, DMC)" -- yeah, those control better on gamepads, as I said. This isn't a seperate genre, though, just another part of the same genre that brings us the FPS and the third-person action games which DO control like FPSes. Or side-scrolling titles like Metal Slug. So overall, the genre is one that works well on both control systems depending on which kind of action game the game is.

When I essentially agree with you about something why must your reply be so confrontational as if I was argueing with you about the matter?

There is no genre simply called the "Adventure genre". There are different types of adventure games. Zelda is an action-adventure, ICO is a puzzle-adventure, and Grim Fandango is a graphic-adventure.

Irrelevant to the issue of what I was saying. I just threw in that line or two on the top to say that I consider graphic adventures "true" adventure games. But sure, call them graphic adventures, I don't care... as I said it doesn't have much to do with what the substance of my arguement was. Which I see you didn't reply to. Do you agree then?

You've obviously never played KD or ZOE if you think they could be played on a kb&m.

Pay more attention to what I say. I said that it varies greatly from game to game. And it does. I'd need to play a game before I'd make a judgement about how much analog matters for the title. I guess you saw me say 'digital can always replace analog' and thought I meant 'digital can always be a good replacement for analog'... but look more closely. I did not mean that.

Digital can always sub in even if it isn't as good... how much that matters depends wholely on the game. For some it matters a lot and for others it doesn't. In many games the added precision on one of the axes, the one decided to be more important for analog controls, makes up for the reduced precision of digital control on the other. That's not always true, of course, and with some kinds of control setups keyboard will never work as well, which is why we have gamepads...

I meant what I said. It depends on the game. For some familiar examples, I'll use Rayman 2 and Rogue Squadron 3D. Rayman 2 adapts decently to digital-only controls. There are no major issues with playing the game that way. Rogue Squadron 3D does not. It makes the game significantly more challenging, as aiming is a major pain without true analog control. (For a third example, Starshot: Space Circus. It's a platformer, released for N64 and PC at least. I played the PC demo. Same Sidewinder I played Rayman 2 on. Unlike Rayman 2, I found digital controls awful for this game. You see, the level had lots of floating diagonal platforms which were really hard to maneuver the character along with digital controls... it was clearly designed for an analog stick and did not adapt well. Rayman 2 didn't have huge problems like that, thankfully.)