11th February 2005, 4:16 PM
Quote:It's a synonym, OB1... you've never heard analog used that way?
dictionary.com:
Quote:
an·a·logue also an·a·log Audio pronunciation of "analog" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lôg, -lg)
n.
1. Something that bears an analogy to something else: Surimi is marketed as an analogue of crabmeat.
First definition, too.
No I've heard the word used that like a few times before, but you often mispell things so I assumed that was the case again. :)
Quote:No, it's good for quite a few genres. And some of them are some of the broadest there are... I'd argue that strategy games are the broadest genre around (only comparing to RPGs) and the PC is very strong in wide varities of games in both of those genres. I would certainly not say that the PC has fewer types of games represented than consoles do... it is lacking in some genres consoles do well but is well represented in genres lacking on consoles so overall I'd say it balances out.
The only conclusion I could possibly draw is that you prefer the genres common on consoles, or the way consoles do genres common to both platforms, to the genres common on PCs. Saying 'PCs are very limited in genres' tied to 'and consoles have more variety' (you've said it.) is just not true.
As for the comments about the control options of keyboard/mouse being limited, I could make an equally strong arguement that the control options of gamepads are limited as well. They are both limited in different ways. They both tend themselves to some kind of games. So each platform has different things they are best at. That does not mean one has more things it is better at than the other... you clearly think that consoles have more variety of genres, but I, as being a PC gaming fan before being a console gaming fan, could make a strong arguement in the other direction...
You can count the number of genres that can be done well on with the keyboard and mouse without any major sacrificing on one hand. You have the strategy genre (as broad as it may be), the graphic adventure genre, the FPS, and uh... maybe one more that I can't think of right now. That's it! And the strategy game is really the only genre that the kb&m does so much better than console controls can. FPSs work wonderfully with a dual-analog stick, for instance. However--and this is important so pay attention--the reverse is not true. Try playing any fighting game, platformer, racing game, music game, non-FPS-like-third-person-action-game, and various types of unique console titles like Katamari Damashii with a kb&m. Not gonna happen. I hope you can at least admit that. Though I seriously doubt you will. And if you can't then this debate is completely pointless.
Quote:No, because it's a console-styled game. But an equally weird PC game could have a chance at least as a niche title. )
Really, like what? Name some PC games as unique as Damashii that sold even half as well.
Quote:(and remember, Katamari Damashii wasn't expected to do well because usually weird Japanese games don't sell great here... that is probably more the exception than the rule on that issue
That's because publishers are morons. Nintendo didn't think Animal Crossing would do well either. Or Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, Wario Ware, etc. The list goes on and on. Contrary to these publisher's beliefs there is great audience out there just starving for this stuff.
Which brings me to another topic about how Nintendo wants to change gaming with the Revolution since they think that people want new experiences, yet they're extremely stubborn about releasing unique titles in North America! Something is very wrong with their logic.
Quote:You keep saying this, but the sales charts that I've posted quite simply do not hold that statement to have any validity. I have posted nine top-seller lists from 1998 and 2001-2004.
-Week ending July 10, 2004 (10): 4 FPS, 3 RTS, 1 flight sim, 1 Sims, 1 MMORPG.
-Week ending June 3, 2004 (10): 4 FPS, 2 RTS, 1 flight sim, 1 Sims, 1 MMORPG, 1 Various Liscenced (Harry Potter).
-Month of February, 2004 (20):6 Sims/SimCity/Tycoon, 5 FPS (inc. Splinter Cell), 5 RTS (inc. MOO3), 2 Various Liscenced (Harry Potter, Spongebob), 1 MMORPG, 1 Racing.
-Year, 2003 (10): 5 Sims/SimCity, 3 RTS, 2 FPS.
Month of December, 2003 (20): 8 Sims/Tycoon (1 MMO-Sims), 4 Backyard Sports (Children's), 3 Various Liscenced (2 Harry Potter, one LOTR action-adventure), 2 RTS, 2 FPS, 1 MMORPG.
-January 10-16, 1999 (10): 3 Hunting (I couldn't bear to call Deer Hunter a FPS...), 2 RTS, 2 flight sims (1 civilian, 1 combat), 1 FPS, 1 RPG, 1 boardgame.
-Year of 1998 (20): 4 Hunting-FPS, 3 various liscenced (2 Barbie, one Lego), 3 adventure (2 of them in the Myst series), 2 RTS, 2 FPS, 2 boardgames, 1 classic collection, 1 RPG, 1 flight sim, 1 platformer.
Is it just me or do I see a distinct lack of utter FPS dominance in sales here? Perhaps there are more FPS titles made, but the RTSes make up for that easily by selling for longer periods of time. Overall, with six different (sometimes overlapping) sales lists, FPS only is ahead of RTS by a slight margin. FPSes show up 20 times on those lists and RTSes 16 times. As for other genres there, RPG/MMORPG shows up 5 times. Casual-focused titles like Sims games, Tycoon games, liscenced junk, boardgame conversions, etc. are the most common when all put in one category, of course. Adventure games and platformers are only on the list in 1998. Microsoft Flight Simulator is a regular. And one racing game broke onto the list.
In conclusion, if you keep saying that FPSes are absolutely dominant it will be in willful disregard of proven facts. FPSes do beat most of the genres handily, but strategy games are close enough to par that the difference isn't hugely significant.
You don't even know how to read your own numbers. Look at how many different FPSs there are in the top 10 each month of each year compared to that of RTS's. Like you said you'll see the same RTS game for months but a different FPS practically every week. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Quote:A complex strategy game series to be sure, but I'm sure PC strategy games and wargames are at least as deep to deeper. Yes, we've discussed complexity before and you made it clear that you don't think more complexity is necessarially good. I do not fully agree with that. Sometimes more complexity definitely is good and genres like RPGs and strategy almost always benefit from being more complex. Yes, there is a point of overdoing it, but console games usually don't reach that point... as for convolution, that's just an effect of lacking game design, not more complexity. Good games don't have much of it (or at least don't once you get used to the game) no matter how complex they are.
This is how most elitist PC gamers think, and it's a major reason for why the PC market is so incredibly stale. PC Gamers think that a million buttons and stats make a game deeper, when in fact that is all simply artificial depth. A perfect example of that would be the two versions of Mario 64 out there. The N64 version works so simply and so intuitively that literally anyone with two hands and a healthy brain could pick up and play the game and get at least a couple of stars. With the DS version, you have a number of different control options that make controlling Mario much more complicated than it needs to be. So yeah, you could say that Mario 64 DS is a more complicated game than Mario 64 is, but that's the bad kind of complicated. It's regular chess versus Vulcan chess. One is much more complicated to play than the other yet infinitely more shallow.
I'm not saying that there is no depth in these PC games, but they are far too complicated than they need to be. Nintendo's goal of trying to make games easy enough for anyone to play is where everyone should be headed. Games will not become truly mainstream until they are almost as easy to play as it is to read a book or watch a movie. And don't tell me that books and movies cannot contain great depth just because they are easy to "play". But this is a long and very complicated subject that I do not wish to debate with you. Especially since you are usually so narrow-minded in your thinking.
Quote:That is to say, the PC is great at making original titles within existing genres (better than consoles are in many cases), but not as good at making totally unique games that aren't like anything else.
Not any more than consoles are. Look at Street Fighter and then Virtua Fighter 4. Pitfall and Yoshi's Island. Rad Racer and Gran Turismo.
Quote:As for original titles, I pretty much agreed with you on the subject of 'totally original in most ways' games, didn't I? My point of disagreement was to say that I believe that within existing genres (and game-design styles) PC games do an overall better job of innovation/original thinking than console games do, though both do it well at times.
Please, name me some titles as original or innovative as the ones I have listed.
Quote:Oh yeah, and saying "sims and strategy games, that's it" is insane (even leaving out how you forget RPGs, which should definitely be there as well). Those three genres are massively deep and wide and could hold multiple console genres within them no problem... it's kind of like saying "3d games, that's it" as a response to something about the Gamecube... it makes no sense and ignores reality! Saying that any one series, no matter how good, counters two or three genres? Genres with depth as astounding as strategy games do on PC for instance? Crazy.
I forgot about RPGs! Even I am forgetful sometimes, believe it or not.
Anyhow, saying that those three genres are broader than the main console ones is absolute insanity. In the platform genre alone there are a dozen different sub genres, and games within each sub genre that's different enough from the rest. In platforming you have Pitfall (basic platformer), Donkey Kong (platformer-puzzler), Super Mario Bros. (the platformer that all sidescrollers are based off of) Super Mario Bros. 3 (I don't need to count the innovations there, do I?), Sonic (racing-platformer), Yoshi's Island (one of the most innovative platformers ever. brought to the table an inventive "health" dynamic, original and new item and projectile system, among other things), Mario 64 (the standard 3D platformer, aka the collect-a-thon platformer), Sly Cooper (stealth platformer), Ratchet and Clank 1 (shooter platformer), Ratchet and Clank 2 (RPG shooter platformer), etc. I could list many more if you'd like, as well as dozens of examples in many other genres. If you think you can counter that by all means!
Quote:PC gaming discovered what worked great and made games that used those techniques. I don't blame them and given what a huge variety of games that results in I don't mind, especially given that they don't just stay static with every game copying the ones before it -- plenty of titles are different and original within existing genres, and that's great. For instance, the FPS genre is among the most common on the PC and has been for years, but there are some that are truly original within it, such as Netstorm or Perimiter. You don't need to create a completely new gameplay experience to create an original and unique game, and PC games periodically prove that.
Even Deus Ex was just a minor innovation. There hasn't been a new type of gameplay created on the PC since the first FPS, really. Nothing major.
Quote:True, there isn't much at the top, and I said so. I said that many of the more unique and original titles either never crack the top-sales lists or are never released in retail stores at all... the companies that release games are conservative about what they want to sell and something in an established makes them a whole lot happer than something risky.
There are usually better games on the console charts than the PC ones. Definitely.