11th February 2005, 9:08 PM
I was 2/3rds of the way through a reply when my computer crashed and I lost it all... I hate it when that happens! Lost quite a bit of work... :( At least I hadn't gotten to responding to those two long replies of yours yet (leaving them for last).
I know how to spell most words, and analog and analogy are among them.
The words I spell wrong I seem to consistently have problems with, but most words I spell just fine.
First, you aren't talking about new subgenres with that list. You're talking about games which are not just purely rehashes of what we've seen before... but I wouldn't say that all of those are in different subgenres. Sonic did not create a new subgenre of platformers, for instance. It had innovations, but didn't found a whole new category... same with SMB 3 -- lots of originality and innovations, but not a new subgenre. Anyway, I said all three, but I primarially think of strategy games as the broadest genre around. Sims might not match that... RPGs? Perhaps, but less than strategy games.
Counter? Making a list of every game that added any kind of innovation into its genre (even if you don't act stupid and then say that every such game created a new subgenre) is pointless. I certainly could make a list that long with strategy games, though, and likely also RPGs, if the standard is as low as yours appears to be... but is it really worth the time?
That doesn't matter that much though... or at least, sales matter equally. And in sales RTSes are a very close second. The difference is just that the big RTSes sell for longer, and their expansions seem to stay on the lists longer as well. But saying that because the FPS genre has more titles it is vastly more important than the RTS genre, which is pretty close in sales, is just silly! And that becomes even more absurd if you include the rest of the strategy genre (lower sales, but many varieties).
Missing many genres for the PC side, misleading, and wrong.
First, genres common on PC (that are better with keyboard/mouse as done on PC). Strategy, building/management simulations, RPGs, adventure games (both graphic adventures and interactive fiction, which are quite alive in freeware circles), wargames (one of the oldest PC genres and still around in online distribution), FPSes... there is one common genre that is different, however -- car, airplane, tank, boat, etc... simulations. These are best with either joysticks (not gamepads!) or wheels. That requirement, along with their typically high system requirements and steep difficulty curves to get into demanding, complex games, limits their commercial success... but it's a very important group of genres (racing games, mech/space combat sims, and realistic flight/tank sims probably are not in the same genre) in the history of PC gaming.
That brings up the issue of peripherals. Both PCs and consoles have them. As it relates consoles come up with lots of new ones while PCs generally just have the same ones as ever (joysticks, gamepads, steering wheels)... but PCs have built in a lot of things add-ons do, or have no good way of doing such things (like connectivity to use a small screen as a controller)... and there's already a mouse so no need for a keypad or touchscreen or something... and the fact that PC gaming companies are not desperately trying to invent new ways of playing games like Nintendo is. :)
Anyway... if you want games unplayable on consoles, you should add those flight/mech/etc. sims to the list. The realistic ones, anyway... okay, one exception: Steel Battalion. But other than that nothing can compare. Such games NEED lots of buttons. Gamepads only have enough for more action-oriented games, not truly in-depth sims. And gamepad joysticks are pitiful and small and not nearly adaquate for a good flight sim... but even if there was a joystick on consoles, you wouldn't have the keyboard (or throttle controller, for serious flight control systems) to go with it for the dozens of other necessary keys.
The other genres? Management/building sims technically CAN be done on consoles, but the results are a pale imitation. It simply does not work as well. Strategy games and these sims have similar controls so it's not surprising that they translate to consoles similarly poorly... like Civilization, The Sims will never be a great console game. Strategy games designed just for consoles? Sure, they can be fun, like Shining Force or Fire Emblem. But even those games would be better with mouse. Just like how a platformer is playable, but worse, with a keyboard, a strategy game is playable, but worse, with a gamepad. PC-style RPGs and management sims work exactly the same way.
With some genres, it depends on how your game is designed. Adventure games can go either way... from a 'this would be impossible on consoles' text-based, or text-input-with-graphics (and cursor movement) game all the way to a 'this would be very clumsy on keyboard' title like Grim Fandango, that genre works well both ways as long as the game was designed from the ground up for that kind of input.
As for genres better on consoles, most are made to play well on the PC simply by making them work best with gamepads -- see arcadish racing games, action games, action flight sims, platformers, etc. And once you spend a small sum on a decent gamepad it's almost as good as playing a similar game on a console. This flexibility is a great strength of PCs.
However, even without that there are many types of games you can do with a keyboard and mouse. Fewer than you can do well on consoles? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's not a clearcut issue as you make it seem... there are a bunch of genres that are great on PC and so-so to bad on consoles and a bunch of genres great on consoles and so-so to bad on PCs and I am very far from convinced that either one of those facts is significantly stronger than the other.
If the Japanese played PC games we well might see that. As it is they don't, so most PC games are American. And American designers do much more with putting their innovation into games in existing genres or concepts than they do with going off with random weird ideas... not to mention the fact that PC games sell worse, and the market has far more "average Americans who otherwise don't play games", and thus more games aimed at casual gamers sell... and fewer niche titles aimed at fans of playing weird games.
They (both PC and console publishers) would say that you paint a deceptive picture. For every such success several games fail. This makes them justafiably cautious. Does this annoy gamers? Yes, of course! But they don't care about that, or about releasing the best quality games, they care about sales and profits... and too often they are too cautious.
Your second point is absolutely correct. They talk about innovation and then often we don't get some of their most innovative titles... and it's not like we get extra titles instead! Nope, we just get left out. And it's incredibly stupid... sometimes for no apparent reason either -- tell me even one reason why Kurukuru Kururin (two GBA games and a GC game, none made it here) wouldn't sell in the US! Magical Vacation? Aren't RPGs popular? Same with EarthBound... that big, fervent community is irrelevant? Or Giftpia... and I'm not holding out much hope for the upcoming Homeworld (totally different game from the PC 3d space-based RTS... :) (which was an innovative game in its time, by the way))...
As I've said so many times before, I just disagree with that whole premise. Simplicity is fine for some games, but complexity for the sake of making a game more detailed, immersive, and, well, complex is NOT a bad thing! I guess it's just a philisophical difference between PC and console gamers, but it's my opinion as well as the opinion of most hardcore PC gamers. And it doesn't lead to creative destruction and needless depth... yes, lots of PC games are very complex, especially in genres like wargaming and military vehicular simulations. And I do not play some of those games because I'm not used to them and they're too complex to make me want to learn. But do I think that they should all dumb down to make me happy? Of course I don't! I admire them, as long as they're well done, for being complex! That should be a goal of some games and console games just don't try for serious gameplay depth nearly as often as PC games do. You call this a good thing, I call it sometimes a problem... I guess it's a matter of opinion (though of course I think I'm more right. :)).
Of course, complexity that is implemented poorly, or with flaws, like the controls in Mario 64 DS, isn't a good thing. But equally complex controls in a game where such controls really add to the game? Great idea! That's what I mean by complexity can definitely be good... okay, so we have different ideas of what is good here, but all that really matters for each person is their own personal opinion on it, so that shouldn't matter on the greater issue.
Yeah, as I said consoles are very close. I'd just give PCs the edge (to those I could say 'Empire to Civilization III, Dune II to Warcraft III, Wizardry to Baldur's Gate II, Adventure to Curse of Monkey Island'...). But an arguement the other way could be made, yes.
As I thought I made clear, PC game innovation doesn't have that 'totally weird game unlike anything' factor very often. It has innovative features in games in established genres, or innovative games that use new technology to make new gameplay experiences -- Wolfenstein 3D, Dune II, Homeworld, Netstorm, Perimeter, System Shock perhaps, Ultima Underworld perhaps, Baldur's Gate (you can't say that that game wasn't innovative when it came out.), Descent perhaps... Theif? Meridian 59? Other early online games? Empire... SimCity... MechWarrior II... Civilization? I could list a lot more games.
That list is kind of strange... most of those are not games I woud say created subgenres. Definitely not. It is a list of games that had innovative elements, certainly. I'm sure that if I thought about it I could do that for strategy games... though I'd have to split it up because the strategy genre is really several genres tied together... or for management/building sims (SimCity, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc)... RPGs? Probably. I see your point... that you are saying that console genres are just as broad. It probably is true that on both platforms most games copy what has come before while possibly adding a few new elements while a few games really change a lot. And that as this continues genres get broader. But still... I will hold to my position that the PC strategy genre is the broadest on any platform. Sure, there might be more titles released in a genre like console platformers, but most of those have absolutely no innovations (especially the 2d ones)... PC strategy games are also numerous and probably have more average change between titles, if just because of how they are more complex games so there are more details to change. 'Any two console genres' is probably an exaggeration, but I would say that the PC strategy genre is the deepest and broadest genre on any platform.
On the subject of RPGs, the question of if PC or console RPGs have more variety or depth is a good one. PC RPGs have a longer history, so there's more ground to build on, and console RPGs were originally inspired by early PC ones (as well as pen & paper games)... but from that point both genres have developed greatly. I'd be tempted to give it to PC games because they have more different types of basic game designs while console RPGs seem to have one main way of doing them, but there are enough console RPGs that don't follow the same formula that that genre has a good amount of variety as well...
Deus Ex was somewhat innovative for its genre. For first-person innovation, though, I'd rather look at Looking Glass than Ion Storm (which, of course, is now dead, as of a few days ago, but had a lot of Looking Glass survivors in the company, including Warren Spector I believe...) -- Theif, System Shock, Ultima Underworld... Looking Glass's death was very sad. Ion Storm's was as well, but they never quite reached LG's level so it wasn't quite as bad.
Remember that people who own consoles want to play games while plenty of PC game buyers are people who have PCs who happen to buy a game every once in a long while. And that the PC gaming market is smaller to begin with. This means that weird, unique titles have a much smaller market on the PC than they do on consoles, and more titles that are designed for the mass market (beyond just regular game buyers) will show up on the PC sales lists. If you looked only at hardcore gamer sales (if that was possible) I'm sure the list would look quite different.
Quote: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.
I know how to spell most words, and analog and analogy are among them.
The words I spell wrong I seem to consistently have problems with, but most words I spell just fine.
Quote: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!
First, you aren't talking about new subgenres with that list. You're talking about games which are not just purely rehashes of what we've seen before... but I wouldn't say that all of those are in different subgenres. Sonic did not create a new subgenre of platformers, for instance. It had innovations, but didn't found a whole new category... same with SMB 3 -- lots of originality and innovations, but not a new subgenre. Anyway, I said all three, but I primarially think of strategy games as the broadest genre around. Sims might not match that... RPGs? Perhaps, but less than strategy games.
Counter? Making a list of every game that added any kind of innovation into its genre (even if you don't act stupid and then say that every such game created a new subgenre) is pointless. I certainly could make a list that long with strategy games, though, and likely also RPGs, if the standard is as low as yours appears to be... but is it really worth the time?
Quote: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.
That doesn't matter that much though... or at least, sales matter equally. And in sales RTSes are a very close second. The difference is just that the big RTSes sell for longer, and their expansions seem to stay on the lists longer as well. But saying that because the FPS genre has more titles it is vastly more important than the RTS genre, which is pretty close in sales, is just silly! And that becomes even more absurd if you include the rest of the strategy genre (lower sales, but many varieties).
Quote: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.
Missing many genres for the PC side, misleading, and wrong.
First, genres common on PC (that are better with keyboard/mouse as done on PC). Strategy, building/management simulations, RPGs, adventure games (both graphic adventures and interactive fiction, which are quite alive in freeware circles), wargames (one of the oldest PC genres and still around in online distribution), FPSes... there is one common genre that is different, however -- car, airplane, tank, boat, etc... simulations. These are best with either joysticks (not gamepads!) or wheels. That requirement, along with their typically high system requirements and steep difficulty curves to get into demanding, complex games, limits their commercial success... but it's a very important group of genres (racing games, mech/space combat sims, and realistic flight/tank sims probably are not in the same genre) in the history of PC gaming.
That brings up the issue of peripherals. Both PCs and consoles have them. As it relates consoles come up with lots of new ones while PCs generally just have the same ones as ever (joysticks, gamepads, steering wheels)... but PCs have built in a lot of things add-ons do, or have no good way of doing such things (like connectivity to use a small screen as a controller)... and there's already a mouse so no need for a keypad or touchscreen or something... and the fact that PC gaming companies are not desperately trying to invent new ways of playing games like Nintendo is. :)
Anyway... if you want games unplayable on consoles, you should add those flight/mech/etc. sims to the list. The realistic ones, anyway... okay, one exception: Steel Battalion. But other than that nothing can compare. Such games NEED lots of buttons. Gamepads only have enough for more action-oriented games, not truly in-depth sims. And gamepad joysticks are pitiful and small and not nearly adaquate for a good flight sim... but even if there was a joystick on consoles, you wouldn't have the keyboard (or throttle controller, for serious flight control systems) to go with it for the dozens of other necessary keys.
The other genres? Management/building sims technically CAN be done on consoles, but the results are a pale imitation. It simply does not work as well. Strategy games and these sims have similar controls so it's not surprising that they translate to consoles similarly poorly... like Civilization, The Sims will never be a great console game. Strategy games designed just for consoles? Sure, they can be fun, like Shining Force or Fire Emblem. But even those games would be better with mouse. Just like how a platformer is playable, but worse, with a keyboard, a strategy game is playable, but worse, with a gamepad. PC-style RPGs and management sims work exactly the same way.
With some genres, it depends on how your game is designed. Adventure games can go either way... from a 'this would be impossible on consoles' text-based, or text-input-with-graphics (and cursor movement) game all the way to a 'this would be very clumsy on keyboard' title like Grim Fandango, that genre works well both ways as long as the game was designed from the ground up for that kind of input.
As for genres better on consoles, most are made to play well on the PC simply by making them work best with gamepads -- see arcadish racing games, action games, action flight sims, platformers, etc. And once you spend a small sum on a decent gamepad it's almost as good as playing a similar game on a console. This flexibility is a great strength of PCs.
However, even without that there are many types of games you can do with a keyboard and mouse. Fewer than you can do well on consoles? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's not a clearcut issue as you make it seem... there are a bunch of genres that are great on PC and so-so to bad on consoles and a bunch of genres great on consoles and so-so to bad on PCs and I am very far from convinced that either one of those facts is significantly stronger than the other.
Quote:Really, like what? Name some PC games as unique as Damashii that sold even half as well.
If the Japanese played PC games we well might see that. As it is they don't, so most PC games are American. And American designers do much more with putting their innovation into games in existing genres or concepts than they do with going off with random weird ideas... not to mention the fact that PC games sell worse, and the market has far more "average Americans who otherwise don't play games", and thus more games aimed at casual gamers sell... and fewer niche titles aimed at fans of playing weird games.
Quote: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.
They (both PC and console publishers) would say that you paint a deceptive picture. For every such success several games fail. This makes them justafiably cautious. Does this annoy gamers? Yes, of course! But they don't care about that, or about releasing the best quality games, they care about sales and profits... and too often they are too cautious.
Your second point is absolutely correct. They talk about innovation and then often we don't get some of their most innovative titles... and it's not like we get extra titles instead! Nope, we just get left out. And it's incredibly stupid... sometimes for no apparent reason either -- tell me even one reason why Kurukuru Kururin (two GBA games and a GC game, none made it here) wouldn't sell in the US! Magical Vacation? Aren't RPGs popular? Same with EarthBound... that big, fervent community is irrelevant? Or Giftpia... and I'm not holding out much hope for the upcoming Homeworld (totally different game from the PC 3d space-based RTS... :) (which was an innovative game in its time, by the way))...
Quote: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.
As I've said so many times before, I just disagree with that whole premise. Simplicity is fine for some games, but complexity for the sake of making a game more detailed, immersive, and, well, complex is NOT a bad thing! I guess it's just a philisophical difference between PC and console gamers, but it's my opinion as well as the opinion of most hardcore PC gamers. And it doesn't lead to creative destruction and needless depth... yes, lots of PC games are very complex, especially in genres like wargaming and military vehicular simulations. And I do not play some of those games because I'm not used to them and they're too complex to make me want to learn. But do I think that they should all dumb down to make me happy? Of course I don't! I admire them, as long as they're well done, for being complex! That should be a goal of some games and console games just don't try for serious gameplay depth nearly as often as PC games do. You call this a good thing, I call it sometimes a problem... I guess it's a matter of opinion (though of course I think I'm more right. :)).
Of course, complexity that is implemented poorly, or with flaws, like the controls in Mario 64 DS, isn't a good thing. But equally complex controls in a game where such controls really add to the game? Great idea! That's what I mean by complexity can definitely be good... okay, so we have different ideas of what is good here, but all that really matters for each person is their own personal opinion on it, so that shouldn't matter on the greater issue.
Quote: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.
Yeah, as I said consoles are very close. I'd just give PCs the edge (to those I could say 'Empire to Civilization III, Dune II to Warcraft III, Wizardry to Baldur's Gate II, Adventure to Curse of Monkey Island'...). But an arguement the other way could be made, yes.
Quote:Please, name me some titles as original or innovative as the ones I have listed.
As I thought I made clear, PC game innovation doesn't have that 'totally weird game unlike anything' factor very often. It has innovative features in games in established genres, or innovative games that use new technology to make new gameplay experiences -- Wolfenstein 3D, Dune II, Homeworld, Netstorm, Perimeter, System Shock perhaps, Ultima Underworld perhaps, Baldur's Gate (you can't say that that game wasn't innovative when it came out.), Descent perhaps... Theif? Meridian 59? Other early online games? Empire... SimCity... MechWarrior II... Civilization? I could list a lot more games.
Quote: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!
That list is kind of strange... most of those are not games I woud say created subgenres. Definitely not. It is a list of games that had innovative elements, certainly. I'm sure that if I thought about it I could do that for strategy games... though I'd have to split it up because the strategy genre is really several genres tied together... or for management/building sims (SimCity, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc)... RPGs? Probably. I see your point... that you are saying that console genres are just as broad. It probably is true that on both platforms most games copy what has come before while possibly adding a few new elements while a few games really change a lot. And that as this continues genres get broader. But still... I will hold to my position that the PC strategy genre is the broadest on any platform. Sure, there might be more titles released in a genre like console platformers, but most of those have absolutely no innovations (especially the 2d ones)... PC strategy games are also numerous and probably have more average change between titles, if just because of how they are more complex games so there are more details to change. 'Any two console genres' is probably an exaggeration, but I would say that the PC strategy genre is the deepest and broadest genre on any platform.
On the subject of RPGs, the question of if PC or console RPGs have more variety or depth is a good one. PC RPGs have a longer history, so there's more ground to build on, and console RPGs were originally inspired by early PC ones (as well as pen & paper games)... but from that point both genres have developed greatly. I'd be tempted to give it to PC games because they have more different types of basic game designs while console RPGs seem to have one main way of doing them, but there are enough console RPGs that don't follow the same formula that that genre has a good amount of variety as well...
Quote: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.
Deus Ex was somewhat innovative for its genre. For first-person innovation, though, I'd rather look at Looking Glass than Ion Storm (which, of course, is now dead, as of a few days ago, but had a lot of Looking Glass survivors in the company, including Warren Spector I believe...) -- Theif, System Shock, Ultima Underworld... Looking Glass's death was very sad. Ion Storm's was as well, but they never quite reached LG's level so it wasn't quite as bad.
Quote:There are usually better games on the console charts than the PC ones. Definitely.
Remember that people who own consoles want to play games while plenty of PC game buyers are people who have PCs who happen to buy a game every once in a long while. And that the PC gaming market is smaller to begin with. This means that weird, unique titles have a much smaller market on the PC than they do on consoles, and more titles that are designed for the mass market (beyond just regular game buyers) will show up on the PC sales lists. If you looked only at hardcore gamer sales (if that was possible) I'm sure the list would look quite different.