13th February 2005, 12:31 AM
Quote:A computer game is a computer game. It was a game that was played on a computer with a keyboard, etc. You're just arguing about irrelevant semantics...
And those other examples are almost as good.
Then all video games are computer games, since every console is technically a computer.
Ancient super computers don't count!
Quote:OB1, you said clearly that you were listing subgenres of platform games. Each one got a new title -- "racing-platformer", etc. You essentially said that each of those games had created a new subgenre (or category, or whatever you want to call it) of platformers... seemed pretty clear that that was your message... and my response was that many of those titles did not indeed create new subgenres. A few did, as I said, but not all of them for sure. Now you're saying that those were just examples of innovation within genres? Huh? But you clearly said that you were making a list of games that were innovative and took the subgenres of the genre in what you said were new directions!
So how about insulting me again you actually address the games that I MENTIONED (SMBI, SMBIII, Sonic...), instead of attacking me for supposed slights against games I haven't played and was not directly talking about... I keep trying to get you to but you'd rather attack me for things I haven't said.
SMBI: "The platformer that all sidescrollers are based off". Is this really enough to call this a whole new subgenre? I'm skeptical.
SMBIII:
Donkey Kong: "platformer-puzzler" -- was the original DK really so much a puzzler? And was it innovative enough to create new subgenres of gaming? It was surely a big step up, and definitely did many new things, but like SMB but I'd put high standards on the statement of the creation of a new subgenre...
SMBIII ("I don't need to count the innovations there, do I?") was a super version of SMB, really. Innovative? Uh... it added a lot of new things, was an awesome game, ect, but it was squarely in the SMB mold...
Sonic ("racing-platformer")? Same deal really, except that I would not call it a racing game. It just added a lot more speed to the platformer, not racing game elements.
Well I mentioned actual sub genre titles (R&C, Sly Cooper, Mario Bros., Donkey Kong [I should have stated GB version]) and then kind of went off on a tangent with simply innovative titles (Yoshi's Island, Sonic, Mario III).
Quote:I know a lot about platformers and have played a great many of them. I just haven't played any on Playstation (the only exceptions would be a few which also came out on PC and I played the demos of -- Pandemonium, Bugs Bunny - Lost in Time, etc), and none on PS2. This isn't really my fault and you can't blame me for it. I'm sure I've played far more older PC platformers than you have and I don't yell at you for not having as much experience with that genre of games. (And here you can't say that I'm talking about things I know nothing about because I have not said things based on games I haven't played! Everything I've said in this thread has been based on titles I HAVE played! Nothing based on Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, etc... why would I? I haven't played them!)
That's precisely my point: you don't have nearly enough experience to actually debate this. Especially since most of the platformer sub genre creations in the past six years has been seen on consoles you've never owned.
Quote: Given some of your earlier responses in the post I'm replying to, you're confused too...
Well okay.
Quote:As for your 'point' here, maybe you don't have to address each and every game, but addressing one of the games I mentioned, as opposed to one I didn't say one word about or refer to specifically in any way (the only thing you could see as relating to R&C2 would be the general statement that most platformers aren't that innovative -- which is true, by the way -- and I said that some games are exceptions! So of course some game I haven't played could be one!), might have been advisable. :)
Like what? I've already addressed R&C, Sly Cooper, and Donkey Kong [GB and GBA versions]. If you'd like I could name a whole bunch of other platformers that created new sub genres. Jak II ("GTA" platformer), Metroid (shooter/adventure platformer), and Viewtiful Joe (didn't I also mention this one? it's the fighter platformer).
Quote: I'm too lazy to go looking for charts with the American sales of unique Japanese console games... but I know it happens, for sure... and you know it too. Good games, American or Japanese, often don't sell as well as they should.
I honestly can't think of too many good, original, "risky" Japanese games that sold poorly here.
Quote:You only think this because you want it to be true, not because the lists actually bear out your theory. Here, I'll prove it. (again listed oldest to newest)
Week ending July 10, 2004.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/532/532687p1.html?fromint=1
RTS: 2, 3, 6.
FPS: 7, 8, 9, 10.
Week ending June 3, 2004.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/530/530063p1.html
RTS: 3, 4.
FPS: 2, 5, 7, 8.
Year of 2003
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_040126a.htm
RTSes: positions 3, 4, & 9.
FPSes: positions 8 & 10.
Month of February, 2003.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/390/390054p1.html
RTS: 1, 8 (really a 4X game, but it is real-time), 15, 16, 17.
FPS: 2, 4, 9, 10 (Splinter Cell, so it's not really a FPS), 13.
Month of December, 2002.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/383/383478p1.html
RTS: 7, 10.
FPS: 11, 14.
First one of these with FPSes having a higher average position.
Week in January, 1999 (10th to 16th)
http://pc.ign.com/articles/066/066660p1.html
RTS: pos. 1, 7.
FPS: pos. 4.
Year of '98.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/066/066602p1.html
RTS: 1, 10.
FPS: 14, 16.
Hmm... looking at it, I made a few mistakes when I totalled the games before. There are indeed 20 FPSes listed, but there are 19 RTSes -- not 16. Oops... (also, I listed February 2003's list as 'February 2004')
However, that just strengthens my case. There is indeed parity between the two genres. In seven lists, sometimes one genre looks stronger and sometimes the other does, looking at both chart position and total number or games in the genre in the list, but neither one makes a clear case to be dominant. Which is really what I should have expected to see here. But it does a pretty good job of disproving your theory that the FPSes consistently place higher, making up for the about-parity in total number of chart positions.
Those charts are all over the place. Specific months in different years? Why not show all months and all years?
And you made a bunch of mistakes, not counting those ever-popular hunting FPSs.
Quote:That had to do with the fact that I wrote a long segement of the post, about several issues, and you focused your entire reply one one facet of my writing while not discussing the rest of it at all. That's what you did, plain and simple. Okay, the 'you ignored 80% of it in your reply' is exaggeration, but only a couple of paragraphs of that reply were on the subject of PC games that use accessories... the rest of it was not. And yet you didn't discuss the rest of it at all.
What on earth are you referring to? Really man, would it hurt to make some sense every once in a while?
Quote:This is a console forum. Not a PC forum. Hardcore console gamers are not necessarially hardcore PC gamers. Most regulars on this forum are hardcore CONSOLE gamers.
Not hardcore PC gamers. There are only a few of those here.
And as far as I know they mostly like to play strategy games and RPGs on the PC. :) (though I'm not sure if ASM, DJ, or Smoke have a gamepad or a joystick)
All of those people who wanted to play my game are PC gamers.
Quote: I did address that in the very thing you reply to.
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt1" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Your problem seems to be that you want to make console-style games and they are less popular on the PC than PC-style games are... so you get bitter about the whole PC industry for some reason. It's not right. I will never agree that PC games and the PC industry are, as you say, far less original and 'stuck with old ideas' than console games are. Sure, PC games don't generate new genres and stuff as often. But they add on stuff to existing genres all the time and that results in a great variety of titles! I know, your arguement is (or should be; I'll ignore the part earlier here where you seem to say something else) that consoles are equal on this matter. I'd like to think PCs are ahead. They're certainly not behind, anyway. Originality shows different ways in different games. Games don't necessarially have to be a totally unique gameplay experience and create new genres or subgenres to be original and innovative in some respects... and most of the time that's all that is really needed. (Of course, sometimes totally unique games are great, and it's nice that some people make them. But the point is that to be admirably unique games don't necessarially have to be a gameplay idea as different from everything else as, say, Wario Ware. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
That arguement is on pretty much the same issue... slightly different, but it's closely related I think. As I've been trying to show, the keyboard and mouse allows for a wide variety of games. A bunch of genres, all allowing for lots of innovation and originality as well as for just plain great games built on familiar formulas. I think I've shown that. You want to make games and have to make PC games... but you want to make console-style games. So you are frusterated by the attitudes of PC gamers that tend to promote games and themes that are more traditionally PC titles while denigrating (sometimes unfairly) console-styled games. Is this fair? Somewhat yes, somewhat no. There definitely are markets within hardcore PC gaming for console-style titles... at least in the 'online freeware distribution' market... (:D) if those people can find the game. It's certainly not as big as markets on consoles for such games, or markets on PC for the kinds of games that are now popular at retail, but it DOES exist in some fashion, I would say... though I have no idea of how many people actually own gamepads for PC.
Anyway, I think I've shown over and over that there's no validity to your claims that keyboard and mouse greatly limits you and keeps people from doing any forms of innovation or new thinking in game design. As much as it limits for some applications keyboards open doors for others... you should not take this personal irritation you have of the percieved dislike of PC gamers for games like the ones you want to make and translate it into hate of the themes that make PC games what they are, such as designing controls for keyboard and mouse! It leads you down false paths.
First of all, that was not a direct reply to my post. It only indirectly had to do with what I said. Secondly, you are sorely misinformed. Ask any decent PC/console developer which platform they would rather develop for if money was out of the equation, and just about all of them would say console. I've talked to many people in the industry about this very topic, as well as students from major game design schools, and they all agree with me. The keyboard and mouse was not meant for playing games and that is very evident in the fact that there are so few genres dominant on the PC. In the PC world, the controls come first. All game design has to work around the control setup. I'm sorry to burst your PC-fanboy bubble, but that results in very limited game design. On the other hand, with consoles, the controls are actually designed around the gameplay. There are new controller standards each gen, and that is because of the ever-evolving gameplay ideas that console developers have. Nintendo is the foremost innovator in the entire gaming world, and their controllers have all been designed around gameplay ideas. That is how it should work, not the other way around. This is very simple logic that cannot be denied, no matter how much of a stubborn fanboy you are. PC developers are very limited by what they can do with the kb&m, that is a fact. You know nothing about this, Brian. You really, truly don't.
Quote: It seemed like Rayman 2 and Rayman 3 each used most of the buttons on the gamepad, though... about the only thing they have is the camera (and they both do have movable cameras in some situations...) Rayman 1 would probably be playable on keyboard, by virtue of its simple controls and 2d nature, but the other two? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun...
I'd probably equate it to playing Grim Fandango on keyboard: You could do it, but it'd stink.
This coming from the person that defended BG&E's PC controls! HA!
Quote: Kind of true, kind of not, as I've said before.
Finally an honest statement that truly reflects your opinions.