13th February 2005, 10:55 AM
Quote: Those weren't the OLDEST computers... they were early, but the kind you'd find on large college campuses. Which is why people at colleges were the first ones to create computer games. :)You're insane. We're talking about PC games here. Do you know what PC stands for? PERSONAL computer! Giant computers that had to have entire rooms to themselves in research labs and colleges are NOT personal computers!
Consoles are computers too? Of course they are inside. We base the difference based on what we play the game with, where we play it, and what we watch it on. Those early machines are computers by all those counts, just like Pong is a videogame.
Quote:As I said when I first posted these lists, this is all I could find. I remember in PC Gamer seeing sales charts monthly from PC Data, but since NPD bought them several years back the regularity of the charts seems to have dropped off... I'm sure I could find a bunch of charts going up until 1999 or so, but you've already said that you want recent stuff and there just don't seem to be many recent game sales chart lists available. So this is what we've got.So they don't count because they are "casual games"? Ok, but then you have to discount certain strategy games which sell well to the hardcore but especially the casuals. You have no idea how many people I know that have never touched a video game before but buy each new edition of The Sims and every single Microsoft RTS that gets released.
And yes, it is patchy... but they are essentially random. I don't see how I could say that the rest of the time would be dramatically different... we've got the years of 1998 and 2003, a month in 2003, a month in 2002, two weeks in 2004, and a week in 1999... it's not a perfect sample but it should be good enough to get the basic themes of game sales. You only contest it because you don't want to admit that what is there is there.
As for the hunting games... nice try. Really. But how about I use your words against you?
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt1" style="border: 1px inset ;"> That was 1998. 2004 is not 1998. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
(What you said when I said that one of the first lists I posted was indeed an annual list -- 1998.)
And that is relevant because there are no hunting games in any of the lists from 2002, 2003, or 2004. There are three hunting games in the 1999 week list and four in the 1998 overall list, if you wanted to know their total. But the fact that none of them appear in any of the other five lists from the last three years should suggest that their popularity has faded... they still exist, but in smaller numbers and clearly with smaller sales.
And calling them FPSes, while technically true, is also humorous because they are CASUAL games. Yes, they are first-person games where you shoot things, but they are solely for causal gamers. And you have made a MAJOR point of not discussing casual PC games much.
The reason I would rather leave them out, though, is simply because of how awful they are and how I'd rather expunge the bad memories of how popular that garbage was for a couple of years. :D
But if you REALLY want add "Hunting FPS: 3" to the 1999-week list and "Hunting-FPS: 4 to the 1998-year lists I had in that post.
It's silly, though, and is mostly a somewhat desperate attempt by you to save a point you've made so strongly but which just does not hold water.
Quote: Ah... that makes more sense then (see what I meant by both of us being confused? :)). Yeah, Donkey Kong for GB is a decent candidate for new subcategory... not definitely, because it was released in 1994 and I am CERTAIN that there were platformers released before that that had strong puzzle elements, but at some point that subgenre was created and Donkey Kong '94 is one of the best examples of such a game. Which one actually created the subgenre, however, I'm not sure.Have you ever actually played Pitfall before? You do jump, yes, and you do run from left to right, but SMB is so different from that in every way that calling it anything but revolutionary is a huge mistake. It's the most revolutionary game since Pong, pretty much.
Mario Bros.? I know it was utterly essential for the continuation of video gaming, but was it actually revolutionary or was it just evolutionary? I'd probably tend towards the latter... though perhaps the former is true. I'd need proof though.
As I said, Sonic, Mario III, etc (Yoshi's Island too? I've played it... yeah, I guess it's not a new subgenre because it does play a lot like past games in the genre. It probably is more different than Mario III or Sonic, however.) don't qualify. Nice to see that you agree.
Quote:
Quote:It's not very smart to say that someone who has played a lot of games doesn't have the experience to discuss one of the genres they have played most because of not playing two or three titles. It just makes no sense at all.Try two or three dozen titles, buddy.
Quote:Metroid, yes. Viewtiful Joe as a fighter/platformer... perhaps, I don't know. Going back all the way there have certainly been lots of side-scrolling games with some jumping along with lots of hitting people, however... I'd be more inclined to call Viewtiful Joe an evolution of sidescrolling beat-em-ups and action-platformers than a true new subgenre. The Speedup/Slowdown superpowers are indeed new in the category, but I don't think that's enough to call it a full new subgenre when it's a kind of game that has a long, long history. (Oh, and you hadn't mentioned VJ before, I think) VJ's contribution to that genre seems more like what Rocket did for 3d platformers, having adding something (in that case the realistic physics engine) in a classicly styled title...Yes there have been platformer/fighters in the past (created by Treasure, most likely), but VJ is one such example that you might be familiar with. That is definitely a separate sub genre.
Quote:It probably depends on how you define "good" sales... selling most of a limited shipment where it probably wouldn't have sold great if it had gotten a huge release? That happened all the time with such games.I can't think of a single example that would fit that description.
Quote:But as I said, how many of them have played many action, platform, racing, etc. games on PC? People who do are probably a minority of PC gamers when compared to ones who play mostly strategy, PC RPG, or building or management sims... And as I said I wouldn't say many people at TC are very big PC gamers.Only hardcore flight sim fans have gaming peripherals, along with the odd person who wants to play Rayman 2 on his computer for whatever reason. YOU are the exception, ABF. These guys at Tendo City are the rule.
Quote: BG&E is like Grim Fandango: playable but less fun on keyboard. :)The game could never work with a kb&m.
The game is better once I use gamepad emulation (the Saitek software) to map the keys to my gamepad... it's not as good as real gamepad controls (I just have to play Rayman III to prove that), but it's better than the clumsy usage of keyboard and mouse the game uses... it COULD have worked fine on keyboard and mouse, if they had bothered to convert the control scheme to a PC one, but they didn't. They were lazy and just button-mapped without letting you use gamepads. So yes, in that case the controls as implemented had problems... but the game potentially could have not had as large problems as it had even if it hadn't had gamepad controls enabled (though of course it should have) if they hadn't been as lazy.
Quote: I was tired of spending paragraphs to say that with a lot of detail, so I didn't... but it really is true.Yes I know it's true.
Quote: It wasn't a direct reply to what you said but a reply to what I took your statement to mean...That doesn't make any sense.
Quote: It wasn't a direct reply to what you said but a reply to what I took your statement to mean...I absolutely mean it when I say that you have NO idea whatsoever about this subject. Your logic is flawed, you have very few true facts, and your bias blinds your every move.
We've argued about this before. Nothing is different this time. You are still incorrect about so many of those assumptions... that I know nothing, that I have no clue about what I'm talking about, that I'd make no sense even if you did listen to me, etc, etc... but sadly I don't think that you're suddenly going to start listening to me now when you haven't before.
You just are not correct about your "simple logic" that is the basis of your arguement! Yes, on every platform the game needs to be shaped to fit the available controls. Of course. I said so too. Where you go wrong is when you go from there to say that the keyboard and mouse doesn't allow for a great variety of gameplay experiences. This is simply not true! So keyboard and mouse only allow for a very limited number of gameplay design choices? As I've said before I don't see why you can't understand that that arguement can equally be made for consoles.
(presents such an arguement as a point of discussion) You see, gamepads are greatly limited in what they can do. 1)When you are holding a gamepad both hands must be holding the pad. You cannot have one hand free to control another control device. 2)Gamepads are extremely, extremely limited in terms of buttons. They have a small number of them and you must squeeze your controls onto them... very inconvenient and often problematic as it forces you to either reduce your function set and inconvenience the player or make the game a pain to play (forcing you to use menus to access commands, button combonations, etc). This is detrimental to many kinds of games and makes some of those types almost impossible to play. 3) Gamepad controls almost forces direct control of game objects. Indirect controls (cursors) are very clumsy to use with a gamepad and are barely acceptable at best. The same goes for navigating menus with arrow keys and buttons. (especially when compared to PC games that both have mouse control to click the buttons and keyboard hotkeys for each important button!)
See what I mean? Yes, the control schemes are different. But gamepads are not better for all uses or game types and there are lot of kinds of games that do not benefit for being on them. Others do, of course, which is why they use them. But your continued assertions that gamepads are essentially always better and keyboards always worse is FALSE. Always has been and will continue to be. You could try to say something that has a chance at validity like 'more genres are better with gamepads than are better with keyboards', (a definitely debatable question) of course, but you don't, really...
The one such arguement that you do make is that console controllers, by virtue of their constant changes, lead to more innovation than appears on the PC with its mostly static control systems. I don't know how accurate that is for each market as a whole. There are a few points in the console market where a true dramatic change was noticed -- the NES introducing crosspads as opposed to mini-joysticks and the N64 with its analog stick, primarially -- but, say, from N64 to Gamecube? I don't think that that controller change really greatly affected the development of games on the system. Oh, Nintendo stated over and over that the GC controller was different and unique and would lead to different kinds of games, but was that followed up? Not really. The GC didn't do things appreciably differenly from other consoles. The face-button-size thing only changed how you play a little and you quickly get used to it and adjust. It's not a sea change in gameplay. The shoulder buttons are an even more extreme case... remember how the analog-clicks were going to be big? And what, four games have actually used them? :)
Anyway, as far as console controllers go we're at a plateau. They're dual-analog pads that look pretty similar. Now, Nintendo is saying that the Revolution will be totally different in this. Will it? Perhaps. But a better question is SHOULD it. Will third parties strongly support the Revolution if it has some totally weird controller that makes it very hard to bring games over to the console? Or will we just see games on PS3 and Xbox Next and not Revolution because those consoles are much more conventional and will certainly continue that 'Dual Shock Copy' theme of controller design (that is, the marriage of the SNES and N64 controllers. :))... it's too early to say. But it's a good question.
As for the PC, there have admittedly been fewer changes. There was the keyboard. then there was the keyboard and two-button mouse. Now the standard is keyboard (same as ever, complete with the most useless key of all time: 'Scroll Lock'.) and three-button wheel mouse. Next perhaps we'll see the spreading of those wheel mice that also tilt left and right... it's not as much as the addition of the analog stick to consoles, but it is SOMETHING and it has enhanced the PC gaming field in ways that help PC games: easy scrolling of dialogue boxes, quick weapon switching, perhaps looking up and down, etc.
If I had to guess, I'd say that your core complaints are that (1) the PC doesn't work as well with a lot of forms of direct character control (first-person or third-person-but-it-controls-like-first-person) while gamepads are perfectly suited for such controls and (2) that keyboard/mouse leads to more keys being used in the control scheme, which leads to unnecessary complexity and confusion. The first of those is true. The second, I agree with less but is sometimes an issue. But my assertion is that not all games are best with direct character control. And sometimes complexity is good. Both of these issues, I'd say, are matters of opinion. That is, if you prefer simpler controls and direct control, play console games; if you like more complex controls and either first-person or indirect controls, play PC games. Neither system is inherently better for every, or most, situations.
And aren't balance and judging things equally traits that you often claim to try to apply?
There are VERY few genres on the PC. VERY few. I don't care what you have to say about 'OH but there are ten bajkillion sub genbres OMG!!1111", the fact remains that there are VERY few kb&m genres on the PC. Like THREE of them. And WHY is that, again? That's right, because of the severly limiting control setup! Yay! Everyone clap for ABF!
Let me list some types of games that cannot be done WELL on the kb&m:
-Platformers
-Racing games
-Fighting games
-The music game (i.e. DDR)
-Action games that do NOT control just like a FPS (i.e. Mark of Kri, DMC)
-Adventure games that do NOT control just like a FPS (i.e. ICO, Zelda)
-Any type of game that reguires three-dimensional movement and separate behind-the-character camera control (that includes some of the above examples, as well as a game like Pikmin which requires analog movement for the characters as well as for the camera/selector thingy, or a game like Zone of the Enders)
-Any type of game that requires the use of two analog sticks (like Katamari Damashii, for one)
Those last four examples cover dozens of different genres alone, just so you know. That's a pretty big fucking list considering how many games are included there. And I'm sure I've forgotten some stuff.
Now in order for my point to have a real effect, I'm going to have to list the types of PC games that don't work well with standard console controllers:
-.....
Hmm... There's got to be something. Why can't I think of anything?
Oh wait, strategy games! Right? Wait, no... stuff like Starcraft won't work as well on a gamepad as a kb&m, but it's still perfectly fine. And as Nintendo has shown with the likes of Pikmin and Advance Wars, making console-specific strategy games works extremely well. But we're talking about PC strategy games. So yeah, while they don't work as well as they do on the PC, they work JUST FINE on a console. So what other genres are there? Honestly I can't think of any. There should be at least one type of game, right? Come on, help me out here!
Fight this as much as you want, but it should be very clear to you just how much more versatile the modern gamepad is than the kb&m. One little PC fanboy from Maine does not know more about this than an entire school full of game designers and aspiring game designers. SORRY.
And about the evolution of console controller, you should not go from the N64 to the GC controller. Since the NES it goes NES --> SNES --> N64 --> Dual Shock. Basically. Whether or not the next gen will offer another great leap has yet to be seen. I'm praying that it will, and I believe that it's completely up to Nintendo.