Anyone else thinks that console games are a hindrance to game development?

[Kudryavka]

Originally Posted by Gin

How can consoles be hindering gaming when they're the only reason gaming is still around? The video game industry would have died a long time ago if PC games were the only things around.

Has anyone brought up the Wii yet? Seems pretty innovative to me.

Ah yes, the Wii, a perfect tactic for Nintendo to rake in hoards of new gamers. Console gaming is definitely helping the industry, especially since casual gamers most likely aren't deep into computers and "OMG I got a sexy new yet expensive gaming computer/ upgrade!" stuff. With things like the Wii and PS3's new Move thing, games have never looked so innocent and appealing to those outside of games' traditional demographics. Nintendo should have a How Many New Gamers We've Drawn into our Fanbase with the Wii counter on their website.

[Bonta Kun]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Well I sure as hell don't want to play shooters, fighting games, hack-and-slashs or action-adventure games using a keyboard

However people have different preferred methods of gaming.

Ok like you say people do have different prefered methods of gaming but there is one thing I just can't seem to ge my head around is the fact someone could say Pad>KB+Mouse for shooters.
I'm very much a console gamer as I am a PC gamer and while I can and do prefer a pad for certain games over a KB+mouse I can't for the love of me ever say a pad beats KB+mouse for shooters.
I can get people may prefer a pad for shooters but they can't honestly say it's better cause simple fact is with shooters, it's not.

This is just one of the little things I wouldn't just understand cause of my stubborness on the matter, much like I don't get people that play inverted

Like others have said I also think console gaming has helped the industry, while we do get alot of crappy games we do very much still get the shining gems as well.
I agree it's more about the money these days but then what isn't.
I will say this tho thankfully for me my PS3 hasvn't had to go through any upgrades lately which I really like about it.
It's painfully expensive to keep up with PC gaming one fact that I very much don't like about it.

[Cub-Sama]

Originally Posted by Bonta Kun

I can get people may prefer a pad for shooters but they can't honestly say it's better cause simple fact is with shooters, it's not.

Sure mouses in shooters are more accurate but then to me it the shooter just feels like a point and click game which I already stated not to like. With something like the 360 controller I feel like I'm pulling a trigger because the shooting buttons are triggers also I feel like it takes a bit more skill

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Gin

How can consoles be hindering gaming when they're the only reason gaming is still around? The video game industry would have died a long time ago if PC games were the only things around.

Has anyone brought up the Wii yet? Seems pretty innovative to me.

This is not true. PC gaming as an industry has remained fairly steady--just small--throughout the many trials and tribulations console gaming went through. PC gaming started first--the first electronic games were played on IBM mainfraimes, after all.

Console gaming, however, just about crashed the entire ship in the mid eighties.

And the Wii, it's just Nintendo's modus operandi. They kaizen the shit out of everything, just like most Japanese companies. The Wiimote is basically a functional and useful Power Glove. The 3DS is a non-sucky Virtual Boy. And so on.

[OceanBlue]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Well I sure as hell don't want to play shooters, fighting games, hack-and-slashs or action-adventure games using a keyboard

Aside from the shooter comment [which many people will tell you otherwise], there are also a lot of people who play fighting games on computers. You just plug in an arcade stick and go.

I don't see why we're talking about keyboards vs. pads. Like Random32 said, computers can use controllers. Plus, with button mapping [like in fighting games], you can configure games that wouldn't play on a controller on a controller.

Also, we wouldn't know if the gaming industry would've died had console games not been around; that just assumes that gaming development would've occurred the same way as it did now but without consoles. For all we know, gaming might've been a niche market, or they would've really expanded on computer games. After all, everyone has a computer.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

I don't see why we're talking about keyboards vs. pads. Like Random32 said, computers can use controllers. Plus, with button mapping [like in fighting games], you can configure games that wouldn't play on a controller on a controller.

We're talking about it because regardless of what is possible--and I know a great deal of input-device hacking is possible on both PCs and consoles--the industry standards involve one or the other. PC games will be designed with keyboards in mind, and console games with a controller in mind, and most people will experience their games through these defaults. Therefore, it's worth thinking about, whether or not it's the ideal situation.

Similarly, I wonder if we're not being a bit insular in our thinking, specifically those of us who have been playing PC games for a long time. The notion of a computer as a gaming platform is entirely natural to us, but that doesn't mean it is the case for others. I know people who play video games quite extensively, but only on consoles, because they view their PC solely as a 'work' machine. How large is this demographic? Does it have significant presence in the game-buying market? Does it effect how games are developed?

It's also worth considering that multiplayer mode on PC means either a LAN/WAN or Internet mode, unless you want to play hot-seat in turn-based games, which is aggressively boring. While internet connectivity certainly gives you a greater range of opponents to choose from, there is a unique sort of fun to be had in getting your mates together and playing something together while squished on the couch.

Perhaps this difference in multiplayer method has influenced the drastic divergence in group attitudes I see. Online gaming draws in a large web of individuals, but ties them only loosely, promoting competition and elitism. Direct multiplay draws in a small group of individuals but ties them tightly, promoting a more genial, semi-cooperative attitude. These are just my observations, of course.

[synaesthetic]

I think the difference is that a lot of computer enthusiasts (who tend to be gamers) realize that a console is a computer.

Just a crippled computer that can only play games.

That idea kinda rankles within us, because really, do we want to pay money for a gimped computer with no OS and processing power 6 years behind what's currently available for "real" computers?

Portable consoles bother me less, because, well... they're small. I can see the absolute need for a reduction in functionality, but as smartphones become more and more impressive (especially the iPhone in relation to gaming, but newer Android handsets as well), I'm starting to dislike the intentionally-limited nature of portable consoles.

[Kusa-San]

uh lol no no console is not a comptuter. Computer is not made for playing but for working. There is way way way way way more people who use the computer for working or surfing on the net than for playing. Console is made for playing. It's way more easy to play on a console than on a computer. It's not for nothing than consoles are way more popular for playing than computers .

And lol, sorry but playing is not only about the power of your machine. Yeah I konow it's incredible but it's not the graphics which made a game good. There are only computer's gamer who believe that. Futhermore, you can't compare the power of a computer and the power of a console since it's not used in the same way.

I really dislike this kind of speech from people who only think than a game is about having the greatest graphics and the greatest technology. It's ridiculous. What is important with a game is to have fun with it. That's all. Stop with your : "Yes but console's games are bad because they are not as beautiful as PC games". LOL.

For example, the wii is not a powerful console and yet she's a great one because of its original controller and its great game.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I think the difference is that a lot of computer enthusiasts (who tend to be gamers) realize that a console is a computer.

Just a crippled computer that can only play games.

That idea kinda rankles within us, because really, do we want to pay money for a gimped computer with no OS and processing power 6 years behind what's currently available for "real" computers?

Portable consoles bother me less, because, well... they're small. I can see the absolute need for a reduction in functionality, but as smartphones become more and more impressive (especially the iPhone in relation to gaming, but newer Android handsets as well), I'm starting to dislike the intentionally-limited nature of portable consoles.

Oh, believe me, I understand quite well. Despite my thorough enjoyment of both platforms, as I have watched functions for which I once had separate devices be subsumed into my computer function--televiewing, music, movies, recording, telephony--and not to mention that as a writer, I already spend six hours on the device daily, I have found myself wondering if it wouldn't be better for my PC to also absorb the console niche.

What would we lose as a gamer culture? Well, this would undoubtedly thin our ranks to some extent. We'd lose the gamers who enjoy games on their console, but view their PC as a work-only machine, and just because these people aren't necessarily computer enthusiasts doesn't invalidate their opinions or money. My older brother played video games from the earliest days of home systems, and has owned at least two consoles from every subsequent generation. Yet, he has never played a video game on a PC, because he prefers to set it aside as a work device. When MOST people own equipment, they like to think of them in terms of specialized functionality.

Conversely, we'd gain many potential technical advantages, cost-effectiveness and perhaps some interesting innovation. Who knows what would be possible? Perhaps with the level of modern PC technology and a focus on development for PCs, you'd see professionally crafted OS architectures optimized for gaming. Without the overhead involved in developing new hardware and sustaining its manufacturing, storage and shipping, whole new chunks of budget would open up for Sony and Microsoft's gaming branches and for Nintendo to develop better software and peripherals.

However, there are two hurdles to this shift that we have to be pragmatic about. The first is that the console niche is NOT going away until localized, single-device, simultaneous multiplayer is available in ubiquitous hardware, period. The second is the simple reality of how your average person--and your average gamer whom is sadly not also a tech enthusiast--perceives the relative costs of the hardware. The most up-to-date console will likely be $400 or less when it first comes out, dropping to $300-$350 after the initial sales push. For that cost, you have all the necessary hardware pre-assembled and ready to go. If you want to buy a decent gaming rig, major vendors will probably be looking to screw you out of $800-$1,200. Sure, it can do lots of other stuff, but most people will say "I already have a computer for that." If you want to buy components for a lower-mid-tier gaming rig and build it yourself, you'll still run between $700-$1,000. Of course, if you're a thoughtful user/builder and gradually upgrade as time goes on, you see this as an investment. But what would the average person see? They see, for two to three times console price, a machine that can play their games, perform functions that a computer they likely own already does, and cannot offer the experience of four guys in the same room having a rousing split-screen game.

I'm not saying this gives consoles any superiority, just that it's where we are right now.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kusa-San

uh lol no no console is not a comptuter. Computer is not made for playing but for working. There is way way way way way more people who use the computer for working or surfing on the net than for playing. Console is made for playing. It's way more easy to play on a console than on a computer. It's not for nothing than consoles are way more popular for playing than computers .

And lol, sorry but playing is not only about the power of your machine. Yeah I konow it's incredible but it's not the graphics which made a game good. There are only computer's gamer who believe that. Futhermore, you can't compare the power of a computer and the power of a console since it's not used in the same way.

I really dislike this kind of speech from people who only think than a game is about having the greatest graphics and the greatest technology. It's ridiculous. What is important with a game is to have fun with it. That's all. Stop with your : "Yes but console's games are bad because they are not as beautiful as PC games". LOL.

For example, the wii is not a powerful console and yet she's a great one because of its original controller and its great game.

...

Consoles are computers.

They have a CPU, a GPU, RAM and typically some sort of chipset (though with newer devices, things seem to be going to the system-on-a-chip configuration).
They have secondary storage--either flash memory or hard disks. All three current home consoles use IBM PowerPC processors--the PS3's Cell CPU is also used in IBM blade servers.

This makes consoles a computer. A computer that does significantly less than a normal computer. Of course (at least until the PS3's launch) they also cost significantly less than a normal computer, but still, I am the kind of person who doesn't like to have unnecessary crap.

I play console games and I like them, but honestly I wish more of them would get ported to PC. Because I can't justify buying a PS3 just for Final Fantasy XIII. This is really upsetting. I really want to play the game, but I don't want to spend $350 to play one fucking game! If Square-Enix would just port it to the PC, I could play it without having to spend so much.

I don't really like console gaming. I don't like owning something that does only one thing. I just don't have that much money! I like having things that do lots of things. Computers do more than just game, so that makes them more useful to me. My phone does lots of things, so it's also useful (I hated my old dumbphone that only made and received calls).

There's a lot of great games on consoles, but unfortunately, there aren't enough of them on one particular console to really make it worth buying one for me--since a lot of the games I like are also on PC. Why do I need to buy a PS3? Just to play FFXIII? I want to play the game but... who'd pay $350 for one game?

[Cub-Sama]

Urgh I do not like keyboards just tried it now to play Dragon Age on my PC and I can't do it, gonna wait until I can pay for the wireless adapter so I can use my 360 controller for the game. I do not like playing with the keyboard because they spread the controls over too many keys, using the control pad to move, letters to change camera angle, mouse to interact with objects. I just cannot get used to it.

Also synaesthetic a gaming computer can cost like £400+, a console costs £200 with games etc..., then a normal computer costs like £150+, put together that only costs minimum £350 less than the price of a gaming computer. Then when you want to game on a computer you need to upgrade your system to get the best/to keep to the standards set by the game.

Something like Crysis 2 people are going to need to update their computers just to play, not everyone has that cash just lying around.

[synaesthetic]

It might be difficult to play the PC version of Dragon Age with a controller, because the PC version's interface is different than the console version. It's designed to be played with a keyboard and mouse--Bioware intentionally designed it to be similar to the UI for Baldur's Gate.

[Cub-Sama]

Aww just found out I can't use a controller for it anyway, I just can't get used to the whole point and click thing, I like my controller

[synaesthetic]

Try it. The interface is, as I said, very reminiscent of Baldur's Gate, so it's actually quite intuitive.

[Larthak]

Originally Posted by Cub-Sama

Also when people mention the good ol' days of gaming I constantly see the same games being repeated when there must have been like 100s of other games but I barely ever see them getting mentioned, why? Probably coz they were shit.

Whoa, you sure are a sworn protector of consoles, ain't ya? So, basically what you say is consoles don't have hundreds of useless games? Sure...

It's the same damn stuff. It's just that piracy ain't that spread on consoles. That's pretty much the only really major reason why consoles profit more than PCs in gaming right now. Every other pales in comparison.

[synaesthetic]

Piracy is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to profits (except for unusual cases like Crysis, where the game's system-crushing reputation led to ridiculously high piracy rates). Console games are pirated, too--I see 360 ISOs on torrent sites all the time.

It's already been said. Consoles just have more mainstream appeal. There's far less technical knowledge required and they're cheaper than an equivalent gaming PC. A lot of people just like sitting on the couch as opposed to sitting at a desk (though since my PC is a laptop I can play anywhere lol).

I won't speak on input methods because PCs can use any input method (and then some) that a console can (literally--you can use a Wiimote on a PC, done it before).

[NorthernFallout]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's already been said. Consoles just have more mainstream appeal. There's far less technical knowledge required and they're cheaper than an equivalent gaming PC. A lot of people just like sitting on the couch as opposed to sitting at a desk.

This is the most common argument I hear in my surroundings too. On that, I give a console points.

[Arbitres]

Oh well... I don't care much for computer gaming since lot of the games that are out I can't play on my computer. (Family computer though? Probably could. On my computer? Not a chance in Hell.)

I got visual novels for my computer, and console platforms (PS2, Xbox360, Wii) and console games as well. Obiously this is a bitter experience for you Synaesthetic, but don't go labelling console games as a problematic factor.

It's World of Warcraft, yes. I can agree with that. However don't be so peculiar on that matter; companies go where the money is. With WoW the comptuer game industry is only held as a second staple or just as another manner to gain money. Companies go where the money is, and on computer is World of Warcraft; where people are too busy with it to see anything but World of Warcraft.

So gaming industries are stuck in a rut... Unfortunately, I suppose. Though I am rather glad Bethesda is still around.

Oh, anyways:

Spoiler for Alot of You know what:

You know what I'd want for a Real-Time Strategy game? A controller.
You know what I'd want for a Turn-Base Strategy game? A mouse and keyboard.
You know what I'd want for a First-Person Shooter game? A controller.
You know what I'd want for a Role-Playing game? A controller.
You know what I'd want for a Visual novel? A mouse and keyboard
You know what I'd want for a Fighting game? A joystick or controller.
You know what I'd want for a console game? A controller.
You know what I'd want for a computer game? A mouse and keyboard.

That is what and how I'd prefer to play a game.


Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm not. Lets see. I imagine the puppet show is about to start.

[OceanBlue]

I'm not giving this idea much thought, but aren't multiplayer games easier to play on consoles, especially now that consoles have online? There's a certain appeal, in my opinion, to having a bunch of people in a room and competing with each other. Setting up computers for each person seems really impractical compared to just attaching controllers.

I'd imagine that multiplayer's a factor. Computer gaming is generally seen as a solitary thing or an online thing. Most people don't think of LAN parties when they think of computer games, I'd imagine.

[synaesthetic]

I don't hate consoles. I hate it when games I want to play are on consoles I don't own and can't afford.

Also, the only types of games I'd want to play with a gamepad are survival-horror, fighting games and related genres (beat-em-ups). Everything else, give me a keyboard and mouse (or keyboard and joystick for flying games).