Forums > Game Talk > PC vs. console gaming
D Michael (222) on 3/10/2006 2:54 PM · Permalink · Report
What's the difference?
In the past, titles available for PC for the most part weren't available on consoles, and the same is true vice versa. There were exceptions to this rule but generally speaking the types of games were rooted in different schools. But why?
In the early days, consoles were more accessible. Cost was the main reason for this, followed closely by ease of use. Atari 2600 was what, $100? A basic PC could cost $3,000 or more. As a result, the majority of the PC gamers were adults while console gamers were families or children. In an effort to reach target audiences, developers for each designed their products with this in mind. PC games had adult themes and a higher level of complexity for the most part, while console games tended to be simpler with more childish themes. During these times, few people needed or could afford a PC, let alone know how to use one. Just about any working class family could afford a console and anybody that could follow simple instructions could use one. While things have changed, we can still see the impact that this has on gaming today.
As we advance forward throughout home gaming history, we can see that PCs have held a slight technological edge over their console counterparts. The gaming options for PCs have generally been better. Saving games was easy on a PC, but most console game states could not be saved, requiring either passwords or battery backed RAM (which expires over the course of a couple of years) to allow for the continuation of longer games. The console continues to stay alive however due to its ease of use and low price compared to the PC.
Since gaming has become more mainstream, the demand for products in both schools has increased. As a result, consoles began to close the technological gap that existed between PCs, and today we see that consoles actually ARE PCs. At this point we are now seeing many shared titles. It is typical to see a major release available for PC and consoles, and the only highly successful games that are PC only are due to these titles being beyond the scope and capabilities of consoles.
PC's still have the edge though, and for a couple of good reasons. If I were to purchase a title available on several platforms, I will be default always choose the PC release. For one, multiplayer on PC has far more options. To play online, most of the time with a PC I can find an independantly run server, or direct connect with a friend, or setup and manage a server myself. With consoles (Xbox for example with Xbox live) I must subscribe to a particular service, and I'm limited to their network. A PC game can be patched, and expansions are more easily conceived on a PC. Let's not forget too that options for user created content such as expanded levels or mods (Neverwinter Nights for example) are much more easily created and traded on the PC. If you're an MMO gamer, the PC is the only way to go. Control options are better for PC as well; pick your gamepad, mouse, keyboard, joystick, or otherwise. If you're an FPS gamer it sure is frustrating using a gamepad to freelook, aim, and battle it out with your friends while sharing a TV to boot.
PCs are backwards compatible. I can run DOS games from the 80s on my PC with a bit of tinkering (Dosbox) all the way up to modern games. Too bad the Revolution can't play Mario Kart 64.
Not to bash console gamers out there, as I'm sure the majority of video game players use consoles as their main platform, but these are just a few reasons why I believe PC gaming to be superior.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/10/2006 3:20 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, the only thing I can say is that I hate PC gaming. Why? Because when you buy a game for your console, you know it will work on your console just as it will on all others of the same kind. It won't have plot-stopping bugs, crashes, and incompatibility. It won't refuse to install. It won't mess your machine up so that you won't be able to do anything with it. It won't tell you after completing 99% of a 2-hour long installation: "You are missing driver whassname.dll, and your whatever.drv is all screwed up, so sorry, but the game won't run". Sure, backwards compatibility is fun, but if I have to spend half a day configuring config.sys or tweaking DosBox to make my favorite DOS game run on a modern machine (probably without sound, or running too fast, or too slow), then I'm not sure this can be called comatibility in the full sense of the word.
So yes, there are too many great PC-only games, that's why I still have to use PC for gaming (although I don't know for how long it will last. There are less and less good PC games coming out now, in my opinion). But otherwise, I really can't see what makes PC superior to consoles. I can understand why most of you guys think differently: most of you are in the industry, so it's fun for you to tinker with hardware and software and all this stuff. But as a layman who enjoys good games the same way he enjoys good music (oh well... not quite. Because there, I'm not exactly a layman), or good books, I must say that PC gaming is really bad for the nerves. I want my games to work, once and for all, unconditionally. I want to do nothing to make them work but to put them into the damn machine. No configurations, no tweaking, no optimizing, nothing. I don't have to find missing pages, guess the meaning of erased words, or decipher strange-looking letters before reading a book. So I don't want to do similar stuff with games, either. But PC forces me to...
D Michael (222) on 3/10/2006 4:05 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Understood, and your position is shared by others. That is a point of reason I lend to console gaming; ease of use.
However PC gaming has come a long way since the DOS days of configuration, drivers, etc. With windows being THE gaming platform, there is little of this configuration issue being a problem. Typically if your hardware is working in windows, it will work with a windows game without special configuration if you are meeting system requirements. Of course there are exceptions, but it's not THAT bad. As a matter of fact I can't remember the last time I bought a PC game off of the shelf that either wouldn't install or wouldn't run. Probably around '95 or '96 is the last time this has happened for me.
Perhaps some configuration is the price you pay for absolutely FREE gaming (non-existant on consoles) when it comes to older, abandon ware.
You are right about the crashes and the bugs though. While more common on the PC, I've had several crashes on consoles (NES blinking on and off erasing save data ring a bell?). I've had bugs in console games that prevented completion as well. It's rare but it has happened. GTA San Andreas for PS2 is perfect example... just tick off Milly one time and you're stuck in the game forever, with no ability to advance. On the PC this can be patched.
Neither side is without issue, and the points you bring up for console and against PC are all valid and I agree with you. From my standpoint however, taking the good and the bad from both schools, my preference remains with the PC. I'm guessing that for you, Unicorn, you choose console gaming because you like the games and the style of play. I don't believe the issue here is that you're forced to play on the consoles because PCs are problematic.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/11/2006 4:26 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] As a matter of fact I can't remember the last time I bought a PC game off of the shelf that either wouldn't install or wouldn't run. Probably around '95 or '96 is the last time this has happened for me.[/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
Well, I wasn't that lucky... Many times a game refused to run on my computer until I downloaded a patch. I mean, why should I download patches?! Who the hell invented this whole patch business? I hate that...
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] I'm guessing that for you, Unicorn, you choose console gaming because you like the games and the style of play. I don't believe the issue here is that you're forced to play on the consoles because PCs are problematic. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
Well, of course there are a lot of console-only games I like, but I still have roughly the same amount of PC games as I have for all consoles put together. The majority of those PC games are PC-only. But whenever I have a choice between PC and console version of the same game, I'd go for console, for the reasons explained above. Unless it is a FPS, but I almost never play FPSs.
Trixter (8952) on 3/28/2006 9:43 PM · Permalink · Report
DOS is practically a different platform, so you shouldn't equate config.sys tweaking with running PC games -- would you say the same thing about running a C64 emulator and having to type LOAD, etc.?
Anyway, here's the layperson's view of why I still enjoy PC games, listed in ascending order of importance:
- Games load the fastest from the hard drive
- The resolution always trounces the console
- Gamepads suck for FPS games
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/29/2006 7:08 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--]
[Q --start Trixter wrote--]<
[/Q --end Trixter wrote--] True in both cases...
Zovni (10504) on 3/31/2006 3:25 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Not if your computer doesn't have the 2349086 MB RAM and the GeForce Ultra Mega XIV required to run the damn game... no hard drive will make load times faster then. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Oh but if you do... it's sweet :D and anyway, consoles aren't exactly getting cheaper this generation.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 3/10/2006 4:14 PM · Permalink · Report
This was bound to come up sooner or later... let's just hope this thread doesn't end up pitting console gamers against PC gamers with one side making "witty" jokes about the fact that PC games can actually crash and the other side making fun of the supposed inability of console gamers to handle a PC.
Of course it's true that there are some differences between console and PC games and it is annoying to see that many good games of one platform are not ported to the other, even though in most cases it wouldn't be much of a problem from a technical point of you (as you have already pointed out). One thing that's even more annoying though, is the constant struggle between PC and console gamers over which is the superior platform. If anything, it only helps to promote the idea that there are some fundamental differences between console and PC gamers. I don't understand why some people feel the need to attach their ego to a certain gaming platform (I'm not talking of any of you guys) and bash other platforms. It's completely pointless and pathetic. Sure, every platform has its advantages and disadvantages, but what it comes down to is what kind of games you can play best on what kind of platform. There are so many different genres and sub-genres that it is impossible to come up with a general rule and say platform x is better than platform y, it's pretty much a matter of personal taste. If I can choose on what platform I can play a game, I usually prefer consoles, simply because it much less troublesome getting games to work on it. Of course if a PC version of a game is better, or if it is a game that can be controlled better with mouse and keyboard (like FPSs or some strategy games) I prefer the PC. It's pretty simple really and it's always funny to see PC gamers making fun of console gamers because console games are "too childish" for them whereas I think that it doesn't get much more childish and pathetic than attaching your ego to a gaming platform and thereby trying to prove how grown up you are;)
To put it short: developers are prejudiced enough about console and PC gamers even without gamers that have nothing better to do then proving said prejudices. Just play the games that you like on whatever platform seems best to you and hope that the industry and the rest of the gamers will grow up at one day.
D Michael (222) on 3/10/2006 4:31 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xenu wrote--]This was bound to come up sooner or later... let's just hope this thread doesn't end up pitting console gamers against PC gamers with one side making "witty" jokes about the fact that PC games can actually crash and the other side making fun of the supposed inability of console gamers to handle a PC.[/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
I actually never thought of the thread this way, it's just a discussion as far as I'm concerned, not a bash-fest.
[Q --start Xenu wrote--] One thing that's even more annoying though, is the constant struggle between PC and console gamers over which is the superior platform. If anything, it only helps to promote the idea that there are some fundamental differences between console and PC gamers. [/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
You can't really attach these two ideas together. One side can't really be superior because it's a matter of personal preference rather than fact, but at the same time there ARE fundamental differences between the two. Just look at the disposition Unicorn takes; he wants the game to run hassle free. I like to tinker and configure. Neither is wrong, but there's a fundamental difference...
[Q --start Xenu wrote--] There are so many different genres and sub-genres that it is impossible to come up with a general rule and say platform x is better than platform y, it's pretty much a matter of personal taste. [/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
I disagree. If we're talking about which genre is better on which platform, there are certainly better choices. I seriously doubt that consoles are a better choice for the MMO player, just as PC is a poor choice for the top down RPG'er. Yes, platform does come down to preference, but there are platforms that offer more options for specific genres than others, and it's not impossible to discern which is which.
[Q --start Xenu wrote--] fun of console gamers because console games are "too childish" for them whereas I think that it doesn't get much more childish and pathetic than attaching your ego to a gaming platform and thereby trying to prove how grown up you are;) [/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
I know you said that you weren't talking to any person specifically, but you are using my words here. While I never made fun of this issue, and I never said that console gamers were childish, I DID say that early console gaming THEMES were childish. It's a fact that early console games were designed with children in mind. If we can't call these themes childish what do we call them? If they were adult themes why did the commercials for Atari and Colecovision and such always have KIDS playing games like "Smurf" and "Strawberry Shortcake"?
[Q --start Xenu wrote--] Just play the games that you like on whatever platform seems best to you and hope that the industry and the rest of the gamers will grow up at one day. [/Q --end Xenu wrote--]
Ok, PC and console gaming are exactly the same. There is no difference. We're all the same. Now I'm all grown up...
Seriously though this thread isn't to pick on any specific following. I just gave my reasons for preferring PC gaming. I play both actually, and just wanted an exchange of ideas not a debate or insults.
While I'm primarily a PC gamer, I don't look down at console gamers. I have a friend of mine that won't touch a PC game, and he is one of the most hardcore, serious gamers I've ever known. While I can't say that one platform is superior in general, I also can't say that there aren't fundamental differences. These differences are becoming smaller and smaller as of late however, as consoles have basically become PC's, and that the mainstream video gaming market audience has expanded to include ALL ages and preferences.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 3/10/2006 6:10 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Somehow I messed up the quotes. I'll fix this later... If I can... For now, I'll just put anything that I wrote in italics (in case somebody is actually going to read this)
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] [Q2 --start Xenu wrote--] This was bound to come up sooner or later... let's just hope this thread doesn't end up pitting console gamers against PC gamers with one side making "witty" jokes about the fact that PC games can actually crash and the other side making fun of the supposed inability of console gamers to handle a PC. [/Q2 --end Xenu wrote--]
I actually never thought of the thread this way, it's just a discussion as far as I'm concerned, not a bash-fest. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
I know you didn't, I just wanted to say that I hope it doesn't become like this anyway (bearing in mind some of the reviews I've read on here)
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] [Q2 --start Xenu wrote--] One thing that's even more annoying though, is the constant struggle between PC and console gamers over which is the superior platform. If anything, it only helps to promote the idea that there are some fundamental differences between console and PC gamers. [/Q2 --end Xenu wrote--]
You can't really attach these two ideas together. One side can't really be superior because it's a matter of personal preference rather than fact, but at the same time there ARE fundamental differences between the two. Just look at the disposition Unicorn takes; he wants the game to run hassle free. I like to tinker and configure. Neither is wrong, but there's a fundamental difference... [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
Of course there are lots of differences between console and PC games. I only meant to say that I don't like the fact that a lot of people (gamers and developers) apparently still think that console gamers are too dumb or childish or whatever to play more mature and complex games.
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] [Q2 --start Xenu wrote--] There are so many different genres and sub-genres that it is impossible to come up with a general rule and say platform x is better than platform y, it's pretty much a matter of personal taste. [/Q2 --end Xenu wrote--]
I disagree. If we're talking about which genre is better on which platform, there are certainly better choices. I seriously doubt that consoles are a better choice for the MMO player, just as PC is a poor choice for the top down RPG'er. Yes, platform does come down to preference, but there are platforms that offer more options for specific genres than others, and it's not impossible to discern which is which. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
Again, I agree with you. What I meant is that for example if you like beat'em ups and mmorpgs you would have to choose consoles for beat'em ups and PCs for mmorpgs and it would be difficult to settle for one platform as THE best.
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] [Q2 --start Xenu wrote--] fun of console gamers because console games are "too childish" for them whereas I think that it doesn't get much more childish and pathetic than attaching your ego to a gaming platform and thereby trying to prove how grown up you are;) [/Q2 --end Xenu wrote--]
I know you said that you weren't talking to any person specifically, but you are using my words here. While I never made fun of this issue, and I never said that console gamers were childish, I DID say that early console gaming THEMES were childish. It's a fact that early console games were designed with children in mind. If we can't call these themes childish what do we call them? If they were adult themes why did the commercials for Atari and Colecovision and such always have KIDS playing games like "Smurf" and "Strawberry Shortcake"? [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
I never said there aren't ANY childish games for consoles and you're absolutely right in saying that consoles were more interesting to children due to their accessibility and low price. Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough that I was not at all talking to you. I was just thinking of a certain type of PC user that you are obviously not. Also, I don't mind there being lots of childish games for consoles, I actually like a lot of them. It's only annoying to see that consoles still have the image of being child's toys even though the target group has clearly grown up.
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] [Q2 --start Xenu wrote--] Just play the games that you like on whatever platform seems best to you and hope that the industry and the rest of the gamers will grow up at one day. [/Q2 --end Xenu wrote--]
Ok, PC and console gaming are exactly the same. There is no difference. We're all the same. Now I'm all grown up...
Seriously though this thread isn't to pick on any specific following. I just gave my reasons for preferring PC gaming. I play both actually, and just wanted an exchange of ideas not a debate or insults.
While I'm primarily a PC gamer, I don't look down at console gamers. I have a friend of mine that won't touch a PC game, and he is one of the most hardcore, serious gamers I've ever known. While I can't say that one platform is superior in general, I also can't say that there aren't fundamental differences. These differences are becoming smaller and smaller as of late however, as consoles have basically become PC's, and that the mainstream video gaming market audience has expanded to include ALL ages and preferences. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
I didn't mean to say that there aren't any differences at all between PC and console games. What I was getting at is that games that are usually regarded as typical for PCs should more often be ported to consoles and vice versa. And that religiously defending your favourite platform (something which you are not doing) isn't helping anyone and only gets in your way if you want to "broaden your horizon" and objectively judge games. When I said that the industry and gamers still have to grow up, I simply meant that lots of developers apparently think that there are certain types of games that only appeal to PC or console gamers and don't bother releasing, say a strategy game like Silent Storm, for consoles even though it might still sell well if it was properly adapted and marketed. It's even more annoying then, if you see certain people (not you!) boasting about being too grown up to touch console games, especially considering that the industry as a whole is still in its diapers and many gamers have a rather strange opinion about what constitutes a mature game.
I was only trying to give my opinion in more general terms. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wasn't specifically talking to you, because I can understand why you prefer PC games and I agree with the most important points you made about PC gaming. Sure, the PC is the best platform for FPSs and online gaming, whereas consoles tend to get a lot of action games and Asian RPGs that very often don't get ported to PC. I was just saying that one should keep an open mind and not be to quick to judge a certain platform, because you can easily miss a lot of good games that way.
As for my own preferences, I'm playing more console games than PC games but that might easily change. There have been many improvements in PC games regarding user-friendliness, but they're still a far cry from console games in that respect. As for backwards compatibility, PCs are superior in that regard, at least in theory. However as Oleg has already said, getting old DOS games to run under a moder OS can be difficult whereas running psone games on a PS2 is no problem at all (although there are a few games that aren't compatible). I could go on, but these are all minor issues really. I guess if you asked me about my favorite platform it would be the one that runs my current favorite game.
D Michael (222) on 3/10/2006 7:37 PM · Permalink · Report
ah, I understand now, much clearer. I was thinking that I was being horribly misunderstood about all of this. I see now what you mean and realize that we agree on all of it.
I know what you mean about the psychos that try to bash the other half all the while pushing that their gaming platform of choice is superior. I can't stand that either. We all should play what suits us. We're all gamers. There is plenty of ammunition to throw at each side, where the PC gamer laughs at the "kiddie" console gamer while the console gamer thinks the PC gamer is a moron for spending $500 on a video card alone. Certainly I don't want that kind of debate here, and I'm glad that I was wrong in my guess that you misunderstood me.
Yep I agree on the fact that computer games are more user friendly now but are still a far cry from console gaming. Oleg makes a really good point in that he wants to fire up the game and go. I think the majority of gamers desire this. Console games are written for a specific piece of hardware which makes accomplishing this easy, whereas PC games must be able to work on a very wide range of hardware (and the companies want this so that many consumers will be able to use their product) and as a result may be less than perfect in the way it runs or its ability to install/configure.
By the way, if anyone reads this and does need help configuring for a computer game I'm more than willing to help just send me a private message. I've had enough headaches doing this to go around so if anyone is having a hard time let me know.
Slug Camargo (583) on 3/10/2006 11:10 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
While I'm on the band of the über-nerds that love to fiddle with configurations (I think Far Cry is a game worth getting for the incredibly wide range of tweaking possibilities alone! ;D ), I do get Unicorn's point and it sounds totally understandable too (we talked about that a few times).
However, personally I have one more reason for which I'm a 100% exclusive PC-player that has nothing to do with favoritisms: I'm 30 years old, I have a 4 year old daughter whose food and education I have to pay, and I live in a pretty crappy 3rd world country; thus, while I'm able to assemble a reasonably powerful PC piece by piece and keep it kind of upgraded so I can always play the latest games at least at the lowest settings, there is NO WAY for me to even think about dropping 400+ US bucks on a machine whose sole purpose is to play games.
I'd LOVE to be able to play the likes of Forbidden Siren or Clock Tower 3, that just sound like they were written with ME in mind; but the day I come home with a 400 dollars toy (and one that's not even for my daughter to play with either), my wife will kick my ass out of the house so hard I'll have to get used to play games standing for the rest of my life.
And anyway, I think it'll be pretty hard to find a bridge with a power outlet under which to live.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/11/2006 4:32 AM · Permalink · Report
A valid point there. Living in China, I also understand why nearly all Chinese-made games are PC-only, and why people rarely play on consoles here. A Playstation 2 costs about 2000 yuan in China. That's something like 220-230 US dollars. Original PS2 games cost 35-40 bucks each. Original (not pirated!) PC games cost 7 bucks at most. Now, my wife's monthly salary is about 200 bucks. And she is a professor in a university...
Zovni (10504) on 3/11/2006 5:24 AM · Permalink · Report
Let me add my two cents in here, and just for once I'll try not to act like a smartass and burn this whole thread. I agree with many of the opinions expressed here and I think ultimately the choice is personal for each platform and we'll all live in a better world once we all acknowledge that some platforms are better suited for some people.
I do think however that there are some other aspects that the hardcore gamer should take into consideration. Let me just mention that which involves creative content, one of the main reasons why I prefer computer-gaming. The way console games are created involves paying a licensing fee to the console's manufacturer and following a licensing contract which involves content supervision from the manufacturer and tech assistance. This has it's advantages from a development point of view, but content-wise this means you will only play what Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo wants you to play. Sure consoles have grown since Sony discovered the "young-adult" demographic with the PSOne and started adding blood, sexual innuendo, and assorted "adult" stuff to their games, but the reality is that console gaming is still pretty watered-down in terms of content when compared to PC games. I'm not just talking about blood gore & tits, but also about dealing with mature themes and considerably more heady material.
Sure, not every PC game is a shinning example of intellectual digital entertainment, and while a developer doesn't have to answer to a multinational corporate machine, it does have to contend with the interests of a publisher that has to deal with rating boards, publicity, shelf space, etc. etc. just like in console land (and publishers like EA are multinational corporate machines themselves). However I think any cross-platform gamer will agree with me that there is a much more tangible feeling of "free-speech" in pc-gaming than in console games. I mean, just to name an example, what was the last homosexual character you saw on a console game? Those lipstick lesbians from Fear Effect?
This also brings me to the independent gaming scene which thrives on this very principle. Such a scene would be unthinkable in a console, and the closest it can get is the XBOX live's online Arcade games. This is why pc-gaming will forever be a much more exciting platform for interactive entertainment for me. It has it's ups and downs in terms of quality of production but the potential is always there whether it's realized in a particular game or not.
Plus, sooner or later I can always emulate the best of each console on my pc ;)
D Michael (222) on 3/11/2006 6:41 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
As much as I want to agree with you Zovni, GTA San Andreas for PS2 kind of shoots down a lot of that argument. I think most of what you say is true, especially about independant gaming and of course emulation rocks console capabilities.
But on the other hand it's not that console games are watered down, it's just that the kiddie titles aren't as widely available on PC. The reason for this of course goes back to the early development of video gaming on various platforms. Some games are meant to be PC and struggle on the console and vice versa. Red Alert did great in the PC gaming world, and did horribly on consoles. This is largely due to the audience, not the game. While there are available adult themed titles for console, and there are serious, adult gamers that choose consoles, it's safe to say that the majority of players on the console are young, while the majority of PC gamers are older. The majority of releases reviewed for either platform should reveal which demographic is the majority user.
Now here's the real question; can you use 'majority' more times in a sentence than I can?
Seriously though, I'm right there with you on the choice of PC gaming. I like the options that PCs offer in regards to control, player content, backward compatibility, and of course emulation where I can play just about any console on my PC. That's not to say however that console gamers are wrong in their decision to use consoles.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 3/11/2006 1:08 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] it's safe to say that the majority of players on the console are young, while the majority of PC gamers are older. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
Are you sure about this? I mean, do you have any statistics to back that up? I know that the average age of console gamers in Germany is about 23 (that was the result of a survey published in a German gaming mag a couple of years ago). And apparently, things aren't very different in the U.S., take a look at this Sure, the average age of PC gamers is probably a lot higher than that, but at the age of 23, most people can be considered grown up. I agree with you on that there are a lot more adult themed games on PC than on consoles. I'm not trying to convince you that this is not the case. I just think that many developers underestimate the potential of the console market and that more mature games could sell well there as well. So, if your trying to determine the target audience of console games by looking at what kind of games are released, you're just repeating the wrong assumptions of developers.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/11/2006 8:15 AM · Permalink · Report
Unfortunately, what you say is true. PC is richer on adult material than consoles. The situation now is better than before, especially in the West. During the 90-ies, the best Japanese RPGs, full of mature themes and creativity, were never released in the West, thanks to Nintendo of America's idiotic policy. Now such RPGs are being released in the West (Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne and Digital Devil Saga are prime examples for that). But PC still has a wider variety of genres and themes. This is an undeniable fact.
D Michael (222) on 3/11/2006 2:36 PM · Permalink · Report
Xenu: I don't have statistics to back up my claim, and yes I arrive at that conclusion based on the titles released for each platform. Perhaps this is a mistake and as you mention the same mistake that developers are making, however it's kind of hard to believe that the assumption is totally off the mark when considering that console gaming has drawn developers that mostly produce games for children which has been going on for the last 25 years. If it is a mistake then it is one that is being made for over two decades now and still going strong. I doubt that long standing, or even new start up companies could have any success if they were releasing games for a specific audience that wasn't really there.
It's important to remember as well that the emergence of a more mature console audience is a rather new phenomenon. Things are certainly changing and whether or not the majority of console gamers are children today, it's hard to deny the fact that traditionally this has been the case, considering the titles that are still being released for consoles that target children as the consumer audience. It seems that if this had not been the case games for children on consoles would have been diminished or phased out a long time ago.
As far as the average age in Germany, forgive me that I've been speaking from a US perspective by default. I forget that Moby Games has a sizable international community and to add to that I know little of gaming outside of the US. I'll try to keep this in consideration in the future.
Unicorn: Yes I agree, and I'll also go so far as to say that the reason the PC has many more adult themed genres is a result of what consumers are buying. If nobody bought adult games few if any would be produced. The companies will go where the money is. The fact that PC game development has seen success in mature games should tell us that it is a mature audience. The same holds true for kid games on consoles. Again though, I'm not saying that console gamers are childish, just that there is a larger group of younger players on consoles than PC.
Of course as mentioned this is changing, and as you point out with your examples more complex, mature games are finding their way to the consoles. Also European and Asian gamers are a very different audience than Americans, and the fact that so many early PC games ported to consoles did well outside of the US tells us something.
Mobygamesisreanimated (11069) on 3/11/2006 4:31 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--]...console gaming has drawn developers that mostly produce games for children which has been going on for the last 25 years. If it is a mistake then it is one that is being made for over two decades now and still going strong. ...
It's important to remember as well that the emergence of a more mature console audience is a rather new phenomenon. Things are certainly changing and whether or not the majority of console gamers are children today, it's hard to deny the fact that traditionally this has been the case, considering the titles that are still being released for consoles that target children as the consumer audience. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
I think you got a little mixed up here. It was not a mistake to produce games primarily geared towards children for NES, Genesis, SNES etc. but it would be a mistake to think that things haven't changed since then. As you say yourself, the emergence of a mature console audience is a new phenomenon. I just think that most developers are a bit slow to realize this. Consoles will always be the preferable platform for children for reasons already mentioned, and I don't have a problem with that. It's just about time that developers realize that there is also a large and growing market for adult console gamers. And they should respond to this by making more mature games instead of just adding more sex and violence to known concepts. (That's not to say I can't enjoy violence or sex in my games;) I also hope Nintendo doesn't stop making it's childish Zelda and Mario games cause I love them!)
As for the average age of German console gamers, that was only an example, and as the link I gave indicates, the age difference to Americans is fairly small.
D Michael (222) on 3/11/2006 4:52 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'm not saying it was a mistake, I was actually pointing out that it's not likely to be a mistake if developers have been taking this route for the last 25 years.
Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree that more titles for adults are showing up on consoles. But I also feel like this is something new that goes against the tradition of console gaming.
The link you provide does point to the audience for console gaming being older now, but it also says several times that this is a new thing, a major shift, a new opportunity for developers. This notion is compatible with my assumption that console gamers have traditionally been a young audience.
Zovni (10504) on 3/11/2006 3:01 PM · Permalink · Report
GTA's the exception that proves the rule as far as I'm concerned, and while I love the games they are exactly the kind of "adult" material I said could get into consoles. Ie: blood, tits, gore and f-words. Interesting yes, but hardly "mature" content.
As for the demographic issue I believe it's there, but to me it's more a case of corporate image. Sony and Microsoft may have set their sights into the 20-something consumers and thus they favor games which include some sort of sexual content, violence, and the sort of sensationalistic stuff we all love. But forget about dealing with controversial issues. The Hot Cofee incident came up because the developers intentionally sneaked the mini-game into the game and thus escaped their control. Even if it had been intentional, it's the kind of meaningless shock material that passes these days as "adult" content.
Just to compare look at Nintendo: the company acknowledges there's an adult consumer base, but it has decided to go with a family oriented image and keeps it's games like that. There are like 4 "adult" games in the Gamecube's library and 3 of them are Resident Evils.
D Michael (222) on 3/11/2006 3:25 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
True, but bear in mind when I say 'mature' or 'adult' I don't necessarily mean that the games are good or that adults like them. I just mean these are games that adults aren't likely to buy for a young child, or they are games that kids don't fancy as much.
Nintendo staying with the family market is only possible because there is a large number of consumers in this audience. If it wasn't true they'd have gone bust a long time ago. Also, Nintendo continues to produce the Mario and Zelda games and the like I think not so much because they decide to shy away from an adult audience, but because these are exclusive titles that are only available on Nintendos which were highly successful. They were created during a time when in fact it was more profitable to market to kids than adults. While that has changed, it would hardly be worth the risk to scrap those titles to go for an adult audience. Does this mean that the adult audience isn't viable enough and that consoles are just for kids? Not at all, it just means that Nintendo can offer exclusive titles, not that they are staying with the family image. Staying with the family image is just a byproduct of offering these titles, not the main objective.
PC game development stays alive through adult themes, console game development has builit itself upon a younger audience. The fact that both platforms are successful while taking different approaches confirms that there are stark differences in the majority of gamers for each respective platform.
This is also evident through the publications concerning gaming for each respective platform. For example if you pick up 'Gamepro' magazine or 'Nintendo Power', compare it to something like 'PC Gamer'. The articles, news, and other content not related to specific games is entirely different.
In any case without going on a big tangent here consoles are expanding their adult audience but looking at the history of home gaming shows big differences in approach. That is changing now. While I agree with you that consoles have been more kids, it really can't be said with real confidence today that this is still the case.
D Michael (222) on 3/11/2006 5:04 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Another traditional difference that I have noticed between console and PC gaming is that the consumers for each often have different standards for selecting which game to spend their gaming dollar on.
For example, for most PC gamers, the company that produces a game is considered before making a purchase. It was a plus to have a company like EA or (at one time) Microprose behind a title. Console gamers in the past rarely considered this. THQ and SNK back in the days of NES made some of the most horrid quality home games yet still had sales through the roof because of the titles they offered. Home Alone, Ikari Warriors, games that arcade goers or pop culture aware people were familiar with. Hardly anybody looked at the company or the quality of its previous games on consoles. This is changing now but after 25+ years its about time.
Also, with the exception of RPG games, many console gamers look towards multiplayer options when selecting a game, and outside of the RPG genre single player games did poorly. Developers knew this and even games that had no room for more than one player (such as Tetris) offered it. It's also the reason why an obviously personal use machine such as a Gameboy went so far as to offer multiplayer through a cable interface; it could not be denied that console gamers were big advocates of multiplay. For PC gamers on the other hand, two or more players at one machine was hardly an issue worth considering. The fact that most PCs just a few years back only had one gameport is evidence of this.
Zovni (10504) on 3/11/2006 8:00 PM · Permalink · Report
I hear you Michael, Discussing Nintendo's corporate strategy would take a whole new thread, but it is an acknowledged fact that the company has always aimed to be a family-oriented company. It is in fact a very smart bussiness decision as it effectively takes Nintendo out of a battle it can't win (the Sony/Microsoft fight for the young-adult demographic) and instead allows them to capitalize on the market share they are leaving behind (kids, non-traditional gamers, etc.). Just consider GTA: Liberty City Stories for the PSP and Nintendogs for the DS, two wildly successful titles for each platform. Does anyone think the success would have been the same had Nintendo released a GTA game and Sony a dog-petting simulator? I think not, and the answer lies in the market share each company owns. We may talk about consoles expanding their adult audience, but Nintendo certainly isn't going in that direction.
Moving on, regarding the way gamers choose what to buy I think it's the complete opposite. Ruling out the fanbase for specific game franchises, I think it's an obvious fact that there is much more consumer loyalty in console gaming than in PC gaming. This is mainly thanks to the exclusivity deals for many games that force gamers to choose which camp they want to stay on, and (once again) due to the strong corporate images each console maker presents (as you mentioned, there's a Nintendo Power, and Official XBox and PSX magazines which are basically propaganda magazines for each platform regardless of their content). We all know of at least someone that isn't willing to touch a Playstation because he hates Sony, or someone that hates everything Nintendo makes because it doesn't have boobs. Thousands of gamers will buy whatever crap companies like Square, Capcom and Konami churn out simply because of company loyalty. On the other hand, save for maybe id, there's hardly any pc game developer that commands that kind of attention (EA, Ubisoft and Eidos being cross-platform publishers) and only the most hardcore gamers wait in anticipation for a company or designer's next release . Tomonobu Itagaki of Team Ninja acknowledges this and has gone as far as stating in interviews that establishing a corporate identity (or as he calls it, Visual Identity) to bolster consumer loyalty is sometimes more important than producing the game itself. Whether this is good or bad I leave it to someone else to decide.
As far as multiplayer gaming however, we can all agree that this as you mentioned back in the 16-bit era days. PC gaming has gained the absolute throne of multiplayer gaming since the birth of internet/lan gaming, and only recently have the consoles started to fill in that gap.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/12/2006 2:37 AM · Permalink · Report
Personally, I hate this "console loyalty" you just described. I can't stand it when Nintendo fans bash Sony or vice-versa, just because they want to be "loyal" to a company. I prefer Playstation and Playstation 2 over Nintendo 64 and GameCube not because I hate Nintendo or love Sony, but because PS and PS2 have more games I like. I find this whole "competition" thing between consoles utterly ridiculous and infantile.
As for loyalty to game developers, I think it is equally present by both console and PC players, I don't see a difference here. Maybe in present age, when so many great Western companies have died, the loyalty of console people to their ever-lasting Japanese companies seems stronger. But before, LucasArts, Sierra, or Origin fans were as numerous and as loyal as Square, Konami, or Capcom ones.
D Michael (222) on 3/12/2006 3:08 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
zovni: very well thought out post.
I think I have to agree with zovni in that there is more company loyalty in the console style of gaming than in PC gaming as far as the machines are concerned. However, when it comes to the software it seems that outside of maybe Square and EA console gamers are not as picky about which company makes a certain title.
I've even had the opportunity to test this out on a few occasions. I can recall discussing a console title with various console gamers and when I intentionally tested the water here by asking which company makes a title in question, almost all of my console gamer friends would look confused or just say "I don't know" or "who cares?". When discussing PC titles the opposite has been my experience.
Of course it could be the fact that PC games which require a higher level of customer service for software than console games (patches, configuration help, these kinds of things) it is wise to know which company the player is dealing with and consider that company's previous track record on this issue. Perhaps many gamers don't get this fanatical about it, and while I don't have numbers to back it up or a link to a poll done or anything, it just has been my personal experience that as far as software goes PC gamers are at least more aware of the companies behind the titles they choose than console gamers are.
Kartanym (12418) on 3/16/2006 1:44 AM · Permalink · Report
My pet hate, having grown up in console land, are those gamers who look down upon the console landscape and don't give it a seconds thought. Now I'm not suggesting that it's better then PC or visa versa. I've always considered both mediums as two different kinds of gaming that go hand in hand. So saying that PC is better then console, etc, just doesn't make any sense to me. You just can't compare the two, in my mind.
Take the Halo bashing, for example. Instead of comparing it to similar titles on Xbox, PS2, or whatever other console is available, everyone goes straight to Half-Life. It just doesn't work, people!! :p
sigh Oh, and while I'm here, the Revolution WILL play Mario Kart 64. The entire Nintendo back catalogue will be available (that's 1st party, perhaps some 3rd party titles aswell)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/16/2006 2:20 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm not sure why it is unfair to compare Halo to Half-Life. They are both first-person shooters. They both claim to be story-driven. They were both hyped to the extreme. Now, I haven't played either of them, but from what I heard and read, it seems absolutely legitimate to compare the two. Platforms should play no role in comparison: we compare games that belong to the same genre and from which we have similar expectations.
Kartanym (12418) on 3/16/2006 2:31 AM · Permalink · Report
However, you're trying to compare two titles that have been developed for two different mediums. There's still, even with the latest consoles, a gap between those who play only console games and those who only play PC. I'm sure many of us here are a mix of both genres, hence why we allow ourselves to compare the two legitimately. But the simple fact is, it's like comparing Goldeneye to System Shock 2. I see them differently because of the audience they are made for, not the type of game they are.
Only recently, perhaps including Halo, has console first person shooters made specifically for that console (not include PC ports, of course) become somewhat of a powerhouse, either through the advent of online play or the controllers used for the consoles.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/16/2006 2:51 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, I do consider myself a "mixed player", I actually never understood those "PC only" or "consoles only" mentalities. Both PC and consoles have many exclusive great games, so I can't see how a person can completely ignore either PC or consoles and then call himself a serious gamer. Even though FPS is primarily a PC-oriented genre, FPSs for consoles are just the same, only the controls are different. It's not like there is a separate genre "console FPS". That's why I don't think it's wrong to compare Halo to Half-Life, or Goldeneye to System Shock 2, for that matter.
Kartanym (12418) on 3/16/2006 3:06 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Well, I do consider myself a "mixed player", I actually never understood those "PC only" or "consoles only" mentalities. Both PC and consoles have many exclusive great games, so I can't see how a person can completely ignore either PC or consoles and then call himself a serious gamer. Even though FPS is primarily a PC-oriented genre, FPSs for consoles are just the same, only the controls are different. It's not like there is a separate genre "console FPS". That's why I don't think it's wrong to compare Halo to Half-Life, or Goldeneye to System Shock 2, for that matter. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
It's hard to explain what I'm trying to say, so I'll leave it at that for now. I do agree though, I find it amusing to see the supposed 'war' between pc and console. As I said before, the two work hand in hand. Though I read somewhere that the console has gone full circle. Where once it was a 'junior' pc, then the nes/atari age, now it seems it's shifting back to the PC mentality, thanks largely to Microsoft.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/16/2006 2:46 AM · Permalink · Report
Yikes, this is a long thread. Couldn't read them all. I'll summ up my version...
- Better depth (overall games)
- Longer rapsheet of games
- Usually better controlling options: Keyboard, lock-on-mouse, etc.
- If you're playing, the other bloke can't
- Compability issues: Older games need emulation, newer games constantly drain your wallet due to hardware upgrade.
- Installing...5% (2 hours later)
- If I had a gun for every patch I downloaded for a PC game
- If you're playing, the other bloke can't
- Compability Friendly
- Fast loading time
- Better graphics (usually)
- Bigger Monitor! (Bigger TV...muahaha)
- If you're playing, the other bloke can
- Usually expect minimal brain-activity (all action)
- Usually minimal educational value (all action)
- Impossible to adapt complex strategy games
- If you're playing, the other bloke (sometimes) can
*Note. "Usually" means there are may be some exceptions. Age is also a factor (at least for me). Apparently, I'm not as patient as I'm used to. When I was young, I had an abundant of time to play games, so usually you would find a way to fix a bug (usually for PC games) and tend to be more patient with games that don't seem to intrigue you for the first 1-2 hours. Now older, you don't have the time for it. PC games are frustrating because now your life is one deadline after another, wasting 1-2 even just 15 minutes for installing or waiting for the game to load is too much of a hassle. Console games are straight-forward, enter CD and play. I hate to admit it, but now, I am forced to go with console games. Just don't have the time and patience for PC games anymore... (fondly remembering 20 years of PC gaming memories...bye-bye) But, on an endnote, to me it's not a matter about the platform. You like a platform usually because of a particular game that gave you dang good memories. IT'S THE GAME THAT IS SUPERIOR, NOT THE PLATFORM. Even if the game was released on more than one platform, it's the game you remember in the end...right? If a console/PC fanatic hates the console/PC, it's probably because:
1. Never tried a game he or she liked on that platform
2. Tried but ending up hating it
3. Due to lack of intelligence and personality integrity flaws, unwilling to try because of social pressure not to try them, from equally IQ flawed friends
4. Can't, because mom/dad or personal wallet can only afford one platform.
5. Been with one platform too long, thus even trying another platform would mean Treason! (Read=Idiot's Guide to dating Gaming Geeks) It's the game, not the platform we're talking about here. You hate a platform because of a game, you love it also because of a game. Pure and simple. Though personally the platform I love and despise: G I R L S. Have yet to conquer that platform...nuff said.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/16/2006 3:03 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]
- Usually expect minimal brain-activity (all action)
- Usually minimal educational value (all action)
[/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] Those three are absolutely wrong, man. Absolutely, unconditionally wrong. You haven't played enough good games for consoles. When you are ready to tackle Shin Megami Tensei or Suikoden, you'll agree with me that the above doesn't apply to them at all. And they are both big series, with lots of games. And, there are many others great Japanese RPGs. There are also tons of strategy RPG games, Japanese-style adventures with multiple endings, and other "brain active" and "educational" genres. You just don't know that they exist. [Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] IT'S THE GAME THAT IS SUPERIOR, NOT THE PLATFORM. Even if the game was released on more than one platform, it's the game you remember in the end...right? [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] I agree 100%. [Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] Though personally the platform I love and despise: G I R L S. Have yet to conquer that platform...nuff said. [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] If you despise girls, you'll never be able to conquer them. Well, actually, you'll never be able to conquer them anyway. Nobody can. They conquer us, not the other way around.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/16/2006 3:20 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] [Q2 --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]
- Usually expect minimal brain-activity (all action)
- Usually minimal educational value (all action)
[/Q2 --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] Those three are absolutely wrong, man. Absolutely, unconditionally wrong. You haven't played enough good games for consoles. When you are ready to tackle Shin Megami Tensei or Suikoden, you'll agree with me that the above doesn't apply to them at all. And they are both big series, with lots of games. And, there are many others great Japanese RPGs. There are also tons of strategy RPG games, Japanese-style adventures with multiple endings, and other "brain active" and "educational" genres. You just don't know that they exist. [Q2 --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] *Note. I said usually. There are some exceptions...although may be a lot of exceptions. Yeah, I'll probably go along with you here, since obviously I lack expierence in the console world. But I must admit, from my current point of view, it is what I generally think about console games, in comparison to the PC. If you despise girls, you'll never be able to conquer them. Well, actually, you'll never be able to conquer them anyway. Nobody can. They conquer us, not the other way around. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] I hope some girl will eventually conquer me *cough*.
An Indonesian proverb: "Men are all animals. Women are animal lovers."
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/16/2006 3:30 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] An Indonesian proverb: "Men are all animals. Women are animal lovers." [/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] A nation that has such proverbs will survive any trouble :-))
D Michael (222) on 3/16/2006 4:40 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]Yikes, this is a long thread. Couldn't read them all. I'll summ up my version...
- Better graphics (usually)
[/Q --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] I agree with most of what you said, but console graphics better than PC? You must use a 386sx.
Unicorn Lynx: Actually, there is little educational value in these titles. While these titles aren't based on eye candy, there is little interaction in either of these series. Sure they are great stories with depth that is in its own class, but as far as gameplay goes, these titles copy the strategy that other similar titles in this genre do; attract people who are much more interested in story rather than gameplay. I would never use these titles to attest to the quality of game play on a console. Great stories yes, great games no. It's just my opinion so don't thrash me too hard, I know you're very passionate about these games.
Typically it is the game that is superior not the platform... but this isn't always true. Take Wizardry I for example... do you want to play it in DOS or NES? Well with NES the battery paks are dead so you can't save your game... obvious win for DOS platform. How about Everquest? The PS2 version is terrible. The PC version highly successful. Just two of many examples. To say that a platform cannot be superior is silly.
With the variety of games on any given platform it's impossible to say that one is superior, and as stated before it comes down to personal preference. It is certainly possible however, to consider a specific game released on several different platforms and find superiority in one platform over another.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/17/2006 8:37 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm not sure you played any Megaten or Suikoden games... I mean, compare them to Wizardry you mentioned gameplay-wise: you can't seriously say that Wizardry games have more interaction, educational value, or depth than Shin Megami Tensei. In Wizardry, you go through dungeons and hack monsters. In SMT you do the same, only you talk to those monsters and can build a balanced party from them... and then there's fusion... and sword & gun damage... and alignment... and moral choices... and stat-changing spells... As for the story and characters, guess there is no need to elaborate. So SMT beats Wizardry and most other RPGs in both categories.
There are great Asian RPGs with great stories and gameplay, that's what Western people fail to understand. Naturally, there are also great Western RPGs with great gameplay and stories. Like Ultima or Baldur's Gate. Of course, their gameplay mechanics are different. Western RPGs offer more exploration, but less customization possibilities. It depends on what you prefer. You can say you don't like the kind of gameplay Asian RPGs offer, but to say that they have less gameplay is completely, entirely, and utterly wrong.
As for Wizardry I argument... of course I'd prefer to play it on DOS. And I'd prefer to play Final Fantasy VII on Playstation. So we are fair and square here once again.
D Michael (222) on 3/17/2006 1:47 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Eh, I'm not saying Wizardry is better than Suikoden. The comparison isn't really fair either. Wizardry was created in 1981. For it's time, it was pushing the envelope, largely because it was very original, and partly because the library of games for that time was minimal. If I were to compare games 15 years apart from each other and take points off of the older game because the graphics aren't as good, or gameplay is not as innovative (regardless of how innovative it was at the time of inception), then the opposite can hold true as well; meaning that any game created for NES was fantastic because Atari 2600 had terrible graphics or only a one button controller.
With Wizardry there are stat changing spells, alignments, the building of balanced parties and the like. It's a far cry from the complexity of Shin Megami Tensei I'll admit, but for its time it was a pioneer. But seriously Wizardry is certainly a straw man for any more recent RPG to compare itself with, and to claim that a more modern RPG is better than Wizardry really isn't saying much. I would hope that any modern game offers more than Wizardry I, a game that is now 25 years old.
Games like Suidoken just seem to me to be a rehash of linear story games like the FF series, stuff that has been done over and over with the basis of gameplay kept mostly the same but little whistles and bells added to the game to change it up a bit. Megaten on the other hand is far more innovative.
As far as RPG's go, when I say "less gameplay" I'm looking at what I'm spending most of my time doing. Am I spending the majority of my time actually playing the game, making decisions, completing quests, fighting, or am I spending hours upon hours reading text boxes with little spurts of gaming in between long reading sessions? Many of the FF games were like this, with minimal, linear gameplay yet they were very highly successful in Asia AND the US.
As far as platform comparison it does make a difference at times when considering specific titles, but each has too many perks and downfalls to say one is the all tiem great over another. It's only fair and square if we're speaking on general terms. However when we start to examine specific titles available on multiple platforms there are times that one platform is far superior.
edit: just to show there is still much love, I made this just for you Unicorn; www.525gaming.com/unicorn.JPG
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/17/2006 5:11 PM · Permalink · Report
I actually wasn't comparing the first Wizardry to SMT; I was comparing the two series. The last Wizardry game is, if I'm not mistaken, only two years old. So it's a valid comparison. I'm not saying Wizardry games are bad, but they are decidedly less complex and not as rich in gameplay as many Asian RPGs.
I think you are confusing two different things: amount of gameplay and its quality. Yes, Western RPGs have more gameplay hours (proportionally to cut scenes and dialogues) than Asian ones. But do they have better gameplay? Why having 99% gameplay and 1% story is good? Why is it better than, let's say, 70% gameplay and 30% story? Or even 90% story and 10% gameplay? Some people like games like that. A lot of people like digital novels where there is almost no gameplay at all. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of taste. I'd say the point here is to have good gameplay, no matter how long it lasts. If a game has 90% story and only 10% gameplay, it still doesn't mean those 10% are bad! Since when does the size determine the quality of a work of art? Like this we can end up saying that Beethoven's Piano Sonata op.27 no.1 is not as good as Wagner's "Ring der Nibelungen"...
And you obviously haven't played a Suikoden game... otherwise you wouldn't have insulted the series by calling it a Final Fantasy rehash. I love FF very much, but Suikoden is simply on a higher level of depth. Especially gameplay-wise.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/18/2006 1:56 AM · Permalink · Report
Something tells me we need a new thread to discuss the finer aspects of RPGs for all of us die hard fans.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/18/2006 1:45 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] [Q2 --start Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--]Yikes, this is a long thread. Couldn't read them all. I'll summ up my version...
- Better graphics (usually)
[/Q2 --end Inderanta of the Clan Depari wrote--] I agree with most of what you said, but console graphics better than PC? You must use a 386sx.
It's just my opinion so don't thrash me too hard, I know you're very passionate about these games.
[/Q --end D Michael wrote--]
I think my brain misinterpreted my original meaning. Probably not refering to better graphics, I think I was aiming with: More eye-candy, which oddly was translated in my brain as -->better graphics (usually). Which is a good thing if you like nice pictures.
Yo Oleg, it appears you've developed quite a reputation as a passionate MG user...haha.
Ryu (50) on 3/17/2006 4:20 PM · Permalink · Report
I suppose I am a minority in this discussion, as I don't have a preference for one platform or the other - sure each platform has its strengths and weaknesses, but I am more concerned with the quality of games than the platform I play them on.
I can understand the negative view of PC gaming from a setup/price point of view, citing the fact that while PCs have certainly become more user friendly since the DOS days, they are still more complicated than the truly "plug-and-play" nature of consoles. The price of a decent overall PC has certainly gone down, but the requirements of a decent CPU, 1GB or more of RAM and a decent graphics card for acceptable gaming add quite a bit to the cost of a PC. At the same time, a PC can be used for more than just gaming, and the aforementioned components and upgradability of PCs paves the way for more ambitious titles which will overshadow current console games as the console remains stagnant and PCs improve.
On the console side, a common system spec. allows developers to spend less time on compatibility and more time tweaking their levels and gameplay. The control systems for console games are often tweaked to offer better control with the limited number of buttons available, and in some cases are very succesful, making console games in general more accessible. Console releases usually include many more racing, console style RPG and action games, so if those are your favorite genres, you will prob tend to prefer consoles over PCs. Consoles obviously offer a better choice for some wind-down gaming at the end of the day, rather than waiting for a PC to boot, simply pop in a disc/cart and play.
Obviously, the point is to enjoy games on whatever platform you play them on, because that is the real point of playing games anyway, having fun.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/17/2006 5:12 PM · Permalink · Report
Amen :-))
D Michael (222) on 3/17/2006 5:35 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
The newest Wizardry is actually more than 5 years old, but that doesn't put it out of range for comparison. The major difference between comparing these two series is that Wizardry built itself upon its own beginnings, it's own innovation. While I-V were largely the same, VI VII and VIII continued to redesign the game while keeping the core features that made the series a success.
With Suidoken, little whistles and bells have been added on top of ideas in gameplay that we've seen thousands of times before. The digital novel, the linear storyline, many of the combat features and sequences (yes even the naval battles in Suidoken IV borrow from Microprose games) so what we're left with is a game that must be different and innovative through storyline alone. I give the series credit here, it does awesome.
With the later Wizardry games, different players can have different experiences. Multiple endings, different arrangements of character types all contribute to different experiences. In Wizardry 8 you don't have to explore every piece of the map, complete every quest, discover every secret to end the game. My experience with console RPGs in general is that this is not the case. In the end, all players will have the same experiences with the same game. I'll admit I haven't played much Suidoken, but I've played enough to see that it is very similar to a plethora of RPG's of its type. While it does stand out, I guess I just have to say that I'm not blown away by it. Just not my cup of tea perhaps.
As far as amount and quality of gameplay, these really are different things... to an extent. However, I'd rather have 2 hours of mediocre gameplay than 5 minutes of stellar gameplay. The best books I've ever read destroy the best game storylines I've ever read. So, if the majority of the time I'm reading instead of playing I'll pick up a book.
All I can say is why I'm not a big fan of these types of games. I'm not trying to convince anyone else into my line of thinking, just explaining why the experience of many top-down RPG's (Asian or otherwise) don't impress me much.
It's also important to note that games like Suidoken and Megaten do not represent the majority of console gaming. These games are the exception rather than the rule and if we're speaking in general terms, it would be hard to advocate the general use of consoles over PC's with these titles alone.
Something not really related to what we're talking about here Unicorn, but I wanted to say that I guess one of the many reasons I prefer PC gaming over console gaming is that it seems more underground as opposed to so much mainstream console wanton commercialism. It just seems like users and user content plays such a huge role that the fan base for PC gaming gets to alter the course of PC gaming at any junction thereby resulting in production that seems to compliment the crowd's taste. This is not as obvious with console gaming.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/18/2006 2:58 AM · Permalink · Report
I have just the opposite feeling... I feel that most people (in the West, at least)play only Western (i.d. mostly PC-based) games, while Asian games are completely unknown. Megaten series is for example very popular in Japan, but the majority of Western players don't know about it. It is not an exception, but in fact the largest franchise of Japanese RPGs in history.
Your argument about not having to explore every place in an Asian RPG in order to finish the game is not correct. Games like Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, and many others have loads of optional quests which you could undertake or neglect at your own wish.
Anyway, your sentence about preferring 2 hours of mediocre gameplay over 5 minutes of good one says it all. For me, a game is a composition of several elements, only one of which is gameplay. I know it is not so for the majority of gamers. They value only (or primarily) the gameplay aspect of a game. I know people who skip cut scenes when playing games. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but this is where the whole gaming thing becomes absolutely pointless in my eyes.
Zovni (10504) on 3/18/2006 3:45 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]I have just the opposite feeling... I feel that most people (in the West, at least)play only Western (i.d. mostly PC-based) games, while Asian games are completely unknown. Megaten series is for example very popular in Japan, but the majority of Western players don't know about it. It is not an exception, but in fact the largest franchise of Japanese RPGs in history.
Your argument about not having to explore every place in an Asian RPG in order to finish the game is not correct. Games like Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, and many others have loads of optional quests which you could undertake or neglect at your own wish.
Anyway, your sentence about preferring 2 hours of mediocre gameplay over 5 minutes of good one says it all. For me, a game is a composition of several elements, only one of which is gameplay. I know it is not so for the majority of gamers. They value only (or primarily) the gameplay aspect of a game. I know people who skip cut scenes when playing games. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but this is where the whole gaming thing becomes absolutely pointless in my eyes. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Would you say the Final Fantasies, Metal Gears and Street Fighters of the world are western games enjoyed only by western gamers?? I think we all like to side by our favorite niche and pretend they are the undiscovered magic gems of videogaming, but the realtity is quite different from that. I agree with Michael when he says these games are the exception and not the rule, and while it's true that there is a considerable level of non-linearity in console rpgs it's practically unnoticeable when compared to it's PC brethen.
That is actually interesting, If we start doing a side-by-side comparison of each genre's rules in each platform we can pretty much paint the "tastes" that rule computer and console gaming audiences, but it pretty much takes us to what has been posted before by myself and others. I would write more but I feel the flames getting closer...XD
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/18/2006 3:58 AM · Permalink · Report
You see yourself - I said "Asian RPG", and you immediately said "Final Fantasy". Because for most Western players, Asian RPG = Final Fantasy. Some reviewers even call it "Final Fantasy genre"! Okay, FF is popular. But it's just one of the many series of Asian RPGs. Most Asian RPGs are unknown to the average Western player. That's a fact. Have you played any Megaten game? Tengai Makyou? Xuanyuan Jian? Xianjian Qixia Zhuan? Live a Live? Granhistoria? Maten Densetsu? Romancing SaGa (completely non-linear, by the way)? Just to name a few.
No, you haven't. So how come you (I don't mean you personally, Alejandro, I mean Western players in general) keep saying how Asian RPGs are less this and less that, if you don't know enough about them? Having played a couple of Final Fantasy games is not enough to form an opinion about the whole genre.
Zovni (10504) on 3/18/2006 4:03 PM · Permalink · Report
I misread games for rpgs, but the issue is the same. After all, can you name one western rpg that has been released for consoles? Everything from Zelda to Grandia to FF to DQ/W to Lunar to whatever you want to mention is asian. The console rpg genre IS asian by nature, and throwing names around means nothing, yes I have played megaten games, yes I played Tengai Makyou games, yes I played Live a Live (probably the worst, most "interactive movie" game ever developed by Square until the Xenosagas) and yes I played Saga games (and they are the perfect example of how far "non-linearity" goes in console rpgs, you get 8 or so characters and you can do whoever you want in any order, but their quests are completely linear. I think the only one that wasn't so was the one with the wizard in Saga Frontier).
If you want to start naming asian games that have never been released overseas just for the sake of it, be my guest but bear in mind that thanks to the internet there's hardly a game that can be kept hidden from the hardcore gamer, and that regardless of that 90% of console gamers are more familiar with asian than western rpgs. (heck I know people that think ALL rpgs come from japan, including KoTOR, and that's because they only play games on their TVs :)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/19/2006 3:41 AM · Permalink · Report
It's a pity that nearly no Western RPGs were released for consoles. I never said it was good. I just said that Western RPGs are much more popular in the West than Asian ones. That's a fact. Browse MobyGames and compare the amount of reviews for Western and for Asian RPGs. See?
You can't seriously say that 90% of "console gamers" (whatever you mean by that) are more familiar with Asian than with Western RPGs. This very forum is the proof of the opposite! I'm the only one here defending Asian RPGs, while the rest say "Pfff". It's not the question of what is better, it's the question of what doesn't get the recognition it deserves.
And sorry, but I don't believe you that you played all those games you mentioned. "Played" as in "completed". Or at least "played for 15-20 hours". If you tried playing "Live a Live" for a couple of hours, it doesn't mean you have played it. Please. You praise FF6 and FF7 and Xenogears in your reviews. Rightfully so. So how can you say "Live a Live" is the "worst interactive movie"? It has much more gameplay variety and choices than the other three. You obviously haven't played the last chapter, which is 50% of the game.
Hey, you want to dislike Asian RPGs - no problem with that. But please do notice one thing. I haven't said a single bad word about Western RPGs.All I was trying to do is to bring more attention to Asian ones. So don't take it as an attack on what you like, because it's not. I think I love Western RPGs as passionately as you do. And I know they do things that Asian RPGs cannot do. But the opposite is also true. So it's really not about what is better. Just be a bit more tolerant, and try not to expect from Asian RPG what you get in Western ones.
Zovni (10504) on 3/20/2006 2:00 AM · Permalink · Report
Ok, let's not play the "you played-I played" game no more because It's not gonna get us anywhere (just for the record I stand by my statement of Live a Live). Also this thread isn't about rpgs so let's leave it at that. As for what I said of console gamers and asian games I'm not going to keep trying to hammer down a concept that's clear as water because it's only going to get each one of us to go to more extreme positions. Just pick up any console gaming magazine check out the ratio of asian games vs western ones and be done with it.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/20/2006 3:59 AM · Permalink · Report
Yes, but you are talking only about console games, while I mean all games in general. Of course Asian games for consoles are more popular than Western games for consoles, because most consoles are Asian, and most console games are Asian too! But if you compare the popularity of Western and Asian games for all platforms in the West, you'll see that Asian games are much less known.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/20/2006 12:49 PM · Permalink · Report
RPG-wise, Xbox is much more Western than Asian: you have Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Fable, and other stuff; I don't even think there is one Asian RPG for Xbox, except Shin Megami Tensei Nine.
It's kinda strange that you and many other guys say console gaming is mainstream. Most of the people I know play more PC than console games. I hardly even known people who are more console-oriented. By the way, I'm also not; I just like Japanese RPGs, and they are mostly released for consoles (although Chinese RPGs are almost all PC-only). And, as I said earlier, I hate this whole bug business on PC. So I played Knights of the Old Republic on Xbox, not because I like Xbox more, but because I knew it will handle it efficiently and not crawl and crash and refuse to install.
And now I'm playing "Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines". PC-only. Such a wonderful game... but it takes 3 minutes to load an area, and the character crawls instead of running. And my system requirements are above recommended... sigh
D Michael (222) on 3/18/2006 4:05 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Personal preference plays the biggest role really, and I won't look down on anyone who prefers a platform that I don't, that would be silly. But let's face it, the past has shown that the type of games and their content released on various platforms differs widely, and this is no accident at all. It is for this reason that Sonic games did great on the Genesis and absolutely horrid on the PC. They were different crowds with different tastes and sales reflected this. So while I concede that we can't say PC's are the best over consoles or vice versa, the fact is that there are differences not just in the platform itself but in the crowds that follow these platforms and as a result of this, the titles that are released for these platforms. If the crowds for each following were the same, then cross platform titles should do equally well regardless of which platform they are released on, and this is rarely the case.
About Megaten; yes it is huge but it is still the exception. While it is one of the most popular RPG series for console out there, it does not represent the majority of console gaming. Let's face it, the majority of games released for consoles are absolute crap. I'm not saying that there aren't a load of crappy PC games, but most devs go for the young crowd. It's tough to find a selection of new releases for the PC for kids these days, but stroll down the console aisles, put on a blindfold, pick a game off of the shelf, and there's a really good chance you'll be holding trash. Megaten differs from most console games not just because it's a fricken awesome series with great innovation, but because it draws an audience with higher expectations when it comes to gameplay, and this is why it is an exception among most console gaming options.
Zovni: I don't feel any flames :) I like this discussion, and hope that I'm not offending anyone because the last thing I want to do is argue with anyone. I like this exchange and found myself wishing that either I knew Japanese or that they'd port the entire Megaten series to either Xbox, Gamecube, or PS2 (I have all 3).
Unicorn: can you give me an example of a game that was very similar to FF that came about before FF?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/18/2006 5:59 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] Let's face it, the majority of games released for consoles are absolute crap. [/Q --end D Michael wrote--] I totally agree with you. But let's face it: the majority of games in general are absolute crap. No matter for which platform.
[Q --start D Michael wrote--] Unicorn: can you give me an example of a game that was very similar to FF that came about before FF? [/Q --end D Michael wrote--] The first Dragon Quest, the first Phantasy Star, and Digital Devil Monogatari: Megami Tensei (the first of Megaten) all appeared before the first Final Fantasy, and with the exception of the first DQ were also better games.
D Michael (222) on 3/18/2006 6:36 AM · Permalink · Report
The point is, games that lack any sort of real value are much easier to find on the console. Yeah as mentioned before there are crappy PC games as well, but typically the crap PC games are low production and easy to recognize. With consoles you have major releases that sell big that are utter crap because kids want them. If I were to release a game that I knew was absolute garbage, I bet I'd have more sales if I went console instead of PC.
I'm curious, since FF was not the first of its type, what sets it apart from the others as far as being so much more successful? Deep pockets held by developers maybe?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/18/2006 7:04 AM · Permalink · Report
FF games are successful because there is a lot of creativity in them, they have a high artistic value. However, the series is neither the founder of the genre nor its most original offering. Of course it is a big and important series, but it's not something that defines the genre.
Zovni (10504) on 3/18/2006 4:09 PM · Permalink · Report
Don't worry about me man, I thrive in flames ;).
Anyway, as for Megaten the reason it's so unique is because the game deals with exactly the sort of semi-mature material that isn't dealt with in console rpgs. And that's exactly why the game remains in the shadows of the more popular rpgs out there, say what you will Oleg but Atlus games have never been and will never be more popular than the stuff that comes out of the Squares of Japan.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/19/2006 3:49 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, they are pretty popular in Japan. Less popular than DQ or FF of course, but at least they have a strong following. I mean, the first Shin Megami Tensei was never released in the West! Because it is difficult, because it deals with religious themes, because it describes a political conflict between USA and Japan - I don't care. It is one of the great classics of gaming, and it was never translated. That's just the sort of stuff I don't like. Because 99% of the gamers all over the world can understand English, but not Japanese. A US release is like a world-wide recognition. Instead they keep translating and releasing in the West all kind of crap. Why do they translate crappy RPGs and leave good ones behind?
Terrence Bosky (5397) on 3/19/2006 3:51 AM · Permalink · Report
I bet if games could easily be fan subbed/dubbed, those games would see a US release.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/19/2006 3:54 AM · Permalink · Report
Well, there is an unofficial English translation patch for the SNES version of SMT... but it came about 10 years after the game was released.
Terrence Bosky (5397) on 3/19/2006 3:58 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm talking about something like the widespread, devoted fanbase that translated anime and manga well before one could walk into the nearest bookstore and buy them. Something that would make publishers take notice. I think it's crap in this global economy that I can't have easy access to games from every country. ... um, it sucks that people are starving, too.
D Michael (222) on 3/19/2006 4:17 AM · Permalink · Report
The whole thing is money driven of course and the companies are going where the cash is. Much more money in releasing a game in English than any other language I bet. Crap RPG's originating in Japan get translated because the companies behind those titles will do it cheap, and hey the company releasing it in the US doesn't give a crap either because too many people here will buy anything that has a TV commercial behind it.
Zovni (10504) on 3/19/2006 3:50 PM · Permalink · Report
It's there man, translation patches and cracks have a small but devoted niche out there and are the key to getting into this underworld of (mainly) console gaming. Of course, be aware that just as with animé "fansubs" it means getting involved with the "P" word
Riamus (8480) on 4/6/2006 10:36 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, I started reading this thread and I'm giving up... it's too darn long to start from the top. Heh. So, forgive me if I mention something already mentioned.
My biggest problem with console vs PC gaming is that you can't buy all the games for any one system. If you prefer PC gaming (as I do), you can't play a LOT of great console-only games that are never released on PC. If you prefer console gaming, you are in a worse fix... you can only play the games made for your specific console, or on occasion, from consoles made by the same company.
I prefer PC gaming because it's cheaper for me to keep my computer updated than to buy a new console whenever one is released. I also prefer having the ability to patch games, mod games, and play games online with friends without paying for a service like Xbox Live. Sure, I'd have to pay for internet service, but I want that for other reasons than gaming anyhow, so it's not an additional cost. I already own a PC and I prefer to keep it updated even without considering gaming, so even if I did do console gaming, I'd still be spending the same money on my PC. Yes, there are bugs and compatibility problems that occur more frequently than on consoles, but if you keep your computer set up well and you update regularly (drivers/software versions etc and do hardware now and then), then you really don't have a lot of problems with the games. I also prefer having my computer used for gaming and not tie up the television for gaming. I suppose I could spend money on another television, but why? $300+ for a new console, $50 or so per game, and then a new television as well ($100+)? I can build a good computer system for not much more than that and it can play MANY more games than are available for even all the consoles combined. And, I can play freely downloadable games as well, try out demos of games, etc.
In the end, I just prefer PC gaming. My only wish is that all the great console games were ported to PC. There are so many great Japanese-made games out there that I can't play because they are console-only. :(
Riamus (8480) on 4/7/2006 11:58 AM · Permalink · Report
It is true that all older consoles and handhelds can be played on the PC. But the emulation scene is falling apart if you start looking closely at it. There aren't any new emulators coming out anymore and none for the newer systems have made any noticeable progress in a very long time. I am not really expecting to see any emulators for the newer systems for years, if ever. And, once they are out, the games will be rather outdated. Not to say they wouldn't still be worth playing, of course.