I havent played console games in years because I prefer PC games (cant beat a keyboard and mouse). I’m sure someone in the industry is going to complain about the economy and piracy… blah blah. I am willing to buy a few games now if I could actually FIND SOMETHING WORTH BUYING. The game industry today has gone from interesting games 20-30 years ago to button-mashing no-brainers that may be mildly addictive, but no fun in the end. MAKE BETTER GAMES. The other issue is that they have gone from year or two release cycles to sometimes FIVE TO SEVEN YEAR release cycles. Gone are the days of huge fanfare for a new game replaced by hum-drum attempts at selling new content packs for a 3-4 year old game. RELEASE A NEW VERSION OF A GAME for crying out loud. Don’t just try to sell junk for old games. This also gets into the fact that because they moved to a “content pack” model they have removed the ability for users to mod and make innovative items for games. So the large communities of people modding and mod users have nearly all fled.

I propose a reversal…
MAKE *NEW* GAMES (new or new VERSIONS of games, not packs)

AT LEAST FOR MOST, MAKE THEM MODDABLE! DONT RESTRICT YOUR BASE!

MAKE NON-BUTTON-MASHING-CHILDS GAMES (STOP DUMBING DOWN YOUR GAMES)

SHORTEN YOUR RELEASE TIMES BACK TO A YEAR OR TWO

ONE TO TWO CONTENT PACKS PER GAME/VERSION ***MAX***

FIRE OLD STAFF, HIRE NEW STAFF WILLING TO CODE FOR MULTI-CORE AND 64-BIT… GAMES NEED TO MOVE INTO THIS CENTURY. I know there are still a lot of game coders out there that think multi-core and 64-bit are pointless… but I have seen games recently that could SERIOUSLY use this to speed them up and/or add power to server software.

I think the main reason for this situation the main cause is the price and availability most of these games and gaming consoles are only available to rich people so they can only buy and play these games the other side the poor people can’t buy these games during the cost of the games and gaming consoles so price should be low and quality of games (graphics and mainly the stories should be attractable to the children) then the games sales will be in better position.

It’s alright to be into PC gaming, which I am, but for the love of everything good and decent in this world, stop being so derogatory about console-like gaming/games.

I happen to enjoy PC and console gaming, but comments like:
“NON-BUTTON-MASHING-CHILDS GAMES” and
“button-mashing no-brainers”

Are extremely inflammatory and are completely unnecessary in backing-up your desire for in-depth, technologically up-to-date games.

Do you see my point? Yes it’s frustrating, and maybe you prefer a certain type of game, but in reality console or PC gamers just want to play games. And there are plenty of non “BUTTON-MASHING-CHILDS GAMES”. It’s not an all-or-nothing scenario when talking about games.

I won’t bring up the economy, or piracy (which might not be a big deal here, but is a problem in foreign markets), but the used games industry has definitely given retail sales a huge kick in the nuts.

Hardware is Taking a hit Because of consoles and the fact there is literally no game currently on the market that requires new hardware. Now that the majority of companys multi port thier games, The essence of what makes them special is being lost .

Crysis 2 is the latest best example of this, a game with its soul ripped out in an attempt to appeal to both console and pc gamers alike.. This is being repeated again and again as the Games that kicked so much ass a few years ago have titles with the number “2″ after them and are barely shadows of thier former glory.

What baffles me most about the piracy Card is the most active “group” of “pirates” at the college im attending are ripping off PS3 games and hacking PS3 Machines.. when will this trend change ?? when we the consumer refuse to pay for lesser games, wich in my humble opinion is 90% of this years releases..

Excellent point, Vapus. While appealing to the unwashed masses makes perfect sense when it comes to money, it is also a sure way to end with inferior product so far as both artistic and the technological aspects go. Consoles to gaming (as an art form) are what McDonalds is to culinary.

“Consoles to gaming (as an art form) are what McDonalds is to culinary.”

Such a ridiculous comment. I can see making that comparison between Angry birds and a full-fledged PC title.

I look forward to the day when some gamers stop being elitist pigs and realize it’s just a matter of preference. Yes it’s sad that consoles have held back PC’s, but using your preference for PC-based gaming as a way to feel superior is pretty sad.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t be upset about what’s happening to PC games, but at least be realistic with the foundation of your preference.

“inferior product so far as both artistic and the technological aspects go”

Technological, sure, but dismissing the artistic merit of any serious video game is retarded. I’ve played plenty of console games in the last two years that have plenty of artistic merit.

Booth, you seem to think that there is a claim, that those who like consoles are scum, hidden somewhere in my previous statement. That is not so.

Consoles are still gaming machines, console games are still games, and console gamers are still gamers. They are just a different kind of gamers. To continue using my food analogy, McDonalds is still a restaurant, food is still food, and those who eat there are still people – not scum. At the same time it would be foolish and laughable to say that it’s the same kind of restaurant as a $150-per-person steakhouse, the food is the same kind of food, and the people are the same kind of people.

There is nothing wrong with grouping, so long as everyone understands that occasionally there is an instance that falls outside the grouping algorithm. Have there been console games that are on par with the best of what PC has to offer? I’m sure there were some. Can an upper-middle-class person occasionally crave a Big Mac? Sure, why not. Still the two fall into different groups, separated by a good number of “usually true” criteria to warrant this grouping.

You are taking offense because you think that when I say that console games are generally inferior, I also imply that any given person who plays them is also inferior. That is not true at all. I know plenty of people who are anything but inferior and yet enjoy the consoles. This doesn’t make consoles good, it just means that tastes differ, and so do situations. Just because someone drives a Honda doesn’t mean they are inferior to a person who drives a Bugatti. Bugatti is still a much better car though.

That may be so, but I think the analogy of Honda:Bugatti to Console:PC isn’t quite on target. At one point in time, especially during the early-to-mid 90s, I’d have absolutely agreed with you. I also think that PC games have greater POTENTIAL than console games, but only because consoles are designed NOT to have that potential. By potential, I also don’t mean “higher FPS” or “shinier graphics.” Frankly, I find the fetish for graphics to be misguided much of the time. Not that I don’t appreciate a fancy lookin’ game, mind you, but rather that so much emphasis is placed on graphics that it often comes at the expense of gameplay itself. Civ5 vs. Civ4 is a good example, to my mind. Civ5 may be prettier in some respects, but it’s nowhere near the game Civ4 is.

But I think the question turns on what “art” in videogaming actually is. Is it the ability to tell a good story? Is it just the graphics? Is it the game design itself? What qualifies as art in a videogame context exactly? I think that raises far more complex questions than just this article or the comments below it can answer, but I’ll say that I think that consoles have the capacity to produce artistically valuable games just as PCs do, and neither one is “better” than the other at that. PCs do have the hardware advantage….but as we’ve seen in recent years, that advantage is moot. Crysis 1 is probably one of the most hardware intensive games I’ve EVER played (still), and it can still knock my PC on its ass if I REALLY push the limit (the final battle basically froze my PC). But was it art? Hmm…not sure I’d go quite that far. It was pretty, but that doesn’t make it art. Moreover, for all the fancy schmancy graphics of the game…the gameplay itself, while fun, still felt VERY “been there, done that.” So, for all the PC’s potential — even as realized in many ways by Crysis — what did I gain? Pretty much a Michael Bay (ok, ok, better than that….Jerry Bruckheimer) movie in videogame form. And that’s art? Not so much, not by my tally.

As a separate matter, across the board, I think the reasons for declining sales are declining quality, reliance on “franchise” titles, and stagnation that results therefrom. I mean, while incremental improvements HAVE occurred with the Medal of Battlefield Duty franchises…honestly, how many times can you play the same dull singleplayer game? And while the MP action is fun, there is now an emphasis AGAINST player-driven innovation like mods and custom maps. For all the angst that Steam generates, at least Valve games still let you do that (although less and less so).

The cry of “MAKE BETTER GAMES” is fair…but still undirected. I don’t know about you guys, but, while I can imagine cool games, I’m not so sure that MY imagination of what’s cool matches everyone else’s, or whether my imagined awesome game is even technically possible. I think a better approach would be “TAKE MORE RISKS.” And that, sadly, is something that nobody in ANY angle of the entertainment industry is willing to do…except at the edges with the indie scene for various media. Smaller developers catering to smaller but very reliable audiences, in my opinion, is where we’ll see more innovation, or at least more variety even if they’re just going back to what worked once-upon-a-time (I’m lookin’ at YOU, Telltale games…and lovin’ ya for it).

If all everyone wants to do is make the next Call of Duty game or the next WoW, gaming WILL stagnate…but I’m not entirely sure that’s such a bad thing. After all, it was exactly that stagnation which has, in the past, led to the rise of other genres. So, while it gets pretty dark sometimes, I do think that things can and do turn around.

Dear Solo, thank you for being balanced.

@Alaric – you brought up some good points too. But I still maintain that the sales issue and the quality of the gaming experience is more closely related to game design, which is only loosely related to technological advancement.

Instead of the car manufacturer analogy, I’d liken it to the music being played on the stereo in the car. The Bugatti might be your PC and my PC could be an Impala. They both offer very different driving experiences and component quality, but if I was driving both in traffic, but the Bugatti had a tape deck, and the Impala had component speakers and 2 12″ subwoofers, I’d rather be stuck on a congested road in the Impala.

If we were on an open highway, then I’d prefer the Bugatti with a tape deck.

Most of the language being used by the PC crowd leaves very little room for the artistic, entertainment, and immersive qualities of console games. From playing a variety of console games over the last few years I can confidently say that there have been enough quality games (story, game mechanics, etc.) on consoles for it to be more than a rarity and an exception to the rule.

“Consoles to gaming (as an art form) are what McDonalds is to culinary.”

- Stupid, idiotic comment to make.

The Legend of Zelda series. Metroid. Mario. Those three series alone (each one having birthed numerous sequels that almost every time out of the gate challenge and entertain gamers while pushing game design in some new intriguing directions) are works of art. More than art – they exhibit soul. They are the vibrant heart that beats within this hobby. They’re the reason most of us picked up a controller in the first place and most likely lit the fire within our current crop of game developers. Hell, Gabe Newell just selected Super Mario 64 as one of his top 3 favorite games of all time.

And then there’s Ico. Shadow of the Colossus. Uncharted 2. Beyond Good and Evil. The Metal Gear series. The first time a dog jumped through that window in Resident Evil. I could go on and on but I’ve already gone on way past my self-imposed character limit.

The point is – I rarely see console game fans come to these pages to bash PC development but on the flip side, insecurity runs rampant. You want to know the exact reason why PC developers are developing their games with the consoles in mind. Because MOST OF THE SANE WORLD doesn’t feel like dropping a few thousand bucks to upgrade their system every time the new hotness drops. Look around at the economic landscape. $300 on a console isn’t exactly an impulse buy. The high-end PC market is as niche as it gets and a company would have to be insane to steer their development towards that and ignore the MASS MARKET.

That business model will never makes sense. Never again.

The Legend of Zelda – The Wind Waker.

I don’t care what anyone says. That game is a freakin’ work of art – timeless – that holds up almost 10 years after its release. Could it have been done on a PC? Yes. But it never WOULD have been.

Yep. Zelda, Metroid, Mario – mass market. That about sums it up. Also an order of extra-large fries and a coke.

Ok, now that I am at work I can type up an actual reply. =)

You like console games, Ed. That’s fine. In fact, more power to you. I wish you many pleasant experiences as you continue being involved with this hobby.

With that said, the reason you don’t see console gamers bashing PC development, is the same one you don’t see McDonalds patrons picketing outside Ruth’s Chris. They probably could, but what exactly is the point? Even if someone does make a “God Hates Steaks” sign and marches outside, people are just going to avoid making eye contact as with other crazies. On the other hand, it is quite acceptable to state that McDonalds is sub-par food. The primary reason for that is because it’s true. Nobody is going to deny it, not even those who eat there regularly. Casually mentioning this fact is not a sign of insecurity. After all, what is there to be insecure about?

You are absolutely correct about mass market though. Clearly, developing for consoles makes more sense financially. Because the consumer base is enormous. Same as with McDonalds. For all their fancy food, genius chefs, expensive decor and so on, the upscale restaurants make a tiny fraction of what McDonalds makes. You may say they are a fairly niche market. Still, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that their business model doesn’t make sense.

A few weeks ago, a few people and I treated our friend to a dinner for his birthday. We went to Restaurant Michael in Winnetka, IL. The bill came out to be about $150 per person. You may decry us as not belonging to the sane world, because that’s 30 McDonalds meals right there. I would disagree though. We did not go there to satisfy our hunger. We went for the experience.

To me, and many like me, gaming is kind of like that. We could, of course, twitch in front of a TV for a while, and a portion of our needs would be satisfied. However, to us, gaming and button mashing are not one and the same. We want more. And because we want more we “insanely” invest thousands into powerful gaming machines. For the experience.

By the way, in doing so we directly finance the kind of research and development that gives you a half-way decent console for $300. At some point the videocard in your 360, was $750 alone. Because we kept buying them, and demanding more, technology moved further and you can have your entire system for less then half of what we used to pay for the video alone. All console “innovation” is merely a function of PC innovation.

In any event, just like I said to Booth, I don’t think that console gamers are evil or stupid. I just think that your over-the-top defensiveness is perhaps a sign of that very insecurity that you project onto others. An insecurity that is rooted in the knowledge that you are settling.

@Alaric – Be honest. Have you legitimately played a Zelda game from start to finish? Or a Mario? If not… then I don’t think you have the proper “vocabulary” to continue this discourse. This elitist, dismissive argument is EXACTLY what’s wrong with new media.

And having read the lion’s share of what you’re written, I’m just going to move on. There’s no reasoning. Between you and OmegaBob, I sincerely hope for our sake that the machines never become self-aware – for they’ll surely make the two of you their top-lieutenants while Booth and I end up nothing more than batteries for those wretched robots. And I don’t know Kung-Fu.

No doubt, this same tired console bashing will continue on these pages. A hoarse whisper railing against the dying of the light.

But to continue to counter that. No thanks.

For what we have here is a failure to communicate. There are some men you just can’t reach.

…and I don’t like it any more than you men.

New media? Self-aware machines? Lieutenants, batteries, and kung-fu? A hoarse whisper railing against the dying of the light?

I don’t know what to say. I didn’t expect you to be so deep, tormented, and artistic.

I… I’m sorry…

Please don’t cut yourself. Cutting is bad. Mmmkay?

Just because something is “mass market” doesn’t mean that it can’t also be art. I mean, you can’t get much more mass market than The Beatles, but I don’t think anyone would argue that they aren’t art. Well, certainly not their later stuff, anyway.

By the same token, you can have art in a console game, just as you can have a crappy “Slop Bin” PC game like, oh, I don’t know, Beachhead 2000. Consoles can and do innovate in terms of game design, and they can be plenty pretty.

Also, I’ve got to take issue with the characterization of all console games as “button mashing.” Look, I came of gaming age in the early 1990s. I’ve been a PC gamer since I played GORF on a Commodore VIC-20. I’ve played on an Apple IIC, and on a variety of PC platforms since the 286 was out and 3x CD-Roms were a pipe dream. I’ve seen this industry — and the PC gaming industry — morph over the years from text-driven adventure games like The Hobbit and Zork to the visual extravaganzas of modern FPS games, and all manner of gaming in between.

There was a time when PC gaming was infinitely superior to console gaming, back when you could do SO much more on a PC than you could on a console. Those were the 8-bit days when consoles had a whopping five buttons (I only count the D-pad as a single button), and PCs were offering flight sims, adventure games, side-scrollers, etc. Back then, it was easy to dismiss console games as “mere button mashing.”

But as consoles grew in power, and the PC hardware market went kind of insane in the early 2000s, I’ve seen things shift. Consoles can do a LOT more than they used to be able to do, and while it’s true that they are still marketed as using a simple controller, there’s really nothing stopping them from, say, also including a mouse and keyboard combo. I mean, aside from mods and control scheme, what’s the difference between Oblivion on the console vs. the PC? Resolution and frame rates? Sorry, but I’m not one who worships at that temple. That’s frequently true in other arenas.

While I’ll admit that there’s still no way to play an RTS effectively on a console, and while PCs still hold the edge (for me, certainly) on control scheme, and while PCs have the POTENTIAL to do a hell of a lot more than the current generation of consoles, I just don’t see there being a whole lot of ACTUAL difference between the two markets. You have adventure games on PC and on console (IE: Monkey Island Special Editions and Sam & Max games). You have FPS games on both, and while consoles have been limited in how many players they can field in MP gaming, that limit is rising. I hear that IL-2 on console can actually be set up to be just as intensely realistic as on PC, although I’ve yet to try it with my Ace Edge flight stick and throttle combo.

Now, I’ll grant you that certain types of games are a lot less likely to be made for console than for PC. A game like Red Orchestra wouldn’t really work so well on console because of how hit detection would work and the lack of precision in the control scheme of consoles vs. PCs. I’ll also grant you that the market for console games has TRADITIONALLY preferred games that are more straightforward and can be controlled with just the gamepad, rather than with a 101-key keyboard, mouse, and flight stick with throttle and 11 buttons. But I don’t see that as being necessary moving forward. What it’ll take to change that, though, is a courageous developer and ultimately it’s THAT issue — which applies equally to PC and consoles — that is the crux of the matter.

Why take a risk when you can play it safe? And playing it safe means doing what everyone else does, such as making yet another WoW knockoff MMO, or making yet another COD/Battlefield knockoff. Why innovate when you can replicate?

@Alaric – So I take it you haven’t played Wind Waker. : )

I haven’t. I believe you though. It very well might be one hell of a game.

Speaking of games I played, check out this list: http://darkadia.com/member/alaric/library

It has most of the games I owned, played, finished, etc.

6 games are not on that list because they were porn/hentai.
4 games because they were Russian.
10 games for no good reason.

LoL at both Booth And Ed, While you have a few arguments with veracity its clear you are opposed to the PC as a gaming platform.. Go ahead and disagree with me with long paragraphs that amount to the same thing.
Computers made 4 years ago, with hardware you can barely give away today , is readily available to the masses, the PC is still the largest Install base of people who play games to this very day , Granted MANY of them own consoles but the majority is still there, Usless buisness model ? I absolutely disagree .

Thats the mantra of most Console gamers out there today , none of them realizing or wanting to admit how even last years 300 Dollar Rebuild machine can stomp out PS3 and Xbox 360′ guts, and do it on the Bigscreen TV as well, but rarely gets the chance due to extremely limiting hardware specs of the latter. Lets not forget the PC enjoying night and day differences in failure Rate . they Just last longer, always have.

As far as console titles that are “worthy of artistic merit etc etc ” those are few and far in between in my opinion . IM sure you will have lots of little things to say in an attempt to eviscerate my points but for me the truth is what it is. The next gen will aleviate some of my beefs but thats a ways off . in the meantime I get dumbed down hollow Crap 90% of the time , or more.. every year .

Actually, I’m not opposed to PC as a gaming platform, which goes to show you ignored everything I was saying because your fixated on the technology of the PC. IT’S ABOUT GAME DESIGN NOT PLATFORM. I’m sorry PC games suck and your higher-end systems aren’t able to take full advantage of them, but guess what, a majority of games being released on platforms aren’t designed well either. That’s why sales are down.

Over the last two years I have put a majority of my gaming time on a PC on games that were DESIGNED well.

And that’s what the whole argument should center around, game design. When you uphold PC gaming in as high esteem as you do you sh*t on gaming as a whole and completely ignore the importance of designing a video game.

The only arguments I ever hear coming out of your camp that depend entirely on PC’s is the technology. And technology has nothing to do with adequate game design. Which is why some of the best designed games have come from companies like Nintendo.

Stop arguing. Go play Portal 2. On whatever system you own. It’s better on the PC (because of technology), but it is still an excellent game that everyone must play regardless of what camp they are in. If you are not playing Portal 2 you are WRONG!

OmegaBob gifted me Portal 1 on Steam… once I finish my gaming for tomorrow’s review, I hope to dive into Portal.

@Vapus – Take your statement “the PC is still the largest Install base of people who play games to this very day” and if true, tell me why the PC is getting the shaft when it comes to game development? Development goes where the money is. So, tell me – if this is true, why aren’t all developers focusing on the PC market and simply producing watered down clones for the unwashed console masses? That’s the way it used to be before the big shift. So, why did the companies shift?

Did they suddenly decide they should focus all of their development $ chasing the smaller, niche arena of console users? Or – was more money being spent in the console space – meaning more bang for their development buck!!! Meaning, once you cut out all those slackers playing Farmville on their work PCs, suddenly your argument deflates.

You won’t be able to answer that question – not without countering your own opinion.

So – let’s just call it a draw. Of all the comments I’ve read here, it’s Booth’s that gets to the heart of the matter. Forget economics and class warfare. At the end of the day, this is about good, old-fashioned game design. And the core of a good game is “fun”. Remember, that’s why we got into these things as kids. To have some freakin’ fun.

Which is what I intend to do when my version of Portal 2 arrives. Yeah – that’s right. I’m stepping out of this argument so I can start following orders from some crazed, psychotic supercomputer.

And here we go again…

…one more thing, when you’re removing the Farmville denizens from your equation, make sure you kick-out the World of Warcraft trolls too. And maybe, that right there, is the reason for this console-development bias. If those 12 million minions who are hooked on WoW would purchase more than one game in a 10-year period, the PC market would open up as a more attractive marketplace.

So it’s not the pirates nor the console ghetto you should be disparaging. Nope – your beef is with the Horde.

Once again I’m at work, so I cannot play, and will instead answer Ed.

Ed, that is the most ridiculous argument you have made so far. You contradict yourself all over. First is the matter of elitism, which you decried earlier.

Who are you to decide what games should or should not be counted? Are you the same person who doesn’t like it when console games are called mindless button mashers, and console gamers are dismissed as drunken imbecile frat-boys? Because if you are, then perhaps you should take back the whole Farmville and WoW part. Especially where you dismiss Farmville players as slackers. If it is all about game design that should appeal to the largest possible audience, then these games epitomize gaming in general, according to your definition.

Now, I have never played Farmville, but I have played some online flash games, that are far better than anything I’ve seen on consoles. And I have played enough of WoW to insist that it’s an excellent game. Excellent enough to draw and keep an audience, and excellent enough to prompt everyone and their grandma to try and make a clone. By the way, I know hundreds of WoW players, and ALL of them have many other games on their PCs. It seems you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

Another point: where did you get the idea that PC sales are declining? The above news post says nothing of the like. In fact I’ll have you know that according to the last data I’ve seen, PC gaming is on a significant rise. What is going down are brick and mortar sales. But between Steam, Direct2Drive, Impulse and a bunch of others, it just doesn’t matter. Do you perhaps think that Steam’s business model is a failure?

Yet another point: There are two countries in the world where consoles are prominent. The United States and Japan. Now, it might come as a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but there are a few other countries on this planet too. And they have people in them. And many of them play games. On the computer mostly.

So what do PCs have that consoles do not? Even if we put technical superiority aside, here’s a short list:
1. A HUGE and thriving modding scene that makes vast improvements to existing games, creates new games, and serves as an excellent hiring pool for development studios.
2. A HUGE indie scene. You wanted innovation? We have boatloads of it.
3. Infinite backwards compatibility. I have my favorite game from 1993 installed on my monster of a gaming rig. Try inserting your NES cartridge into your 360.

Overall, your entire argument is supported either by personal opinion, or by data that you are pulling out of thin air. Which is to say that it is fallacious in its entirety.

Ok, great. So, PCs are better.

If you’ve still got crappy games to play on ANY platform, though, I doubt you’re going to be buying as many games.

Here’s a few other thoughts on why gaming revenues may be down, aside from the “Because they keep trying to sell us crap” argument.

1.) Gamers are getting older. I’m 33. I work for a living and, while I occasionally take a minute or two to write a diatribe here, I have a LOT less time to devote to gaming. As such, I’m not burning through games quickly and then going out and buying a new one, nor am I interested in spending my time and money on a game that looks lame or doesn’t address my interests. I don’t play sports games, for example, so the latest Madden release means squat to me. I’m not interested in a dungeon crawler so Dungeon Siege isn’t that interesting.

2.) A backfiring of the “franchise effect.” In the entertainment industry these days, marketing is king. You sell what you know will be bought, so you sell branded products. I guarantee you that if COD: Black Ops had not been called “COD” it wouldn’t have sold as much as it did, nor would it have gotten the positive reviews it did (or at least the reviews wouldn’t have been AS positive). Note: I exempt Avault on the review element, since you guys aren’t corporate shills. At any rate, people buy COD games because “COD” stands for a certain kind of experience that they’ve come to expect in single and multiplayer. Take away the “COD” label and they might just skip it. So, popular franchises can have a chilling effect on the rest of the market, as people are more likely to just buy the next iteration of the last game than take a chance on a new game they’ve never heard of. In addition, to keep with the feel of the franchise, you can’t let your game stray too much from formula, which leads to stagnation in design. Change your gameplay too much and people will say “Yeah, but it just doesn’t feel like COD.” This weakens your brand, and makes people more likely to go try something else. So, design stagnates, until some new franchise comes along and unseats you.

Alaric just proved our arguments by saying he still plays games from ’93 and prefers Flash games over console games he’s played.

That’s game design, not technology. And that is completely platform independent. There’s almost nothing that was done in ’93 or in Flash that can’t be done on consoles and mobile devices. Even if you want to argue it requires mouse/keyboard fine.

It’s still primarily an issue of game design.

That’s not the only thing I said. I actually said quite a bit more. Just because this point suits your purpose, doesn’t mean it’s a brilliant idea to take it and ignore everything else.

Yes, game design is very, very important. But it’s not the only thing there is.

Also, game design is often a function of available hardware. People could design all they wanted in 1993, but they could not build Fallout 3. Simply because the overall experience is heavily based on technology that was not available at the time. Same is true for quite a few games. Doesn’t mean that the original Fallout is a bad game, but it’s a very different game for this reason.

And don’t forget the modding. It is what has the greatest impact on game design, simply because it can change it. Often a fairly average game becomes excellent after the proper mods are applied. Sometimes modders get it better than the developers, and then the developers actually change their game to be more like the mod. Oblivion did that. WoW did that. Others did that. Consoles do not have a modding community, so what you get from the developer is final.

Never said it was the only thing:

“It’s still primarily an issue of game design.”

There are technology-assisted elements that can assist the immersion of gameplay, but that’s still a decision based on design. Technology-assisted design. Design > Technology

Modding is also an improvement on design. Consoles may not have community driven modding, but there are plenty of active console communities that shape the way developers release updates, DLC and sequels.

Either way, you’re still talking about elements of design. Unless the modding community changes the gaming engine and/or updates the code to take advantage of more intense technical specs?

I’m aware of the modding community on PC, I take advantage of it on L4D and L4D2, but the only benefits I’ve seen in those games are better/novel level and weapon designs.

if (!technology)
{
design = false;
}

Or, in people-speak, without the medium which allows you to design – there is no design. Without cave walls, coal, and chalk – there is no drawing, just imagination.

So far as modding goes, there is much more to in that adding weapons and levels. Entire mechanics of the game are often changed by modders. For instance the default implementation of bows in Oblivion was not very good. So a modder has completely redone it. His design was so good, that Bethesda went ahead and adopted it. There are hundreds more examples of deep and profound changes that modders introduce.

And communities that influence development are entirely different. PC games have those too of course. But that’s quite different than actually changing a game.

if(!the_world):
technology_doesnt_matter = true;
endif;

Just because design relies on technology doesn’t mean it can’t be the key factor in a whether or not a game is good.

“His design was so good, that Bethesda went ahead and adopted it.” – So it was a design issue with the crossbow? Don’t you see that game mechanics are a huge part of the game design process? Yes it depends on the technology being used, but someone has to think of it and interpret how it’s going to affect the final game experience. That’s a design consideration.

1. You are confusing two different issues. Modding is one thing, and it does in fact have to do with design. It’s just that consoles don’t have modders. Technology is entirely separate, and merely allows design to happen. If I design a game based on running around in a 3D world, but there are no 3D video cards, I’m sure you can see how we are going to have a problem.

2. Dude, who the hell codes like that? You named a variable with a negative, and then assigned it to true. It should have been something like:

technologyMatters = false;

Plus, why are you talking about the world not existing? I think we can pretty much assume that it does, because arguing about what would happen if it didn’t is kinda … useless, no? Technology, on the other hand, can either exist or not. And when you design something that requires non-existing technology to work, your design (however good in an alternate universe) is worthless because it cannot be implemented.

Dude, who the hell codes like that? – someone too lazy to worry about syntax when they are participating in a retarded online argument.

I’m not confusing anything. I’m trying to get you to admit to something you are supporting in your examples/arguments, but refusing to acknowledge.

I reused the stupid code example to show that just by saying something is dependent on the existence of something else, doesn’t mean it can’t have the most importance in an argument. Saying something doesn’t matter if technology doesn’t exists is weak. Technology does exist, always has and always will. It’s a moot point.

At least I didn’t use noob brackets in my conditional statements!

“someone too lazy to worry about syntax when they are participating in a retarded online argument”

Yea, right. Once you get accustomed to good form, you don’t have to ‘worry’ about it. It’s OK, you’ll get there one day.

“At least I didn’t use noob brackets in my conditional statements!”

That’s because you are coding in a girly language that uses stuff like “endif”.

I have a feeling you are not listening at all.

Saying that technology doesn’t matter is ridiculous. Saying that it is always there is even more ridiculous.

Take a game like Thief. Do you think it would be possible to make if the sound technology didn’t exist? What if we still had PC speakers, not real soundcards capable of positional audio? The whole game is BASED around sound and its implications. Without this technology the game would simply NOT exist.

Take a game like Portal. Do you think it would be possible to make it if 3D tech wasn’t there? All those space-based puzzles would be worthless if not for videocards than can render three-dimensional objects.

Now, pretend you and i designed a game that uses peripheral vision as one of it’s core mechanics. Suppose it’s some sort of a horror game. Since we currently have no technology that is adequately capable of interacting with this capability of the human body, our designs are WORTHLESS. Even if we are both genius designers.

Php isn’t girly. Way better than crap .net =p

I never said technology wasn’t important or not a factor. But to reuse your example to be more appropriate to the context of the discussion, let’s reword it this way.

You and I are designing a game. You use 3D technology with all the greatest hardware acceleration. I do a 2D platformer ala SNES style. I’m an actual game designer and understand level design and how to integrate gameplay mechanics. You know hardware and have technical skills, but your level design and gameplay mechanic designing is sub par. What game would people end up enjoying? A game that used 3D and looked pretty and had “potential” based on the tech used, or the game that used lesser technology but had awesome design and continuity between mechanics gameplay?

Obviously people would want the better designed game, even if it meant taking a hit on the technology.

You and I have both played games that promised the world when it came to technology and mechanics, but the design sucked, rendering the technology useless in terms of gameplay and immersion.

Dude, nobody’s arguing that bad games are better than good games. Of course a crappy game with all the bells and whistles is worse than a good game made in old tech. One would have to be a complete idiot to argue otherwise.

All I’m saying is that if two games are equal in quality, then the one that has more to offer due to technology would be a better one.

“Php isn’t girly”

Yea, whatever. PHP has all the disadvantages of a weakly typed language with none of the advantages of a dynamic language.

Actually let’s take this to the forums…

Alaric – Do me one favor. If all of your evidence supports the PC as the predominant gaming platform and that’s where all the gamers are – WHY THE HELL ARE SO MANY GAMES BEING MADE WITH CONSOLES IN MIND?!?!?

Who’s making these wrong-headed business decisions?

Seriously – you apparently possess marketing stats that the big game developers don’t have and they’re all barking up the wrong tree. You, sir, might be able to single-handedly save gaming.

Until you can provide a convincing argument for why game development is focused on the console space, I’m not buying one freakin’ word you say. Because, honestly, there isn’t a week that goes by that someone doesn’t come to these pages and bitch about a PC game getting the shaft because it was clearly designed with the console in mind. If the money is not in the console space, why are these developers and publishers aiming their sites on that target so often?

And lastly – let’s not forget that you’ve labeled all of console gamers as “McDonald’s consumers” while anyone who games on a PC (including the shut-in Midwestern house frau who has logged 862 hours tending her faux farm and virtual veggies) are the high-brow steak community. So, you want to talk about broad-sweeping statements that lack any facts to support it. You started out painting with the brush. I figured I’d lend a hand.

And by the way – I didn’t dismiss Farmville players or World of Warcraft fans. In fact, I wrote a Blog a few months ago on these very pages supporting the rise of casual gaiming as a “gateway drug” to our blessed hobby. The more people gaming, the better – as it puts the medium on the front burner and could lead to even more creative endeavors down the road. But free-to-play titles and MMOs that dominate the majority of a player’s time likely lead to fewer purchases and ultimately, the publishers would prefer you buy more games – not fewer.

And now – I am officially out. This debate will never be won.

Not as long as I have the Konami Code. That’s right. I’m freakin’ invincible, baby!!!

I honestly think Solo may be my favorite voice in all of these debates. Every time out, that guy (or girl) seems level-headed, fair and balanced. Just wanted to tip my cap.

Ed, would you kindly read this: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/01/pc-is-strong-pc-games-revenue-up-20/

Game development is NOT focused on console space. I don’t know why you think that. Once again, games are made for the consoles because there are a lot of consoles. I never said there weren’t. But (once again) only in two countries. PC is not only strong, it is actually increasing rapidly. The above link explains it quite well.

Lastly, you might be interested in seeing this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3050-Consoles-Are-the-New-Coin-Op It is somewhat beside the point, but still an interesting thought.

Having an enormous amount of games to my repertoire, I, for one support the gaming community by buying games. I’ve been an avid gamer for many years. Right from the first pong game to now. If you are on Steam, check out my profile. KaZAamM

I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, I can afford any type of platform if I desire. The last console system I had was the PS2 and I had collected over 100 games on that system alone. Then I moved into the PC market. I love my PC, but its not for everyone. My best friend considers himself to be a gamer, and he only has one game for the PC and 6 games for his PS3. I enjoy playing on his console just as much as playing on my PC except that I can sit back comfortably on his sofa and enjoy playing whatever, together. He rents games every so often, which I don’t (obviously), and its an absolute blast playing on his PS3.

Sure, I have the better graphics, but its different. On the PC, if I play online, I don’t know if there are people that are cheating. That is the bottom line. I don’t cheat unless I am trying to go through the massive list of games I have in single player ONLY. In FPS games, since I hate the use of the keyboard as a controller, I use different types of controllers. In the end, cheaters have destroyed the PC online gaming community, where the consoles suffer minimally in this area. Consoles also have the advantage to appeal to anyone who can afford the relatively low cost of their systems but they suffer from high priced games that take a long time to go down.

So you either end up spending tons on a computer, like I did, or you actually have a life other than gaming and enjoy gaming on an AFFORDABLE system that requires none of the skill that a computer demands.

For example; if you have a wife and children, then I definitely recommend you NOT to get into computers. If you are single, have no children, (such as myself) then why not get into computers?

I believe the biggest hit to gaming itself is the advent of games that take so long to complete. Sure, Blizzard is still making tons off of WoW, and even though I have it, I refuse to install it. It requires too much dedication, devotion and time. Don’t get me wrong, I love the game, but all my other games collected dust during my WoW phase. Games do not need to be that enormous to be good. Some games are way too short and disappoint rather than entice the gamer.

Gaming companies gear themselves to be better than the next, they improve graphics to the point that consoles can’t keep up with the current technology and suffer from horrendous frame rates, the computers have to either turn down the graphics or spend tons to upgrade.

The question is; are the games that have the “improved” graphics more fun than those of old? I don’t think so. Its just more… But NOT more fun.

So what is the answer? I’ll tell you. The company that comes out with a console that is totally upgradable and uses a mouse and a keyboard type system and also uses a gamepad. In one shot, computer gaming would go down the drain. Games would be accessible to the mass market and gaming would revitalize. Upgrades could be managed as an annual upgrade, older games can still run, but suffer from poorer graphics, but in the end, all gamers would rejoice.

@Ed,

“Guy.” And thanks. I try to be level headed in general.

@Alaric,

Hey, if the news about PC gaming revenues going up is true, that’s AWESOME. The more the merrier, I say, and if PCs can continue to push the envelope and drive innovation in gaming, that’s terrific. I just don’t think that consoles should be dismissed as something merely for the hoi polloi. While consoles don’t have the raw power of PCs, they can still offer terrific gaming experiences.

In some ways, I see the limitations of consoles as (sometimes) beneficial for the future of gaming — because they force developers to design within certain limits while still pushing the boundaries. Compare, for example, early X360 games released around launch to what’s available today, and you’ll see that the experience has improved overall, while still using the same hardware.

That said, I think PCs offer FAR more potential for amazing game experiences….at a cost to both consumers and developers. For consumers, the cost is dealing with an ever-evolving hardware base, and constantly shifting hardware standards (which leads to the ubiquitous “Did you check to see if your drivers are up to date?” post in any tech support forum for a PC game). For developers, I would expect there are much higher QA costs for debugging/testing PC games, and of course, the ever-shifting hardware aspect which means your game which was state of the art in development is suddenly “last year’s model” by release. The upside, though, is a (to my mind) better and more robust control scheme, more raw power available for competent developers to use, mods, and more potential for the development of gaming communities. I was heavily involved with Wolf servers’ BF1942/Forgotten Hope/Red Orchestra scene a few years back, for example, and prior to that, regularly played Return to Castle Wolfenstein on a server called “Timelords.” You don’t get that whole “Where everybody knows your name” element on a console, even if you do have a robust friends list.

So, which offers a “better” gaming experience? I guess that depends on your preference. I just think you can find excellent games across both platforms…just as you can find PLENTY of crap. Anyway, good news if the PC gaming market is still thriving and, indeed, growing.

The more I think about it, the more I think most people’s support of a platform of platforms depend on their preference of genre’s and game titles.

There are games that work better on different platforms. When people enjoy specific genre’s that are best on a specific platform, it seems like they adopt that platform as being superior or necessary to the gaming experience.

That’s why you see most cross-platform gaming enthusiasts playing the widest range of genres and titles, from sports to racing to FPSs.

I believe with the high quality of A games available, many people just play that game for hundreds of hours or until they get bored. Take Counter Strike from Valve for example. The original, is still very popular and many play that game only. The “source” version is huge. The modding community is gargantuan and that is the only game they concentrate on. Games like these impact the sales of new games. Why buy when you can download mods or down-loadable content and are satisfied with one game?

We are inundated with a vast number of games, and when it comes down to making choices, people choose whatever appeals to them influenced by advertisements, word of mouth or just plain curiosity. The more “great” games that are out there, the more difficult their decisions upon buying occur.

Before the computer era, games like chess for example, was the only game many people played for their entire lives. Not everyone wants new games. When one game is satisfying, why play something else when the current game they are playing is still intriguing?

Another example is WoW. The graphics are dated, and its still the largest mmo on the planet. I know people who have put in thousands of hours on that game and its the only game they play. What other reason apart from being satisfied with that game alone keeps them from buying other games? Money? Perhaps a small percentage, but most are content with one game.

One of the best ways to find out how people make decisions is to look at other people’s profiles on Steam. Look at how many hours that person plays what. 9 times out of 10 one game has an enormous amount of game time, while others just don’t. To move people out of their favorite game is to have a better version of that game available.

People are creatures of habit, and in the gaming world, it exists even there.

“When one game is satisfying, why play something else when the current game they are playing is still intriguing?”

The same reason I don’t watch the same movies and read the same books over and over. I want new experiences. And while you say people are creatures are habit, I say that’s only telling part of the story. People like shiny new things.

To each their own.

And perhaps that’s all we need to know from this lengthy dialogue.

Its difficult to compare video games to movies or books. Sure, some games are linear, and once you go through the experience, why go through it again? With movies and books linearity is the core essence since change is impossible. With most games you can experience a different or better outcome depending upon your own skill to get you through.

Challenge and diversity in gameplay keeps one tuned in to the same map or level. Lets take for example DeDust in Counterstrike. I have played that map thousands upon thousands of times, but each and every time I play, its never the same experience. In RPG’s for instance, the game may be the same, but a simple character change gives you new experiences and challenges that motivate you to stick with the familiar.

Many games have a high degree of replayability, while others just don’t.

To each their own.

Well, considering that games, much like movies or music or even food, is subjective by nature. So when you say “to each their own”, you are just stating the obvious without saying anything relevant.

Actually, I believe he was dismissing you’re arguments, specifically. =]

I actually do watch movies over and over again. But I don’t read books repeatedly.

My habits tend to follow what KaZAamM initially said. Within the last two years, on Left 4 Dead 1, I have almost 500 hours, Left 4 Dead 2 has around 100, then the closest games to those two are Red Dead Redemption and Assassin’s Creed 2. I buy news games, play them for maybe 10 hours then go back to my favorites.

This doesn’t make me NOT want to buy new games, but I’m usually cautious when paying full price or not buying used. Will a game be as fun as my 4 favorites? If I don’t think I’ll play a game for more than 15-20 hours, I usually won’t buy it.

“Many games have a high degree of replayability, while others just don’t.” So, in other words, you simply said nothing relevant. Or at least stating the obvious. See, where I’m going with this. You and I – we’re the same, my friend.

“With movies and books linearity is the core essence since change is impossible. With most games you can experience a different or better outcome depending upon your own skill to get you through.”

Film scholars and book lovers would argue that a second or third reading/viewing reveals things one may have missed the first time – hence expending on your initial experience. In fact, how many times have you revisited a movie you didn’t like at first blush only to find it grabs you differently the second time through.

What I am trying to say – and I think this is the point to this entire discourse – is that it is impossible to paint with such a broad brush. Console game fans are not unwashed masses content to nosh on fast food nor are all PC gamers living the jet set life. Some people live to sink 100s of hours into that one game to rule them all, while others like to beebop from one experience to the next. And then there are others, like Booth, who find great pleasure in living in both worlds.

And as long as everyone is finding enjoyment in these trivial pursuits – and adding a little color to their lives – then so be it. To each their own.

This is an argument that we all win and we all lose. Because it’s all subjective. Because we all have an EGO and Everyone’s Got Opinions.

But Booth is right. I was completely dismissing your statements. : )