GRAW2

[Tactical Jerky 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm talking statistics and not individuals when I profile the types of gamers. This is what the "beancounters" listen to when deciding which projects get developed, not our individual voices.

Statistics? Ok show me the statistics that console gamers only like dumb downed games or games without much depth. Surely there may be a lot that do enjoy them I'm not denying that at all, but even IF true that doesn't mean it has to stay like that.

Quote[/b] ]Sure you have arcade games on PCs but they don't reap millions in profits like they do on the consoles.

Ah come on.... I simply do not believe this.

I think it's completely ridiculous that I even have to remind you of this but apparantly I have to. But isn't it true that the oh so realistic game called Counterstrike was and still is very popular on the pc up until this day? And what about all those Unreal games? Quake? Doom? Oh and the famous and very popular Battlefields?

There is nothing wrong if people like them but don't act like this is only going on-on consoles cause lot's of these games are on pc as well.

I also want to remind you that the number one 360 game according to many reviews is Oblivion. And that surely isn't a game without depth. Never played it but I think sort of the same can be said for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic on Xbox.

Quote[/b] ]I believe a good watchphrase for console game design is "pick up and play".

Some of the games are pick up and play but who says every game has to be like that on console? Again this simply can be translated back to PC as well, as PC also have there p&p games.

Quote[/b] ]Joe Bloggs comes over and he is in your living room also. He wants a go too. One Joe Bloggs or another is always over so the ability for a complete noob to master the controls and nuances of the game quickly is a must. This is not the kind of system you can expect to play on your own uninterupted for hour after hour.

I don't know about you but I bought a console for my self what Joe wants is his business. Also many times I've spent hours non stop alone or in the same server with friends so again I've no clue who tells you all these things but they surely aren't true.

I find it so funny that many of you seem to know things better about me than I even do myself. You say we supposedly don't like these games but at the same time I and others ask for ArmA on 360, but you simply ignore that fact.

Also some refer us as "kids" but most of the people I have spoken on Xbox Live are in there final 20's and mid 30's up till in there 40's (like Max . Which is not the average school kid you always hear people about. And if that's not it than some of you suddenly turn into developers and say it isn't possible to achieve it, I say let the real dev's decide that not you.

[Baff2 0]

While there are as many different individual gamers as there are gamers, there are also generalisations that are useful and true.

The PC may have Pick Up and Play games, but most aren't. The Console may have Learning Curve games, but most are Pick Up and Play.

RPG's are a staple of both PC and console gaming. RTS and Simulations are almost exclusively PC. Beat 'em Up and Platformers predominate on console.

The reason for this, believe it or not, is because marketing departments know what they are doing. Games companies have been in the console and PC games market for many years now. They have a pretty good idea of what people like.

The average age of a gamer is not kiddie, it's 33.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

These are the kinds of profiles games manufacturers have about you. (N.B. the word "you" is used in the plural sense of the word. You are still free to be individually exempt from any generalisation without invalidating it).

[EiZei 0]

Beat 'em Up and Platformers predominate on console.

Maybe in 1995 but in 2006 it's more like action games (FPS, 3rd person and free-form ala gta), sports and the kiddie license crap.

[Adam Ferante 0]

While there are as many different individual gamers as there are gamers, there are also generalisations that are useful and true.

The PC may have Pick Up and Play games, but most aren't. The Console may have Learning Curve games, but most are Pick Up and Play.

RPG's are a staple of both PC and console gaming. RTS and Simulations are almost exclusively PC. Beat 'em Up and Platformers predominate on console.

The reason for this, believe it or not, is because marketing departments know what they are doing. Games companies have been in the console and PC games market for many years now. They have a pretty good idea of what people like.

The average age of a gamer is not kiddie, it's 33.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

These are the kinds of profiles games manufacturers have about you. (N.B. the word "you" is used in the plural sense of the word. You are still free to be individually exempt from any generalisation without invalidating it).

You raised a good point with RTS actually, before they appeard on the console market, like Arma people said they werent on the console market due to patience, tactics etc that usually are involved

Recently in June LOTR BFME 2 was released for the xbox 360 and has remained a popular game and has sold far more than expected, so much so that they are now looking at intro ducing more RTSs onto the console market, command anc conquer for example. The same can be said for mmorpgs - this is a good example of PC going to console against preconceptions of the PC world.

Its very nieve to assume marketing departments know what they are doing to the extent your implying, the games and console market is still in its infancy and is a constantly expanding market subject to big shifts in targets in corporate businesses

If the console market was so dominated by arcade games we wouldnt be seeing the hardcore RPGs - and if you dont accept that,one of microsofts biggest racing games FORZA motorsport is one of the most complex games in the racing market, they are also releasing GTR another racing simulation

Your telling me that there is room for serious in depth games for racing, RPG, RTS but not tactical shooters?

There is absolutely no reason why not if you basing it on the existing market and not "true" genralisations

[benreeper 0]

Let's sum it up like this:

Gamers in the first camp would like to play every type of game on a console and...

Gamers in the second camp would like to play certain types of games on a console and other types of games on a PC and...

Gamers in the third camp would like to play all types of games on a PC.

I would like to be in the third camp but reality places me in the first camp, which is a workable compromise.

Is there anyone that would disagree with this idea?

--Ben

[Baff2 0]

You raised a good point with RTS actually, before they appeard on the console market, like Arma people said they werent on the console market due to patience, tactics etc that usually are involved

Recently in June LOTR BFME 2 was released for the xbox 360 and has remained a popular game and has sold far more than expected, so much so that they are now looking at intro ducing more RTSs onto the console market, command anc conquer for example. The same can be said for mmorpgs - this is a good example of PC going to console against preconceptions of the PC world.

Its very nieve to assume marketing departments know what they are doing to the extent your implying, the games and console market is still in its infancy and is a constantly expanding market subject to big shifts in targets in corporate businesses

If the console market was so dominated by arcade games we woulding be seeing the hardcore RPGs - and if you dont accept that,one of microsofts biggest racing games FORZA motorsport is one of the most complex games in the racing market, they are also releasing GTR another racing simulation

Your telling me that there is room for serious in depth games for racing, RPG, RTS but not tactical shooters?

There is absolutely no reason why not if you basing it on the existing market and not "true" genralisations

I haven't actually been telling you anything about tactical shooters at all.

RPG has been a staple of both PC and console gaming from the begining. This genre is cross platform.

Racing games sell much better on consoles and aren't really a major force in PC gaming. If you like car games, I recommend you buy a console.

Marketing departments have an excellent and up to the minute idea of what games buyers like.

At their disposal they have many tools available. Feedback forums (like this one), retailer feedback, customer support feedback, reviews, sales figures, consumer polls, developer input and player surveys. Sales statistics from existing and previous comparable titles, Realtime usage statistics and even ingame spyware that profiles how you play. Plus any personal feedback from their own experience or the experiences of their peers.

How niave of me to think that they might have more of an insight into what sells than me.

I have nothing like the same amount of data to available to me to form my judgements on. Neither do you.

How many copies of LOTR BFME have been sold, and how many did they expect to sell?

The answer: You don't know but the marketing people do.

The gaming industy is 30 years old and turns over more money than Hollywood. Companies like EA and UBIsoft make millions of pounds selling all sorts of games all round the world. They have the experience. They know what sells. They don't know 100% for sure, but they get it right more than anyone else.

[crashdome 3]

A PC is a flexible yet expensive format. As a developer, I can expect that my applications (substitute "games" if you like) will last beyond the length of any given technology(i.e. if the user upgrades, so can I upgrade my app). I can more easily upgrade/alter/rewrite my application while providing the best support of the two options (it is far easier to release patches as I do not need to follow any third-party guidelines or develop complex auto-updating technology if I don't want to). As an owner of a PC, I can rearrange the priority of tasks for the PC itself. It can be a game machine, a development machine, a file server, a communcation platform, and now even more a full-blown entertainment center OR any combination thereof. All of this requires some sacrifice. I must also maintain this machine and expect problems. I must pay for any changes. I must understand its uses and plan for it. I cannot expect everything to work on my machine because of the extreme diversity that is the world of the PC. However, I can extend the use of my machine beyond that of any console.

A console is a *relatively* inexpensive yet non-flexible platform. As an owner of a console I can guarantee that my experience with its products will be similar to others (other than luxury items such as HD or online use). I can guarantee that the developers of these systems will be supportive directly to gaming and gaming only (except for multi-use consoles - DVD movies, Pictures, etc..). I can expect that games will be limited to hardware but will be able to run without any configuration beyond perhaps entering in save data or my name. I can expect that support for products is limited and will be unlikely to receive "expansion packs" or "addons" without great difficulty by the developer to include a system which allows for this in a consistant and stable manner. I can expect that the life cycle of the individual games could be much lower becuase of this. However, I can expect to run as solid as the game is made on any similar console at any point in time.

[EDIT] My opinion: A console is no more different than a VCR or DVD player. It is a specialized device except that it involves games. Sure, keyboards, gamepads, wheels have all carried over from PCs because hardware is that flexible nowadays. However, you cannot get the flexibilty of design of that of a PC... games will evolve on a PC.. games simply exist on a console. [/EDIT]

[Journeyman 0]

I would like to be in the third camp but reality places me in the first camp, which is a workable compromise.

I don't understand that Ben! I am in the third camp for sure but understand that it is but a personal preference. I don't see why I should compromise this though!

[benreeper 0]

Well I can't find any good baseball games on the PC anymore, as an example.

I used to play High Heat Baseball but the last game developed is at least 4 years old and the the new console games look better and some of them play better as well. However, the stats, and franchise options were incredible. There was a text file created for every game played, that gave a play-by-play for the entire game. There is nothing like that on the consoles that I know. Hundreds of text files of player careers, team stats and other things.

In order to play a more modern baseball game, I have to do it on a console (XBox) but I lose ALOT of the overall experience in the process. BUT, true to a pc gamer, I've had the one game for two years as opposed to buying the newer yearly version.

--Ben

[Adam Ferante 0]

I know you didnt specifically didnt say anything about tactical shooter but being as this topic is about one being ported over(or not) so I ultimately related it to that. Other wise if you not here to take the PC side in this, i dont know where your coming from

Quote[/b] ]How many copies of LOTR BFME have been sold, and how many did they expect to sell?

The answer: You don't know but the marketing people do.

I dont know the specific numbers but I read that information in an interview with one of the representatives, they were speaking about how they are moving RTSs into a console market due to the large uptake by the consumers

Quote[/b] ]RPG has been a staple of both PC and console gaming from the begining. This genre is cross platform.

Racing games sell much better on consoles and aren't really a major force in PC gaming. If you like car games, I recommend you buy a console.

Thats not my point, my point is the target audience, its going to be a serious one -  I was going againt the idea that console gamers are mainly into causal gaming and theres not a market for the more serious gamers, these are not casual games and yet there some of the biggest sellers.

Quote[/b] ]How naive of me to think that they might have more of an insight into what sells than me.

I have nothing like the same amount of data to available to me to form my judgements on. Neither do you.

buh

Quote[/b] ] The gaming industy is 30 years old and turns over more money than Hollywood. Companies like EA and UBIsoft make millions of pounds selling all sorts of games all round the world. They have the experience. They know what sells. They don't know 100% for sure, but they get it right more than anyone else.

The industry is 30 years old but thats not 30 years of constant development The big ones like Ubisoft and EA do this marketing towards thier target market - so yea they know what to sell to them but thats for their consumers not the whole Platform and being that they way games are they are pretty much released across platform so it doesnt say anything specific about console world anyway. Business terms its in its infancy and in technological development, with its rate of expansion producers are hitting the middle ground, but of corse theres so many potential consumers and high demographics you cant come along and say "that wont sell because all people who own console are ..PC user stereotype.. " < all im trying to do is justify y reasons againt the sterotypes be it all console users are kids, that they arent into in depth gameplay, serious gaming and now ultimately tactial serious play.

[benreeper 0]

I was talking about game genre's. FPSs on PC's, Sports on consoles. I'm saying that I prefer everything on a PC but if I can't get them all there, I sometimes will try another platform to get it, If I want that genre/sports game bad enough. I only play sports games on consoles, however. There are no FPSs I would ever play ona console because I can not get used to using a gamepad for shooting. My first experinces with FPSs was on a PC (Woflenstein 3D) using a mouse and I will not compromise that experience. I'm not saying that a mouse is better, I'm saying that's all I use.

This topic has turned into a PC vs console debate, but what I'm trying to point out is why porting a game from PC to console is not as easy as one would think, despite the marketing, and that there are always compromises when it is done. In that respect, some game genres are better suited to PCs and others to consoles.

--Ben

[Baff2 0]

The industry is 30 years old but thats not 30 years of constant development.

Yes, it is.

Both console and computer games have been steadily and constantly being released for the last 30 years.

I bought my first console in 1977 and my first personal computer game in 1981.

I concur with the above poster, I prefer to play a game on the platform it was designed for. My experience of ports is that they always lose performance.

[Heatseeker 0]

This thread called GRAW2... it moves onto a discussion about Arma's availability on the xbox (who cares about gRAW?), then comes the console vs PC debate, and with Arma being so antecipated in the vast console market nobody asks for a PS3 version? .

They struggled to get the game published, maybe they were offered deals that would cut their developing creativity, style and goals.. maybe not.

I think the tough part about releasing this game (Arma) on a console is not only the fact that the console isnt capable enough for it (all of it) but that it would be hard to find a publisher willing to publish it without toning it down.

[Baff2 0]

Did they tone down OFP elite then? I haven't seen it.

I think if it's a hit, publishers will want it, (but perhaps not on BIS's terms). There is after all a cronic shortage of titles for the next gen systems.

[Heatseeker 0]

Did they tone down OFP elite then? I haven't seen it.

I heard they did... but just a little, point is Elite is not a good reason to justify Arma's release on a console .

[Journeyman 0]

I bought my first console in 1977 and my first personal computer game in 1981.

LOL Baff2! You didn't waist any time! I think I was 17 in 1981 and I don't think I'd even seen a PC until I was about 23 and even those were shite. - Super Mario would have struggled big time!  

But then again I'm on the wrong side of the big pond I think! Just out of interest though what spec was your first PC (if you can remember)? I think mine was a 400meg processor 34mb ram and 300meg HD and that was in 2000! … Kick ass stuff eh!    Oh and I think it cost me about Å1,500 .... about the same as a top end machine today!

As for comparing PC over console I think it will always be an endless debate! For some reason there are a few people who just prefer to play all games on console regardless of suitability!

As for games we want over games available, as stated many times already it’s the age old problem of market forces and a few lone shouts in the crowd are just not going to get heard by those that deliver! Hopefully I’m wrong though and times will change to suit everyone eventually, but I wouldn't hold your breath!

[Baff2 0]

My first personal computer had a Z80 processor and 1K of RAM. It could do two colours. It cost Å30 and I had 3 of them.

At the time most games for it were bought as printouts in magasines, and you typed them in yourself each time you wanted to play. Each time you turned it off, you had to type it all in again. It was a long time before I bought one pre-recorded on audio tape format.

My first console looked like this.

It cost me Å20. I didn't have the electricity adaptor and had to run it with batteries only.

[Journeyman 0]

Hehe! Good old Binatone eah! How things have moved on in such a short space of time! .... Kids just don't know they're born these days!

[benreeper 0]

What game could you play on those things?

I only go back as far as the C64 which I thought was amazing.

--Ben

[4 IN 1 0]

Has anyone ever made a flight sim for a console?

http://overgfighters.us.ubi.com/

... , lol?

Wow! LOL! I think you just reinforced Baff2s point! ... I must buy that flight sim I don't think!    

to be true i would simlpy go for ace combat instead of this

[Baff2 0]

What game could you play on those things?

I only go back as far as the C64 which I thought was amazing.

--Ben

Here's the top 20 games list I Googled up.

Pos   Game                  Votes  Ave.  W. Ave.  Producer

1     Mazogs                  5     8.8     8.8   Bug Byte

2     3D Monster Maze         9     8.7     8.7   J. K. Greye

3     3D Defender             5     7.4     7.4   J. K. Greye

4     1K Chess                5     6.6     6.6   Artic

5     Black Crystal           3     8       6.4   Carnell

6     Gauntlet                3     7.7     6.1   Colourmatic Computing

7     Flight Simulation       4     5.8     5.8   Psion

8=    Artic Chess             3     7       5.6   Artic

8=    Galaxians               5     5.6     5.6   Artic

10    Dictator                3     6.7     5.4   Bug Byte

11=   Astral Convoy           3     6       4.8   Vortex

11=   Battlestar Galactica    2     8       4.8   Ch. Zwerschke

13    Krazy Kong              3     5.3     4.3   P.S.S.

14=   QS Scramble             2     7       4.2   Quicksilva

14=   Frogger                 2     7       4.2   Cornsoft

16=   Forty Niner             1    10       4     Software Farm

16=   Hi-Res Invaders         1    10       4     Software Farm

16=   Pimania                 1    10       4     Automata

16=   Rocketman               1    10       4     Software Farm

20    QS Defenda              2     5.5     3.3   Quicksilva

Needless to say Hi-Res Invaders probably wasn't.

Never had a C64. They had 256 colours and looked awesome. All the games reviews would use screenshots from that computer.

Mazogs, the no.1 best seller looked like this.

A maze game played against the clock. R.R.P. Å4.99

Graphically this was in a league of it's own. It made a big jump in resolution from the other games on that list, by using quarter squares. (A software driven improvement from 30x20 to 60x40) In the other games a stick man would have to be 4 times larger on the screen.

The Binatone plays variants of Pong.

[maxqubit 1]

Has anyone ever made a flight sim for a console?

http://overgfighters.us.ubi.com/

... :crazy: , lol?

Wow! LOL! I think you just reinforced Baff2s point! ... I must buy that flight sim I don't think!

to be true i would simlpy go for ace combat instead of this

I played it. I thought it was a good game (but it had it faults). Anyway, ppl slashed it ... hey just like Elite. The (mostly stupid) remarks on both games were remarkably similar. Made me think that console gamers are dumb, and pc gamers are arrogant.

Ah well, it must be me then:)

OGF vid @ youtube

Elite vid @

[BlackScorpion 0]

Ace Combat meets LockOn? Fun stuff reading the "hangar" section of the site...

Hey, Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere on PS was great fun for me... as were Syphon Filters and Driver games.

[maxqubit 1]

Ace Combat meets LockOn?

OGF is kind of simmish. On expert/manual settings you get a definite non-arcade feeling but without the 104 keys.

Joystick and some TrackIR device would be appreciated but are atm not available on 360:(