On Jan 15, 3:28 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm not disputing that the console market is more lucrative, or that
> > console gaming is more popular. I'm simply saying that's it's completely
> > and total incorrect to say that PC gaming is dead because it clearly isn't.
>
> Agreed, but I think we can agree that the market for PC games from large
> publishers has largely decreased.  The amount of space retailers dedicate
> to PC software is much smaller than that of the PS3 or 360, for instance. 
> Even then, much of the PC software is for more casual games, like the
> latest iteration of "find the object" or whatnot, as opposed to more
> serious PC games.  At the same time, the market for PC games is moving
> from the brick & mortar store shelf to digital download services.

Unfortunately for the PC gaming market, the increases on the digital
download side have not kept up with the decreases in the retail side
which is why the "core" market has been on a downward slide.

> > Depends, give it another year and magazines like Games TM are still
> > multi platform, *some* people are gonna think "bloody hell the graphics
> > on that look nice.  I'm not saying that PC game sales will sky rocket..
> > I'm just saying that there will be a period of measurable growth.
>
> Console gaming has always been more accessible to people than PC gaming.  
> If a title is available for the PC and a console, the console version is
> going to sell more.
>
> I really can't think of any upcoming PC release in the next 24 months that
> would drive PC sales in the way a big console title can drive console
> sales.  Even things like the latest update to WoW will still run
> reasonably well on today's entry level laptops and PCs.  You aren't going
> to see folks rushing to buy higher-end PCs or even update their graphics
> cards (or buying a Sound Blaster) as you did in the past.  Now if some new
> game comes along and demands a new technology, say, 3d, then you might see
> something like this again.
>
> But for the most part, anything beyond casual games or WoW on the PC still
> has the reputation for requiring more technical savvy, and more expensive
> equipment as barriers for entry.  PC games can look better than the same
> title on a console - no one is going to argue that.  But whether the
> tradeoffs are worth it compared to a console.

Again, an unfortunate for the PC side of the industry as the tradeoffs
are not at all worth it for most gamers.

> >> When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
> >> market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
> >> make up a rather small portion of the total games market.
>
> > But you can't just decide to ignore a large chunk of a platform because
> > it suits you.  It make no less sense to day "If you discount all, third
> > person action games and sports games then the console market isn't doing
> > much better than the PC one."
>
> Outside of WoW, The Sims, and games like  Bejeweled and maybe Peggle,
> there isn't that much to the PC gaming market anymore.

Bingo.

> > I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with you on though. Like I
> > said, I'm not suggesting that the current state of the PC market is
> > comparable to that of consoles. Just that it's not dead.
>
> I'm reminded of the bit from Monty Python's Holy Grail in which a guy
> keeps trying to put his mother in law on the cart of corpses, and the lady
> keeps chirping "I'm not dead yet!"

Except that was funny and this is just sad.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>
> Hyperbolizing is only ineffective when the person hearing the
> statement nitpicks as a matter of argument. One would have to truly be
> daft to actually think that when I say that "PC gaming is dead" I
> actually mean that there isn't a single person on the entire planet
> who buys PC games anymore, regardless of which genres I refer to. You
> don't strike me as daft.
>
> "PC gaming is dead" is a hyperbole that emphasizes just how far the
> importance of the PC has fallen with regards to the "core" gaming
> market.

It is still inaccurate hyperbolisation, diminished yes. Dead no. Dead
would indicate no (or next to no) new development, this is simply not
that case. Remember that the self professed king of gaming who was the
first person to say this in now claiming that the PC died out a decade
ago.

>>>>> 'Dems da facts.
>>>> I tent to disagree, strongly disagree.
>>> With what exactly?
>> Well apparently you didn't mean what you said, you were just
>> hyperbolising and basically agreeing with me that PC games still sell
>> but no where near as much as they used to.
>
> It's simply a matter of nitpicking unless you count that there
> actually is a difference in our stances with regards to the degree of
> strength the PC gaming market in relation to the strength of the
> console gaming market.

What exactly is your experience of the current PC market? Mine is
pretty good, I'm a a multi format gamer and keep abreast of the
PC/PS3/360 market. My stance is simple: Games are coming out on the
PC. New games are being developed for the PC. Multi-format developments
are taking advantage of the PC superior hardware and interface.

That is basically my point. some people seem to disagree but the above
are all simple statements of fact.

As I said, The fact is that PC game is still very much alive but no
where near as lucrative as it used to be. The bottom line is do you
consider that to be a factual statement. If you do then you agree with
me, if you don't then you disagree with the facts.

On Jan 16, 10:34 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
> > Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I'm not disputing that the console market is more lucrative, or that
> >> console gaming is more popular. I'm simply saying that's it's completely
> >> and total incorrect to say that PC gaming is dead because it clearly isn't.
>
> > Agreed, but I think we can agree that the market for PC games from large
> > publishers has largely decreased.  The amount of space retailers dedicate
> > to PC software is much smaller than that of the PS3 or 360, for instance.  
> > Even then, much of the PC software is for more casual games, like the
> > latest iteration of "find the object" or whatnot, as opposed to more
> > serious PC games.  At the same time, the market for PC games is moving
> > from the brick & mortar store shelf to digital download services.
>
> Yep, agree 100%
>
> >> Depends, give it another year and magazines like Games TM are still
> >> multi platform, *some* people are gonna think "bloody hell the graphics
> >> on that look nice.  I'm not saying that PC game sales will sky rocket.
> >> I'm just saying that there will be a period of measurable growth.
>
> > Console gaming has always been more accessible to people than PC gaming..  
> > If a title is available for the PC and a console, the console version is
> > going to sell more.
>
> > I really can't think of any upcoming PC release in the next 24 months that
> > would drive PC sales in the way a big console title can drive console
> > sales.
>
> Neither can I.  To be honest my three points in this thread are pretty
> simple.
>
> 1) 2012 is very late in the day for the next console generation

November 2012 will be the Xbox 360's seven year anniversary which
would, I believe, tie as the longest generation, although in this case
the timeline isn't skewed like it was with earlier consoles where the
Japanese version would launch a year ahead of the rest of the world on
average (so this can actually be viewed as already being longer per
region).

However, it's impossible to ignore the economic crisis.

> 2) I think that a slight but noticeable percentage of people will shift
> to PC gaming if we do have to wait until 2012

How slight is noticeable? It's doubtful that any change in the
positive direction will be slight as in not really noticeable. A
noticeable change is more likely to be away from PCs as the economy
isn't turning around and the consoles are a much more effective option
for the money.

> 3) The PC games market is not what it once was, but neither is it dead.

No hyperboles: the PC market is still there but it's not nearly what
it once was. I believe I used the phrase "a pathetic shell of its
former self" somewhere...

> A couple of people (though not you.) Seem to read the second two as:
> 2) A major percentage of console gamers are going to shift exclusively
> to the PC
> 3) The PC games market is as strong as it ever was.

I read them as "a decent amount of console gamers are going to start
buying PCs for core gaming," a conclusion to which I see no logical
path given the actual reality of the industry and the current
behaviors of consumers, and "the PC games market is still half
decent," a position that would betray reality.

>  > Even things like the latest update to WoW will still run
>
> > reasonably well on today's entry level laptops and PCs.  You aren't going
> > to see folks rushing to buy higher-end PCs or even update their graphics
> > cards (or buying a Sound Blaster) as you did in the past.  Now if some new
> > game comes along and demands a new technology, say, 3d, then you might see
> > something like this again.
>
> > But for the most part, anything beyond casual games or WoW on the PC still
> > has the reputation for requiring more technical savvy, and more expensive
> > equipment as barriers for entry.  PC games can look better than the same
> > title on a console - no one is going to argue that.  But whether the
> > tradeoffs are worth it compared to a console.
>
> Which is a very fair point.
>
> >>> When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
> >>> market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
> >>> make up a rather small portion of the total games market.
> >> But you can't just decide to ignore a large chunk of a platform because
> >> it suits you.  It make no less sense to day "If you discount all, third
> >> person action games and sports games then the console market isn't doing
> >> much better than the PC one."
>
> > Outside of WoW, The Sims, and games like  Bejeweled and maybe Peggle,
> > there isn't that much to the PC gaming market anymore.
>
> There I disagree, It's a shadow of it's former self yes and small fry
> compared to consoles but.  But there are still a good number of jointly
> developed titles along with strategy titles and other's that just don't
> work on a console such as the Total war games, Galactic Civilizations or
> the X saga.

RTS games are still definitely around and almost exclusively the
domain of PCs. I definitely agree with you there. Outside of
subscription-based MMO, casual and RTS games, the PC gaming market has
shriveled up quite a bit.

> >> I'm not sure what you think I'm disagreeing with you on though. Like I
> >> said, I'm not suggesting that the current state of the PC market is
> >> comparable to that of consoles. Just that it's not dead.
>
> > I'm reminded of the bit from Monty Python's Holy Grail in which a guy
> > keeps trying to put his mother in law on the cart of corpses, and the lady
> > keeps chirping "I'm not dead yet!"
>
> It's his dad. :-)

On Jan 12, 4:04 pm, Doug Jacobs <djac...@rawbw.com> wrote:
> The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PC games are not only dead, they've been dead for five years.  No
> > important games come out for PC that anyone can name off the top of
> > their head.  If the situation is right, a high profile 360/PS3 game
> > will get a port with (hopefully) higher resolution textures.  That's
> > hardly what I'd call life.  Go to EBGames.com (Electronics Boutique
> > used to sell ONLY PC games)... do you see ANY PC games advertised on
> > the front page?  Dead.
>
> You're kidding, right?  What about WoW?  GalCiv2?  Civ IV?  Peggle?!?
>
> I'll grant you that retail versions of PC games have been dying off left
> and right, and have been for the past 15 years or so, but they're not
> entirely extinct.  At least, not yet.
>
> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.

There's a PC exclusive featured on GameStop's homepage marquee flash
app right now...

> Digital download is the area that PC games have started to re-emerge
> from.  Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, to name a few, are offering both new
> and older titles at discount prices.  This is also opening the market to
> smaller, independent developers who would never have a chance of getting
> the attention of a retail publisher, like EA.
>
> If anything, we're seeing PC gaming return to the time of the early 90s
> when shareware was all the rage until a certain shareware title called
> DOOM showed up and literally reshaped the whole industry.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:42 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>
>>> Hyperbolizing is only ineffective when the person hearing the
>>> statement nitpicks as a matter of argument. One would have to truly be
>>> daft to actually think that when I say that "PC gaming is dead" I
>>> actually mean that there isn't a single person on the entire planet
>>> who buys PC games anymore, regardless of which genres I refer to. You
>>> don't strike me as daft.
>>> "PC gaming is dead" is a hyperbole that emphasizes just how far the
>>> importance of the PC has fallen with regards to the "core" gaming
>>> market.
>> It is still inaccurate hyperbolisation, diminished yes.
>
> Hyperbole by nature isn't meant to paint a perfect picture of reality
> but to emphasize a characteristic of the scenario - in this case, the
> severity. It's basic common sense that my clear and now blatantly
> described hyperbole is not meant as a statement of absolute fact so I
> have to question your continued attempts to treat it as such.

Because the statement is slenderer redundant. I say they PC gaming
isn't nearly as strong as it used to me. If you're are hyperboilising
to make the same point then you basically repeating what I've said.

> I agree with you within a broader context than I earlier established
> and from a perspective that nobody in this thread realized you were
> arguing.

Well I'm not sure how you know what other people in this thread realised
or didn't. Regardless I feel I was pretty clear.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jan 16, 10:34 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug Jacobs wrote:

>> 1) 2012 is very late in the day for the next console generation
>
> November 2012 will be the Xbox 360's seven year anniversary which
> would, I believe, tie as the longest generation, although in this case
> the timeline isn't skewed like it was with earlier consoles where the
> Japanese version would launch a year ahead of the rest of the world on
> average (so this can actually be viewed as already being longer per
> region).
>
> However, it's impossible to ignore the economic crisis.
>
>> 2) I think that a slight but noticeable percentage of people will shift
>> to PC gaming if we do have to wait until 2012
>
> How slight is noticeable?

You want specific figures for a hypothetical situation two and a half
years in the future? :-)

Not massive amount but noticeable a few percent perhaps.

>> 3) The PC games market is not what it once was, but neither is it dead.
>
> No hyperboles: the PC market is still there but it's not nearly what
> it once was. I believe I used the phrase "a pathetic shell of its
> former self" somewhere...
>
>> A couple of people (though not you.) Seem to read the second two as:
>> 2) A major percentage of console gamers are going to shift exclusively
>> to the PC
>> 3) The PC games market is as strong as it ever was.
>
> I read them as "a decent amount of console gamers are going to start
> buying PCs for core gaming,"

I'm pretty sure I never said that. As I recall I talked about my own
buying expectations and said that a lot of console games might *look*
whet else was out there. This s based on conversations tat I've had
with friends and work colleagues

>> > Even things like the latest update to WoW will still run
>>
>>> reasonably well on today's entry level laptops and PCs. You aren't going
>>> to see folks rushing to buy higher-end PCs or even update their graphics
>>> cards (or buying a Sound Blaster) as you did in the past. Now if some new
>>> game comes along and demands a new technology, say, 3d, then you might see
>>> something like this again.
>>> But for the most part, anything beyond casual games or WoW on the PC still
>>> has the reputation for requiring more technical savvy, and more expensive
>>> equipment as barriers for entry. PC games can look better than the same
>>> title on a console - no one is going to argue that. But whether the
>>> tradeoffs are worth it compared to a console.
>> Which is a very fair point.
>>
>>>>> When you remove all of the casual and MMO games from the PC games
>>>>> market, the remainder of the games - RTS, RPG, FPS, etc. - combine to
>>>>> make up a rather small portion of the total games market.
>>>> But you can't just decide to ignore a large chunk of a platform because
>>>> it suits you. It make no less sense to day "If you discount all, third
>>>> person action games and sports games then the console market isn't doing
>>>> much better than the PC one."
>>> Outside of WoW, The Sims, and games like Bejeweled and maybe Peggle,
>>> there isn't that much to the PC gaming market anymore.
>> There I disagree, It's a shadow of it's former self yes and small fry
>> compared to consoles but. But there are still a good number of jointly
>> developed titles along with strategy titles and other's that just don't
>> work on a console such as the Total war games, Galactic Civilizations or
>> the X saga.
>
> RTS games are still definitely around and almost exclusively the
> domain of PCs. I definitely agree with you there. Outside of
> subscription-based MMO, casual and RTS games, the PC gaming market has
> shriveled up quite a bit.

True, though there are still some good joint developed games plus a few
RPGs etc.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

> If you want to go by the looser meaning of the word, then I think
> you'll need to explain what you mean a little better. "Using an analog
> stick to move and aim... is more immersive (feeling) than pointing and
> clicking" doesn't say much other than "my personal opinion is that
> using an analog stick feels better." *Why* is it more immersive?

For my immersion is more easily archived with the most comfortable and
intuitive input device. I find control pads bad for FPSs because there
are less finely tuned and make aiming more difficult. On the other
hand I got Batman Arkam Asylum on the 360 because it looked like the
game style suited a control pad better. As for games like mass effect,
the story has pulled me in and the control method is less important.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

>>> And you seem to put a lot of emphasis on what you personally prefer
>>> over to what sells,
>> No, I put a lot of emphasis on what had influenced or changed the
>> industry as opposed to what sells well. Or what displays innovation or
>> deep game play.
>
> Examples of such games in the past, say, five years...?

Can you give examples on any platform for the past 5 years? The only
thing I can possibly think of is the cover system in GoW, apart from
that we seem to be toggling along with stuff from the last decade.

>> > which is ultimately what drives the industry and
>>
>>> what killed off PC gaming long ago. Of course Halo was nothing
>>> special as an FPS when it came out, but ultimately it's the reason why
>>> you can't "lean".
>> Immaterial and the industry disagrees with you. ME1 was a console port,
>> ME2 is joint developed, simple as.
>
> Mass Effect was most certainly not a console port. The game was
> developed by BioWare for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PC by
> another development house.

You say that it wasn't a port. But then you immediately say that it was
ported.

>
> I think the more appropriate scenario is that PC-only gamers don't see
> very many core exclusives gracing their platform of choice... and of
> the few that do call the PC their only home, most are hardly
> memorable. Crysis and Spore are two examples of exclusives that were
> supposed to be major entries in the PC gaming world and ended up doing
> little more than collecting dust on retail shelves.

You have to take into consideration that most PC exclusives just
wouldn't run on a console either due to it's lower hardware specs or
more restrictive controller. As for Crysis and Spor, Crysis speced its
self out of the market and Spore, well, just wasn't that good.

On Jan 17, 7:59 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:08 am, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 12:09 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:YR14n.17587$Q63.17358@newsfe23.ams2...
>
> > > > The King of Gaming wrote:
> > > >> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on.  You would think
> > > >> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decadeago
> > > >> when it actually kicked the bucket.
>
> > > > Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give you
> > > > a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over thepast
> > > > 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
>
> > > >> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> > > >> is completely dead.  You can still play some great games (as long as
> > > >> the publisher feels like porting them)
>
> > > > Also joint development. Not the same as porting.
>
> > > >> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> > > >> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> > > >> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> > > >> Finally, I'll simply say this.  Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> > > >> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> > > >> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC.  EA pulled the plug
> > > >> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>
> > > > In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
> > > > single sports game.  If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.
>
> > > > You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games.A lot
> > > > of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly good, they
> > > > just have a good marketing team behind them.   Halo for example, fun game.
> > > > Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when it was released.
> > > > The only major thing it did was the inclusion of vehicles.  Metalgear
> > > > solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to something like Thief, in
> > > > face that's very good example of why I disagree with your definition of
> > > > important.  Metal Gear Solid was probably better known than Thief, and
> > > > certainly sold better.  However it was Thief that has been the influence
> > > > for slealth in modern games.
>
> > > I have to completely disagree with you on what you say Halo 1 did as a major
> > > thing. Halo changed the way console controllers works on FPS games, that
> > > revolutionized console gaming and really kick started FPS taking overPCs as
> > > the source for FPS gaming. Not only that, Halo 2 also spurred the online
> > > console FPS multiplayer gaming community. Look at it now and see how many
> > > people are playing FPS' on consoles online compared to PC. (Modern Warfare 1
> > > and 2, Gears, Halo 3).  Now, I honestly can say that the way controllers
> > > work now and how the FPS attributes are mapped to the controller buttons and
> > > triggers, that it is more realistic and better than on PC, where you just
> > > point, click and shoot. There's way more immersion in controllers than
> > > keyboard and mouse for FPS games.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ha, I've been arguing about the immersion factor of controllers for a
> > bit.  It's true that controllers can be a pain if you're focusing on
> > precision aiming, as opposed to movement.  That being said, however,
> > the Xbox controllers have reached a pretty decent balance and
> > compromise, and the Dualshock 3 seems to be somewhat better at FPS
> > aiming than Sony's prior controllers (although that's damning with
> > faint praise).  A game like the Unreal Tournament games, which focus
> > on really fast, precise aiming action (especially given that
> > detonating a shock core that you just shot out requires SUPER
> > precision), will, without a doubt, play better on the PC, but most FPS
> > games aren't like that these days.  I have UT3 for the PS3, and it's
> > at least playable, on the other hand.
>
> Even if we assume that the focus is on modern console FPS games that
> don't require quite as much high speed precise aiming, what makes
> using an analog stick to aim any better, more immersive, more
> authentic, more realistic, etc. and so forth than using a mouse to do
> the same? In both cases, we're talking about an arbitrary interface
> device.
>

For one, even with high sensitivities, there's a high chance you're
going to have to pick up and recenter the mouse at some point, which
breaks immersion. Secondly, aiming is only one part of the equation.
Character movement with a stick just feels more natural than having
your entire hand hovering over ASWD or the arrow keys.


> I look at things from my specialization in usability and user
> interfaces. Most in my industry would concur that a mouse is a far
> more intuitive device for aiming, looking, etc. for the simple reason
> that the inherent purpose of a mouse is as a pinpoint device to
> indicate where the user is focusing their attention and what item in
> their view they intend to interact with. On the contrary, an analog
> stick is... er... analogous to the joysticks of old and these types of
> controls are used far more to indicate direction of movement.
>
> Perhaps an ideal control scheme would be one that combines the best of
> both worlds - the analog stick for the appropriate action of movement
> and the mouse for the appropriate action of aiming. The Wii is the
> closest thing... some games use a scheme by which the gamer holds the
> nunchuk attachment in one hand so that the thumb can control the
> analog stick for the purposes of movement and the Wiimote in the other
> hand so the gamer can aim and shoot with that one. Not quite a mouse,
> but close enough within the range of today's console technology design.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The alMIGHTY N wrote:

>>> And you seem to put a lot of emphasis on what you personally prefer
>>> over to what sells,
>> No, I put a lot of emphasis on what had influenced or changed the
>> industry as opposed to what sells well. Or what displays innovation or
>> deep game play.
>
> Examples of such games in the past, say, five years...?

Can you give examples on any platform for the past 5 years? The only
thing I can possibly think of is the cover system in GoW, apart from
that we seem to be toggling along with stuff from the last decade.

>> > which is ultimately what drives the industry and
>>
>>> what killed off PC gaming long ago. Of course Halo was nothing
>>> special as an FPS when it came out, but ultimately it's the reason why
>>> you can't "lean".
>> Immaterial and the industry disagrees with you. ME1 was a console port,
>> ME2 is joint developed, simple as.
>
> Mass Effect was most certainly not a console port. The game was
> developed by BioWare for the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PC by
> another development house.

You say that it wasn't a port. But then you immediately say that it was
ported.

>
> I think the more appropriate scenario is that PC-only gamers don't see
> very many core exclusives gracing their platform of choice... and of
> the few that do call the PC their only home, most are hardly
> memorable. Crysis and Spore are two examples of exclusives that were
> supposed to be major entries in the PC gaming world and ended up doing
> little more than collecting dust on retail shelves.

You have to take into consideration that most PC exclusives just
wouldn't run on a console either due to it's lower hardware specs or
more restrictive controller. As for Crysis and Spor, Crysis speced its
self out of the market and Spore, well, just wasn't that good.

On Jan 17, 7:59 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 11:08 am, "Nick Soapdish, Jr." <JGordon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 12:09 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Morgan" <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:YR14n.17587$Q63.17358@newsfe23.ams2...
>
> > > > The King of Gaming wrote:
> > > >> Wow, interesting that this debate has continued on.  You would think
> > > >> the PC died as a gaming platform yesterday, as opposed to a decadeago
> > > >> when it actually kicked the bucket.
>
> > > > Seriously? Would you care to back that statement up because I can give you
> > > > a very long list of excellent PC titles that have come out over thepast
> > > > 10 years, plenty of them being PC only
>
> > > >> As "N" said, obviously there is some hyperbole when saying PC gaming
> > > >> is completely dead.  You can still play some great games (as long as
> > > >> the publisher feels like porting them)
>
> > > > Also joint development. Not the same as porting.
>
> > > >> Really, the only PC game of any significance in the last five years is
> > > >> WoW, which isn't really a game but an addictive, social chat room/
> > > >> grindfest that can be run on a five year old Celeron laptop.
>
> > > >> Finally, I'll simply say this.  Two of the most (if not the most) over-
> > > >> saturated, often published, overexposed franchises in history, Madden
> > > >> and Guitar Hero/Rock Band, cannot be played on PC.  EA pulled the plug
> > > >> on PC sports games last year, and after GH III
>
> > > > In two and a half decades of multi-platform gaming I've never bought a
> > > > single sports game.  If I want to play a sport, I'll go outside and do it.
>
> > > > You seemto put a lot of emphasis on franchises and big names games.A lot
> > > > of the "big name" games are not big name becaue they are overly good, they
> > > > just have a good marketing team behind them.   Halo for example, fun game.
> > > > Nothing special, Halo 1 was miles behind PC FPSs when it was released.
> > > > The only major thing it did was the inclusion of vehicles.  Metalgear
> > > > solid, again, rubbish stealth game compared to something like Thief, in
> > > > face that's very good example of why I disagree with your definition of
> > > > important.  Metal Gear Solid was probably better known than Thief, and
> > > > certainly sold better.  However it was Thief that has been the influence
> > > > for slealth in modern games.
>
> > > I have to completely disagree with you on what you say Halo 1 did as a major
> > > thing. Halo changed the way console controllers works on FPS games, that
> > > revolutionized console gaming and really kick started FPS taking overPCs as
> > > the source for FPS gaming. Not only that, Halo 2 also spurred the online
> > > console FPS multiplayer gaming community. Look at it now and see how many
> > > people are playing FPS' on consoles online compared to PC. (Modern Warfare 1
> > > and 2, Gears, Halo 3).  Now, I honestly can say that the way controllers
> > > work now and how the FPS attributes are mapped to the controller buttons and
> > > triggers, that it is more realistic and better than on PC, where you just
> > > point, click and shoot. There's way more immersion in controllers than
> > > keyboard and mouse for FPS games.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ha, I've been arguing about the immersion factor of controllers for a
> > bit.  It's true that controllers can be a pain if you're focusing on
> > precision aiming, as opposed to movement.  That being said, however,
> > the Xbox controllers have reached a pretty decent balance and
> > compromise, and the Dualshock 3 seems to be somewhat better at FPS
> > aiming than Sony's prior controllers (although that's damning with
> > faint praise).  A game like the Unreal Tournament games, which focus
> > on really fast, precise aiming action (especially given that
> > detonating a shock core that you just shot out requires SUPER
> > precision), will, without a doubt, play better on the PC, but most FPS
> > games aren't like that these days.  I have UT3 for the PS3, and it's
> > at least playable, on the other hand.
>
> Even if we assume that the focus is on modern console FPS games that
> don't require quite as much high speed precise aiming, what makes
> using an analog stick to aim any better, more immersive, more
> authentic, more realistic, etc. and so forth than using a mouse to do
> the same? In both cases, we're talking about an arbitrary interface
> device.
>

For one, even with high sensitivities, there's a high chance you're
going to have to pick up and recenter the mouse at some point, which
breaks immersion. Secondly, aiming is only one part of the equation.
Character movement with a stick just feels more natural than having
your entire hand hovering over ASWD or the arrow keys.


> I look at things from my specialization in usability and user
> interfaces. Most in my industry would concur that a mouse is a far
> more intuitive device for aiming, looking, etc. for the simple reason
> that the inherent purpose of a mouse is as a pinpoint device to
> indicate where the user is focusing their attention and what item in
> their view they intend to interact with. On the contrary, an analog
> stick is... er... analogous to the joysticks of old and these types of
> controls are used far more to indicate direction of movement.
>
> Perhaps an ideal control scheme would be one that combines the best of
> both worlds - the analog stick for the appropriate action of movement
> and the mouse for the appropriate action of aiming. The Wii is the
> closest thing... some games use a scheme by which the gamer holds the
> nunchuk attachment in one hand so that the thumb can control the
> analog stick for the purposes of movement and the Wiimote in the other
> hand so the gamer can aim and shoot with that one. Not quite a mouse,
> but close enough within the range of today's console technology design.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -