The Price Is Not Right

[shadow skill]

That's funny why is the pc gaming industry inundated with exactly one real genre? Yes the PC is so much better yet there is effectively no variety in the types of games on the pc. Do you know why that is? It's because the control interfaces for computers suck ass for anything other than shooters. When was the last time you saw a fighting game on the pc save the odd port?

Now lets go back to shooters you ever notice how quite a few of these shooters spam the keyboard with various functions? What is this obsession with use buttons and the like that could easily be collapsed onto say the the reload or fire buttons? Why has the gameplay not changed in any discernable fashion since Doom?(You can say this about any genre it is just extreme in first person shooters.) My suspicion is that the keyboard ended up creating a situation where the developers ended up thinking far less about comfort while playing and more about adding functions to buttons. Ironically this has actually caused these games to stagnate in terms of gameplay. We are only now starting to see games with realistic cover mechanics after probably more than ten years of the genre being around..wth is that?

Oh and you should understand that:

1. The Windows running on your desktop is a general purpose operating system, it is not in any real way geared towards gaming. This is part of why you often see requirements for pc versions of games that are maybe two times higher than what consoles have. The pc game developers have to account for the far higher ram requirements of Windows not to mention the simple fact that people are quite likely to have other programs not related to the game at all running in the background even after they kill all the system hogs. General purpose operating systems tend to suck performance wise when you need to maximize performance for a given task. This is why people get paid to make operating systems for digital audio players, phones etc.

2.The ps3 and the 360 both support using mouse/keyboard right out of the box. I use my Bluetooth keyboard under the ps3 interface whenever I need to type something like a name etc. I also cannot think of a reason why either console could not be made to allow keyboard/mouse use for any and all games.

Quite frankly even if I decided to build a gaiming rig with the thing running Windows I would have to be periodically scanning the drives for viruses and spyware and I would not want to have said antivirus/anti spyware software even installed on the machine because those things just eat resources not to mention precious disc space I should be using for games. In the end it just becomes a hassle with very little gain on my part.

 

[Arbre]

That's funny why is the pc gaming industry inundated with exactly one real genre? Yes the PC is so much better yet there is effectively no variety in the types of games on the pc. Do you know why that is? It's because the control interfaces for computers suck ass for anything other than shooters. When was the last time you saw a fighting game on the pc save the odd port?

This is a problem of standardized controllers. Keyboard and mouse come by default. Joypads and joysticks don't, though there's a profusion of them on the PC, a wide variety of designs, and in fact probably more on the PC than for any console.

But it's extremely hard to force new controllers on the PC. There are attempts, notably to provide sort of more ergonomic mini-keyboards.

Maybe we could see a controller which would be a mini-keyboard, with an analog stick at the center, or off-axis, controlled with the middle or index finger: there'd be a mini-glove for the tip of your middle or index finger, ontop of the analog stick, for you to slide your finger into. That way, you would move around with a stick, but you'd still use your other four fingers to press buttons.

Although the evolution in player movement would be noticable, in the end, you wouldn't cut it in the number of buttons.

Now lets go back to shooters you ever notice how quite a few of these shooters spam the keyboard with various functions? What is this obsession with use buttons and the like that could easily be collapsed onto say the the reload or fire buttons? Why has the gameplay not changed in any discernable fashion since Doom?(You can say this about any genre it is just extreme in first person shooters.) My suspicion is that the keyboard ended up creating a situation where the developers ended up thinking far less about comfort while playing and more about adding functions to buttons. Ironically this has actually caused these games to stagnate in terms of gameplay. We are only now starting to see games with realistic cover mechanics after probably more than ten years of the genre being around..wth is that?

Is that much of a problem to see prone only now? Just look it how long it took for beat'em ups to evolve.
Besides, you can't complain both about the piling of new functions, and their slow introduction. You can't get both.

You find that stagnation on consoles as well. Still the same joypad, with a few modifications. It even seems that for some games, there are not enough buttons and combinations available.

Oh and you should understand that:

1. The Windows running on your desktop is a general purpose operating system, it is not in any real way geared towards gaming. This is part of why you often see requirements for pc versions of games that are maybe two times higher than what consoles have. The pc game developers have to account for the far higher ram requirements of Windows not to mention the simple fact that people are quite likely to have other programs not related to the game at all running in the background even after they kill all the system hogs. General purpose operating systems tend to suck performance wise when you need to maximize performance for a given task. This is why people get paid to make operating systems for digital audio players, phones etc.

There's still vista for games coming in. But globally, it has the advantage that you get a working machine and a gaming machine all in one, and it's evolutive. Your console is stuck, not the PC.

2. The ps3 and the 360 both support using mouse/keyboard right out of the box. I use my Bluetooth keyboard under the ps3 interface whenever I need to type something like a name etc. I also cannot think of a reason why either console could not be made to allow keyboard/mouse use for any and all games.

Again, it's an issue of standardized controllers. Do you see many console players using a keyboard and a mouse?

Quite frankly even if I decided to build a gaiming rig with the thing running Windows I would have to be periodically scanning the drives for viruses and spyware and I would not want to have said antivirus/anti spyware software even installed on the machine because those things just eat resources not to mention precious disc space I should be using for games. In the end it just becomes a hassle with very little gain on my part.

What's your point exactly? If you don't like the advantages of PC, stay on consoles. As simple as that.
I like both systems, they have pros and cons. Just deal with it.

 

[shadow skill]

My point was and is that the PS3 especially is in no real way inferior to a pc of the same price. If you read the post before my last one that should become clear.

How does this address the fact that niether console is prevented by thier own technology (as far as I can tell.) from allowing people to use a keyboard or mouse for any game. It's a matter of the manufacturer writing the software properly period.

Keep in mind that on a pc with an OS like Vista which has a minimum memory requirement of around 512mb in order for it to function any game has to at least be mindful of that minimum. What this ends up meaning is that pretty much all modern pc games will end up having inflated requirements because of the operating system itself. In short the OS is actually a bit of a bottleneck. Now if you had the opprotunity to do so you could probably cut down a great deal of the memory usage by tuning the OS to the hardware which would mean in principle that you as a consumer would have to spend LESS on upgrades over time because developers again in principle could do far more with less powerful hardware.

This supposed advantage of the pc (It's potential for vastly superior capabilities.) actually isn't that much of an advantage at all, its more like a side effect of the fact that the platform was not really built with gaming in mind it actually results in a weaker game because of the OS bottleneck and the need to account for varying configurations. I shudder to think of what would could be done if developers were able to make a high end rig with say 2gigs of ram and tune everything down to the OS for it and then make a game.

Any way you slice it the keyboard itself which is not meant for gaming ends up limiting pc games more than typical controller does for a console. I know I sure as all hell do not want to use a controller to do text entry.

What's your point exactly? If you don't like the advantages of PC, stay on consoles. As simple as that.

I like both systems, they have pros and cons. Just deal with it.

Just what is yours?

 

[Arbre]

My point was and is that the PS3 especially is in no real way inferior to a pc of the same price. If you read the post before my last one that should become clear.

It's also pretty clear that the console is not even one year old, and as I said, not evolutive. In two years, the PS3 may get that traditional Sony's shot in the arm, but that's not going to make a difference against the PCs which will be out in two years or more.

How does this address the fact that niether console is prevented by thier own technology (as far as I can tell.) from allowing people to use a keyboard or mouse for any game. It's a matter of the manufacturer writing the software properly period.

If there is one manufacturer that could actually enforce new controllers with its computers, it's Apple, and thus do what Nintendo did: incorporate a not so new controller as the main controller for its machine.

Unfortunately, games are not the high ground on this machine, and Apple seems to follow Nintendo's train of thought, as less buttons the better, but to the extreme.

Thus, by default, we end with this:

Which can be used with those:

And so you still need to pull out more key combinations on this:

Which is stupid.

Keep in mind that on a pc with an OS like Vista which has a minimum memory requirement of around 512mb in order for it to function any game has to at least be mindful of that minimum. What this ends up meaning is that pretty much all modern pc games will end up having inflated requirements because of the operating system itself. In short the OS is actually a bit of a bottleneck. Now if you had the opprotunity to do so you could probably cut down a great deal of the memory usage by tuning the OS to the hardware which would mean in principle that you as a consumer would have to spend LESS on upgrades over time because developers again in principle could do far more with less powerful hardware.

Because making the OS isolated on a bit of hardware you'd switch on and off would make it less expensive, and less memory hungry?

What you're looking for is a machine which is a PC and a console, all in one, where you can switch between the two on booting.

That is absurd. Just get a console. By your very admission, the OS will still require memory. So why force a PC into a game machine when it's obviously way simpler to actually buy a machine purely dedicated to games?

Besides, the OS is hardly the major fault in the increase of power requirements. I can play both Quake 3 and Quake Wars on my old cranky machine. Quake 3 runs smoothly at full details. Quake Wars... bots don't even get their share out of the chipset to do most simple things, and it makes Quake 3 look next-gen in comparison.
Yet, the OS has not changed a yota. Still good old stable XP.

An OS needs to mature. Right now, Vista is highly unstable. Been trying it on a couple of high tech machines, and it's just not there yet. XP is doing more than fine.

Now, in two years, when the OS will be finely rounded, the machines will be, again, much more powerful. Vista, sure, requires more memory, or at least more room, but you have to consider that it's also meant to work with much more powerful machines, which will all have at least two cores.
512 Mb for RAM will be even below accepted low end gaming configurations. It already is. I have 1Gb, and it's hardly enough for new games.

Consoles' OSes are hardly getting any better. Their requirements grow as well.

This supposed advantage of the pc (It's potential for vastly superior capabilities.) actually isn't that much of an advantage at all, its more like a side effect of the fact that the platform was not really built with gaming in mind it actually results in a weaker game because of the OS bottleneck and the need to account for varying configurations.

I don't see the legitimate reason behind that rant. PC = multitask. That is its advantage. Why the rage?
If you don't care about multitask machines, buy a console.
This way, the money you'll save when buying a less powerful PC (because games and other 3D applications are mainly what requires power) will be well invested into a VCS. Pardon. A PS3.

It can't be more obvious, really.

Just what is yours?

I don't know. I just sort of v'been reading some guy saying that he doesn't fancy PCs cause they do plenty of things, and are not 100% game machines. Duh.
Safe retreading old console versus PC grounds, I don't see what's new in that.

 

[shadow skill]

So what you are telling me is that a general purpose operating system is better than an embedded one in terms of overall performance when the embedded operating system is built from the ground up for the same task? That's rich!

 

[Geoffrey42]

So what you are telling me is that a general purpose operating system is better than an embedded one in terms of overall performance when the embedded operating system is built from the ground up for the same task? That's rich!

I think it would have to depend on your definition of "overall performance" and "better". The former being pretty vague, and the latter being very subjective. Depending on your definition of those two things, we're either looking at a straw man, or, alternatively, your caving in to Arbre's point. I actually think they're sort of equivalent, if you're looking from the correct angle.

Yes, a single-purpose machine is probably going to outperform a multi-purpose machine, all else being equal, but ONLY at the purpose for which the single-purpose machine has been developed. At everything else, the multi-purpose machine is going to destroy.

PCs, given enough power, can do many, many things, and do them very well. They are not as efficient at playing games as a 360 (which, due to specialization, can get similar results out of lesser hardware), but the 360 isn't exactly the best word processor/internet browser/media creation device.

People with a need for multiple tasks in their lives have a choice between purchasing dedicated, optimized hardware for each of their tasks, or they can invest (potentially less total) in a single multi-purpose machine to fulfill all of their needs. I see nothing wrong with this. I also don't see a solid "better" or "worse", just something that may be better for one person, and not for another.

And going back to the performance issue: Due to their excess hardware, and despite their inefficiencies, the high-end of PCs outperform consoles 4 years out of 5. (Every year except launch, in a 5 year console cycle). You might argue that consoles provide the better value compared to that high-end PC, but that all depends on who you are, how much cash you have to burn, and how cutting edge you like to be. It doesn't undo the point: PCs may be inefficient (due to their general, multi-tasking nature), but they are still powerful enough for it to be somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Arbre]

So what you are telling me is that a general purpose operating system is better than an embedded one in terms of overall performance when the embedded operating system is built from the ground up for the same task? That's rich!

I'm sorry, I just can't attempt a reply, considering that I'm unsure about the interpretation of certain of your words.
My point is that I both like game machines and multitask machines, both are necessary and fine... voilà.

 

[slapme7times]

the wii is doing well because it is attracting an audience that isn't frugal with their money...

idiot consumers and non gamers...

but to be honest, the wii hardware is selling at a 10-1 ration with their software... these people are buying wiis for the hype, but then not purchasing any games because they don't actually play games, because again, they aren't gamers.

they play wii sports, and then they never touch the wii again, which is why the top selling wii game last month was wii play, and extra controller... the top selling game was an... accessory...

this extra controller also happened to sell out metroid prime 3 corruption in it's opening month.... the wii's second best game.

ultimately, nintendo will make massive cash because the people buying the wii don't realize it's a repackaged gamecube... i mean, it's amazing that a gamecube is selling for 50$ more now then it sold for back in 2001, 6 years ago.


... but alas, i did once love nintendo. metroid prime 1, ocarina of time, majora's mask, windwaker, super smash brothers 64...

i still hate them for the crappy mp2, mp3 and twilight princess though... massive disappointments in my eyes.

 

[slapme7times]

as for the one click mac mouse...

why if i have 5 fingers on my right hand, can i not have more than one button on my mouse?

psychotically deluded apple loyalty creates psychotically flawed products... like the one click mouse, for instance.

 

[shadow skill]

The one button mouse really isn't flawed its just archaic.

 

[Arbre]

One can consider that archaism to be a flaw, especially now.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm only going to base my opinion on a current purchase I'm considering, and that's Kinect.

I wonder who else thinks my way, in that I don't really think it's up to me to consider how much research and development went into it, and how expensive the technology is to produce.

The only way I can reasonably put a price I'm happy to pay on Kinect, is how enjoyable the games are, and how much value it'll add to my future gaming. For now, I'm not willing to pay £100 for what is effectively a bespoke games controller, I wouldn't pay it for a steering wheel or flight stick or dance mat, and I'm not paying it for a camera, despite knowing how advanced it is.

If some piece of software comes along and makes Kinect a must have piece of gaming fun, then I'll revise my opinion, but for now I'm looking at about £60 for a good condition preowned one, considering that I believe many people bought it and then stuck it in the cupboard after a week or so, like a sandwich toaster or exercise bike.