Game Over?

[Nav]

The controller looks amazing. Apparently is has positional sensors so you can actually hold it and use it like a gun or sword. Plus it looks like Nintendo will have a working version at E3, whereas Sony have admitted that the PS3 isn't at that stage yet. I think this round of the Console Wars is where we see Sony take a big hit.

I also wouldn't say that downloading is damaging the music industry, or that piracy necessarily is bad for gaming. Nowadays I simply don't buy bad records, as if I'm not sure about a band, I'll download it and have a listen before I buy it. Of course, not everyone bothers to actually buy the records they've downloaded but for me, only bad bands need worry about losing revenue, which is how things should be. Downloading makes it easier to see through the record company spin and hype.

As for piracy, it's not good for PC gaming, but I think Sony's early success with the Playstation was driven by the ability of owners to chip the console and buy cheap, copied games. In contrast, Nintendo's fear of piracy ended up really hurting them with the N64.

[Avatar]

Good post Nav.

I don't like consoles myself. Never even owned one. PC all the way.

And welcome to the Watch, BlackHoleArmy.

--A

[blackholearmy]

I personally love consoles. Although they're no good on the FPS/RTS/TBS grounds, they're just so much easier to set up then a LAN. You grab four controllers, pop in a disk, and you've got yourself a great excuse to have some friends over and have a gaming party. Then again, when it comes to single-player gaming, I've never really been a huge fan of consoles, mainly because they take up too much space for 1 player's worth of gaming.

[Loredoctor]

I had an X-Box, but the game range was horrible. Just had Halo and Halo 2.

[Nav]

My Xbox reminds me of my N64 in that I have a handful of good titles for it as opposed to the plethora of good-to-middling games I have for the PS2.

At the moment I have Halo 2, KotOR II, Lego Star Wars, Escape From Butcher Bay, Pro Evo Soccer 4 and NSFU 2. I'm thinking about getting Halo as I find I don't enjoy multiplayer on Halo 2 nearly as much as I did on Halo PC.

[Loredoctor]

Opposite for me, enjoyed Halo 2 multi more than 1. Oh well.

[Loredoctor]

Reviewing the E3 - Avatar, I think gaming is dying. Not a nice sign where games are going.

[Worm of Despite]

Reviewing the E3 - Avatar, I think gaming is dying. Not a nice sign where games are going.

Gaming is dying--as in the quality of games? Then I'll agree. I think the "golden age" was the 16-bit era, personally. The forms/genres reached their apogee; now everything is about making those forms prettier (PS3, Xbox 360) or interacting with them in a new way (the Wii).

Or did you mean that the game industry as a whole is dying? Not so sure of that myself, as it's a multi-billion dollar industry that shows no signs of flagging. In the first weekend of its release, Halo 2 grossed as much as some blockbuster films; unprecedented growth and a milestone, in financial terms.

[Loredoctor]

This article sums up how I feel:

E3 2006 - An Alternative Perspective and the State of Gaming
"Nothing is 'true', everything is permitted"
May 13th 2006
Mythos_Loki

Gaming is a business. That is what this years E3 has shown us. People (not just fanboys) bash Sony for their attitude, but one thing that can be said for them, is that they are honest in their presentation, instead of hiding behind a gaming friendly guise like Microsoft. There is little discernable difference in intention; but rather in approach and strategy.

The concept of a company loving its consumer is almost as absurd as “a hooker u hired last night loving u”. The main goal is business. This E3 had an increase in the amount of games geared at more mainstream audiences, casual gamers and non-gamers (something which was hinted at last year). Primarily short games, or games with less depth, or worst; short episodic content. For the latter, perhaps Alone in the Dark would be the worst. That is if the developers stick to what they’re saying, in which the game will consist of 30-40 minutes of game play. This is retarded; as there are some demos (ie. Lost Planet) that last longer than that.

Perhaps the worst thing is the fanboy ravings/rantings, about which Press Conference was best, how evil Sony is, how good Microsoft is. Fact of the matter is; they all had their perks and flaws; which one was best is a matter of opinion. They all served their purpose; an introduction, by getting the audience interested in what they have to sell.

Nintendo in particular has made it clear that they are targeting a new audience; a new niche for nostalgic, family gamers and Nintendo fanboys. The Gamecube suffered from this same niche but made it into the hands of some gamers with a promise of certain mature title exclusivity; namely the Resident Evil games. The Wii (as in “We” – as opposed to ‘urine’) is geared to this niche and has the potential to expand bringing a in a new group of game players (not gamers) in which the types would be the aforementioned, but in a larger number for families, children, girls, yuppies and drug abusers.

As for the “bad guy” of the show, Sony; perhaps they did rip off Nintendo’s controller. One can debate the ethics of such an action as long as they want, but ethics are irrelevant in business. When it comes to business it is about the better product, a product that has an edge over the competition. Currently the Wii’s games are gimmick based, the gimmick being the “Wii-mote” (insert sexual jokes here). The graphics are current generation, not much different than that seen on the Gamecube. The Wii is not part of this so-called “next-gen” HD era, and therefore the graphics are irrelevant to the target market, which is not the same market that Sony or Microsoft are targeting. In light of this, Sony now has a controller with tilt sensitivity upon release, added to this the already established eye-toy, PSP and Bluetooth connectivity, Sony has a slight market advantage in this respect.

It seems that the price of the PS3 is a topic of much debate, however, comparatively (ignoring the “retard packs” for both consoles) – at time of launch: the Xbox 360 costs between $400-$500, which comes with a game, controller, remote control, headset. A wireless adapter costs $99.99, a controller “play and charge” kit costs $15. Adding these two accessories to the cost, one gets price matching that of the PS3, which has a built in Wifi Network adapter, no need for an additional “plug and charge kit”. Graphically both systems are on par, therefore the choice of console (if not made already) lies in the users preference of games.

In regards to the new target consumer, the PS3 has an advantage by being newer. Graphics and tech specs are for the most part irrelevant. Newer products are viewed as: superior. Much like some low-end database PC user buying a new Dell computer with 3GHz, 1GB Ram and an ATI X800, specs do not really matter to the ‘mainstream’ market. If it is newer; it must be superior.

So far as launch titles are concerned; the PS3 has a more impressive line-up than when the Xbox 360 launched. And so they should, given the time they have had to develop them. Comparatively Microsoft is into its “second generation of games”, in addition to this, the Xbox 360 is tapped into the MTV crowd, which means easy sales to the mostly mindless masses of MTV viewers. Not to mention a bevy of fanboys. For instance, Microsoft could easily have opened with hints of the Halo theme while slowly pulling back to see just Master Chief’s helmet, and all the fanboys would still finish up simultaneously. Nevertheless the PS3 has long won in Japan, but in the West; the economic war should prove interesting this winter, when the PS3 launches against the Xbox 360 with its new games and a lowered price.

Microsoft already has a strong hold in the market, but by combining the elements of Xbox Live with Windows Vista, a bond is solidified. One in which PC gamers (with more intuitive mouse and keyboard inputs) have the chance to frag and pwn some controller jockeys in FPS’ when a crossover is possible.

However, E3 2k6 was, for the most part, a console game show. A majority of the PC games (so far as exclusive titles) were concerned mostly consisted of RPG types (of the fantasy genre). There are some who still view the Xbox 360 as a dumbed-down PC, and in some respects there is validity in this perspective, for not just the Xbox 360, but consoles in general. For instance, previous E3’s have showcased some awesome engines; Cry Engine, Source Engine, Doom 3 Engine, FEAR [Technology], Unreal Engine 3, to name a few.

The so-called “Next-Generation” HD-Era, is irrelevant to PC gamers, as they have witnessed similar graphics before the ‘next-gen’ consoles hit the market, with games such as Far Cry, Half-Life 2, Doom 3 and FEAR. As a result, this year, the only game worthy of mention is “Crysis”, being a PC exclusive title (for now).

Whoever the winner in this “console war” (should current trends continue) the PC will lose out. If PC games start declining, it would not be long before the console games start taking hits, as in effect – in order to keep the money flowing – many games will be rushed.

For a company that is allegedly taking loses in the console market, Microsoft seemed to have cash to ensure a simultaneous release of GTA4. However this isn’t something that should come as surprise given that GTA was originally a PC game, much like Halo (although only released on the PC at a later date), but found its way to the Xbox.

Before continuing, the issue of defining a hardcore gamer will be addressed; a subject of varying views. For the purpose of this article; a hardcore gamer will be defined as one who ‘continue to upgrade their computer over and over, specifically for games’ or alternatively for console gamers; ‘one who will buy foreign imports, playing the game despite the language barrier’.

It would seem that a majority of the “hardcore gamers” are being ignored or only slightly eluded to with the new titles on their way. Nintendo has shafted the gamers of old, by avoiding the release of mature titles. The new target audience dictates games with shorter play times, essentially games for the “people on the go” or the “casual gamer”. Instead of just trying to attract new “gamers”, they should focus on keeping the current gamers interested. For instance a number of games released have short play times, such as Condemned (clocking in at 5 hours), or Dead Rising (supposedly 2 hours –not including replay value). In some games, even, there has been some “dumbing down” in terms of gameplay.

The shift of games to a mainstream market is not too dissimilar to that of Hollywood [fluff] films stagnating the industry. On the gaming side of things there is EA; with their film to game adaptations. In some ways it could almost be a form of justice, bad game to film adaptation, and bad movie to game adaptations… however, in the end the only people that get screwed are the fans.

The winner[s] of the show are subject to a matter of opinion; the losers are quite obvious; first and foremost old school gamers. However, in actuality, everyone is losing out. There has been much of the way in commentary on the topic “Death of PC gaming”, fact is; PC gaming wont die if there are good PC games released, similarly with Hollywood movies, the reason why it seems like the industry is not making money (note: not losing money – you can’t lose money you don’t have) is because of a run of lousy films. The same could easily happen with PC games, particularly if PC users are forced to upgrade to Vista in order to ‘fully appreciate’ the games.

Whilst this E3 was better than last year’s in terms of content, the situation presented in the future is somewhat ominous (which makes for interesting times).

- a cynical bastard; Mythos_Loki

[Avatar]

Yeah, I think we're pretty much talking about the quality of games.

This article that LoreMaster posted does indeed sum things up. 30/40 minutes of game-play? Sod that. I want 30 days of gameplay.

Where I was going with this originally, I think, is that everything seems to have been done. As Foul said, we're watching nothing more than a "doing-up" of existing game concepts/forms/platforms.

The next radical game concept is going to have to come from technology improvements, and what will they be really? Except perhaps even better "done-up" versions of what we're playing already?

--A

[Nav]

Such a short play time is not necessarily a bad thing, although it's hard to see how it could be good in the context of most games. Super Smash Bros on the N64 could be completed inside of 10 minutes (I think you had to do that to unlock one of the hidden characters actually), but the way you were rewarded by the game meant that the replay value was deceptively high (and that's without considering the manic multiplayer part of the game).

[Avatar]

All I can say is that a game that only lasts 30 minutes better have the best replay value ever!

--A

[Loredoctor]

Yeah, I think we're pretty much talking about the quality of games.

This article that LoreMaster posted does indeed sum things up. 30/40 minutes of game-play? Sod that. I want 30 days of gameplay.

Same. I pay $30 AUD for a dvd for 1-2hrs pleasure (maybe twice a year). If I pay $80 for a game I'd expect it to last at least 10hrs.

[Avatar]

Agreed. And that's a minimum. I also want it to be enough fun to replay, or have enough variations, that I can play it several times.

And lasting enough that I can play it years later.

I'm (again) replaying the open-source version of Star Control II. Released in the early 90's, the graphics are lousy by today's standards, but the game itself is so good that it just lasts.

--A

[Loredoctor]

I'm (again) replaying the open-source version of Star Control II. Released in the early 90's, the graphics are lousy by today's standards, but the game itself is so good that it just lasts.

--A

I still play War of the Worlds - average graphics these days, but its Risk-style gameplay has so much replay.

[Holsety]

Agreed. And that's a minimum. I also want it to be enough fun to replay, or have enough variations, that I can play it several times.

And lasting enough that I can play it years later.

I'm (again) replaying the open-source version of Star Control II. Released in the early 90's, the graphics are lousy by today's standards, but the game itself is so good that it just lasts.

--A

That would be something that would revive all my hopes in the gaming industry. A Star Control III/IV made by Toys for Bob. Which has been speculated on, but crushed

[Avatar]

SC III never happened.

--A