Very simple and quick to set up

Mik Hammy

Eh... That kind of thing went out the window with MSDOS a few years ago. Practically all modern PC games are written for windows, and are very simple and quick to set up.

Great! (but not true)
Anyway, 'set up'? No thanks.

When I go to the cinema, I don't wish to set up the reels to watch a film. See?

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

Hobbes

?

I can't remember the last game I played that didn't involve anything more taxing then sticking the disk in the drive and clicking setup/install ?

Greenbean

Agreed, in general computer games are not easy to setup - it requires some, or sometimes alot of prior knowledge of how a computer works and how the game works. The interface is not simple, unless its joystick based (not many left now - typically for flight sims, and they are far from simple) and the mouse is not intuitive when first used. The satisfaction for most people comes in learning how to get more (huge amounts more) out of their pc, the mouse for example when learned gives loads of control, and it comes from the basic hardware design - it can be reused in typically all fps games once learned. So, yes pc's require a certain amount of "nerdiness" for them to be any fun.

Consoles on the other hand are nice and brainless with regards to picking one up and just starting to play - even knowing bugger all about them. The good console games tend to then allow for different levels of complexity if a player wants it, which is good - but it does have to be contrived stuff like press forward twice and press x b y once. The best things going for consoles is the quality of the teams working on them. They have this standard machine with standard controls and they have to make it as playable as possible. They can use various devices - one definitely being good story telling.

My only real gripe with consoles is what people learn is pretty brainless in the end, whereas with pc's its usually a good underlying understanding of the pc (though I've met plenty of people are way off the mark with their ideas). So when someone is a console geek I tend to think its a much sader waste of brain power than being a computer geek. Hearing people discuss how super mario world ****es all over zelda sounds much like someone discussing the phsycological intrigues of Star Trek Voyager; they are both supposed to be just brainless entertainment talking about them is a complete waste of time, get your head out of your **** and just enjoy them for what they are.

Mik Hammy

Originally posted by Greenbean:

Consoles on the other hand are nice and brainless

My only real gripe with consoles is what people learn is pretty brainless in the end, whereas with pc's its usually a good underlying understanding of the pc

I agree with much of what you say. But I have to object to one thing - consoles are brainless? They play games, exactly what it says on the tin. For example:

I go to the cinema.
I sit down and watch the film.

I don't WANT an underlying understanding of the processes required to make the film, get the film on screen, etc.
I also don't WANT to know the mechanics of screen projection.

Because I like watching films.

I don't leave the cinema saying 'Well, it was a good movie, but if only I could mod it it'd be much better'

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

Shinji

You seriously don't leave the cinema going "That was cool, but it would have been REALLY cool if..." ? Thats the movie equivalent of a mod...

Besides, the amount of PC knowledge needed to play a game is minimal. If you don't know enough about computers to be able to get 90% of games working, theres a basic ignorance problem in the first place. Hey, maybe you'll even learn something useful from playing PC games, then...?

Mik Hammy

Originally posted by Shinji:

If you don't know enough about computers to be able to get 90% of games working, theres a basic ignorance problem in the first place. Hey, maybe you'll even learn something useful from playing PC games, then...?

You're completely missing the point.

'If you go to the cinema and can't get the projector working yourself, then there's some kind of ignorance problem in the first place'

Yeah! You shouldn't be going to see films then, eh?

I don't go to the cinema to learn anything useful - I go TO SEE A FILM. Likewise with games. If I wish to learn about PC's I'll get a book on it.

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

Cake Fiend

Where are you getting all this cinema $hite from? You can only parallel the two types of entertainment so far - there's no interaction or custimization at the cinema.

I don't know what you'll take from this (and I don't care tbh) but I have a stack of consoles in the corner of my room (stack - literally! my DC is presently on top of my Saturn, the N64 is on top of the SNES which in turn is on top of the NES, the Playstation is on top of the Megadrive and my 2 gameboys are on my bedside table) and my PC in the other corner. I've been playing console games since I could switch one on. I spend about 99 per cent of my gaming time playing PC games.

Shinji

The cinema analogy is unfair. A VCR analogy might be better. If you rent a tape and can't work out how to make your VCR play it, this is a bit of a problem, no?

Greenbean

Consoles are brainless, they play games. Yeah, its like what I meant - I'm not saying they aren't well made or the games aren't clever - but the whole thing is mindless entertainment. I'm not insulting the people that play them or make them, I'm not saying you have to be brainless to play them - but you could be (or drunk too).

With regards to pc games - I don't think anyone could buy a pc game and run their pc for the first time with anywhere near the simplicity that a console allows for first timers.

Mik Hammy

*I'll deal with the points raised in the above posts in one if ye don't mind, for the sake of brevity*

>I spend about 99 per cent of my gaming time playing PC games.

Good. Personal choice.
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

>there's no interaction or custimization at the cinema.

Really? No interaction? There is for me.
Customization has nothing to do with playing games, it's a different pastime.

The cinema analogy was correct. You still have to figure out how to put a CD in a console or cart in an n64.
The point is that they will work without you having to fix problems.

>With regards to pc games - I don't think anyone could buy a pc game and run their pc for the first time with anywhere near the simplicity that a console allows for first timers.

Ease of use is a good thing, surely. Or perhaps someone is going to tell me that they LIKE when a game doesn't work?

Does anybody reading this get my point? Can anyone agree with my view that the hardware should be as simple or, better still, invisible to the gamer.

The game however can be as fiendish as hell.

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

Mik Hammy

c.f. the poor bugger who started the Homeworld thread.

If it was a console game, it would work, because it would be unacceptable that it would not.

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by Mik Hammy:
c.f. the poor bugger who started the Homeworld thread.

If it was a console game, it would work, because it would be unacceptable that it would not.

gotta agree with that - a console game could not be released with a show stopper like what Lord Khan describes in Cataclysm.

Having said that I have a Playstation and Dreamcast and I will always come back to the PC because it is simply best alround particularly in terms of depth and multiplayer stuff over the net.

Mik Hammy

Don't agree with the 'PC games have more depth' thing. Far less in my opinion. Too many FPSes and RTSes for my liking. But that's just my opinion, no flames please.
I will admit that current PC games try harder to give out the appearence of depth which not having the depth of, say, Mario 64, or old games such as Elite.

Additionally, depth is aided by creating a believeable setting and universe for a game. Which PC problems and SPX/IPX info go some way towards destroying.

I agree with the multiplayer thing though. The PC is the only place you can play a large number of people from all over the world. But it won't be long before the consoles are in on that act too. And setup will probably be simpler.

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

TwoShedsJackson

Show me a console game with the depth of Baldur's Gate 2 or Civilization II (ok i know Civ II is available on the PS but it pales in comparison to the PC version which came nearly three years before it).

On the other hand a game like Tekken 3 on the PS has a vast amount of depth esp. for a beat 'em up. *sigh* just gotta buy 'em all i guess

Chubby

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Show me a console game with the depth of Baldur's Gate 2 or Civilization II (ok i know Civ II is available on the PS but it pales in comparison to the PC version which came nearly three years before it).

Final Fantasy Tactics, Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy series I suppose, Xenogears, ooops, am I just naming squaresoft games? I am sure there are many other examples but I don't play enough console games.

Hobbes

Baulders Gate is an almost non-linear adventure game. It's kind of what's freaking me out (you have to play more then once to see everything).

Can't say the same for any console game I'm aware of? Not even FF.

But this is a kind of new thing. There probably not many PC adventure games which are non-linear.

Chubby

Baldur's Gate was errrm, very linear. Baldur's Gate 2 is less so but that's just a lot of quests and character back story thrown in and the game follows a linear story. There might be more to it but I haven't finished BG2 yet. Now, as for a console equivalent, you obviously have never heard of Chrono Trigger which was made for the snes 5 years ago. I mentioned the FF series and the other games because they have depth and great stories.

[This message has been edited by Chubby (edited 31-10-2000).]

Cake Fiend

Originally posted by Mik Hammy:
Don't agree with the 'PC games have more depth' thing. Far less in my opinion. Too many FPSes...

Oh yeah, Deus Ex, like where's the plot?? Half-Life, so shallow...

Kegser

I like spanners.

Mik Hammy

Originally posted by Sico:
Oh yeah, Deus Ex, like where's the plot?? Half-Life, so shallow...

Er, plot isn't depth.
But Half-Life and Deus Ex are the FPSes and the consoles have a few decent ones of those. Dreamcast seems to be getting most of them these days anyway.
Oh, I forgot 'the PC got them AGES ago'. I like that logic, they got them first so they're better.

Jesus, the amiga and Atari ST had civiliztion first, and Civ 2 is practically the same game.

Anyway, once again, plot isn't depth.

TwoShedsJackson

What is depth then? Deus Ex is not an fps, it's an rpg with abundant plot and has plenty of depth via freedom of movement and action, plus many moral choices etc. to be made along the way.

You keep telling us what depth isn't, now tell us what it is.

Mik Hammy

Yikes! C Troy DEMANDS answer.

Apologies for now pigeonholeing Deus Ex properly as an RPG. Couldn't get it work on my machine you see.

'Depth' is as indefinable as 'gameplay'.
But you know when it's there and you know when it ain't. Generally, I think when people claim a game has 'depth', they really mean complexity. Which is probably where the 'PC titles have more depth' argument comes from.

Therefore we get people who think that a flight sim has more depth than a 2d shoot-em-up. You know, because it's about flying aeroplanes.

Actually that's a topic for another thread. I'm reluctant to stray too far from the thread topic to be honest.

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!

pat kenny

What is the point of this thread?

---

Mik Hammy

Eh?
It's carried over from an earlier discussion.

Do they need a point? Football. A load of men running around a field playing football. What's the point of that? Or sailing. A load of men sitting in a boat, sailing. What's the point of that?

You head into the realms of self parody, man.

---

We've got to work together, C'mon!