PC vs Consoles

[K0rN_b4LL]

I re-iterate:

And I'll also add this:

 

[Norik]

You can claim Mario is a superior game to Skylanders, but why does each Skylander game outsell every Mario game by a massive 3 to 1 margin? Because more people want it.

I'd like to see those numbers and where you're getting them. As far as I'm aware Mario has always sold consistently well (just look at the numbers for 3D Land, Mario Kart 7, and NSMB Wii). Not that this sales argument convinces me anyway (just look at the amazing numbers for utter shit like Kinect Adventures or PS Move).

Exclusives titles wise, and convenience wise. - Console wins.

This argument could be made either way. Consoles don't have Civilization, Half Life, Team Fortress, Chivalry, Starcraft, Total War, Gothic, Everquest, Mugen, Europa Universalis, Natural Selection, Runescape, Ragnarok, Warhammer, the Tycoon series, Age of Empires, Guild Wars, Arma, and several others. Also, every MMO, MOBA, Simulator, and open-source game ever.

Not sure about convenience either, but that's subjective.

"Old fashioned gaming was the pinnacle of Perfection! Everything else now, is just a regression of the whole gaming industry!

Not sure where' you're getting this from. There are certainly great games in all generations, and this one has been no exception (Journey, Vanquish, Civilization V, Spec Ops: the Line, Chivalry, Guitar Hero, Street Fighter IV, Skyrim, Europa Universalis, and among many others have all been fantastic). My argument was that you can't dismiss older games as inferior versions of today's games because they are entirely different experiences. For instance, both Bioshock and Megaman X are outstanding games on their own merit, but comparing them doesn't even make sense. Both display genius in design, but they are so different on so many levels that it's difficult to even draw parallels (unless you go with dumb shit like graphics or story).

(That and I've never played them...)"

Oh great, more (ironic) assumptions.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

This argument could be made either way. Consoles don't have Civilization, Half Life, Team Fortress, Chivalry, Starcraft, Total War, Gothic, Everquest, Mugen, Europa Universalis, Natural Selection, Runescape, Ragnarok, Warhammer, the Tycoon series, Age of Empires, Guild Wars, Arma, and several others. Also, every MMO, MOBA, Simulator, and open-source game ever.

Most of those games aren't even good, and most of them are just online MMORPGs.

On PC you don't get basically any fighting games, such as Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc.... The list is just too overwhelming to mention. 70% of my Xbox games never came out for PC.

Oh great, more (ironic) assumptions.

You've already admitted you only bought an Xbox for Soul Calibur exclusively, and have about 20 full games registered on Xbox. So I'm judging off your inexperience with giving opinions about exclusive titles for Xbox (that you couldn't have played on PC). And since you don't have them on your gamercard, or a GT associated with yourself, the conclusion is pretty obvious you've never played that game before... Hence, Ryse, I've played and beaten it, you've played a demo for it at a store. Who's opinion of the game should people trust, yours or mine?

My argument was that you can't dismiss older games as inferior versions of today's games because they are entirely different experiences. For instance, both Bioshock and Megaman X are outstanding games on their own merit, but comparing them doesn't even make sense.

I'm not even comparing polar opposite games like 2D scrollers to Megaman X to Bioshock.

I'm comparing games like Tekken 2, to Tekken 6. Obviously Tekken 6 is better, better graphics, more characters, more moves, online modes, more offline modes.

I'm comparing Dead or Alive 2 to Dead or Alive 5. Obviously DOA5 is better, it has better graphics, online, more characters, more stages, more moves, more depth.

Nobody is comparing Banjo Kazooie to KillZone. If Capcom came out with a 2014 MegaMan game with online co-op, destruction modes, modes to play as giant robots, modes to play as Prototype man, etc.... You would stop caring about old MegaMan games because it's been outclassed by it's soul successor.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

And I'll also add this:

/Virtual High Five!! >:DDDDDD

 

[Slayer_X64]

^ This whole statement is irrelevant because if you actually read my post, I said specifically, "Those games were good for their time" no where did I say they were "useless crap games". They're just simply outclassed present day.

I'm saying now, graphics wise, specs wise, gameplay wise, content wise, and online interactions wise, games nowadays are SUPERIOR. Gaming evolved with online interactions, hence how suddenly CoD and Halo rose to such instant dominance over the whole game market, gaming evolved.

Honest question here for you: You see how single player-only games like DMC or Remember Me have such high re-sell percentages? Because they're single player only games. Online modes keep people playing a game and not just beat it, and re-sell it to the store. Back in the 1990's they basically had no online games, you were limited with a linear, single-player gaming experience. Which was fine, "at the time".

Game sales, is what I like to look at, because it shows you what people actually want, now popularity doesn't always = a superior game, plenty of amazing games get poor sales. The thing about when people say a game sucks or is great, it's an opinion. (Like yours), but game sales, are undeniable factual numbers. That's why people hate when you bring up game sales, because they can't refute them.

You can claim Mario is a superior game to Skylanders, but why does each Skylander game outsell every Mario game by a massive 3 to 1 margin? Because more people want it.

(delayed response - didnt catch this post after reading this thread the first time through)
also on the note of offline games having a high resale percentage, i dont think that is entirely true either. look at almost any RPG you've ever seen, especially ones with multiple paths and multiple endings. of course this is not only limited to RPG's. if a game is solid, people will hold onto it and play it for generations.

also online gaming has existed since at least the 90's, with some pretty influential titles paving that pathway, such as doom and diablo.

as for the whole superiority thing:

graphics wise: new games win i will agree with that. but i also have a good appreciation for 2D art, and in some cases i find it adds to the "unrealistic" or "absurd" atmosphere of particular games without making them look cheesy. of course, gameplay matters more than any graphical advancement.

specs: define this? technically a game cannot have "specs". if you wanna talk about specs, the very first games had the best specs because they were the most memory optimized and thus required less resources from the system in order to run. technically "specs" is something that comes from the machine itself. sure while computers have all gotten more powerful whether they be console or PC, they can all also run all of the older games just as well as the older machines (regardless of whether the developer intended them to do so or not). even small computers like your smart phone are not excluded from this statement.

gameplay: this is incredibly subjective. as i said before, there are good games from this gen, good games from older gens. newer =/= better. infact since you already touched on call of duty for example, i'd like to say that is one of the most braindead and recycled franchises out there. thats not to say that the same thing didnt happen back then, but it IS to say that the same thing still happens now.

also mechanically games have changed very little since the 90's. sure every console has their gimmick that some games may or may not make use of, but the mechanical advancement is trivial, and in alot of cases it is a double edged sword. something gets better, another thing gets worse or gets removed entirely. that is the cycle of gamedevelopment.

btw i just wanna also point out the resale rate of games like call of duty as well, just to prove that online gaming has NOTHING to do with the resale rate.

content wise, well hell let me point you to The Elder Scrolls: Arena. That old game is lined with more shit to do than any other TES game i've ever played, and not only that - the game is HUGE.

online interactions wise, all i can really say is more players can play at the same time, and there is now integrated voice chat. however: 1) voice chat in the old days was just done over the phone anyways. 2) netcode, subjective to the game it is written for, hasnt improved that much over the last few decades. compare say Diablo1 online netcode (yes classic battlenet is still up) to Diablo3 online netcode, and i guarantee you will see no difference in latency.

and game sales prove nothing - in recent years there have been alot of games that sold well that ended up being massive disappointments.

as for the skylander mario thing, 1) im with norik in that i want to see the numbers. 2) even if it is true, it probably has to do with the fact that skylanders is also released on more mainstream consoles than say, the wii, or the wiiU. those same parents that bought their kids skylanders, also probably brought home a copy of the latest call of duty on their way home from work.

im not saying skylanders is a bad game - i dont have a problem with it. i just figured id point that out.

EDIT: also on the note of the fighting game example with tekken, more characters also means the game is harder to balance, and there are also likely to be more clones (hello mishima's!)

EDIT2: also online should never be used as a benchmark for how good a fighting game is. no fighting game to be taken seriously considers online to be viably competitive at all. at best it is a twisted abomination of the original game. fighting games at their core are meant to be played offline, if nothing else simply because of their competitive nature.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

btw i just wanna also point out the resale rate of games like call of duty as well, just to prove that online gaming has NOTHING to do with the resale rate.

I have to disagree because of overwhelming evidence:

Crystal Dynamics even said they decided integrate an Online Mode into Tomb Raider (For Xbox360 and PS3) but the game had primary focus on single player only. One of the two main reasons they wanted to add an Online mode was due to the HIGH re-sell percentages for Single Player Only games, such as DMC, Dead Pool, Lost Planet 3, and many others.

They realized most gamers play a single player game, completely beat it within a week, turn around and re-sell it to the store and buy a new game. But if they have online modes, people actually play the game longer, invest time into online accomplishments, and overall the re-sell rate is lower. Call of Duty's may be high ONLY because the statistic is biased because like 17 million people buy each CoD game, so of course there will by default be a high re-sell number compared to smaller selling titles.

EDIT: also on the note of the fighting game example with tekken, more characters also means the game is harder to balance, and there are also likely to be more clones (hello mishima's!)

There are barely any clones, maybe out of a 45+ character roster, 5 will be similar clones of each other. SC5 has like 3 Mokujin characters, out of a 25+ roster. SC1's original roster only had less than 15 characters.

EDIT2: also online should never be used as a benchmark for how good a fighting game is. no fighting game to be taken seriously considers online to be viably competitive at all. at best it is a twisted abomination of the original game. fighting games at their core are meant to be played offline, if nothing else simply because of their competitive nature.

So basically you think interacting with other players across the globe in a 1v1 fighting game isn't an asset over a game where you can't? Lol... Games like Tekken, BlazBlue, Killer Instinct, and others actually have amazing netcodes, they play online just like they do offline.

Honestly, if a player takes their game TOO seriously that a little online lag makes them never player online, then they're too competitive for their own good. =P

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

it probably has to do with the fact that skylanders is also released on more mainstream consoles than say, the wii, or the wiiU. those same parents that bought their kids skylanders, also probably brought home a copy of the latest call of duty on their way home from work.

And why does Mario only get released on Wii-U but Skylanders got released on Wii-U also plus all the other mainstream consoles? Why is that....?

Because like I said before, if Nintendo licensed out their IPs (the only thing they have of value to their name) they'd be dead, and nobody would have an incentive to buy a Wii-U. Honestly, 80% of people who buy a Wii-U or Nintendo product only do so to get access to the great exclusive IPs like Pokemon and Zelda. If I could buy a Pokemon game, or a Zelda game on Xbox, I would in a heart beat.

Look at the world for what it is, instead of what is should be. When people say "I'm a fan!!" I always want to ask "are you one by logical reasoning? Or just biased loyalty?"

 

[Norik]

Look at the world for what it is, instead of what is should be. When people say "I'm a fan!!" I always want to ask "are you one by logical reasoning? Or just biased loyalty?"

Oh, the irony.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

Oh, the irony.

What irony? Everything I bought including the Xbox One was off informed purchases. I chose the XB1 over another console because I liked the exclusives it had, I loved the 1080p Kinect that can play in total darkness, the voice commands, the quick Snap feature that allows you to play games at the same time a sub-bar let's you watch TV, and for the dedicated servers.

^ There's nothing fanboyism about that.

"Solo Likes this post!"

 

[Slayer_X64]

I have to disagree because of overwhelming evidence:

Crystal Dynamics even said they decided integrate an Online Mode into Tomb Raider (For Xbox360 and PS3) but the game had primary focus on single player only. One of the two main reasons they wanted to add an Online mode was due to the HIGH re-sell percentages for Single Player Only games, such as DMC, Dead Pool, Lost Planet 3, and many others.

They realized most gamers play a single player game, completely beat it within a week, turn around and re-sell it to the store and buy a new game. But if they have online modes, people actually play the game longer, invest time into online accomplishments, and overall the re-sell rate is lower. Call of Duty's may be high ONLY because the statistic is biased because like 17 million people buy each CoD game, so of course there will by default be a high re-sell number compared to smaller selling titles.



There are barely any clones, maybe out of a 45+ character roster, 5 will be similar clones of each other. SC5 has like 3 Mokujin characters, out of a 25+ roster. SC1's original roster only had less than 15 characters.



So basically you think interacting with other players across the globe in a 1v1 fighting game isn't an asset over a game where you can't? Lol... Games like Tekken, BlazBlue, Killer Instinct, and others actually have amazing netcodes, they play online just like they do offline.

Honestly, if a player takes their game TOO seriously that a little online lag makes them never player online, then they're too competitive for their own good. =P

1) none of those single player games you listed are spectacular. a solid single player game will not get re-sold because it will have enough content and replay value to make it last a long time. look at for example, skyrim, or dragons dogma.

the problem with modern games is that you CAN beat them in a week. a good solid game should have at least a months worth of content for hardcore gamers to complete, or for an action game, 2-3 weeks + good replay value.

and call of duty resale value is also high because a) it has essentially zero singleplayer content, and b) there is no point for people who actually take call of duty seriously to stick with the older games. of course, there is no reason to buy whatever the new call of duty is, because the game is so damn recycled, it is exactly the same as the previous installment, with all the same problems.

a) there are still clones, and b) tekken surely isnt my idea of a balanced game - at least the way it is right now it isnt. c) the number of characters doesnt at all make a fighting game good - what makes a fighting game good is how a combination of how balanced it is, and how fulfilling it is during competition. lacking bugs and glitches helps alot too. besides if i wanted to play a 2D fighter with 3D graphics, i might as well pick up the latest generic street fighter 4 title, since that will always pretty much be the biggest game out there.

and no i dont think fighting people across the globe is an asset especially in the context of fighting games. if anything else i think it hurts the community by attracting the wrong kind of people to it. also NO GAME plays the same online as it does offline. there will always be 5 frames MINIMUM of lag no matter what. even in a SCV 5 bar this can mean the difference between dropping a 1 frame punisher, or blocking a borderline unseeable low, or even hitting a grapple break window, a just frame, or a 1frame link combo. you must have no idea how huge the difference is if you are willing to make such a bold statement. its a completely different game on there. you played SCIV - certainly you still remember what lag tactics are? they are still a factor in SCV, they just arent as obvious or severe as they were in SCIV. and these same things also apply to Tekken and Blazblue just the same.

if you're taking a game seriously in terms of competitiveness, then fuck yea offline is the only way to go because it doesnt put up artificial skill barriers in terms of latency - offline is the option that is true to the way the game was designed, and is honest to the players who participate in it. better yet fighting games are competitive by nature - if you dont wanna play competitively, then you want to find a different genre to play, because competition and challenge is all a fighting game can offer you. but if you just wanna feed your ego and be an online casual, you got no place talking down to others who actually have made a serious commitment to go offline making a competitive commitment to bettering themselves and learning more about the game. And, unlike online calibur players, alot of them actually have tried to make a contribution to this community, instead of arguing about who's sausage is bigger.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

1) none of those single player games you listed are spectacular. a solid single player game will not get re-sold because it will have enough content and replay value to make it last a long time. look at for example, skyrim, or dragons dogma.

I actually knew you'd mention Skyrim, you're forgetting that that's not a "linear single player game", that's an "RPG", it's a massive open world game where you level up and acquire new classes. Completely different from the examples I gave like Enslaved, DMC, Dead Pool, Mario... etc. All those games very high re-sell rates. I mean what kept you playing Banjo Kazooie back in the day? Collecting all the Jiggy Pieces? You'd return that to the store in a week by today's standards.

of course, there is no reason to buy whatever the new call of duty is, because the game is so damn recycled, it is exactly the same as the previous installment, with all the same problems.

^ From this comment alone, I can tell you're not a Call of Duty player. I own ever single installment, MW2, MW3, CoD4, Black Ops 1, Black Ops 2, and CoD Ghosts. The games are completely different in interfaces, kill streaks, equipment options, and perk systems. The only thing similar they all have is that they're shooter games with the same franchise logo.

and no i dont think fighting people across the globe is an asset especially in the context of fighting games. if anything else i think it hurts the community by attracting the wrong kind of people to it.

Lemme get this straight.... You think thousands of fighting game players being able to play with each other online is "bad thing" because a few bad apples play it? LOL! Welcome to the internet! You'll find d-bags in every internet game!

Why is encountering a d-bag in an online fighting game any worse then encountering that same person sitting next to you at a tournament? Lol, so you can have the satisfaction of causing them physical harm or what??? I don't understand this logic...

but if you just wanna feed your ego and be an online casual, you got no place talking down to others who actually have made a serious commitment to go offline making a competitive commitment to bettering themselves and learning more about the game.

Who is belittling tournament players? I'm not, I give tournament players all the props in the world.

Oh... I understand, you dislike online players because you feel insulted by their existence. You think that online players shouldn't exist in a parallel world with you because they can't accept that their virtual competitive world is based off lies?

 

[Mage]

I should have seen this post in the moderation queue since you are on probation but someone else must have approved it. Can you calm down with your ego contest? I really don't want to have to close ANOTHER thread because of you.

 

[K0rN_b4LL]

Wouldn't it be better to just ban them from the site for a week or something rather than shut down the thread and ruin it for everyone?



I'm still trying to figure out what this argument is even about. Offline, online, what's it matter. A game is a game. But it, play it, and either like it or get rid of it.

 

[Mage]

Well that's Ishimaru's last warning before I decide to extend his probationary status time period.

 

[Ishimaru Jinrai]

I should have seen this post in the moderation queue since you are on probation but someone else must have approved it. Can you calm down with your ego contest? I really don't want to have to close ANOTHER thread because of you.

Nothing in my post is attacking anyone personally, on the contrary, I'm actually bringing clarity to the discussion.

When someone says "Online in fighting games is a bad thing" and I explain why that's untrue, that's not an argument, that's just explaining a point of view.

 

[Norik]

Online doesn't make a fighting game good ≠ Online in fighting games is a bad thing

 

[Party Wolf]

0_0

 

[Slayer_X64]

Online doesn't make a fighting game good ≠ Online in fighting games is a bad thing

i wouldnt say its a good thing either. it has an equal share of merits and drawbacks.

of course this isnt really the place to discuss these kind of semantics - if you'd like however, i'd love to talk about it in PM's ^-^ afterall, we're all friends here right?

 

[Kid]

Wait?! Retro games and people play handhelds still? My lord!

 

[Norik]

Thought this belonged here: