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.