[geeks] nVidia 8800GT for Apple Mac Pro

[Nadine Miller]

Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> On May 23, 2008, at 21:24 , Nadine Miller wrote:
> 
>>> Because console game are marketed primarily to people who want 
>>> instant action satisfaction, shallow stories, and guided on-rails 
>>> game play.
>>
>> I disagree with that.
> 
> You are free to do that... :)
> 
> Me, I look at the games on the shelves and that's primarily what I see.  
> Maybe gamers want more, I believe a lot of them do judging from 
> conversations I have with them all the time, but the marketing 
> departments clearly don't get see it.

I think *some* marketing departments don't get it--that's why the PS3 
has not sold as well as Sony thought it would.  The Wii on the other 
hand--well, try finding it in stock on any random day.

>> There are multiple ways to look at the gaming market, and I think the 
>> way that console game marketing looks at gamer is based on "hard core" 
>> vs "casual" gamers.  The majority of game sales are made off of the 
>> hard core market that has certain expectations about game dynamics, 
>> tropes, and difficulty levels.
> 
> If that's true, then why are the majority of the games on the shelf 
> nearly the opposite?

What's on the shelf is not the be-all, end-all of game statistics.  The 
people who walk into game stores are not the totality of gamers--in 
fact, I'd argue that in some respects they are the lowest common 
denominator of gamers.  A good portion of the target audience purchases 
games on-line.  That "harried" casual gamer that Nintendo has been 
targeting definitely does.

> No, I don't misunderstand at all.  I'm very well aware of how it works.
> 
> I also am very well aware that it is broken.  A lot of the game industry 
> has no idea what people want, and survive mainly because there are 
> enough instant-gratification sales to keep them alive, for awhile anyway.
> 
> Some have even openly admitted they have no idea what gamers really want 
> and/or they got it totally wrong.

Funny, the sales statistics say otherwise.  Game sales have been growing 
whereas other "entertainment" categories like movies and music have been 
receding.  Someone is obviously doing something right, even if you don't 
like it.

> The most successful games long-term are precisely those which are not 
> dumbed down, shallow entertainment, but a lot of industry players still 
> can't seem to get that through their heads.

So you're claiming that GTA is not "shallow" as one of the most 
successful game franchises in history?  Give me some sales figures and 
examples and I might have a better idea of what you're trying to infer 
from, but based on what I know about games (console or otherwise), I 
don't think you have a good picture of success within the industry.

> There is also the fact that this means they don't have to spend the 
> money on a good story, which is often as expensive and even harder than 
> the pretty pictures.

Good story is harder, but it's certainly not more expensive.  Writers 
are the least well-paid of game development (barring "name brand" 
franchises like Tom Clancy) of all resources, save perhaps the poor 
bastards stuck doing QA.

>> There are some games like that.  For instance, I've never seen a PC 
>> game with the "alignment" system like that of Fable (well, OK, they 
>> ported Fable to the PC, but it was XBOX first).  Gladius (console only 
>> AFAIK) is a strategy which is comparable to X-Com, IMO.
> 
> Um... nearly ever PC RPG has an alignment system and has for 15 years.

I said an alignment system *like* Fables.  I am well-aware that 
computer/console RPGs have had alignment systems for a long time.  The 
problem is for the most part, alignment systems are weak afterthoughts 
that don't really impact game play in any significant manner.  I'd guess 
the only one that surpasses Fable, IMO, would be Darklands'.

> ...and the inability to easily modify them, which can limit their sales 
> to short periods.
> 
> PC games have frequently been on sale for 5 years or more.

And so are console games, just not in the same channels.

> Anyway, I am happy to see more gamers starting to ask for more involved 
> games, and a lot of people are starting to realize that the online games 
> are often an excuse to milk them and avoid paying for good writers.
> 
> I personally find a lot of the online games boring, because the base 
> story sucks, and at the same time there is no real method in place for 
> the players to weave their own.
> 
> A lot of people seem to like it, but it gets really old after awhile to me.

They are nothing but grinds, no better or worse than free text-based 
MUDs, IMO.  And that's the sole reason I've not bothered to play them--I 
can log onto my long-time MUD anytime for free.

Until someone builds a persistent world in which it becomes easy for a 
GM to "GM" a MMO game in real-time, I will not be interested.  I play 
table-top RPGs for a reason, and until that is captured in a graphics 
based game, the closest I'll get to MMO is table-top RPGs in IRC.

=Nadine=