Computer Games magazine adding a console section?

[Mark Asher]

Saw that on Octopus Overlords. Is it true?

If it's true, I'm a bit sad that mags devoted to computer games have to start covering consoles, but if it helps them survive, that's a good thing.

Wonder if PCG and CGW will follow suit?

[Chris Nahr]

CGW won't because the Ziff-Davis sister magazine EGM already covers console games. Unless they want to merge the two magazines into one there would be no point.

[Alan Au]

Tom posted a response over there, basically confirming the addition of a console section, and indicating that it doesn't mean that PC coverage has been reduced: http://www.octopusoverlords.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=124936#124936

- Alan

[mutt]

Repent! For the end of the world is nigh!

EDIT: Okay, after having the same initial, knee-jerk reaction that everyone else is having, I've calmed down and am now actually looking forward to the console section. Applying CGM's trenchant, adult review standards to a section of the industry that has heretofore had to deal with nothing but kiddie reviews will be a welcome change. It might even, over time, improve the quality of some of the games out there--in a good way. (Holy moley, I did a Yogi-ism!)

Besides, anything's better than Now Playing.

[Supertanker]

I consider this excellent news. I am a gamer, and the hardware running those games is an irrelevant issue. What I want are decent writers telling me about the games, and the quality of console-centric magazine writing is horrible. I'm especially happy that I get this for free with my CGM subscription.

[Mark Crump]

I never had a huge problem with Now Playing. They always seemed to have something in there of interest to me, and I bought a few things from that section I didn't know existed. I'm also a child of 80's metal, so I appreciated some of the concert reviews.

I'm less happy to see the console section because I don't play consoles.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I don't play console games, but, as a gamer/reviewer, follow them as a companion hobby. So long as the PC game coverage stays the same size, I see no reason to complain.

It's not at all parallel to the Now Playing situation, which was non-game stuff stuck in the back of my favorite monthly. How many of the CGM freelancers already play console games, anyway? Might as well take advantage of their expertise to advise the PC gamer on what and what not to buy.

Now if only EGM will take up the gauntlet and add a PC section...

Troy

[Jose Liz]

EGM has a PC column every month :O

[Troy S Goodfellow]

EGM has a PC column every month :O

Heh. Shows how often I read EGM, doesn't it. :P

Anyway, a column is one thing. A section is another.

Troy

[Bub, Andrew]

Does this mean CGM is getting another name chance?
Anyway, I think it's a good idea. I didn't like Now Playing, but that was mainly because the style didn't mesh well with the rest of the mag IMO. Since this, presumably, will feature the same writers as the PC section, it'll fit better.

[steve]

There are no plans for a name change, at least in the immediate future.

I guess we could rename ourselves "MMO Monthly," since we added an MMO section and have done about 6 different ones as covers in the last year or so.

[Derek Meister]

I don't really see a problem. From what I've heard, it's not like the console reviews will take over the magazine and are merely more of a "related subjects" catagory.

In fact, if approached as a "PC gamer's view of console titles" that introduces and reviews console games that would appeal to people who are primarily PC gamers, it would actually be rather useful to what is elsewise an insular worldview in the same way that the reverse would be true for a console gaming magazine to look at PC games through a console owner's interests.

[stusser]

Hey, how about adding a gadgets section, reviewing digital cameras, stereo systems, portable MP3 players, and so on? When you think about it, it wouldn't take away from the focus of Computer Gaming World, because the same guys would be reviewing the gadgets, and your audience of 14-35 males is sure to love gadgets.

While you're at it, why not a style section, showing off this season's latest from hugo boss, ralph lauren, and so on? Again, perfectly topical to Computer Gaming World, since computer gamers wear clothes, and again, the same guys would be reviewing it.

This could be huge! Who knows, all of the sections might be so popular that they could spawn entirely new magazines... perhaps Computer Gaming World Automotive Monthly, Computer Gaming World Bass Fishing, and Computer Gaming World Gossip from Page 6 aren't far off? What an exciting world we live in!

Seriously though, sorry you guys aren't getting the circulation numbers you need. All of those memos from the suits saying "be more like maxim, we're really hurting" must really suck the fun out of your day.

[Thierry Nguyen]

Why do people constantly turn the M in CGM into a W?

[TomChick]

Stusser, I don't mean to get in the way of a good rant, even when it can't get the name of the publication right, but do you really not see the connection between computer and console games? Were you this bent out of shape when Computer Games Strategy Plus started reviewing first person shooters?

And although Steve can address this better than I can, my understanding is that it has nothing to do with suits or circulation numbers. It has to do with the nature of the industry.

-Tom

[Shadari]

About how many pages per issue will be devoted to console games?

[Dave Long]

Why do people constantly turn the M in CGM into a W?

Probably because they don't read either magazine or have a subscription to them. They just like to bitch about them on messageboards.

--Dave

[stusser]

I actually noticed the magazine name was wrong after I posted it and didn't bother correcting myself. Does it matter?

Nature of the industry? How so? The nature of the industry can mean a lot of things. The nature of the industry could be that computer games magazines don't sell as well as they used to, and every time you walk into EB or gamestop less space is allocated to computer gaming. That was my interpretation; if you have a different one please say so.

Personally, I very much doubt this was an editorial decision made in the interests of providing a better product to the consumer. After all, when buying Computer Gaming World^H^H^H^H^HMagazine, the consumer quite reasonably expects the subject matter to be computer games. As others have said, there are plenty of console game magazines available to us; there's no shortage.

If it was purely an editorial decision, well... shucks, I guess I disagree.

EDIT: I didn't get upset when CGS+ started reviewing non-strategy games, because I'm not a big fan of them. If it was called Computer Role Playing Games Magazine and started reviewing RTS's, I'd be pretty dang ticked off, yes. It's like ordering a taco and getting a burrito. Burritos are great, lots of people enjoy burritos every day, but I paid for a taco.

[Dave Long]

About how many pages per issue will be devoted to console games?

Like Now Playing, it will be a section in the back of the magazine. It will not remove pages from the regular magazine. That's right in the announcement that was quoted in the link above.

--Dave

[Dave Long]

I actually noticed the magazine name was wrong after I posted it and didn't bother correcting myself. Does it matter?

Nature of the industry? How so? The nature of the industry can mean a lot of things. The nature of the industry could be that computer games magazines don't sell as well as they used to, and every time you walk into EB or gamestop less space is allocated to computer gaming. That was my interpretation; if you have a different one please say so.

Personally, I very much doubt this was an editorial decision made in the interests of providing a better product to the consumer. After all, when buying Computer Gaming World^H^H^H^H^HMagazine, the consumer quite reasonably expects the subject matter to be computer games. As others have said, there are plenty of console game magazines available to us; there's no shortage.

If it was purely an editorial decision, well... shucks, I guess I disagree.

How can bonus coverage, that you can completely ignore if you want to, be a bad thing? I ask that specifically when the same people that bring you the magazine that people seem to really enjoy and commend regularly for its approach are going to be writing the content that's in the bonus pages?

--Dave

[Shadari]

About how many pages per issue will be devoted to console games?

Like Now Playing, it will be a section in the back of the magazine. It will not remove pages from the regular magazine. That's right in the announcement that was quoted in the link above.
I still don't know how many pages that is. :oops:

[TomChick]

the consumer quite reasonably expects the subject matter to be computer games... It's like ordering a taco and getting a burrito. Burritos are great, lots of people enjoy burritos every day, but I paid for a taco.

Ah, I see. You're one of those guys who doesn't put any credence in the idea that some console games would be of interest to computer gamers. That's cool. You know, your opinion and all. But awfully short-sighted at any rate.

Shadari, the Now Playing section was about a dozen pages near the end of the magazine.

-Tom

[stusser]

Lets not be naive; that's just how it starts.

How about this-- that bonus coverage, surprise surprise, generates a greatly disproportionate percentage of ad revenue. The ads pay for the "bonus" coverage and more real computer game coverage, so why not give consoles a few more pages? After all, it's gravy, right? Nothing wrong with it, right?

Then one day the suits realize that most of the revenue from computer gaming world/magazine/whatever comes from non-computer game coverage, and... fini.

Console coverage (obviously) does not contribute to a better computer gaming magazine. And once you lose sight of that, once that's not your highest priority...

Not saying you're sellouts, etc, who gives a shit? You can't fight city hall. Don't take it personally.

[Dave Long]

Wouldn't it make more sense to take the console coverage and turn it into its own magazine if it's successful? C'mon man, don't be such a hardass. CGM hasn't closed up shop now that Now Playing moved on.

--Dave

[stusser]

We're 14-35 males, the sales guys know exactly what would be of interest to us. We like video games, big titties, beer, high tech gadgets, and fart jokes. Doesn't mean they all should be in a computer gaming magazine.

[Dave Long]

By that response, it seems pretty clear that you don't read Computer Games Magazine since it has never treated its readers that way.

--Dave

[EFlannum]

I think it's a fantastic idea... I'd love to see what the CGM guys and gals have to say about console gaming. Also re: the tacos and burritos comment... I think it's more like going to a restaurant that serves tacos and also expecting that you can get a burritto there as well. Which brings me to a tangential subject... why is it that none of the semi-fastfoodish mexican food places I've gone to in Bellevue serve Quesadillas? I'm jonesing for a good Quesedilla!

[TomChick]

We're 14-35 males, the sales guys know exactly what would be of interest to us. We like video games, big titties, beer, high tech gadgets, and fart jokes.

Hmm, yeah, okay. You know, stusser, I don't think you're CGM's target audience anyway, so you probably shouldn't sweat it even if they decide to start covering lawn bowling.

-Tom

[stusser]

I read both CGM and CGW, and subscribe to CGW... why are you making ad hominem fallacies? Attack the argument, not the man making it.

[steve]

Then one day the suits realize that most of the revenue from computer gaming world/magazine/whatever comes from non-computer game coverage, and... fini.
You're assuming that advertisers will flock to a computer game magazine with a dozen console game pages of coverage, and there's no possible way that will happen.

And if it was that successful, you do realize we'd be able to add more pages to the magazine, meaning there'd be more overall game coverage, right?

[Matthew Gallant]

You think that console coverage is going to take over the magazine. How wrong you are. Eventually, the magazine will be entirely devoted to Ninja III: The Domination (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087805/). The process has already begun, and there is precious little you or anyone can do to stop it now.

[stusser]

Steve, yes, that was just one possible result, and yeah, it's unlikely. Really what it comes down to is that the change doesn't make for a better computer gaming magazine, and thats what I pay for. I'm not all in a tizzy (it's hard to tell in a text medium like an internet messageboard) but it does kinda bum me out that computer gaming is being further marginalized.

I would like to see computer gaming magazines back to 200+ page issues full of content (OK, and ads) like the 90s; I'm sure you would too. I just don't see that happening... at least not until the hardware is completely commoditized; when the very concept of a dedicated computing device is itself obsolete because computers are built into everything anyway. At that point, the PC vs. console argument won't exist and we'll all live happily ever after, commuting to work in our hovercars, free as birds for ever more.

Until the Grand Overlord Bozar comes and steals all earth's water. That's gonna suck.

[Dr Fear]

How can bonus coverage, that you can completely ignore if you want to, be a bad thing?
Because, as a friend of mine in publishing told me, magazine subscriptions are very much about "club membership" -- that is, people see themselves as a part of a group defined by the content of the magazine. Thus, if you change the content of the magazine, you're changing the way the group defines itself, even if that content is additional bonus content with zero impact on the old content.

[Derek Meister]

Page two and no one's gone for the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups commercial tagline joke?

[steve]

I would like to see computer gaming magazines back to 200+ page issues full of content (OK, and ads) like the 90s; I'm sure you would too.
Not with my current (lack of) staff, heh.

The funny thing about those 200 page issues is that they were typically 60-80 pages of editorial and 100-120 pages of ads. And everyone complained that there were too many ads.

Today, the magazines are... 60-80 pages of editorial and 20-30 pages of ads.

There were a few issues where we were over 100 pages of editorial, but for the most part, those extra pages were devoted to walkthroughs for adventure games.

[TomChick]

Dr. Fear mentions the club mentality of a magazine. I happen to believe that console coverage fits in very neatly. CGM has a very definite tone and I don't see any console coverage with that tone.

At that point, the PC vs. console argument won't exist

I guess that's what this comes down to. Personally, I don't see the issue as PC vs. console. There's no vs. about it, to my mind. They're all games. Some run on a PC. Some run on an Xbox. Some run on both.

And whether you like it or not, it's not as clear cut an issue as you might think.

Is Splinter Cell a PC game? Thief III? Should PC games cover the Sonic Heroes port? What about studios that started developing for the PC and are channeling their creative energies into console systems, studios like Bungie, Pandemic, Rockstar, Bioware? Don't PC gamers care about what they're doing? What about console games that explore mechanics typically connected to PC games, like Fire Emblem, Phantom Brave, Champions, or Unholy War? Don't PC gamers want to know about those? And what about new styles of gameplay that come through consoles and work their way into PCs, such as Grand Theft Auto? Do you expect PC gamers sit and wait for ports?

If you continue to look at it as a PC vs. console issue, you're just short-changing yourself.

-Tom

[Sean Tudor]

Oh cool a PC vs. Console thread and I didn't even start it this time. :wink:

My two cents - I can't wait to see the CGM reviewers tackle the magic mushroom content in console games. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .....

[Kunikos]

Why do people constantly turn the M in CGM into a W?

because they don't ever read CGM or know that it exists...

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Lost in this discussion is CGM announcing a column devoted to independent computer games. It is already, IMO, the most indie friendly magazine - not only does it preview and review the major indie games, Brett's mod column highlights the work of talented amateur programmers which can only encourage them to try their hands at other stuff.

This addition on its own justifies me and the missus extending our subscription.

Troy

[mutt]

I guess that's what this comes down to. Personally, I don't see the issue as PC vs. console. There's no vs. about it, to my mind. They're all games. Some run on a PC. Some run on an Xbox. Some run on both.

And whether you like it or not, it's not as clear cut an issue as you might think.

I look at PC games vs. Console games as a division caused mainly by the difference in controllers. If consoles featured keyboards, there'd be no real distinction in my mind at all.

[stusser]

Really don't want to derail this thread into a PC vs. console war, but let me put it this way-- I own both a highend gaming PC and an xbox. I have a couple of games on the xbox, and the only ones I have ever finished are the baldur's gate action RPGs, KOTOR, and KOTOR2. I played some burnout3, some gotham racing 2, a little bit of this, a little bit of that, it's fun playing coop with friends, but I just don't get into it. See, I mostly enjoy PC-style RPGs and FPS's, and those genres are either lacking (RPGs) or crippled by an absolutely unusable control scheme (FPS's). I do use my xbox all the time-- to watch movies in xbox media center. Only very, very, rarely do I play games on it. I don't even have the controllers plugged in, they're in a drawer.

Now you can go right ahead and say "they're all games, it doesn't matter what the platform is", and it certainly sounds reasonable enough, but the reality is that I am a PC gamer.

[Naked]

[/lurk]

Just wanted to add my .02 of a dollar in support of this move. I've been playing games since I was first gained the ability to mouth coherent sentences and use the bathroom without assistance, and I'll probably be doing so long after both of those faculties are fond memories for both me and my sure to be long suffering caretakers, and - in all honesty - I've never found much of a reason to differentiate between Computer, Console and even Arcade games. They're all just games to me.

Sure, the content tends to vary a bit between platform, the dominant genres are often quite distinct and there will always be visual differences, but to me, games are games are games. For a long chunk of my childhood, my favorite games were Star Raiders (Atari Console), Double Dragon (Arcade) and Ultima III: Exodus (Atari Computer), and, as different as they all are, all three were, and are, just different games - ways for me to escape into a fantasy world, rulesets for me to play with and inspiration for my own work as a designer. That's why I never understood these console/PC bitchfests...they're games folks, just shut up and play 'em :wink:

Consequently, I'm glad that the CGM folks (and to a lesser extent, EGM) are widening their focus in a way that manages to be more inclusive without damaging the quality of their core content. I read CGM every month, and I'm alway a bit curious to see what someone like Bauman or Chick would make of Tekken 5 or Wanda and the Collosus (in fact, that's the main reason I lurk here...), now I can, and I think the magazine will be better for it.

...time to go renew that subscription.

[lurk]

edit: Thanks to Muttbunch and Mr. Chick for making my point far more succinctly than I ever could while I labored over this ponderous post:wink: Oh, and I must disagree with stusser on this, I do respect his opinion - but to be honest, I think it's more a matter of preferred genre than platform.

[TomChick]

the reality is that I am a PC gamer

Well, that explains a lot. FWIW, if you like FPSs, you're really doing yourself a disservice to not play Halo 2. It's one of the finest first person shooters on any platform and it's built very carefully to work with a gamepad. It also does online gaming better than any PC game and is, IMO, an example of how multiplayer gaming should work.

If you like driving games, as you seem to, I think many of us would recommend you try Eve of Destruction before you write off console games. There's a huge following for the Gran Turismo series, which you can't get on a PC. In fact, as far as I know, there's nothing like it available on the PC.

You say you like PC-style RPGs, so I'd think you'd be interested in knowing that the company almost single-handedly responsible for the RPG rennaissance, Bioware, is focusing their development efforts on your Xbox. And I don't know how far back your RPG predilection goes, but my favorite Nethack clone is a Playstation 2 title called Nightmare of Druaga.

It's all good and well to say you're going to limit yourself to PC games. But even with your specialized taste, I predict that won't last. :)

-Tom

[stusser]

Continuing the pc vs console derailment already in progress...

I own halo2. I never got past the spot where you're in low gravity... I think it's the second level? The controller just pissed me off too much. I also bought splinter cell for the xbox, never got past level 2 there either... once it came out for the PC I picked it up and beat the game in a couple of days. I can't stand the controller for FPS's. It doesn't work for me. Moving with the mouse and keyboard is organic, effortless, muscle memory. I don't think about the motions, I just go.

Consoles are great for co-op, and driving games work well in co-op. I don't like the genre so much as playing with my friends.

Bioware's consoleish action-rpg with twitch combat (of all things) is for the Xbox, their deep PC-style RPG is for the PC. I'll likely end up buying jade empire anyway just because bioware rocks; hopefully the twitch combat won't stop me at level 2. It probably will, though.

[DTG]

...In fact, if approached as a "PC gamer's view of console titles" that introduces and reviews console games that would appeal to people who are primarily PC gamers, it would actually be rather useful to what is elsewise an insular worldview...

My knee-jerk reaction to the notice of a console section was "f**k, there goes a good PC games mag". But this comment makes sense to me. I've never played console games, and never wanted to .... my impression of them has been that they're either platform Mario-type jumping puzzles or neutered PC games like the XBox Morrowind. If this section discusses console games from the perspective of people who love PC games, and discusses them in terms of how they compare to PC games, then I would welcome it. I guess I'll have to wait and see what it actually is before making a judgement....but there's my suggestion, anyhow.

[Kahlil Gibran]

My .02 on it - I don't have a problem with this personally (I think it's a good idea), but I can see why some long-time supporters of the mag might get their feathers ruffled over including this kind of content into a magazine that's supposed to be exclusively about PC games (hence the name Computer Games Magazine). . On the other side of the coin PC gamers can only benefit from console coverage that is delivered from a PC gaming perspective and the CGM staff is more than capable of doing just that..

[Sean Tudor]

On the other side of the coin PC gamers can only benefit from console coverage that is delivered from a PC gaming perspective and the CGM staff is more than capable of doing just that..

We can ? How so ? If I am a PC-only gamer WTF would I want to read about console games and their crappy controllers ?

(And yes I am a CGM subscriber)

[Troy S Goodfellow]

On the other side of the coin PC gamers can only benefit from console coverage that is delivered from a PC gaming perspective and the CGM staff is more than capable of doing just that..

We can ? How so ? If I am a PC-only gamer WTF would I want to read about console games and their crappy controllers ?

(And yes I am a CGM subscriber)

To gloat about how much better our games are?

Seriously, I don't get the complaining at all. It's like putting a little bit of data on minor league baseball in a publication about the majors, not bass fishing in a football mag.

I get most of the console coverage I need from this very forum, so the inclusion of a little more in my life won't make that much difference. My subscription won't cost more, it won't take away from the PC coverage, and if it makes me think a little more about the differences and similarities between the four platforms so much the better.

And if it persuades my wife that we really do need a Playstation 2, then it will have served an even higher purpose.

Troy

[Dr Fear]

On the other side of the coin PC gamers can only benefit from console coverage that is delivered from a PC gaming perspective and the CGM staff is more than capable of doing just that..

We can ? How so ? If I am a PC-only gamer WTF would I want to read about console games and their crappy controllers ?

Because unless you claim to know everything there is about consoles a priori, there may be games on some console system that you'd enjoy because they deliver some form of experience that you enjoy on the PC, and the staff of the most mature PC gaming magazine would be best qualified to give that to you. And because this is provided as extra content, you lose absolutely nothing. Except that because magazine subscriptions are about identity, changing the content changes the identity and that makes people mad.

[Kahlil Gibran]

On the other side of the coin PC gamers can only benefit from console coverage that is delivered from a PC gaming perspective and the CGM staff is more than capable of doing just that..

We can ? How so ? If I am a PC-only gamer WTF would I want to read about console games and their crappy controllers ?

(And yes I am a CGM subscriber)

See my first point (it's for readers like you). :)

Perhaps you'll find a game that is so good that you'll put that crappy controller in your hand. Perhaps not. Perhaps you'll read about why developer X designed a game a certain way to accommodate both PC and console gamers.. There are lots of reasons why a section like this in CGM could be beneficial to PC game fans..

[Dr Fear]

Seriously, I don't get the complaining at all.
Identity politics.

[stusser]

It's a computer gaming magazine. They aren't computer games. Adding them doesn't contribute to the magazine's chosen subject. They don't belong there. Is that stance so hard to get? Why is it impossible to get that across to you guys without constantly being insulted?

If it doesn't bother you that's groovy, that's your opinion. No need to cockblock other posters by insinuating they're (variously) fratboys, idiots, had never read the magazines anyway, fools who identify with a gaming genre instead of loving all games equally as a man should, etc. Ad hominems don't hold water.

Incidentally, I still believe this issue was forced by circulation numbers and nothing has been said to make me feel otherwise. If that magazine job pays your mortgage, I realize you probably can't say so in a public forum... so don't argue that it was an editorial decision. If steve posts straight out "this was a solely editorial decision made to better the magazine", then I'll probably choose to believe him. But hey, I still won't agree.

[Nick Walter]

It's a computer gaming magazine. They aren't computer games. Adding them doesn't contribute to the magazine's chosen subject. They don't belong there. Is that stance so hard to get? Why is it impossible to get that across to you guys without constantly being insulted?


I think it's a matter of whether a person believes there is any meaningful distinctions between console games and PC games. I don't, so your statement written as I read it is:


It's a gaming magazine. They are games. Adding them doesn't contribute to the magazine's chosen subject


Which doesn't make sense :)

I'm not trying to get on your case stusser. Just pointing out that to people like me who don't perceive any difference between console and PC games, your objection doesn't make any sense.

[TomChick]

Incidentally, I still believe this issue was forced by circulation numbers and nothing has been said to make me feel otherwise.

That's cool. Don't let facts get in the way of what you believe.

No need to cockblock other posters

Look, dude, you get what you give. Go back and read your first post in the thread if you're unhappy with the tone people have taken with you.

I've encouraged you to broaden your horizons, because you're missing a lot of great stuff. But you feel that console games are of no interest to computer gamers. Many of us -- and I'd say that by 'us', I mean gamers as well as people in the industry: writers, developers, and publishers -- disagree.

-Tom

[Matthew Gallant]

It's a computer gaming magazine. They aren't computer games.
So you would be fine with, say, a section at the back devoted to games for Mac and Linux (if enough were made that you could wring a section out of them)?

[Dr Fear]

It's a computer gaming magazine. They aren't computer games. Adding them doesn't contribute to the magazine's chosen subject. They don't belong there. Is that stance so hard to get? Why is it impossible to get that across to you guys without constantly being insulted?

Because "they don't belong there" doesn't make any sense if their presence has no effect on the rest of the magazine, i.e. the computer game coverage remains the same, just with an added bonus section. You're still getting the exact same computer game coverage that you did previously, at exactly the same price. If you feel the mere presence of console games in the magazine changes it even though the previous content is unchanged, you can only be talking about perception. In other words, consoles make it icky.

[Nick Walter]

Oh man, I was the first man on in a QT3 dogpile. Sorry stusser.

[stusser]

OK, we disagree. Going to leave it at that.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Incidentally, I still believe this issue was forced by circulation numbers and nothing has been said to make me feel otherwise.

Though I doubt that adding "NOW WITH CONSOLES!!!" to the masthead would do anything to increase subscription rates, let's assume that you are right and this is a decision that is motivated by a desire to attract more readers. The best (IMO) computer magazine out there wants to get more eyeballs so that it can continue employing the best freelancers in the business and hangers-on like me...

Why is this a bad thing? Why does this put a sour taste in your mouth? They aren't going the obvious route of adding T&A or putting Method Man on the cover - they are choosing to attract readers by showing them something enlightening and interesting.

Of all the ways to increase subscriptions, this is one of the least effective, but if it works and does nothing to diminish your enjoyment of the magazine (I don't read most of the MMO stuff, after all, and still love it) I fail to see the heated reasons for your disdain.

I'm not calling you an idiot, or a fanboy or a non-reader. But the passion of your argument seems to be based on little more than someone getting chocolate in your peanut butter.

Troy

[Sean Tudor]

I subscribe to another magazine called Atomic MPC. It is a hardcore PC hardware modders/overclockers mag. They also added console content to try and look cool and increase subscriber numbers. Luckily in this case the console section hasn't dumbed down the rest of the mag and I just ignore that bit of the magazine.

[DennyA]

You know, a couple of years ago I would have been squarely in the "keep your damned consoles out of my PC gaming magazine" camp. I did protesteth loudly when I was a CGW and we ran that experimental PlayStation 1 section back in the dark ages.

But console games have come a long way since the crappy cartridge days, and the market has changed. I still primarily game on my PC, but my PS2 and XBox (both of which are, technically, computers, y'know) are also appreciated for the gaming experiences they offer. And PS3 and Xbox2/360/Next will take console gaming to 11.

AND -- my console interest is peripheral enough that I only buy console mags if there's a demo I want, but I'd really appreciate a heads-up on cool console games from a mature perspective, as I assume CGM is planning to offer.

Personally, I'm anxious to see what Steve and crew have in store for this.

[TomChick]

my PS2 and XBox (both of which are, technically, computers, y'know)

Oh, you know what, that's a great point. Damn, why didn't I think of that?

Hey, stusser, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

:)

-Tom

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

Then one day the suits realize that most of the revenue from computer gaming world/magazine/whatever comes from non-computer game coverage, and... fini.
You're assuming that advertisers will flock to a computer game magazine with a dozen console game pages of coverage, and there's no possible way that will happen.

And if it was that successful, you do realize we'd be able to add more pages to the magazine, meaning there'd be more overall game coverage, right?

Well, as a subscriber I have that same problem with this I had with Now Playing, if you are "adding more pages", add them on Computer Games.

And I know you are claiming not to be cutting any computer games coverage, but if I don't read what you are adding, it is a waste of trees. :)

[steve]

If steve posts straight out "this was a solely editorial decision made to better the magazine", then I'll probably choose to believe him. But hey, I still won't agree.
All editorial decisions are made to improve the magazine and, in theory, boost circulation and profitability; you can't totally separate these things. While quality isn't a guarantee of success, it can't hurt.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

And to those who argue that "games are games" and "gamers" might be interested, let's add a section for wargames, board games,and chess.That at least I might read, even though it would not belong either....


This is bad as a sports mag covering swimsuits. :twisted:

[steve]

And to those who argue that "games are games" and "gamers" might be interested, let's add a section for wargames, board games,and chess.That at least I might read, even though it would not belong either....
Well, there is a feature on one of those topics in the works...

[mutt]

And to those who argue that "games are games" and "gamers" might be interested, let's add a section for wargames, board games,and chess.That at least I might read, even though it would not belong either....


This is bad as a sports mag covering swimsuits. :twisted:

You're being irrational. This has already been addressed several times. Consoles are computers. Therefore, console games are, technically, computer games. Cardboard maps and counters are not computers. Therefore, board games are not computer games. Shall I go on?

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

And to those who argue that "games are games" and "gamers" might be interested, let's add a section for wargames, board games,and chess.That at least I might read, even though it would not belong either....


This is bad as a sports mag covering swimsuits. :twisted:

You're being irrational. This has already been addressed several times. Consoles are computers. Therefore, console games are, technically, computer games. Cardboard maps and counters are not computers. Therefore, board games are not computer games. Shall I go on?

No, they are not computers. The new ones may incorporate some computer tech, but it doesn't make them a computer, anymore than a new car is a boat if it has a GPS.

This reminds me of Abe Lincoln's (?) quote about the number of a dog's legs....

[Mike Cathcart]

Computer. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=computer)

Consoles are clearly computers. This isn't even debatable.

They are not personal computers, however. So it's a good thing the magazine isn't called Personal Computer Games, because that might have been a problem. Also kinda weird.

[Geo]

Oops. I thought you guys meant CGW, so sorry about the misunderstanding. I'm not so bright. :P

[Dr Fear]

I canceled my CGW subscription after nearly 12 years as subscriber. This just reaffirms my decision. :)

What's the point of calling the magazine Computer Gaming World if it starts covering everything? I mean, Car and Driver doesn't cover motorcycles regularly; the Official Playstation Magazine I subscribe to doesn't have PC Gaming section. :P I had no problem with them doing a little box highlighting an interesting console title each month.

To some extent, I've found the Playstation magazine more "maturely written" if you can believe it, maybe in part cause some CGW refugees moved over to the magazine (Scooter, Dana Jongewaard etc.)

If they're saying there aren't enough good PC games to warrant a magazine limited to that; or that console games are crowding PC games out of the local EB stores so they've got to follow suit, then they should just give up the CGW moniker and call themselves Gaming World. :P

I have noticed PC Gamer and CGW being incredibly thin in recent years. I don't know what that says about the industry.

Excellent troll!

[Dave Long]

I canceled my CGW subscription after nearly 12 years as subscriber. This just reaffirms my decision. :)

What's the point of calling the magazine Computer Gaming World if it starts covering everything? I mean, Car and Driver doesn't cover motorcycles regularly; the Official Playstation Magazine I subscribe to doesn't have PC Gaming section. :P I had no problem with them doing a little box highlighting an interesting console title each month.

To some extent, I've found the Playstation magazine more "maturely written" if you can believe it, maybe in part cause some CGW refugees moved over to the magazine (Scooter, Dana Jongewaard etc.)

If they're saying there aren't enough good PC games to warrant a magazine limited to that; or that console games are crowding PC games out of the local EB stores so they've got to follow suit, then they should just give up the CGW moniker and call themselves Gaming World. :P

I have noticed PC Gamer and CGW being incredibly thin in recent years. I don't know what that says about the industry.

Was this some kind of joke post?

--Dave

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I canceled my CGW subscription after nearly 12 years as subscriber. This just reaffirms my decision. :)

What's the point of calling the magazine Computer Gaming World if it starts covering everything? I mean, Car and Driver doesn't cover motorcycles regularly; the Official Playstation Magazine I subscribe to doesn't have PC Gaming section. :P I had no problem with them doing a little box highlighting an interesting console title each month.

To some extent, I've found the Playstation magazine more "maturely written" if you can believe it, maybe in part cause some CGW refugees moved over to the magazine (Scooter, Dana Jongewaard etc.)

If they're saying there aren't enough good PC games to warrant a magazine limited to that; or that console games are crowding PC games out of the local EB stores so they've got to follow suit, then they should just give up the CGW moniker and call themselves Gaming World. :P

I have noticed PC Gamer and CGW being incredibly thin in recent years. I don't know what that says about the industry.

I think this post reaffirms my belief that we need more names for computer games magazines. Having two with "Computer Gam-" in the title just confuses people.

Troy

[mtkafka]

PC GAMES ARE MELTING!

etc

[Mark Asher]

Well, as a subscriber I have that same problem with this I had with Now Playing, if you are "adding more pages", add them on Computer Games.

Yeah, that's how I feel too. Why would I want to read about a new Mario game in Computer Games Magazine? Then again, I still see computer games and console games as being distinct experiences -- one's just not like the other.

[Jeff Green]

I canceled my CGW subscription after nearly 12 years as subscriber. This just reaffirms my decision. :)
Gaming World. :P
.

*sigh*. I love it. Even when it's CGM adding a console section, it's still CGW that gets bashed. Bauman, can I borrow your teflon?

(and my 2 cents: it'll be interesting to see what happens with you guys. We always get negative feedback when we do any console coverage at all--but maybe you guys will get a different reaction....)

[mutt]

Why would I want to read about a new Mario game in Computer Games Magazine?

Somehow, I doubt you will. I'm imagining they'll stick to games that will appeal to their readership. If a new Mario game is innovative and interesting, like a Katamari Damacy, then maybe. Otherwise, it'll probably get passed over for more "serious" fare.

[Mark Asher]

Why would I want to read about a new Mario game in Computer Games Magazine?

Somehow, I doubt you will. I'm imagining they'll stick to games that will appeal to their readership. If a new Mario game is innovative and interesting, like a Katamari Damacy, then maybe. Otherwise, it'll probably get passed over for more "serious" fare.

Er, a new Mario game is a major event in the console world. Their console coverage would be remiss if they didn't cover it.

[TomChick]

I still see computer games and console games as being distinct experiences -- one's just not like the other.

Sigh. You and stusser are like those old muppets in the box seats.

I guess there are enough people who don't really follow gaming that they still feel this way. The debate doesn't seem to be PCs vs. consoles anymore, since that argument is over. The debate now is "people who think PCs and consoles are similar experiences" vs. "people who think PCs and consoles are distinct experiences".

And, frankly, whether you play console games or not, I don't see how anyone who follows the industry can belong to the latter group. With all the cross platform titles; with all the developers mirgrating from one platform to the other; with all the depth, sophistication, and creativity in console games; with all us gamers who feel passionately that you're missing out if you call yourself a PC only gamer, how can you still write off console games simply because you don't play them?

-Tom

[Ryan A]

I don't think I can necessarily quantify the difference, but I believe a clear difference still exists between "computer" gaming and "console" gaming.

It seems like I tend to go through phases of gaming preference. Sometimes I just won't be interested in using the computer for anything but work and I'll spend every gaming minute I have with my Xbox or Dreamcast.

Other times, the consoles sit gathering dust and whenever I get gaming time, it's going to be on the computer.

Then again, I've always avoided the cross-platform stuff on whichever platform has been... crossed over to. Like with Halo and KOTOR, I never even considered installing those ports on the computer, and I couldn't even imagine trying Morrowind on the Xbox -- so maybe that's why I still have a dichotomy between the types of gaming in my mind.

I do know one thing: console gaming is much more socially acceptable than computer gaming. My non-gamer friends are always interested in playing the latest Xbox title when they come over, but if I ever let slip that I'm playing a computer game when they call, mockery abounds.

As far as magazines go, I've been done with commerically driven magazines of every stripe for quite some time now. I'd love to see a magazine for gamers (console, computer, board, you name it) in the model of Motorcycle Consumer News (http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/) -- low production values, but great writing by enthusiasts for enthusiasts, entirely operated by subscription fees and free of all forms of advertising. The higher subscription premium is totally worth it.

[Mike Cathcart]

Then again, I've always avoided the cross-platform stuff on whichever platform has been... crossed over to. Like with Halo and KOTOR, I never even considered installing those ports on the computer
That's too bad, because both games load in like LESS THAN A FREAKING HOUR when you play them on the PC. The load times in KotOR2 for Xbox are killing me. I don't know what's in that thread about it being a disappointment because I don't want to read spoilers, but if it's a whole thread of complaints about the nine hours of loading I'd completely understand.

I do know one thing: console gaming is much more socially acceptable than computer gaming. My non-gamer friends are always interested in playing the latest Xbox title when they come over, but if I ever let slip that I'm playing a computer game when they call, mockery abounds.
Your friends are outdated. Send away for new ones. Or just show them WoW for like five minutes and let them create a character. I have an ex-girlfriend who was constantly nagging me about the games. Why don't you just play sports instead of playing games about them what's so fun about this all you do is sit there try reading a book and on and on and on. I saw her in December and she had a level 11 Undead Warlock.

Plus the Sims, dude. Everyone plays the Sims.

[stusser]

(not touching the pc vs consoles vs CGM/W debate any more, you people take the arguments too personally)

KOTOR2 loads much much faster if you copy the DVD to the hard drive. Go ahead, install a modchip and xbmc, you know you want to!

[DennyA]

Mark,

Only a percentage of console games are "Mario." There's plenty of stuff out there that is very similar in content and gameplay to PC games.

You didn't see people whining that KOTOR, Halo, Riddick, etc. were "cheesy console ports." They worked just as well as PC games.

I despise platformers, and avoid most "cutesy" games. Yet I still find tons of appealing content on both PS2 and Xbox.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

[quote=Mark Asher]
And, frankly, whether you play console games or not, I don't see how anyone who follows the industry can belong to the latter group. With all the cross platform titles; with all the developers mirgrating from one platform to the other; with all the depth, sophistication, and creativity in console games; with all us gamers who feel passionately that you're missing out if you call yourself a PC only gamer, how can you still write off console games simply because you don't play them?

-Tom

I don't "write them off", I have no problem with mags devoted to console games covering them. BTW, if your support for this move is that there are so many cross platform games, why do we need additional coverage for the same games as are covered in the PC section???

[DennyA]

I for one welcome our new console overlords.

[TomChick]

Lloyd, I was mainly talking about people like Mark who have this sort of fossilized mindset that all console games are Mario titles.

Why do we need additional coverage for the same games as are covered in the PC section???

The main part of the magazine is where you'll find coverage for anything available on the PC.

-Tom

[mutt]

Heilbrunn, prepare to be assimilated.

(Good point about the potential duplicate reviews, btw. Bauman has said on another forum that the console section will have a different editor, so one wonders if this actually might not happen.)

[RickH]

Your friends are outdated. Send away for new ones. Or just show them WoW for like five minutes and let them create a character.

But that reflects one of the major differences in perception between PC games and console games. PC games are solitary experiences, played on a small screen and usually in a room by itself. Console games are played on the same screen that TV and movies play on, with easy access for others.

Like it or not, the social isolation of the PC gamer is a defining factor, and seems to have value among the hardcore. It's no surprise that those who prefer an exclusionary hobby balk at the thought of losing the exclusionary nature of a magazine that serves their hobby. Clearly, the exclusive PC gamer values the "pure" PC gaming mag.

Somewhat OT, but I played WoW for 10 minutes and found it a bit dull, walking away with a "what's the big deal?" feeling.

[Mike Cathcart]

I wouldn't know, my PC is hooked up to a 50" television. I've got wireless controllers that connect to consoles and adapters for the PC and I have USB adapters for kbm on the consoles. When I play FFXI on the PC I use the same exact keyboard, mouse, and gamepad as I do when I play it on the PS2 (yeah there actually is a reason I do this). All of my games (Xbox, Cube, PS2, PC, GBA) are played on the same screen. For me the only difference between platforms is which of the boxes under my TV I put the shiny round thing in to make the pretty pictures happen. I guess that makes me a bad PC gamer :( Too bad because I totally kicked ass in Natural Selection for like a week there.

I won't argue with you about WoW, though. After all you did play a full ten minutes. That's like 80% of the game I think :P

[Raife]

I won't argue with you about WoW, though. After all you did play a full ten minutes. That's like 80% of the game I think :P

No kidding! In 10 minutes, I had hit level 60, saved enough for an epic mount, done every quest and instance, and seen every zone. What the hell? Where is the content here, Blizzard?

[Ryan A]

I wouldn't know, my PC is hooked up to a 50" television.

Mine will be too as soon as I figure out a way to convince my wife this is in the best interest of her interior design plans.

Oh yeah... and as soon as I have a few extra grand laying around.

Sounds like a sweet setup though.

[Mike Cathcart]

It is, but I wasn't just bragging (I do <3 my TV, though). Those things get cheaper every year. A lot of video cards (ATI anyway) ship with DVI-out. It won't be long before this becomes common. I mean why go all the way to the computer room to check your email when you've got split screen?

It's just another example of how the lines between PC and console are less liney than they used to be. They sort of have a blur thing goin' on.

[steve]

(Good point about the potential duplicate reviews, btw. Bauman has said on another forum that the console section will have a different editor, so one wonders if this actually might not happen.)
I still get to determine what's covered, and would notice that we're reviewing Chaos Theory twice in one issue.

Most cross-platform games with simultaneous releases will be covered as PC games, unless they're primarily console games with token PC versions. If there's a lag between releases, as in the case with something like San Andreas, we'd cover it twice but with that six-month gap. For PC games ported to consoles, like DOOM 3 for Xbox, we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis.

[brainfromarous]

Well...

One the one hand, I can sympathize with those diehard PC gamers who don't want to see one of the few good PC game mags making way for console coverage. I mean, it's not like we're lacking mags which cover the console scene.

On the other hand, I agree with those who point out that the line between console and PC games in terms of technical quality, visual polish and gameplay depth has largely vanished.

Take a look at (and play) games like KOTOR on the XBox and ResEvil 4 on the 'Cube. They're simply stunning - and certainly superior to the majority of titles from ANY era of PC gaming. At this point, to look askance at them because they're on a "game deck" is blind, reactionary dogma.

So, if console coverage there must be, then so be it. Just understand that the PC loyalists have a legitimate gripe.


PS - By the way, the loathesome "Now Playing" is NOT in fact entirely gone from the pages of CGM. In his departing NP editorial, Eric Moro said that "Now Playing branded content" will still appear in the pages of CGM.

("Branded content." Marketing-weaselspeak doesn't come clearer than that, folks.)

[Desslock]

I still see computer games and console games as being distinct experiences -- one's just not like the other.

Sigh. You and stusser are like those old muppets in the box seats.

I guess there are enough people who don't really follow gaming that they still feel this way.

I think the opposite - if you follow gaming, I don't see how you could possibly say they don't offer distinct experiences. If you're interested in wargames, flight sims, space sims, RTSs, RPGs (not the linear adventure games consoles produce under that name), turn-based strategy games like Civilization, you're not going to be interested in almost any console games.

There's shooters on consoles (helped in no small part to MicroSoft buying a PC/Mac game maker), and there there's starting to be more overlap, largely because traditional developers of PC Games like BioWare and Bethesda are making cross-platform or console games now.

Similarly, if you're predominately interested in platformers, fighting, racing and sports games, you're not going to be interested in a lot of traditional PC genres.

Sure there's a lot of people who like both - but I think console/pc games are analagous to TV shows/movies - sure, there's some overlap in style, and a lot of (most) people like TV shows as well as movies, but it's completely understandable that they may not appreciate having their favourite movie news publications cluttered with stuff on TV show -- even if there was no less movie coverage than before. That's an analogy that should have particular resonance with you Tom, since you dislike TV and won't watch it, yet you love movies.

That's the way I feel about console gaming vs. pc gaming, and wish that GameSpot, and now CGM, didn't combine the two. The only magazine I've never been interested in was Next Gen, because it did the same thing.

[TomChick]

Hey, good to see you back here, Stefan. But with all due respect, you're as much a luddite as Mark when it comes to console gaming. :)

If you're interested in wargames, flight sims, space sims, RTSs, RPGs (not the linear adventure games consoles produce under that name), turn-based strategy games like Civilization, you're not going to be interested in almost any console games.

Okay, let's break this down. If you're interested in wargames, flight sims, and space sims, you're pretty much out of luck even if you do restrict yourself to PCs. :)

RTSs, fighting games, and driving games I'll easily grant you as still being very platform specific. As an RTS junkie, though, I've been interested in seeing attempts to adapt the gameplay to consoles. Pikmin 2 and Goblin Commander were actually good because they adapted. The Alien vs. Predator: Extinction was not so good. But you can bet that a lot of developers are interested in finding ways to crossover. I've talked to a few recently that I can discuss more when certain articles come out. But, yes, by and large, RTSs are the domain of the PCs in the immediate future.

As for RPGs, I'd normally defer to you, but you're off your rocker here. Why is Bioware doing so much Xbox stuff? Why did Fable do so well? Have you bothered to play some of the more interesting jRPGs like Nocturne or Dark Cloud before discounting them as "linear adventure games"? That last is a rhetorical question because I know the answer is 'no'. :)

Finally, there are some awesome turn-based strategy games adapted to consoles, many of them Japanese: Culdcept, Dai Senryaku, and Nippon Ichi's SRPGs, for instance.

As for shooters on consoles, that's been a long time coming, and not just because Microsoft is propping up Bungie, as you imply. Rare's Goldeneye/Perfect Dark/Timesplitters trend began well before Halo and independent of any specific console maker egging them along. Name me a major shooter coming out that isn't cross-platform. I'm not saying there aren't any, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone making a shooter who isn't trying to get it into the console channel. The exception is no longer the shooter that's ported to a console, but the shooter that's not ported to the PC.

But what this all comes down to is that distinctions of platform are no longer as important as distinctions of genre. Thanks for effectively making my point for me.

-Tom

P.S. As for the movie/TV analogy, I don't know why you think I don't like TV. I just don't watch it because I don't have it. But when I do find a show I like, I love TV (e.g. Arrested Development and Lost).

[Supertanker]

Isn't this really just a distinction between control devices? Some games are better suited for a controller, some are better suited to a mouse/keyboard, some might traditionally use one but be designed for the other, and some games are adapted from one to the other with various success. The CPUs and display devices needed to make the games appear are irrelevant since the right hardware will make PC games appear on a TV and console games appear on a computer monitor.

[Desslock]

Isn't this really just a distinction between control devices?

No, I don't think so. Every type of control scheme is, and has been, available for PC games, yet the games have evolved differently. Console games seem like an "alternate reality" offshoot of arcade games, while PC games went a different direction from arcade games.

But with all due respect, you're as much a luddite as Mark when it comes to console gaming

Maybe. I certainly play and keep up with console games a lot more than I used to. In the past year, I've played: GTA3 San Andreas, Spider-man 2, Metroid Prime, X-men Legends, Animal Crossing, Fable, Mercenaries, Halo 2, Ninja Gaiden, Zelda WindW, and Godzilla -- and for the GBA: Final Fantasy 1&2, Wing Commander Prophecy and Fire Emblem.

All picked because I thought they'd be similar to the type of game I liked (or subject matter I liked) -- no magic carpet games (well, except Animal Crossing and Fire Emblem, I guess) and with the exception of San Andreas (and to a lesser extent, Spider-man 2), none of them really appealed to me like a typical PC RPG, shooter, wargame, flight sim, space sim, strategy game or MMO.

I really think the TV/movie analogy is apt -- similar, but different.

[mutt]

Isn't this really just a distinction between control devices?

No, I don't think so. Every type of control scheme is, and has been, available for PC games, yet the games have evolved differently.

Poppydoodle. The only reason PC games haven't evolved to use the gamepad is that there are twenty times as many keys available on a keyboard as there are on a gamepad, and the mouse does a good job--often better--at what the analog sticks on a gamepad are supposed to do. Iow, It is precisely because of the expanded control possibilities that PC games have evolved the way they have. If consoles featured keyboards, there would be nothing to prevent them from being just as fine RTS or RPG platforms (for instance) as full-blown PCs are.

[TomChick]

I really think the TV/movie analogy is apt -- similar, but different.

Well, I don't know how far you want to push your analogy. I'm not trying to slam you, but I think it's shows a lack of understanding of the issue, not just of consoles and PC games, but certainly of movies and television.

TV and movies are very different media, driven by completely different business models and created according to very different standards, utilizing very different formats, and satisfying very different commercial demands. There are entirely different infrastructures built up around either media.

On the whole, I see very little that's comparable to the way console and PC games are jointly created, marketed, and published. I frankly don't see how it's a useful analogy.

-Tom

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

I really think the TV/movie analogy is apt -- similar, but different.

Well, I don't know how far you want to push your analogy. I'm not trying to slam you, but I think it's shows a lack of understanding of the issue, not just of consoles and PC games, but certainly of movies and television.

TV and movies are very different media, driven by completely different business models and created according to very different standards, utilizing very different formats, and satisfying very different commercial demands. There are entirely different infrastructures built up around either media.

On the whole, I see very little that's comparable to the way console and PC games are jointly created, marketed, and published. I frankly don't see how it's a useful analogy.

-Tom

Well, the analogy is useful if you look at the way the media covers each medium. For example,you don't see TV Guide covering Movies until they hit the small screen, IIRC. Likewise, CGM should cover console games when they have been released on the PC, and not review their console versions nor console only titles.

[Derek Meister]

TV Guide not only has a small section on movies in theaters now, but also new releases on DVD. So they're a pretty good example for what CGM has proposed, actually.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

TV Guide not only has a small section on movies in theaters now, but also new releases on DVD. So they're a pretty good example for what CGM has proposed, actually.

:shock:

I guess things do change, just ignore me I'm getting old and cranky...... :lol:

[Desslock]

TV and movies are very different media, driven by completely different business models and created according to very different standards, utilizing very different formats, and satisfying very different commercial demands.

I think the same is true of PC Games vs. console games. When was the last time you saw a 50+ page console game manual? That's common for PC Games, and I wouldn't want anything less for a good RPG, Wargame or Sim. By the same token, I wouldn't want anything like that for a fighting game or platformer. They obviously use different formats, and largely appeal to different tastes or commercial demands.

[Ryan A]

I'm sorry to keep bringing this back to my other great obsession (motorcycles) but perhaps the motorcycle publishing industry will help illustrate the point of difference.

Yes - computer and console games share many things in common. Many enthusiasts purchase games both for their PC and a slew of consoles. I'll even grant that production is pretty similar. That doesn't mean they're the same in function or in audience though.

Take motorcycles: some are into the pseudo-badass image they give themselves by buying Orange County Choppers stickers for their pickup truck and wearing handlebar mustaches. These motorcycle fans tend to gravitate towards "choppers" or "custom" bikes -- bikes with ZERO utility, but plenty of bling. There are magazines devoted to this audience.

Other Motorcyclists are into sporty, racing type motorcycles - you know, the kind people kill themselves on -- they generally sneer at the chopper crowd and have their own publications.

Then there's the geriatric contingent -- they like the bikes that could pass for 2 wheeled RV's --- puttering up the pass in the slow lane. THEY have their own magazines.

Sure, some magazines attempt to appeal to a broad cross section of the market, but it seems that most people prefer their niche magazines to the one-size-fits-all types.

Human beings are tribal by nature. You're messing with the PC Gamer's tribe when you put Console stuff in "their" magazine.

[steve]

When was the last time you saw a 50+ page console game manual? That's common for PC Games, and I wouldn't want anything less for a good RPG, Wargame or Sim.
The days of wargames and flight sims kind of passed 5-6 years ago. And which PC games had 50+ page manuals this year? I can think of at least two--World of WarCraft and Pirates. Were there others?

The majority of high- to medium-profile PC games are real-time strategy games and first-person shooters, and the majority of RPGs are MMOs. This narrow focus means that gamers who are more interested in turn-based strategy or RPGs with tactical combat will find more options in the console world nowadays.

Just looking at the ads in our April issue, they go: MMO, FPS, FPS, MMO, MMO, RTS, RTS, RTS, FPS, RTS, RPG (Bard's Tale, a console game ported to the PC), RTS, MMO, MMO... you get the idea.

[mutt]

When was the last time you saw a 50+ page console game manual? That's common for PC Games, and I wouldn't want anything less for a good RPG, Wargame or Sim.
The days of wargames and flight sims kind of passed 5-6 years ago. And which PC games had 50+ page manuals this year? I can think of at least two--World of WarCraft and Pirates. Were there others?

Actually, 50 pages isn't a very high threshold. There are lots of PC games with 50 page manuals. I just flipped through a few I have sitting next to my computer, and I found these (not all from '04):

Port Royale 2 (57 pages overall, 52 with game-related text)
Seal of Evil (139 overall, 131 useful)
Spartan (68 overall, 67 useful)
Vampire: Bloodlines (59 overall, 51 useful)
Universal Combat (96 overall, 88 useful)
Beyond Divinity (55 overall, 49 or 50 useful)
Tropico 2 (108 overall, 97 useful)
Final Fantasy XI (144 overall, 130 useful)
DAoC: Platinum (153 overall, 146 useful)

All the rest just missed, with useful pages of 45+:

Battle of Middle Earth
O.R.B.
Full Spectrum Warrior
Scrapland

That covers every manual I happen to have sitting next to my computer at this moment. There are none with less than 45 useful pages.

PS2 manuals, on the other hand, are a different story. I only own a few console games, but from what I've seen, 10-20 page manuals (dominated by lots of flashy graphics) seem to be the rule. So I'll go with Desslock on this one.

[steve]

PS2 manuals, on the other hand, are a different story. I only own a few console games, but from what I've seen, 10-20 page manuals (dominated by lots of flashy graphics) seem to be the rule. So I'll go with Desslock on this one.
I did say, "This year," and not all of your examples came out this year, but fair enough. I'm curious if the PC Full Spectrum Warrior manual was different than the Xbox one, or if Final Fantasy XI for the PS2 has a 20-age manual, in which case we're just talking about different games needing manuals of differing lengths.

[TomChick]

Yeah, if you're going to argue that PC games are unique for their better manuals, you're on pretty shaky ground. Those of us old-timers who love our manuals aren't really happy with the state of manuals in *any* games, regardless of platform.

Besides, the more relevant gauge is documentation overall, including tutorials, ingame help, tooltips, and so forth. I don't see a significant difference between consoles and PC games in this regard.

Universal Combat (96 overall, 88 useful)

Ha ha ha. Troll! :)

-Tom

[mutt]

I'm curious if the PC Full Spectrum Warrior manual was different than the Xbox one, or if Final Fantasy XI for the PS2 has a 20-age manual, in which case we're just talking about different games needing manuals of differing lengths.

I'd be interested to know this as well. For instance, if console FFXI has a skimpier manual than PC FFXI, then why? They're the same game. It's not as if console FFXI has less features than the PC version.

Also, we like to talk about manual length, but I think everybody recognizes that that's not really a sound measure of anything. The size of the type, the number and size of superfluous graphics, the physical size of the manual...all these things contribute to a manual's length, but not necessarily to the substantive quality of it.

EDIT: Yeah, if you're going to argue that PC games are unique for their better manuals, you're on pretty shaky ground. Those of us old-timers who love our manuals aren't really happy with the state of manuals in *any* games, regardless of platform.

I'm not arguing any such thing, Tom. I'm just commenting on the 50-page figure that Desslock gave. 50 pages isn't that high a number for PC manuals, generally speaking, but it may be for console manuals (although I'm admittedly no expert on that).

[Mike Cathcart]

Console FFXI actually has a bigger manual than the PC version.

[TomChick]

I'm not arguing any such thing, Tom.

I was mainly responding to Stefan bringing the issue up. I probably should have quoted more precisely.

-Tom

[JeffL]

OK, I have to jump in and be a smart-ass here and mention Dangerous Waters, the sub sim, shipping with a 500+ page manual. In fact, I believe the manual is physically larger than most console boxes, thus proving beyond any further argument that PC games are far more manly and worthy of play.

[Desslock]

Yeah, if you're going to argue that PC games are unique for their better manuals, you're on pretty shaky ground.

Not "better" - I'm sure a lot of people prefer not having to read manuals at all - but console games are generally designed to not need a bigger manual because of the types of games that predominate on consoles.

Not a question of which type of game is "deeper" - there's a ton of depth to most fighting games, but you don't need anything other than a chart to explain detailing the moves - while in a PC strategy game or RPG, let alone flight sims or wargames, most gamers feel need huge manuals to explain the setting/world/gameplay mechanics/

The days of wargames and flight sims kind of passed 5-6 years ago. And which PC games had 50+ page manuals this year? I can think of at least two--World of WarCraft and Pirates. Were there others?

I can't think of a PC RPG that didn't this year - Vampire, Sacred, Beyond Divinity, WoW, City of Heroes, EverQuest 2, etc. And saying those types of games "passed" is sort of the point -- if you like those types of games, (and there's certainly a bunch that are still released annually, even if big publishers are shying away from them), you're not going to be care or appreciate someone offering up 20 pages on platformers, fighting games and games with happy little anime characters eating pumpkins.

[steve]

And saying those types of games "passed" is sort of the point -- if you like those types of games, (and there's certainly a bunch that are still released annually, even if big publishers are shying away from them), you're not going to be care or appreciate someone offering up 20 pages on platformers, fighting games and games with happy little anime characters eating pumpkins.
Good thing we're not focusing on those kinds of games.

[Desslock]

And saying those types of games "passed" is sort of the point -- if you like those types of games, (and there's certainly a bunch that are still released annually, even if big publishers are shying away from them), you're not going to be care or appreciate someone offering up 20 pages on platformers, fighting games and games with happy little anime characters eating pumpkins.
Good thing we're not focusing on those kinds of games.

What's the plan, then? How are you limiting the types of console games you cover - best of the best (in which case some of those would need to be covered, no?), or particular genres, or just games you guys like?

[TomChick]

Not "better" - I'm sure a lot of people prefer not having to read manuals at all - but console games are generally designed to not need a bigger manual because of the types of games that predominate on consoles.

Aw, bull. This kind of talk -- "the types of games that predominate on consoles" -- just shows how out of touch you are. Because the types of games that predominate on consoles aren't terribly different from the types of games that predominate on PCs. Which is my whole point.

As we've discussed before, there are genre exceptions (RTSs, fighting games, war games), but by and large, console gaming and PC gaming offer similar experiences.

-Tom

[Mike Cathcart]

It's not even that console games don't need bigger manuals, they just don't have them. I don't know how big Nocturne's manual was but it wasn't near big enough. Unless you've played fighting games for the past ten years the guides for Street Fighter Anniversary collection and Tekken 5 include a lot of things the manual should have had. Same for Phantom Brave, San Andreas, and bunches of other console games. Hell even Halo 2's guide was worth picking up for the multiplayer maps.

If you want to compare the two maybe you could say that PC publishers are better at including complete manuals but it says more about publishing and packaging of the games than it does about the games themselves.

[Kunikos]

are you guys even taking into consideration the physical limitations that boxes for the said games place on their manual size? a CD jewel case offered little to no space for a manual for PS1 games, and the DVD jewel for a PS2 game isn't a whole lot better. PC game boxes have come down in size and so you will find it harder to get the bigger sized manuals into the new smaller sized boxes. Still, they are a lot bigger than a DVD jewel case. :roll:

[Mike Cathcart]

Not really, though. Metal Gear Solid 3's manual is over 50 pages and you could definitely fit more in the DVD case. I think it just isn't a priority for console games, maybe they want to sell you the guide. I don't know.

The real proof of this is games like Nocturne and Phantom Brave. Nocturne's manual is 40 pages long, PB's is 30. These are two of the most complicated RPGs on the PS2 and they don't even come close to the maximum size.

Console games could use bigger manuals, they just don't have them. Couldn't tell you why exactly but that's not really the point of this tangent.

[Kunikos]

I think the guide thing nails it on the head, especially considering how many game publishers lock exclusivity deals with guide publishers for the official designation and sue the pants off unofficials... I mean, why is it that nobody can make an unofficial guide or bothers to anymore? GameFAQs is unofficial and does a much better job than the Prima guides most of the time, and they only lack some screenshots or graphical maps (which aren't always essential).

[Moore]

It's not even that console games don't need bigger manuals, they just don't have them. I don't know how big Nocturne's manual was but it wasn't near big enough. Unless you've played fighting games for the past ten years the guides for Street Fighter Anniversary collection and Tekken 5 include a lot of things the manual should have had. Same for Phantom Brave, San Andreas, and bunches of other console games. Hell even Halo 2's guide was worth picking up for the multiplayer maps.

If you want to compare the two maybe you could say that PC publishers are better at including complete manuals but it says more about publishing and packaging of the games than it does about the games themselves.

The pc game nocturne DID have a fairly fat manual.......

[Dave Long]

The pc game nocturne DID have a fairly fat manual.......

Too bad the PC game was barely worth playing.

--Dave

[Desslock]

Not "better" - I'm sure a lot of people prefer not having to read manuals at all - but console games are generally designed to not need a bigger manual because of the types of games that predominate on consoles.

Aw, bull. This kind of talk -- "the types of games that predominate on consoles" -- just shows how out of touch you are. Because the types of games that predominate on consoles aren't terribly different from the types of games that predominate on PCs. Which is my whole point.

And it's clear your point is just objectively wrong. Take a look at the games recently reviewed at a site like GameSpot, where you see them listed by platform.

For the past 20 games reviewed on the platforms:

Five of the PC games are real-time strategy, and there's also an RPG, space sim, flight sim, a couple first person shooters, two MMOs, a couple of wargames. No fighting games, no action adventures, only a single third person action, one driving game and a couple of sports games.

The PS/Xbox/Gamecube games have no less than 6 sports games, several fighting games, several driving games and a mess of third person action and action adventures. On the other hand, unlike the PC, there are no MMOs, no wargames, no flight sims, no space sims. And a whole mess of the titles involve cutsy characters.

They're completely different. I'm not interested in the sports games, fighting games, driving games and action adventures, especially if they involve cutsy-wutsy pointey-headed boys and girls - and those make up the vast majority of those console games - if that's what the PC gaming magazines decide to cover, I'll just be less interested in them, in the same way I'll be less interested in movie publications that start covering Friends and Fraser.

[Desslock]

By the way - just to be clear, I think Computer Gaming Magazine is a solid magazine and will continue to be regardless of this change, as long as it's run by the same team of editors and writing contributers. I'm just expressing why I personally am less interested in console stuff.

[Matthew Gallant]

For the past 20 games reviewed on the platforms:

15 console reviews ago is this game:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/strategy/daisenryaku7/index.html

[mutt]

For the past 20 games reviewed on the platforms:

15 console reviews ago is this game:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/strategy/daisenryaku7/index.html

Didja note the "50 page manual?" ;)

[Union Carbide]

I'm just expressing why I personally am less interested in console stuff.

Because you haven't played a console game since 1996?

[Shadari]

I'm just expressing why I personally am less interested in console stuff.

Because you haven't played a console game since 1996?
Maybe. I certainly play and keep up with console games a lot more than I used to. In the past year, I've played: GTA3 San Andreas, Spider-man 2, Metroid Prime, X-men Legends, Animal Crossing, Fable, Mercenaries, Halo 2, Ninja Gaiden, Zelda WindW, and Godzilla -- and for the GBA: Final Fantasy 1&2, Wing Commander Prophecy and Fire Emblem.
Looks like someone didn't read the whole thread.

[Union Carbide]

Oh, I read the whole thread. Desslock just talks like someone that hasn't looked at a console since the N64 generation.

He plays all those games, and then can't see where console gaming and PC gaming aren't all that different anymore?

Just from that list alone, there are 8 games that nobody would blink if they had been on the PC alone instead of on consoles.

If he played those games and still thinks that console and PC games are radically different from each other, then there is something wrong with his brain. It's like a blind spot, or something. Or a TOOMAH.

[Shadari]

Perhaps some people are more attuned to the subtle differences between games on the different platforms.

As an analogous example: my father can't differentiate between Led Zeppelin and Whitesnake. But I sure can!

And while I agree with most of you guys that console games and PC games are becoming more alike, I certainly still notice a number of differences between the two.

[TomChick]

I certainly still notice a number of differences between the two.

Sure, but no one is saying there are no differences. There absolutely are, as we've talked about elsewhere in the thread. Instead, we're disputing this kind of abject nonsense from Stefan:

[PC games and console games] are completely different.

This is absolutely and utterly wrong, and something someone would say who hasn't kept up with the industry over the last five years.

-Tom

[steve]

The PS/Xbox/Gamecube games have no less than 6 sports games, several fighting games, several driving games and a mess of third person action and action adventures.
Interestingly enough, we have reviews of four sports games in our PC section, and just did a feature on an indie PC sports game developer.

Since we're only talking about 5-6 pages of reviews per month, we can pick and choose what we cover. The criteria will be somewhat arbitrary, but we should provide an interesting overview for console and PC gamers. But it won't be--and can't be--comprehensive. We'll probably cover most of the major releases, such as a Gran Tourismo 4, but might skip others. The first batch of reviews cover first-person shooters, sports games, a couple of RPGs, a hex- and turn-based wargame, and some other... stuff I can't think of off the top of my head. It's a decent cross-section, considering we're starting in February. That's not exactly the hot time for releases.

But I dunno about your analysis. Picking 20 titles is pretty narrow. Since November 1st, there have been something like 8 PC sports game reviews, 16 strategy, 11 action, 5 MMOs, 4 RPGs, 4 adventures, 3 racing games, and 2 sims. Which means the PC looks like the strategy/action/sports/MMO platform. That's no shocker, since RTS, FPS, and MMOs all are strong online, and more PCs are multiplayer capable.

The PS2, for example, has 40 action games, 13 sports games, 10 RPGs, and 6 racing games (plus others). So the PS2 is for action, sports, and RPGs. The Xbox is similarly strong in action, sports, and racing, though let's be fair: most of those sports games are cross-platform, and in our case, would be covered as PC games (MVP Baseball, Winning Eleven, etc.).

So... I dunno. The platforms don't look that radically different. I do think what happens is that people get hung up on the, "It doesn't appeal to me, therefore it's not a real [fill in the genre.]" You may not dig Dark Cloud 2, but to deny that it's hardcore is to be in denial.

But hey, I'm with you. I don't particularly care for console games with cutesy Japanese characters saving the world, but I have no aversion to whimsical games--hell, I think World of WarCraft has the best art direction of any game currently available, and it sure as hell isn't serious fantasy.

[Mark Asher]

Lloyd, I was mainly talking about people like Mark who have this sort of fossilized mindset that all console games are Mario titles.

Why do we need additional coverage for the same games as are covered in the PC section???

The main part of the magazine is where you'll find coverage for anything available on the PC.

-Tom

I never said I thought all games are Mario titles. I said I wasn't interested in reading about a Mario game in CGM.

I realize there's a lot of crossover titles. I realize there are a lot of games on both PC and console that are similar. I also think that the two platforms have many titles that are distinctly PC or console in their feel. I doubt a game like Jade will transfer well to the PC, for example. I still prefer shooters on the PC - Halo was better on the PC, and I loved it on the Xbox.

Just look at ports of games like X-COM, Civ, Railroad Tycoon 2 to the consoles and you can see what's lost in translation. I'm sure the same is true for the platformers and beat 'em ups in going from console to PC.

Is this even debatable? Does anyone think that console and PC gaming are identical experiences? Even Halo was different on the PC, and that's a port. Once you get to games designed specifically for different control schemes, the experience gets more distinct. Look at how the Baldur's Gate license was applied to the consoles.

I'm not bashing consoles - they just don't interest me as much.

[Desslock]

ust from that list alone, there are 8 games that nobody would blink if they had been on the PC alone instead of on consoles.

No, there are only Halo 2 (from a PC/Mac game developer that was bought to release the game instead on the console) and San Andreas. The others are all very console-y.

If he played those games and still thinks that console and PC games are radically different from each other, then there is something wrong with his brain

Be nice now. C'mon - look at the other games on that list - games with fighting like Ninja Gaiden/Godzilla/Spiderman2 are rare on the PC. Games with animals/kiddies like Animal Crossing/Zelda WW are non-existent on the PC. Even games like Metroid Prime and Fable have tiny view distances and limited claustophobic environments - which are so rare these days on the PC that DOOM 3 was lambasted for "only" having them, notwithstanding the amazing quality of the graphics otherwise.

This is absolutely and utterly wrong, and something someone would say who hasn't kept up with the industry over the last five years.

You're completely, absolutely, positively utterly wrong, and saying something that only someone who hasn't kept up with the industry over the last SIX years would say. I get it - you can't refute what I'm stating, so you're just going to just keep reiterating the same contrary conclusion in as condescending a way as possible.

Whatever - I did mistate what I meant to say in the statement you quoted - they are not "completely different" - there's obviously increasing overlap, as I indicated earlier in the thread. But there's a lot that's different still, and to the extent they're moving closer together, that's unfortunately due to large publishers abandoning traditional PC genres and traditional developers of PC games trying to capture some of the console market (or to ensure that they can get their titles published).

[Union Carbide]

Games with animals/kiddies like Animal Crossing/Zelda WW

This is such a drastic misinterpretation of these two games that I don't even know where to begin.

Are you so incapable of looking past the "cartoony" nature of these two games that you label them as "animal/kiddie" games?

You know what, now that I think about it, you were saying the same things, in the big PCvConsole threads right before you disappeared, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

If you are incapable of seeing past the presentation, there's no point in debating the point with you.

[JamesL]

No, there are only Halo 2 (from a PC/Mac game developer that was bought to release the game instead on the console) and San Andreas. The others are all very console-y.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't blink an eye if Mercs was a PC game, or Animal Crossing, or X-Men legends, or Final Fantasy.



Be nice now. C'mon - look at the other games on that list - games with fighting like Ninja Gaiden/Godzilla/Spiderman2 are rare on the PC.

Spiderman 2 was ported to the PC (albeit in a horrible, horrible way) so I don't know what you're talking about there, however, there aren't as many fighting style games on the PC, but that's hardly a valid reason to say that PC and Console games are radically different (or different enough to discourage a section for them in a PC gaming mag)



Games with animals/kiddies like Animal Crossing/Zelda WW are non-existent on the PC.

Sims, maybe? Animal Crossing is fairly similar to Sims, and the fact that it has a cartoonish "look" does nothing to support your argument - lots of games on PC do this too.

Calling Zelda WW a game with a "kiddie", which is obviously trying to be insulting, is just plain false. That's like saying Ocarina of Time is a kiddie game because you play young link a lot of the times, or that any game with the child in it is automatically a kiddie game.

Even games like Metroid Prime and Fable have tiny view distances and limited claustophobic environments - which are so rare these days on the PC that DOOM 3 was lambasted for "only" having them, notwithstanding the amazing quality of the graphics otherwise.

See, the thing is, Doom 3 and Metroid Prime were claustrophobic in their own, entirely different ways. Doom 3 was semi-unplayable to me, because of the fact that was just so damn dark, and it had tiny cramped rooms everywhere you looked.

The only thing I can see construed as claustrophobic in Metroid Prime would be the interface, and I don't really know what you're talking about with Fable - A lot of that game was lush, outdoor environments while most of Doom 3 was small, pitch black rooms and passageways.

[Desslock]

Games with animals/kiddies like Animal Crossing/Zelda WW

Are you so incapable of looking past the "cartoony" nature of these two games that you label them as "animal/kiddie" games? If you are incapable of seeing past the presentation, there's no point in debating the point with you.

Union, I've highlighted a certain uniquely "console" feature that I don't like, which detracts from my enjoyment of the game because it looks childish. C'mon - in Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing characters are asking you about your mother, etc.One of the main features I enjoy in games is immersion - I like immersive gaming worlds created by PC RPGs, or detailed environments in first person shooters, or flying a IL2 while looking out an authentic recreation of a WW2 cockpit - I don't get that from a platformer, or a game that features graphics that look like they're for kids.

But it's not just presentation - it's gameplay that's different. Fighting games, platformers, action adventures, driving and sports games are more common on consoles, and I don't have interest in those games. Wargames, space sims, flight sims, and open-ended RPGs are almost nonexistent on consoles, and I primarily am interested in them. The control schemes introduce other gameplay/design differences. The hardware/price point limitations of consoles also means even in games with gameplay I like - RPGs, shooters - the environments are smaller with limited draw distances, etc. (although that hopefully will evolve). But right now they significantly detract from the experience - I liked every PC shooter I've ever played a lot more than I liked Metroid Prime, a very lauded console action game/shooter.

[JamesL]

Wargames, space sims, flight sims, and open-ended RPGs are almost nonexistent on consoles, and I primarily am interested in them.

That's just not true.

The control schemes introduce other gameplay/design differences. The hardware/price point limitations of consoles also means even in games with gameplay I like - RPGs, shooters - the environments are smaller with limited draw distances, etc. (although that hopefully will evolve). But right now they significantly detract from the experience - I liked every PC shooter I've ever played a lot more than I liked Metroid Prime, a very lauded console action game/shooter

While I believe you're right in saying they control differently, that's a pretty obvious point. However, if the difference in controls was the huge difference between PC and console games, I don't really get the large number of back and forth ports we're now getting.



Union, I've highlighted a certain uniquely "console" feature that I don't like, which detracts from my enjoyment of the game because it looks childish. C'mon - in Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing characters are asking you about your mother, etc.One of the main features I enjoy in games is immersion - I like immersive gaming worlds created by PC RPGs, or detailed environments in first person shooters, or flying a IL2 while looking out an authentic recreation of a WW2 cockpit - I don't get that from a platformer, or a game that features graphics that look like they're for kids.

This has now come to your opinon on specific games, there are plenty of immersive games on the console, and plenty of non-immersive, light hearted ones. It is the exact same situation for the computer, where there are many immersive games, and many not immersive games.

Ultimately, there are a few more of the games you like on the computer, and you feel they're better, or at least that's what I'm getting from this statement.

[stusser]

OK, saying that I'm absolutely wrong and don't keep up with the industry is understandable (albeit a silly ad hominem attack) since you don't know me from adam... but Desslock? Please.

Repeating "you're wrong" and "a stupid/inexperienced fool/fratboy" may wear your opponent down, it made me leave this thread for awhile, but it doesn't actually score any points.

What it comes down to is that this bothers some of us and not others, and two rational adults can disagree without one of them being batshit insane.

[Matthew Gallant]

C'mon - in Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing characters are asking you about your mother
Stefan, I'd like you to describe, in single words only, the good things that come into your mind about your mother.

[Dave Long]

OK, saying that I'm absolutely wrong and don't keep up with the industry is understandable (albeit a silly ad hominem attack) since you don't know me from adam... but Desslock? Please.

When Desslock sounds like Mark Asher, then yeah, I think it's absolutely ok to say how wrong they are.

Look, they clearly both have some problem with games that are not all Lord of the Rings up in your grill. Or their games must be so realistic that you can die real death by playing them or something. I guess that's ok, but it's also very narrowminded and pretty much excludes them from the "authority on games" ideal if you ask me, and it surely opens them up to just about any attack that can be levied against that singular wierdness in opinion.

I think what's most annoying and helps drive this stupid ass PC vs. Console thing is how the PC gamers always sound like a bunch of pocket protector nerds that sling shit the first chance they get. There's always the derogatory name calling for console games and by association the people who play them. It's not even thinly veiled anymore. It's just an outright hostility toward anything not a PC game. It's a dinosaur way of looking at the hobby of gaming and just breeds the kind of anger that's seething right under this very post.

--Dave

[steve]

Union, I've highlighted a certain uniquely "console" feature that I don't like, which detracts from my enjoyment of the game because it looks childish.
I agree 100%, but where people disagree is that you're using a feature of a certain percentage of console games to essentially make blanket statements about them all.

Wargames, space sims, flight sims, and open-ended RPGs are almost nonexistent on consoles, and I primarily am interested in them.
There are almost as many space and flight sims on consoles as there are on PCs, which is to say there are very few of these types of games at all. As for open-ended RPGs, well... there are plenty on consoles. You just don't care for their presentation. That they look kiddie doesn't suddenly not make them open-ended; they may not be appealing, but then again, not everyone likes the look of a Morrowind, and people don't say, "It's not an open-ended RPG" because they think it looks dorky.

[Kitsune]

are you guys even taking into consideration the physical limitations that boxes for the said games place on their manual size? a CD jewel case offered little to no space for a manual for PS1 games, and the DVD jewel for a PS2 game isn't a whole lot better. PC game boxes have come down in size and so you will find it harder to get the bigger sized manuals into the new smaller sized boxes. Still, they are a lot bigger than a DVD jewel case. :roll:

I hate to always be the guy who comes in here and mentions something about Rising Sun Land, but I'm limited by what my experiences are.

There were and are larger, more accomodating packaging for console games that need larger manuals. I think of five off-hand: Carnage Heart, Ganbare Morikawa-Kun 2-Go, Ore no Shikabane wo Koete Yuke, King's Field II and Kowloon's Gate. In any case, I've bought close to 300 console games throughout my life and my gut tells me the the average size is about 35 pages.

Also, ask yourself where were most of these consoles designed? Thus, what country do you think they had in mind especially when deciding on a standard for cases/manual sizes? Even regular books have to be broken down into several different volumes 19th century style and the idea of owning many coffee-table sized books or anything of approaching that size is laughable -- quite simply 95% of us don't have the room to store something like that.

There's also the obvious factor that portable games have a wider spread and application to daily life for more ages here for the sheer difference in use of mass transportation alone.

That manuals have over time gotten less detailed in the main as a tendency, here, I think it has more to do with limited editions and the economy. Now companies know gamers will pay for the really extravagant stuff like novels and artbooks and musings from the staff so we have a glut of special editions for nearly every game you can think of. If they can sell the extra special fancy packaging to the hardcore, then they do.

By the by, has anyone here ever seen an Ultimania guide? Just curious.

-Kitsune

[Desslock]

There's always the derogatory name calling for console games and by association the people who play them. It's not even thinly veiled anymore. It's just an outright hostility toward anything not a PC game.

I think it's safe to say that in this thread, most of the name calling is not coming from the people who are saying that they don't particularly like most console games.

As Strusser indicated, what people like is just a matter of personal taste - you may not like playing detailed flight sims because you think they're nerdy or boring, etc., and I may not like playing fighting games, platformers with crazy animal creatures because I find them childish or boring, etc.

Some people like movies. Some people like TV shows. Some people like movies and TV shows. Some people think there's no real difference between TV shows and movies, other than presentation, style or format which "shouldn't count" (which is just what some people want to argue in the context of console/pc gaming). They're just different personal tastes, so the hostility is misplaced.

I agree 100%, but where people disagree is that you're using a feature of a certain percentage of console games to essentially make blanket statements about them all.

Cartoony graphics are definitely a lot rarer in PC Games though (the WarCraft games are the only ones I can easily think of), and I can't think of any PC games where you play as a kid. But I wasn't intending to extrapolate beyond my statement - I was just discussing specific games and commenting on what I didn't like about 'em.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

[ Cartoony graphics are definitely a lot rarer in PC Games though (the WarCraft games are the only ones I can easily think of), and I can't think of any PC games where you play as a kid. .

How easily you forget the extremely annoying first part of Independence War 2, which is the exception which actually proves your point....... :wink:

[steve]

Cartoony graphics are definitely a lot rarer in PC Games though (the WarCraft games are the only ones I can easily think of), and I can't think of any PC games where you play as a kid.
Tribes Vengeance has a full level where you play as a kid, though I'm not sure why that would be a hang-up. Keep in mind, those "kids" you play as in a lot of console games aren't ncecessarily kids; it's just an aesthetic choice to make them look young. For all you know, they're 30. Or maybe it's 93 in elf.

[Dave Long]

...and even when they are kids, what's the big deal? Doesn't everyone play games to be a kid again to a certain extent? I can't remember the last time I played a game to get all deadly serious and shit, no matter what the setting or type of gameplay. And I play everything from wargames, sims, FPS and RTS to action, platform, fighting, draw pictures on the screen, etc.

--Dave

[Matthew Gallant]

Must we consider the age of who drinks the bubbly blue potion to cast the magnificently scintillating magic missile at the scary lizard?

Dare we consider the ramifications of a World War II FPS in which a soldier quite possibly could have lied about his age to go give Hitler the business? At that point, has the game already gone south, or is it OK as long as nobody asks him about his mother?

[TomChick]

what people like is just a matter of personal taste

And here's where you're getting hung up, Stefan. It's cool if you only like certain things. No one's trying to convince you that you're wrong. But that isn't what's being argued.

What's being argued is this: Are console gaming and PC gaming divergent enough experiences that they merit separate coverage?

Guys like you, Mark, and stusser are saying 'yes', but in the ensuing discussion, you're showing that you guys aren't very familiar with console gaming.

The rest of us are saying 'no', and what's more, we're familiar with both console and PC games.

Yet you guys still cling to the notion that just because you've decided you don't like console games -- which is cool -- that they're completely different. We think you're wrong and your opinions aren't in keeping with the state of the industry.

-Tom

[Dean]

I'll chime in on the "I'm not a console gamer" side of things. There are a couple of reasons, and not all of them have to do with the games--

1. I don't like playing games in the living room. It's too public, people know how long I've been playing, I'm constantly interrupted, and the chair is very comfy and I've been known to fall asleep while playing Japanese RPG's.

2. If I've got $150 burning a hole in my pocket, am I going to buy a console and some new games, or am I going to buy some memory or a video card or something for my current gaming rig, my PC? I've got a pile of games for my PC that I don't have time to play, why would I spend the money on a console to buy more games that I don't have time to play?

So much like the threads about console games here, I might check in and see what all the fuss is about, but I'm not going to read this section with any sort of regularity. Frankly, if you've got six "bonus" pages I'd rather see them used for PC games. Aren't editors and writers always complaining about space limitations?

[TomChick]

why would I spend the money on a console to buy more games that I don't have time to play?

Basically, Dean, the answer is "because if you don't, you're going to be missing out on the creative work of some of the most talented developers in the industry".

The time consideration is certainly a valid one. But I bet I could talk to any self-avowed PC gamer, find out a bit about their tastes, and recommend something on a console that would absolutely be worth their money and -- more importantly -- time.

-Tom

[Wobbo]

Besides, anything's better than Now Playing.

[Sean Tudor]

The time consideration is certainly a valid one. But I bet I could talk to any self-avowed PC gamer, find out a bit about their tastes, and recommend something on a console that would absolutely be worth their money and -- more importantly -- time.

It's obvious that more games are coming to console that previously existed on PC - or are going cross-platform.

For example I would play Pirates! on console or PC. The control scheme is simple enough that I could probably grapple with a controller to play the game.

But there is no way in hell I am going to invest in a console with the current controller setup. I have tried playing Halo on my nephew's X-box and the control is crap. I hate it. Maybe I have spastic thumbs but trying to play any game on a console is difficult for me.

What I want in a future console that will cause me to switch -

1. More control options - add a mini-mouse/trackball or whatever. Add some sort of mini-keyboard to allow for more complex gameplay on the console. Don't force me to use 50 obscure combinations of four controller buttons to enter commands.

2. The ability to seamlessly plug my console into my Sony monitor (or any LCD monitor). That is without having to buy some weird-ass adapter that only works on NTSC televisions. No I don't want to play my console in the loungeroom. I also have no interest in buying a $3,000+ HDTV (even if I could afford one).

3. The ability to select resolutions from 1024x768 and up within all console games.

The above is all I want - nothing more and nothing less. The games are here now - FPS's, RPG's (like KOTOR), Rainbow 6, and more.

But playing on a PC has made me spoilt. If I am going to move to consoles I want the exact same gameplay experience I am currently getting on my PC.

Edit : Add -

4. I also want to be able to play games like Rome Total War, Age Of Empires, WoW, decent simulations - on a future console. There is no reason why console games need not cater for all genres if the hardware is powerful enough as Microsoft has been trumpeting with the impending release of the X-box 2.

[mutt]

There were and are larger, more accomodating packaging for console games that need larger manuals.
This is no doubt true. But it's interesting how much you can actually pack into a standard size DVD case. Of my five PC games that came in DVD cases, two have almost 150 pages worth of info each. One has a 139 page manual, while the other manages to pack in an 82 page manual, a 38 page unit reference book, and a 26 page product catalog.

More than that and you run the risk of not being able to close the thing, but 150 pages is perfectly doable in a standard DVD case.

(We now return to you to our regularly scheduled fisticuffs.)

[Greg Vederman]

What's being argued is this: Are console gaming and PC gaming divergent enough experiences that they merit separate coverage?

Yet you guys still cling to the notion that just because you've decided you don't like console games -- which is cool -- that they're completely different. We think you're wrong and your opinions aren't in keeping with the state of the industry.

The "industry" has nothing to do with it, Tom. It's not up to the "industry" to decide if console games and PC games are divergent enough experiences to merit separate coverage -- it's up to consumers. If you add console coverage that your readers don't like for WHATEVER reason, and lose a percentage of those readers to your PC-dedicated competition WITHOUT gaining any new ones, then you've just gone and fucked up. Is that what's going to happen in CGM's case? I don't know. I hope not. I think it'd be pretty damn cool if they can pull this thing off, but their success here is by no means guaranteed.

-Vede

[mutt]

It's obvious that more games are coming to console that previously existed on PC - or are going cross-platform.

These are, however--I'll meet Stefan and company halfway on this one--only the simpler PC games (in terms of control choices; i.e. the number of commands available to the player). If a console game is "deep," it is only deep because depth has emerged (god, I hate that word, but it's unavoidable here) from the gameplay itself. It is not deep in terms of having ten bazillion commands the gamer can give via his controller.

There's no way a Falcon 4 could ever be ported to a console, because there's no way all those commands could ever be handled with a gamepad. If it were ever ported, about 9/10 of its "depth" would have to be eliminated in order to fit the console's minimalist controller scheme.

So while I agree that there is less and less distinction these days between PC games and console games, it's more due to the dumbing down of PC games than to the smartening up of console games. However, to return to the issue at hand, since the more simplistic PC games are covered right along with the deep and difficult ones in computer gaming mags, I see no reason not to include console games, which are no more simplistic than the simplistic PC games.

[Drastic]

...and even when they are kids, what's the big deal? Doesn't everyone play games to be a kid again to a certain extent?
Well, no, not really. Lots of folks play games primarily to feed their inner adolescent, rather than their inner kid. And there's the reverse from the other camp, which is why every PC Vs Console thread has some degree of derisive snorting about immaturity versus jeering accusations of being big old stupidheads.

Luckily, I think there's definitely a larger and larger segment of gamers who feed both their inner adolescent and inner kid, so to speak, and it'll only get larger.

As a side-benefit, this kind of thread is only going to get more hilarious as the next generation of consoles, and the one after that, really hit their stride, as the platform-identity vested start feeling cornered. I'm looking forward to those.

Topically, I might actually subscribe to a games magazine again now for a reason other than a demo disc. I'm all for games-in-general magazines, and I hope this is one of those cases where the market actually includes me.

[TomChick]

The "industry" has nothing to do with it, Tom. It's not up to the "industry" to decide if console games and PC games are divergent enough experiences to merit separate coverage -- it's up to consumers.

Greg, my comment about the "industry" had to do with the similarities between console and PC titles. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Maybe it'll help if I parse the comment a little differently for you:

"Your opinion that console games are completely different from PC games doesn't reflect the state of the industry."

As for your other comments, I can't speak in any sort of official capacity, but I'd be surprised if this was a specific move to gain more readers. I think it's a matter of simply trying to improve content by bringing up issues the readers would be interested in. As Steve has said, the magazine isn't doing console coverage in the sense of trying to do actual broad coverage. Instead, I think the goal is to pick out cool stuff and use those leftover Now Playing pages to discuss it.

But, yeah, success is by no means guaranteed. But short of an exclusive on Half-Life 2, when is it ever? :)

-Tom

[Mark Asher]

Doesn't everyone play games to be a kid again to a certain extent?

No. Do you play chess to be a kid again?

To be a kid again I'll play Clue. Of course I don't have much interest in playing Clue unless it's to play with my kids.

[Mark Asher]

As for your other comments, I can't speak in any sort of official capacity, but I'd be surprised if this was a specific move to gain more readers. I think it's a matter of simply trying to improve content by bringing up issues the readers would be interested in. As Steve has said, the magazine isn't doing console coverage in the sense of trying to do actual broad coverage. Instead, I think the goal is to pick out cool stuff and use those leftover Now Playing pages to discuss it.

I don't think this is the reason. I think if there were more big budget PC games being developed this never would have happened. I think if PC market share hadn't been shrinking, this never would have happened.

[Mark Asher]

As for your other comments, I can't speak in any sort of official capacity, but I'd be surprised if this was a specific move to gain more readers. I think it's a matter of simply trying to improve content by bringing up issues the readers would be interested in. As Steve has said, the magazine isn't doing console coverage in the sense of trying to do actual broad coverage. Instead, I think the goal is to pick out cool stuff and use those leftover Now Playing pages to discuss it.

I don't think this is the reason. I think if there were more big budget PC games being developed this never would have happened. I think if PC market share hadn't been shrinking, this never would have happened.

[Mark Asher]

As for your other comments, I can't speak in any sort of official capacity, but I'd be surprised if this was a specific move to gain more readers. I think it's a matter of simply trying to improve content by bringing up issues the readers would be interested in. As Steve has said, the magazine isn't doing console coverage in the sense of trying to do actual broad coverage. Instead, I think the goal is to pick out cool stuff and use those leftover Now Playing pages to discuss it.

I don't think this is the reason. I think if there were more big budget PC games being developed this never would have happened. I think if PC market share hadn't been shrinking, this never would have happened.

[Union Carbide]

Mark, do you think maybe not enough big budget PC games being developed might be the reason?

[Squirrel Killer]

What's being argued is this: Are console gaming and PC gaming divergent enough experiences that they merit separate coverage?

Yes.

Divergent enough that they can't be covered in the same magazine for fear of a matter/anti-matter or Desslock/Elhajj explosion? No. But given the clear differences in the proportions of various genres on the different platforms, it's reasonable to assume that what appeals to people who have chosen to play games on PCs and what appeals to people who have chosen to play games on consoles is divergent enough that covering them seperately is a valid choice. Sure you can find examples of all genres on all platforms, but the proportional breakouts are still pretty significant. And that's not even taking into account the differences in controllers, expenses, culture, or maintenance.

[Dean]

why would I spend the money on a console to buy more games that I don't have time to play?

Basically, Dean, the answer is "because if you don't, you're going to be missing out on the creative work of some of the most talented developers in the industry".


Well, Tom, I've reconciled myself to missing out on some games. That's kind of the point. I don't have the time to play every game out there, so I've drawn the line via hardware, just as those of you with Xboxes don't get to play PS2 exclusive games, I don't get to play the games that come out on any of the three consoles.

The really cool thing is that a bunch of other people have drawn this same arbritrary line, and some other people have decided to write a magazine that caters just to us. I liked that.

What if Xbox Magazine started devoting pages to PS2 games?

[John Reynolds]

What if Xbox Magazine started devoting pages to PS2 games?

They would probably lose more readers than they'd gain.

[JeffL]

Certainly for some people, although I don't believe this is the case for Stephan, I do believe the emotive reaction to adding console coverage is analogous to the reactions of a lot of people in the late 80's early 90's. When I started in this PC world the Apple II was undsiputed king (OK, when I really started we were building Altairs) and 90% of the magazines and store shelves were devoted to Apple II software. yeah, the Amiga was cool, the Atari was nifty, but they really never challenged the rule of the Apple II. Then the IBM PC appeared, and even though we all knew it was an inferior gaming machine, slowly but surely shelves formerly devoted to Apple II software were being converted to PC software. Suddenly computer magazines had a lot more coverage of the PC software and hardware, then at some point an inversion spot was reached and suddenly publishers were announcing that some great game was not only released first on the PC, but there were no plans to release it on the Apple II. Ultimately, even with the //GS, etc. the software stores and magazines were dominated by the PC and the Apple II got the little corner in the back next to the mousepads.

I believe a lot of PC gamers are seeing the growing dominance of consoles and feel threatened. Suddenly games are announced on a console with no port to the PC (or a late port.) Suddenly some of their favorite publishers are looking to develop on the console first (and maybe last.) And they see consoles as a threat rather than a complement to the PC games and gaming that they love. So when a magazine that is one of the very few left that is dedicated to PC gaming starts covering console gaming, it's not the extra pages of "contamination" that they resent, it's the indication or recognition that PC gaming itself is potentially on a downslope.

Personally, as someone who was an Apple II fanatic, my response to the new PCs was to have a room where I had an Apple II, and Apple IIGS, an Amiga, and a PC. My only concern with consoles would be if they do threaten the viability of some genres that I greatly enjoy, such as complex sims or for that matter "deeper" games of any type. I do have the perception, as a console neophyte, that in general console games are developed to be much more "approachable and accessible" than many PC games. I understand that there are examples that belie that perception, but I do feel that it is true on a general basis.

[TomChick]

I don't have the time to play every game out there, so I've drawn the line via hardware

Fair enough. And for some guys, like Sean Tudor who's mainly into sims and Desslock who's mainly into hardcore RPGs and space sims, that hardware line might make more sense.

But as you say, it's an arbitrary line and the industry is messing it up. For the broader rubric of "computer gamers", people who might enjoy Civ III as well as Battle for Middle Earth, who can appreciate Medal of Honor's scripted drama and Painkiller's over-the-top action, who might occasionally drop into a online game of Counter-Strike or Pandora Tomorrow, drawing a hardware line means they're missing out on that much more.

What if Xbox Magazine started devoting pages to PS2 games?

We've already talked about the club mentality of a magazine's readers. We've also talked about the fact that consoles are indeed computers.

But I like to think that the magazine's readers identify themselves not just by platform, but by the distinct tone of CGM's coverage. That's why I like the magazine, as a writer and a reader. Hopefully, CGM's other readers w'll be open to seeing that tone applied to select console games.

-Tom

[Sarkus]

There are a lot more people who are playing both PC and consoles now than in the past, so CGM's approach makes some sense. The PC is still my main gaming machine, but I also own an XBox now because it offers some types of gaming that just aren't available on the PC anymore. Throw in games that come out on console first, it makes sense to own a console. It's not like they're that expensive, plus the used market is a lot more accessible.

The above being the case, CGM may be able to take advantage of those who don't want to subscribe/purchase multiple magazines each month just to keep up.

[Brooski]

But I like to think that the magazine's readers identify themselves not just by platform, but by the distinct tone of CGW's coverage. That's why I like the magazine, as a writer and a reader. Hopefully, CGW's other readers w'll be open to seeing that tone applied to select console games.
Right on. I hope people like your idea for Tom vs. Bruce to go console-only, too. I get sofa!

[mutt]

Right on. I hope people like your idea for Tom vs. Bruce to go console-only, too. I get sofa!

Alright, that's just the last straw. Editor, cancel my subscription.

Has anyone else seen this month's Rebound section? What a gas! Truly inspired. I particularly like the letter from one Dr. Derrick Smarte, with its affected Britishisms. Who wrote that stuff, steve? Give 'em a raise!

Oh, and there's a new Schadenfreude ad, too. Know what? I've changed my mind. Keep my subscription running.

[steve]

Who wrote that stuff, steve? Give 'em a raise!
The hint is in the intro. Well, it's not so much as a hint, but credit is given.

[mutt]

Cool. Zoomed right over that. So is that our Sparky or some other Sparky?

[Dave Long]

There can be only one.

--Dave

[Terrence]

I don't play many PC games, but if the console reviews are good, Computer Games could become far more valuable to my console gaming collection thn any console gaming magazine. Imagine intelligent, insightful computer gaming reviewers adding their perspective to undervalued console games such as Culdcept and Nightmare at Druaga.

How's the Mac gaming market these days, anyway? Otherwise, Computer Games would just become PC Games or somesuch.