Comments (8)
LightofDarkness  +   1056d ago
The buttons thing is a small argument, it only needs a small 3rd party peripheral (or 1st party when they INEVITABLY WILL make the final push) in order to eliminate the limitations of touch screen control schemes.

I don't understand what the resistance to the inevitable evolution of computing into all in one portable devices is amongst consumers. It just makes things easier and more convenient, and it's the way just about every hardware manufacturer KNOWS the industry is heading in. All the big CPU manufacturers have been shifting focus onto mobile platforms, same with the GPU manufacturers. THe amount of money being poured into battery research is staggering. These will eventually be akin to desktops of today that you can just carry around with you, and plug into larger terminals if necessary or have smaller, pocket-friendly peripherals if the user so wishes.

Just because you're playing on a phone doesn't mean all the games will be like Angry Birds or cheap, throw-away 99c games. They will eventually be the platform that all games are played on, from $1 to $60. And "eventually" isn't as far away as you might think.

And before people just start using the same old rhetoric, answer this little question for me: WHY don't you want technology to move in this direction? What's the REAL reason?
#1 (Edited 1056d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
dedicatedtogamers  +   1056d ago
But technology isn't the driving force of videogames. Software innovation is. It has been that way since before the NES. The NES was an 8-bit system in a 16-bit PC era. PC gamers laughed at it, but it changed the face of videogames. The Gameboy was a black-and-green 4-bit system competing with better, more colorful handhelds, yet it still won. The "all in one" device has long been prophesied by the techie crowd, but it has never come, because PC gaming has always been held back by the limitation of its openness: it isn't a dedicated hardware platform. Smartphones are just mobile PCs, mobile open platforms. Smartphones will never, ever have the AAA developer support that dedicated gaming platforms do. And I say that based on the last 25+ years of gaming history.
#1.1 (Edited 1056d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
LightofDarkness  +   1056d ago
The only reason consoles had that support was because they were cheaper and thus more available to the mainstream.

It's similar to the way developers are flocking to the mobile space now, they will follow the money and the mainstream wherever they go. And "software innovation" falls under the banner of "technology" and technological innovation, so that's a moot point.

And now look at something like BF3 and tell me PC is being held back by it's openness. Right now it's only being held back by consoles and developers not willing to do any more work than is necessary to make it work on a console. If anything, consoles are currently the hindering weight on the back on gaming.

EDIT: Wait, PC gamers laughed at the NES? In 1985? There were hardly any PC gamers in 1985! PC didn't take off as a gaming platform until the early-mid '90s really, with games like Wolfenstein and Doom, and the many RPG classics like Heroes of Might & Magic. The SNES had been released by then. It began to surge as a platform right about when people started buying them en masse and they became a home standard. I think you may want to revisit that history.
#1.1.1 (Edited 1056d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report
dedicatedtogamers  +   1056d ago
@ lightofDarkness

You never heard of the Commodore 64 or the Amiga or the Apple II? You never heard of the Ultima series (Ultima fans mocked Final Fantasy)? You never heard of Zork?

Ya gotta remember that the Atari had crashed and console gaming was dead, officially. PC gaming and arcade gaming were both thriving, and the NES was "just a kid's toy". Heck, it was marketed to kids.
LightofDarkness  +   1056d ago
People were making games on PC, but it was hardly thriving. And no one I know who had a Commodore 64 was bragging about how superior they were to a NES, with the majority of their games taking 20 minutes to just load.

Zork was a text based adventure game (the whole series was). It was popular among only the nerdiest of nerds. PC games were just about competitive visually with NES games until much later in its life cycle.

The Apple II was an 8-bit machine released well before the NES and had next to nothing worth playing; I had one, I would know.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.

And besides that, you're wandering a little off-point. You still haven't stated why this is a bad thing, you've only given entirely superficial reasons that sound more like political lobbying; innovation is platform independent. Heck, much of what is big this console generation was firstly brought in by PC games over 10 years ago (online gaming, DLC, HD graphics). Consoles have had their place, they've shaped gaming in most major ways, but it isn't because the games were on consoles: it's simply because that was the most viable way to do it at the time. Computers that did more than play videogames were too expensive for most people. That's not the case anymore at all. In case you haven't noticed, all of these devices are moving toward each other at a faster and faster rate, they will eventually become the same thing.
#1.1.3 (Edited 1056d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report
firefoxprime  +   1056d ago
There's no debate.

One provides a long lasting entertainment.
The other is a quick fix.

Case close. Take your pick.
darthv72  +   1056d ago
@dedicated
I get what your are saying but you have to really look at what the era of the "iphone" smart phone represented. Prior smart phones were considered that primarily because they offered more than just making calls and sending/receiving text messages.

The term was coined (i think it was) when the phones were able to actually surf the web which blackberries and palms did. Over time they evolved into a 'lite' gaming platform to offset the mundane boring appeal of just the phones of the time. Then here comes apple. Changing the phone market like they did the music market with the all in one smartphone that was smarter than the others.

So smart that it offered simple to use tools to create the plethora of apps available today. Some of which have restrictions on them due to the improved nature of the IOS and hardware since release. It is those improvements that bring the 'smartphone' closer to the exclusive gamers club known as the handheld.

Think back to Nokia when they attempted to create real gaming and phone in one. The talking 'taco' if you will. Some of the stigma from its release was due to its design and how you actually used it for simple things like making a call. It had buttons but it was cumbersome. Time has proven that with good programming you can overcome the previous obstacles of before such as the use of buttons.

From a technical POV...the smartphone surpassed the handheld in total units sold. Then again you are blogging more about the gaming aspect not so much the overall acceptance of the platform. The iphone itself represented a fundamental shift in consumer awareness to casual gaming (still considered gaming). Thanks to those cheap little games it became more of the buzz word than nintendo dreamed with the original gameboy because it was able to be seen by the more mature market as well as to the younger audience.

Its understandable that some want to hold off the direction its headed in because it will change the development of games from the deep and involving experiences they had been into something simple to pass the time. Yet isnt that what games originally started out to be?

Bottom line is that the quality of the games will not remain what they are on the mobile platform. Hardware and software dictate that they will evolve just as console games evolved from the blocky pixels they originated from into the graphical presetations they are today. Not only that but it 'should' take less time to achieve.
#1.1.5 (Edited 1056d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
LeShin  +   1056d ago
Totally and utterly agree with you! Not to mention that I'd rather waste the battery life on my dedicated handheld than my smartphone.

If my handheld battery dies: Can't play games, not a big deal

If my smartphone battery dies: Can't play games, can't make phonecalls, can't read txt messages, can't check my emails (hich most of them are business related), can't check my Facebook/ Twitter account, can't surf the net, can't listen to music...

Also, as a fighting game fan, touch controls are practically useless to me!

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember