In his blog, GDC: The "Tragic" State of PC Gaming Matt Peckham says, “PC gaming isn't dead, but PC gaming as it once existed may be. Wargaming as a genre isn't dead (it'll only die when serious history-minded humans do) but wargaming as it once existed -- something that could land a huge cover story in a gaming magazine, for instance -- almost certainly is. Is that where PC gaming's headed? Toward a small market of specialized gamers? An occasional sideshow to console gaming headliners? Is it finally Alamo time for PC gamers and snarky games magazine editors who love to make fun of gloom-and-doom peddlers?”
For a moment, I believe this was something libraries were interested in. But with the move toward the more popular platforms of X-Box Live for instance, is social networking via PC gaming dead? I noticed that games like Civilization and Myst were not mentioned in this article. Are they not considered to be social gaming? Is there another term for them? Do they still exist in the market? Are they still popular? Are these the type of games we should consider for purchase and mounting for teen SRC gaming?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
5 comments:
Myst and Civilization definitely weren't considered social games when they were released. PC-based games delivered by CD-ROM are pretty much dead.
Oops...clicked "publish" accidently.
As far as popularity, most games live and die fairly quickly, kind of like popular musice. Sports games that are endorsed by their respective pro leagues have continued "in the same wrapper" just because the real-life versions are always in a state of flux and you can play them in so many different ways (remember this?). You'll always have people who are into the older games just like I'm into older forms of music, but you won't find many of them in the now marketplace except for Ebay. MAME is one of the more popular video game emulators.
I think that solutions like XBox Live will take over more of the marketshare, but as of right now, the PC is still the best bet for all-around use. You're not going to beta test on a gaming console. You can't write a symphony or create sophisticated graphics on one, yet. You don't have the flexibility of personalizing your own environment on a gaming console like you do on a Windows, Linux, or Apple PC.
I say that most of the technologies we have now will be folded into one another within a couple technological generations. This means fewer dedicated machines for talking, internet browsing, watching movies, listening to music, creating music and videos, snapping pictures, socializing, etc.
Also, gaming in the library is relegated to programs of shorter duration partially because of the time limitations on our computers. What we don't know is if those that predominantly play games on our computers tend to be engaged in more time-intensive strategy/puzzle/maze games at home where the most-likely constraint is parental oversight.
The way I see it the PC will be the center for new games, ones written by small companies or by individuals. This will be the best test audience to decide if there is enough of a following for the software to be picked up by larger companies and pushed out to a larger fan base. Sites like [url=http://www.experimentalgameplay.com/game.php?g=17]the experimental gameplay project[/url] are a great breeding ground for new concepts on games. Most games that hit the shelves these days are rehashes of old games with suped up graphics and witty new phrases. But everyonce in a while you'll have someone with an idea just strange enough that it just might work. This is where the PC excels.
The other edge that a pc still has over console games is the ability to create levels/modifications/user interfaces that can enhance game play or just personalize it. When consoles are able to over come those gaps then I believe we will no longer call them consoles.
It might even get to the point where PCs are just considered IBM or Mac, we could have what used to be considered consoles vying for that kind of turf.
Thanks guys!
Post a Comment