The evolution of the console market over time

[The_Liquid_Laser]

RolStoppable said:

The_Liquid_Laser said:

It's funny you think the infrared pointer is the most defining feature of the Wii remote.  What matters most is how it is used most commonly, especially in the most popular games.  Also, what is the point of this argument?  Do you personally believe that Wii is not an arcade machine now, or are you just nitpicking on stuff that you don't really believe in the first place?

3D is definitely an aspect of PC gaming.  Myst, DOOM, Wing Commander, etc... were all big 3D franchises in the early 90s.  At the same time the arcades had Virtua Fighter and that was about it.  The big 90's arcade games were 2D fighting games.  

The mistake you make is that you think arcade gaming is defined by consoles.  It isn't.  Arcade gaming is defined by the games that were in the arcades.

I don't think the infrared pointer is the most defining feature of the Wii-Remote, but it's obviously a prominent one given its usage in Wii Play which contains modern versions of classics like Pong and Duck Hunt. The point is that if you believe touchscreen controls shift something towards the PC side, then you must also believe that pointer controls shift something to the PC side. However, you firmly put the Wii in the Arcade Evolution column while the DS sits in Balance.

My stance on this matter is that mouse controls for PC games were something inspired by the simplicity and accessibility of arcade games, therefore any mouse-like controls do not constitute the original PC DNA, but rather are an alternate form of arcade DNA. That's why I wouldn't shift either one of the DS or Wii towards the PC side because of touchscreen and pointer, respectively. After all, the major DS and Wii games that use these controls are easy to pick up and play and suited for short play sessions which is clearly the arcade DNA.

PCs were more powerful than consoles and 3D graphics are clearly a matter of processing power. PCs getting there first doesn't mean that 3D graphics are an inherent trait of PC gaming. By the way, Myst used prerendered backgrounds while Doom used sprites for its enemies; Wing Commander banked on its FMVs to sell itself and also used spritework for its graphics, so when you call games that aren't 3D actual 3D franchises, then that means you must accept the SNES's Mode 7 trickery as 3D too. Super Mario Kart and F-Zero come to mind as popular titles, then there was also the Super FX chip-powered Star Fox which had polygon graphics, so actual 3D. Looking at Sega consoles and by extension at the arcades, the racing genre grew in popularity. Virtua Racing, Daytona USA and Sega Rally from Sega, Ridge Racer from Namco. The majority of the 1990s in the arcades was defined by 3D games (first and foremost racing and fighting) as shoot'em ups and 2D fighting games continually declined in popularity.

So yeah, while consoles lagged behind PCs in processing power and therefore didn't feature 3D graphics as commonly as PC games, the motherboards in arcade cabinets were different beasts and demonstrated that 3D graphics aren't a defining trait of either arcade or PC gaming, but merely a matter of processing power.

Here it is.  This sentence from the quote above is the actual core of our argument:

"My stance on this matter is that mouse controls for PC games were something inspired by the simplicity and accessibility of arcade games, therefore any mouse-like controls do not constitute the original PC DNA, but rather are an alternate form of arcade DNA."

When you use the words "arcade" and "PC" that is not actually what you mean.  Instead when you say "arcade" you actually mean "simplicity and accessibility".  When you say PC, you actually mean the opposite, "complexity and inaccessibility".  Your original table is actually a 5-point scale for accessibility.  You would actually make your points a lot more clearly if you relabeled it as a 5-point scale for accessibility.  I actually think if you labeled it that way, then I would agree with almost all of the ways you categorized the consoles.  (We would still disagree about the Switch, but that is besides the point.)  If you are saying that the console market has gotten less accessible over time, then I would agree.  I would also agree that a more accessible console tends to bring in new customers, or at the very least, it prevents repelling customers.

However, I am using the word "arcade" to mean "this actually was in the arcade" and PC means "this actually was on the PC".  If you ask any random person on the street, almost all of them will associate the mouse with the PC and not the arcade.  The mouse was also not inspired by the arcade.  It was developed by Xerox.  It wasn't inspired by arcade gaming, because Xerox isn't even a gaming company, much less an arcade gaming company.  Apple stole the idea from Xerox, and then Microsoft stole the idea from Apple.  The mouse then lead to the mass cultural acceptance of home computers via the Mac and Windows.  The reality is that it doesn't get more PC than the mouse.

In short, your table is confusing.  Just change the labeling to a 5 point accessibility scale and it becomes a lot more clear.