StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To be honest, while handhelds technically are consoles because of the fact that that's pretty much the definition of a machine that plays video games, a lot of people don't really consider handhelds in the exact same regard as full-size consoles.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:To be honest, while handhelds technically are consoles because of the fact that that's pretty much the definition of a machine that plays video games, a lot of people don't really consider handhelds in the exact same regard as full-size consoles.

My general rule of thumb is that if it can be played without hooking it into an external monitor or TV, then it's just not a console.

Well that's just splitting hairs, really.

General Zod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:To be honest, while handhelds technically are consoles because of the fact that that's pretty much the definition of a machine that plays video games, a lot of people don't really consider handhelds in the exact same regard as full-size consoles.

My general rule of thumb is that if it can be played without hooking it into an external monitor or TV, then it's just not a console.

So the Game Boy Advance was a "console", but the Game Boy Micro was not?

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

General Zod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:To be honest, while handhelds technically are consoles because of the fact that that's pretty much the definition of a machine that plays video games, a lot of people don't really consider handhelds in the exact same regard as full-size consoles.

My general rule of thumb is that if it can be played without hooking it into an external monitor or TV, then it's just not a console.

So the Game Boy Advance was a "console", but the Game Boy Micro was not?

Can the GBA be played without a TV or monitor? Yes? Then try again.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:I have a hard time calling the DS a "console". A handheld, yes, but a console? When I think of a console I think of a machine I can plug into a nice big TV and sit comfortably at a distance from while my hands wrap comfortably around the contours of the controller, not a tiny little controller-sized game system that I'm hunched over while squinting at a four-inch screen (or pair thereof). A handheld system game is also going to be much more restricted in scope by the constraining limits of the handheld system.

It seems to me like the 'console' and 'handheld' markets should be considered separately.

You are saying a handheld console isn't a console?

When I think of a console I think of a machine I can plug into a nice big TV and sit comfortably at a distance from while my hands wrap comfortably around the contours of the controller, not a tiny little controller-sized game system that I'm hunched over while squinting at a four-inch screen (or pair thereof).

I'm saying I don't think it should be called a "handheld console" in the first place, but if you're going to be the Official Terminology Police, then I'll restate my opinion such that I think "handheld consoles" should be considered apart from larger "non-handheld consoles".

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

General Zod wrote:My general rule of thumb is that if it can be played without hooking it into an external monitor or TV, then it's just not a console.

So the Game Boy Advance was a "console", but the Game Boy Micro was not?

So the Game Boy Advance cannot be played without hooking it into an external monitor or TV? :img-giant-rolleyes-vomiting-more-smaller-rolleyes:

Christ, go pull the dildo out of your ass or something.

General Zod wrote:Can the GBA be played without a TV or monitor? Yes? Then try again.

Are you seriously arguing that a console should be defined by its inability to perform a certain function? Thus, adding an extra feature to it somehow makes it not a console any more?

Semantic arguments about terminology aside, it is useful to consider home consoles and handheld games as wholly seperate entities. They are likely to be played in different circumstances, with things like the amount of attention paid to the game, the average session length, and the frequency of breaks from play being significantly different, and for this reason they attract different gaming audiences and different game styles.

Darth Wong wrote:

General Zod wrote:Can the GBA be played without a TV or monitor? Yes? Then try again.

Are you seriously arguing that a console should be defined by its inability to perform a certain function? Thus, adding an extra feature to it somehow makes it not a console any more?

Well, they're both gaming systems but I'd hesitate to call a handheld a console. It would be like calling a laptop a desktop just because you might be able to hook it up to an external monitor, even though they're both computers. It's mostly just a way of avoiding confusing the terms between the two, since console tends to give most people the impression of something you hook up to a TV.

Isn't the term "handheld" simply short for "handheld console"? Otherwise, the adjective doesn't convey much...

Vendetta wrote:Semantic arguments about terminology aside, it is useful to consider home consoles and handheld games as wholly seperate entities. They are likely to be played in different circumstances, with things like the amount of attention paid to the game, the average session length, and the frequency of breaks from play being significantly different, and for this reason they attract different gaming audiences and different game styles.

That is why the charts for console sales usually come in both home console only and all console flavors.

Mad wrote:Isn't the term "handheld" simply short for "handheld console"? Otherwise, the adjective doesn't convey much...

"Handheld console" is more or less analogous to "laptop computer" in terms of connotation in comparison to a standard console or computer.

Mad wrote:Isn't the term "handheld" simply short for "handheld console"? Otherwise, the adjective doesn't convey much...

Likewise, saying "console" to refer to just a handheld gaming system is equally confusing and will give people the wrong impression of what you're talking about.

I think it's short for handheld gaming system and consoles are console gaming systems. Consoles referred to things like Phonographs and those massive cabinet TVs that sat directly on the floor, and a variety of other housebound installation pieces, like organ key desks.

So it refers to something that stays in the house and is generally plugged into a console--like a bigass floor-mounted TV from the 80's. Handhelds are free from these restraints and should be considered their own beast, as not only are they structurally different but they appeal to a wildly different demographic.

That might just be verbal anachronism, but that's where the term came from, so I think it's honest to only apply it to the machines that run off of external power and directly interface with the home entertainment system and call the rest of them 'console hybrids' when they can be detached (like those rebuild PS2's with a screen on them), or 'handhelds' when they are purpose-built to function independantly of anything else.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I have a negative reaction whenever I hear the term "serious gamer". To me, "serious gaming" is like "serious masturbating"; it just sounds ridiculous.

I have the same reaction whenever I hear the term "hardcore gamer". The way hardcore gamer is too commonly used, it's a slang term for college age kids who like Grand Theft Auto and other bestselling violent games. Almost by definition, that's not being more hardcore, that's called a profitable mass-market demographic.

LMSx wrote:I have the same reaction whenever I hear the term "hardcore gamer". The way hardcore gamer is too commonly used, it's a slang term for college age kids who like Grand Theft Auto and other bestselling violent games. Almost by definition, that's not being more hardcore, that's called a profitable mass-market demographic.

I don't think 'hardcore gaming' is meant in the same sense as 'hardcore pornography'. Lameo nerds trying to sounds awesome because they play games A LOT, yes.

Covenant wrote:That might just be verbal anachronism

Sure is, even more so when the word console was never used in this way in many countries. Face it, a 'games console' is an electronic device for playing computer games: when the term was popularised, most home computers ALSO had to be plugged in to a television, and the idea of calculator-sized gaming systems was absurd. This whole 'yes it is, no it isn't' thing is a) senseless and b) irrelevant. As Vendetta points out, design and gaming trends are completely different anyway.

Lazarus:I'm convinced blu-ray is the losing side in the format war...

Not to drift off topic, but it actually isn't: it's winning.

Really? And does that apply in the UK? Because literally the only mention of blu-ray technology that I have heard is as part of the PS3, I have never seen ANY other sort of blu-ray technology, be it a disc or a player etc. In contrast, several high street retailers near me are stocked with a small range of HD-DVD titles, and in some cases the players themselves.

Some > Absolutely Nothing

On 'serious' versus 'casual' gaming, those who say there's no difference clearly don't have enough experience of the gaming market (I'm not saying I'm some sort of expert by the way, just that this is a poorly based idea). It's a matter of genre, and it divides games like Wii Sports from games like Stalker. There is a big difference in the audience of the two; for me, the former holds no appeal at all, while the latter very much so. Many people don't want to be involved in any sort of storyline, they just want to have fun, and 'casual' games provide for this (from simple arcade games to dance-mat titles etc). In contrast to this audience, 'serious' gamers are those who want more substance from a game, which can be manifested in terms of plot, complex features etc. As for what would divide a 'serious gamer' from a 'casual gamer', there's many factors because there's no distinct line, (such as the latter would probably not describe themselves as a 'gamer', while the former is more likely to). No doubt there's considerable market research been done by the major corporations into these audiences.

Let's not forget the "RAR! MORE MICRO!!!" crowd that has ruined RTS for me.

In fact I'd say I used to consider myself a fairly hardcore PC Gamer, but I've found that more and more modern games just don't appeal to me anymore, and while I have a soft spot for hardcore strategy titles like GalCiv, I just don't have the energy or time to play them properly.

That and a very real sense of frustration that my Athlon X2 5200+ w/ ATI1950PRO is already "midrange" by hardcore gaming PC standards is really really turning me away from PC gaming.

At least I can play my NDS and come away feeling relaxed. PC Gaming, at least until I come to accept the weakness of my Rig, just doesn't do it anymore, sadly.

Lazarus wrote:

Lazarus:I'm convinced blu-ray is the losing side in the format war...

Not to drift off topic, but it actually isn't: it's winning.

Really? And does that apply in the UK? Because literally the only mention of blu-ray technology that I have heard is as part of the PS3, I have never seen ANY other sort of blu-ray technology, be it a disc or a player etc. In contrast, several high street retailers near me are stocked with a small range of HD-DVD titles, and in some cases the players themselves.

Some > Absolutely Nothing

Try the HMV in Preston, they have a whole half of the first floor section devoted not only to HD-DVD, but Blu-Ray. Then I saw BD-ROMs and that other Sony player in the Currys.digital in Fishergate. To be honest, I find the whole area to be a rather minor thing, regardless of whether you're for MS or Sony's system. Why spend £20 on a SUPAR HI-DEF!!1 movie, when you can have three new titles for that same price?

We just got a Wii in the household (that makes it one Wii, one X-Box and one Gamecube). From my own experiences from these three the X-Box just simply loses for anything other than one (or maybe a second person) playing an involved game (but since I hate playing anything like that on a console it's just not for me).

In contrast, we had a house party on the weekend, cooked an epic amount of dead animal to stuff our guts with, drank massive proportions of beer, and at the end of the night we ended up getting Mario cart out on the Gamecube and just laughed ourselves silly having just plain old fun.

The Wii came in yesterday, we are all early risers to get to our jobs (house full of white collar professionals) and yet six of us stayed up to midnight - we had a glass of scotch each - just fucking around on the Wii. The comment of the night was 'I should really go to sleep ... oh, just one more!'

Point of the story; I'm not a console person, for myself I would probably never buy one, but for a group of people, just to have plain old fun Nintendo have hit the jack pot in my opinion. I might buy a Wii myself at some point, but I will never, ever buy a PS or XBox.

I've found that as I get older, I'm enjoying single player games less and multiplayer more; and I absolutely love the Wii for that.

XBox 360 is definitely a better single-player experience at this point, but Nintendo knows how to make genuinely fun games that you can get a group of ANYONE together to play (kids, adults, grandparents).