Hey readers!! This is the first video for basic tank tactics i made on BF3. Thanks to all DEVILS, specially ARC_GABRIEL_08 for helping me out on the vid. Also thanks to all the blog readers from all around the world (Russia, US, UK, Philipines, Canada, Australia, Spain, Germany, Denmarki...etc.) thanks for your support. Enjoy & see you in the battlefield.
COAT OF ARMS
Who Dares Wins
Friday, August 3, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
NEW DEVILS WEBPAGE!!
This is the web address of our new webpage www.devilsclanofficial.clanteam.com, hope you like it. Any feedback about problems or things that don't work post a comment on this therad. Thanks!
Thursday, July 26, 2012
BF3 tank explanation videos under production
Hey people! it's been a while since i last posted anything on the blog, been a bit busy. So yeah, i'm thinking about making some videos myself about tank formations and tactics on BF3 instead of writing all that much. Yeah I'm lazy lol. so i'll keep you guys posted. See you in the battlefield.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Desert Storm Analyzed
This was one of the mayor tank battles in the last half of the 20th century. Maneuver was the key to success for the american forces, which proves the point i was trying to make with the previous post, "The agility and speed in the maneuver are what make the difference between success and failure". Enjoy the vids!! ;)
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Tank formations & drills
Ok, so i promised you to keep on writing about tank tactics, so here we go. First of all COMMS. Yes, communications. In BF3, BC2, etc., you can only communicate with the people in your squad, tanks have 2 seats(sometimes 3, but i'll tell you later),... and we need at least 4 tanks just to practice (cause if you can do it with 4 tanks, doing it with 2 will be easier). So having at least one guy in each squad as designated "radio operator" using Skype as a way to communicate with the rest of squads (each one with a radio operator using skype of course) will be of extreme importance. So that sorted out!
Most people uses tanks in wargames like if they where just a means of rushing in to places, without using their sheer destruction power in a controlled way. Formations are, in my experience, a very effective way not just to use the full power of a tank physically, but also as a psychological factor. Let's say you are on a match, defending some flag on BF3. Suddenly a tank rolls in driven by some "SMURF" and what happens?, he gets smoked!. But what if that tank wasn't alone and rushing in, but instead, keeping some distance inside open space supported by two other tanks on both sides, slowly but constantly rolling towards you, and at the same time just putting down a "SHIT STORM" of fire on your position. I would be shitting bricks. So pay attention, and let the wisdom in.
FORMATIONS
Similar in concept to infantry formations, the tank formations have a little "kick" to them, and it's high speed plus terrain. This is why, for the driver, it is imperative to be extremely aware of the terrain accidents, the size of the tank (for obvious reasons we don't want to bump into every pole in the map when we make a tight turn), and last but not least, "GUN ALWAYS FIRST", meaning that while in movement from one position to another, if you are going to turn left, before you turn the hull of the tank, you turn the turret so that way you have "gun cover" before you turn.
Line formation
As for infantry, the line formation maximizes the full firepower of the squad/platoon to the front while neglecting the flanks. This kind of formations is good when you know where the enemy is and want to shell from a distance or lay cover fire to keep them pinned while a squad on foot or on lighter vehicles can flank, assault and ultimately win the confrontation.
Column formation
The column formation is the preferred column for moving from one position to another (if not in direct action, or even sometimes as a line breaking tactic). It focuses on the ease to move rather than focusing the firepower to a specific sector. While moving, the point tank will cover the front sector, and give the STOP order if it encounters mines, IED's or unavoidable obstacles. The second in line will cover front right sector, the third the front left sector, fourth front right,...and so on. The tricky part comes now. You see, there is nothing more boring than looking down a tank scope without anything to shoot at. So in order to not "fall asleep" every few seconds, all tanks (except the one on point) will switch cover side.
Wedge Formation
Wedge is the best formation to meet every possible contingency. All tanks in the unit can fire straight ahead, and at least three tanks can cover either flank. So it is obvious why it was Rommel's favorite formation. It simply converts the tanks in six 65ton "hammers" that can punch through almost any line of defense anybody can pull up. The diagram gives away pretty much why, lol.
Ok, so these 3 basic formations are going to be your best friends. But formations are not static, they constantly move and have to change in order to adapt to "pop-up" situations on the battlefield. So just as important (if not even more important) are the DRILLS. This means the way you move from one formation to another, in a way you don't become an obstacle yourself, and probably slow down the whole squad/platoon.
DRILLS
Change formation drill
This drill is executed to accomplish a rapid change of formation in response to a change in terrain or enemy situation. The platoon leader must ensure that each TC knows the new for mation and the relative position of each tank in the new formation. He uses visual signals and/or the radio to initiate the drill. The figure under illustrates the movement of individual tanks during a change of formation from column to wedge to line.
Contact drill
The contact drill enables the platoon to orient weapon systems and engage an enemy without changing its direction or speed of movement along the axis of advance. This drill is used when contact is made with small arms fire or when the platoon sights the enemy without being engaged and does not want to stop or slow its movement. The platoon leader initiates the contact drill using visual signals and/or the radio. Over the radio, he uses the contact report format and adds the execution element "FIRE" as a platoon fire command.
Most people uses tanks in wargames like if they where just a means of rushing in to places, without using their sheer destruction power in a controlled way. Formations are, in my experience, a very effective way not just to use the full power of a tank physically, but also as a psychological factor. Let's say you are on a match, defending some flag on BF3. Suddenly a tank rolls in driven by some "SMURF" and what happens?, he gets smoked!. But what if that tank wasn't alone and rushing in, but instead, keeping some distance inside open space supported by two other tanks on both sides, slowly but constantly rolling towards you, and at the same time just putting down a "SHIT STORM" of fire on your position. I would be shitting bricks. So pay attention, and let the wisdom in.
FORMATIONS
Similar in concept to infantry formations, the tank formations have a little "kick" to them, and it's high speed plus terrain. This is why, for the driver, it is imperative to be extremely aware of the terrain accidents, the size of the tank (for obvious reasons we don't want to bump into every pole in the map when we make a tight turn), and last but not least, "GUN ALWAYS FIRST", meaning that while in movement from one position to another, if you are going to turn left, before you turn the hull of the tank, you turn the turret so that way you have "gun cover" before you turn.
Line formation
As for infantry, the line formation maximizes the full firepower of the squad/platoon to the front while neglecting the flanks. This kind of formations is good when you know where the enemy is and want to shell from a distance or lay cover fire to keep them pinned while a squad on foot or on lighter vehicles can flank, assault and ultimately win the confrontation.
The column formation is the preferred column for moving from one position to another (if not in direct action, or even sometimes as a line breaking tactic). It focuses on the ease to move rather than focusing the firepower to a specific sector. While moving, the point tank will cover the front sector, and give the STOP order if it encounters mines, IED's or unavoidable obstacles. The second in line will cover front right sector, the third the front left sector, fourth front right,...and so on. The tricky part comes now. You see, there is nothing more boring than looking down a tank scope without anything to shoot at. So in order to not "fall asleep" every few seconds, all tanks (except the one on point) will switch cover side.
Wedge is the best formation to meet every possible contingency. All tanks in the unit can fire straight ahead, and at least three tanks can cover either flank. So it is obvious why it was Rommel's favorite formation. It simply converts the tanks in six 65ton "hammers" that can punch through almost any line of defense anybody can pull up. The diagram gives away pretty much why, lol.
Ok, so these 3 basic formations are going to be your best friends. But formations are not static, they constantly move and have to change in order to adapt to "pop-up" situations on the battlefield. So just as important (if not even more important) are the DRILLS. This means the way you move from one formation to another, in a way you don't become an obstacle yourself, and probably slow down the whole squad/platoon.
DRILLS
Change formation drill
This drill is executed to accomplish a rapid change of formation in response to a change in terrain or enemy situation. The platoon leader must ensure that each TC knows the new for mation and the relative position of each tank in the new formation. He uses visual signals and/or the radio to initiate the drill. The figure under illustrates the movement of individual tanks during a change of formation from column to wedge to line.
The contact drill enables the platoon to orient weapon systems and engage an enemy without changing its direction or speed of movement along the axis of advance. This drill is used when contact is made with small arms fire or when the platoon sights the enemy without being engaged and does not want to stop or slow its movement. The platoon leader initiates the contact drill using visual signals and/or the radio. Over the radio, he uses the contact report format and adds the execution element "FIRE" as a platoon fire command.
The figure under illustrates a contact drill from a wedge formation. Note the main gun orientation for wingman Tank 2. If a tank's weapon systems are masked by another tank, the masked tank will reposition itself to an "unmasked" position, preferably falling a bit behind the formation.
Action drill
The action drill permits the entire platoon to change di rection rapidly in response to terrain conditions, obstacles, or enemy contact. The platoon leader uses visual signals or the radio to order the action drill, which can be initiated with or without enemy contact.
Action drill without enemy contact. The platoon leader can execute an action drill to avoid a danger area or obstacle. When the platoon leader initiates the action drill, tanks come on line and continue to move in the prescribed direction unless the platoon leader directs a change of formation.
Action drill with enemy contact. Following a contact re port alerting the platoon that enemy contact involves antitank weapon systems, the platoon leader can direct an action drill to orient his platoon's frontal armor toward the antitank fire while moving to cover and concealment.
React to Air Attack drill
When the platoon observes high-performance aircraft, helicopters, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) that could influence its mission, it initially takes passive air defense measures unless the situation requires immediate active measures. In a passive air defense, the platoon takes actions (such as dispersing or stopping) to avoid detection altogether and/or to minimize the aircraft's target acquisition capability. The platoon also prepares for active air defense measures. Passive air defense involves three steps:
- Step 1. Alert the platoon with a contact report.
Step 2. Deploy or take the appropriate actions. If the platoon is not in the direct path of an attacking aircraft, the platoon leader orders tanks to seek cover and con cealment and halt with at least a 100-meter interval between vehicles; the platoon also may be ordered to continue moving as part of the company.
Step 3. Prepare to engage. TCs and loaders get ready to engage the aircraft with machine gun or main gun fire on order of the platoon leader.
- Step 1. The platoon initiates fire. The primary intent is to force air craft to take self-defense measures that alter their attack profile and reduce their effectiveness. The platoon leader may use a burst of tracers to designate an aim point for platoon machine gun antiaircraft fires. Volume is the key to effectiveness of these fires; tanks throw up a "wall of steel" through which aircraft must fly. The main gun is effective against hovering attack helicopters. The platoon leader may also direct some vehicles to engage high-performance aircraft with CANISTER SHELL (BF3) main gun rounds.
Step 2. Tanks create a nonlinear target by moving as fast as possible at a 45-degree angle away from the path of flight and toward attacking aircraft. The platoon maintains an interval of at least 100 meters between tanks, forcing aircraft to make several passes to engage the entire platoon.
Step 3. Tanks move quickly to covered and concealed positions and freeze their movement for at least 60 seconds after the last flight of aircraft has passed.
Well thats all for now guys but don't worry there is plenty more to come ;). Cheers!!
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Implementing Armor Tactics
The Basics
The fundamental mission of the tank platoon is to close with and destroy the enemy. The platoon's ability to move, shoot, communicate, and provide armored protection is a decisive factor on the modern battlefield. It moves, attacks, defends, and performs other essential tasks to support the company team or troop mission. In accomplishing its assigned missions, the platoon uses fire, maneuver, and shock effect, synchronized with other maneuver elements and with combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) assets. When properly supported, it is capable of conducting sustained operations against any sophisticated threat.
The tank platoon can survive and win in battle, however, only if it is well trained, effectively led, and highly motivated. Crews must be aggressive, and their tactics must reflect the tempo and intensity of maneuver warfare. Platoon training must prepare them to operate in hostile territory with the enemy to their front, flanks, and rear.
The tank crew is a tightly integrated team. Though all members have primary duties, success depends on their effectiveness as a crew. They must work together to maintain and service their tank and equipment, and they must function as one in combat. Crews must cross-train so each member can function at any of the other crew positions.
Platoon Leader
The platoon leader is responsible to the commander for the discipline and training of his platoon, the maintenance of its equipment, and its success in combat. He must be proficient in the tactical employment of his section and of the platoon in concert with a company team or troop. He must have a solid understanding of troop-leading procedures and develop his ability to apply them quickly and efficiently on the battlefield.
The platoon leader must know the capabilities and limitations of the platoon's personnel and equipment; at the same time, he must be well versed in enemy organizations, doctrine, and equipment. He must serve as an effective tank commander (TC). Most important of all, the platoon leader must be flexible, using sound judgment to make correct decisions quickly and at the right times based on his commander's intent and the tactical situation.
Platoon leaders must know and understand the task force mission and the task force commander's intent. They must be prepared to assume the duties of the company commander in accordance with the succession of command.
Platoon Sergeant
The PSG is second in command of the platoon and is accountable to the platoon leader for the training, discipline, and welfare of the soldiers in the platoon. He coordinates the platoon's main tenance and logistics requirements and handles the personal needs of individual soldiers. The PSG is the most experienced TC in the platoon. His tactical and technical knowledge allow him to serve as mentor to crewmen, other NCOs, and the platoon leader. His actions on the battlefield must complement those of the platoon leader. He must fight his section in concert with the platoon leader's section.
Tank Commander
The TC is responsible to the platoon leader and signed equipment, the reporting of logistical needs, and the tactical employment of his tank. He briefs his crew, directs the movement of the tank, submits all reports, and supervises initial first-aid treatment and evacuation of wounded crewmen. He is an expert in using the tank's weapon systems, requesting indirect fires, and executing land navigation.
The TC must know and understand the company mission and company commander's intent. He must be prepared to assume the duties and responsibilities of the platoon leader or PSG in accordance with the succession of command. These requirements demand that the TC maintain situational awareness by using all available optics for observation, by eavesdropping on radio transmissions.
Gunner
The gunner searches for targets and aims and fires both the main gun and the coaxial machine gun. He is responsible to the TC for the maintenance of the tank's armament and fire control equipment. The gunner serves as the assistant TC and assumes the responsibilities of the TC as required. He also assists other crew members as needed. Several of his duties involve the tank's communications and internal control systems: logging onto and monitoring communications nets; maintaining digital links if the tank is equipped with the IVIS or appliqué digital system; inputting graphic control measures on digital overlays; and monitoring digital displays during the planning and preparation phases of an operation.
Driver
The driver moves, positions, and stops the tank. While driving, he constantly searches for covered routes and for covered positions to which he can move if the tank is engaged. He maintains his tank's position in formation and watches for visual signals. If the tank is equipped with a steer-to indicator, the driver monitors the device and selects the best tactical route. During engagements, he assists the gunner and TC by scanning for targets and sensing fired rounds. The driver is responsible to the TC for the automotive maintenance and refueling of the tank. He assists other crewmen as needed.
Ok so now that you know what everyone does in a tank in real life... try to think... "why not adapt this to wargaming?". Now, you might think it's very hard if not impossible; well, no it's not. Except for the number of crew members inside a tank, there is not much more to alter... so in further blog entries i'll be commenting on various different real life tank tactics so you can alter them as you wish and/or need; remember, sky is the limit (at least for tanks lol)
Monday, July 2, 2012
Advanced Wargaming, how to implement real combat tactics into the FPS world
Ok they're just games, but it's funny how the developers of such "games" started not too long ago to call them "combat simulators". And even more; when they are in the development stage, they go through an intensive research on weapons and tactics, and not just getting the "looks" right. So, why not play game in the way a real soldier would act in real combat?. I've been in the military myself, and noticed that when i implement my "knowledge" to Bc2 or Bf3, or any other game in that matter, things go very, and i mean very well. Why?, well most gamers out there try to play the game like if it was a "Jackie Chan movie", pulling off hollywood style stunts. The problem is that, yeah, that might worked with old and almost unrealistic games, but nowdays games are getting more and more realistic, so... wouldn't it be "natural" to start playing in a "realistic" way?. And it does not end there, because, did you know that many military forces in the world use actual games, or software custom made for them by the same gaming companies, to train their troops?. These are the reasons why Arc_Gabriel_08 and I (enxustao) said one day to not only implement this knowledge but to also spread this new gaming "philosophy" we call "Advanced Wargaming".
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Four Lions Trailer (why didn't i know about this movie?)
Friday, June 29, 2012
BF3 Simulator tested by Andy Mcnab
Ok all ye' faithful readers, second blog entry of the day... I came across this video some months ago and thought "Sweet baby Jesus......I so want that crap"...watch and you'll understand. Here is the link to the full video where you can see how they build the "monster": Full 17 minutes video
BF3 engine was designed for the next generation consoles (PS4/Xbox720)
Frostbite 2, the engine that powers Battlefield 3 and the upcoming Medal of Honor Warfighter, was designed from the outset to run on the powerful hardware that next generation consoles will bring, the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 720, according to Patric Soderlund.
Soderlund, who was recently promoted from DICE to EA as the head of their EA Games label, told Gamasutra regarding the high system requirements of the Frotsbite 2 engine:
“Frostbite 2 was built for the next generation. That’s how we started it. We had that in mind and we said, ‘We’re going to have to build something that can scale’. It doesn’t mean that what you see in Battlefield 3 is the end state. That’s the beginning; that’s where we start and then we go forward”
Battlefield 3 has received numerous awards and lots of recognition for its visuals, physics, and other technologies. Soderlund also mentioned that Medal of Honor Warfighter was originally built on the Unreal Engine 3, but when developers saw the possibilities of Frostbite 2, they switched over. EA recently opened a new studio in Sweden to continue working on the engine. So far, three upcoming EA games use the new engine; Need For Speed: The Run, Command & Conquer Generals 2, and MoH Warfighter.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Console (PS3, Xbox360) Vs. PC
Okay, so I just read an article on some lost BF3 blog about Armored Kill and it's features. What made me write this blog entry was the fact that once I concluded reading, I went to the comments section, just to find out that despite the DLC stuff they were supposed to be talking about, they were actually throwing "crap" at each other depending on what platform (console or PC) they choose to play BF3 on. DAAAAAAMN!!!! I thought us Battlefield players had more important shit to kill time with, like... talking about close quarters, which in my humble opinion, is just a CoD face lift Battlefield style. Things like that (close quarters) are the things that really determine where our favorite gaming franchise will go in the future. But again no means to worry, DICE came out with Armored Kill, huge maps, tons of vehicles (6 new, including AC-130 gunship..... ooooh yeah baby) and a new game mode (not revealed yet). So ok, enough advertising and into the matter.
Console vs. PC
This topic is like the "tabu" no gaming company will openly talk about, maybe because even the developer teams are divided in this matter. Since the beginning of videogaming consoles have had the unquestionable dominance of the market. Up until 1984, when Apple Computers came out with the Apple Macintosh, the first "PC" with mouse and GUI. Of course, before that there where some "computers" for gaming, but usually ran on cassettes and took ages just to load the start screen, and when that happened you just didn't wan't to play more or were asleep already LOL.
In the 80's we saw how a flourishing electronics and entertainment industry started to launch products such as the Nintendo 8bit, Atari 8bit, Sega Master System, etc... All running graphic processors faster than the ones present in the latest PC's of that decade (*the 286, 386 and 486 processors*).
The 90's started with not much difference, except that Sega launched the first 16bit console named "GENESIS". Now i'm not going to say it was a giant leap, but big enough to give us titles such as "Sonic the hedgehog" or "Gunstar Heroes" with a graphic quality and detail we did not see till that day. Nintendo, on it's behalf, came out with the "Super Nintendo", a pretty decent platform, although for some reason, as it always happens with Nintendo (for the exception of the Nes 8bit) it didn't sell many units. PC's were improving at a very accelerated pace with the introduction of the Intel processors on Windows Pc's and the PowerPC processor on the Macs. In less that 5 years personal computers had a graphic processing capability beyond the consoles "imagination". Sega strived to survive by launching first, and I believe as a test run, a CD reading unit designed to link with the Sega Genesis granting the 16bit console the graphic capacity of 32bits; and second by launching in the mid 90's the Sega Saturn, the first CD disk console to be made. But due to lack of sells and titles developed for the console SEGA went out of the business of producing consoles (not before making another futile attempt in '97 with the Sega Dreamcast), for the more "friendly" market of game developing. So with nintendo stuck in the 16bit Super Nintendo, and Sega agonizing and praying for Nintendo not to buy them, Sony decided it was their time to jump in with the Playstation 64bit in 1996. This was the "giant leap", not because it used CD's, but it used Carbon CD's which gave the game developers the capacity of storing a lot more information on the disc than the regular digital disc. This translated in much more detailed graphic enviroments, faster movement, and what was better, a wide variety of uses, because it did not only read games (Sega Saturn), it could also be used to play music CD's. . So it isn't wild to say that Playstation was the first fully integrated entertainment system. Plus, now you could save your sessions on something they called the "Memory Card", not having to start all over from the beginning every time you turned on the console and slipped the game in (which in my case stopped me many times from actually playing).
Personal computers where advancing at a similar, if not faster rate. It was popular in the mid-late 90's to play games like Age of Empires, Half-Life , Quake & Unreal Tournament (amongst many, many, and i mean MANY others); it was so damn popular that console manufacturers (even Sony) where having a hard time mainly because of the lack of innovation in the graphic engines, due to shorter processing capacity from the console processors. Around those days Nintendo also put out their new console Nintendo 64 (64bit, duh). Resisting the tendency of using digital discs (stupidly but hey, whatever floats your boat), Nintendo made the last bet for cartridge consoles. Although an amazing R&D job was done, the Nintendo 64 was short lived, again because of lack of developers developing games for the platform, and being more "attractive" a disc console than the traditional cartridge.
THE 21st CENTURY A NEW MILLENIUM
At the beginning of the new millenium (12 years ago, for you stoners xD) Pc's seemed to dominate not only the "office" market, but also the gaming and home entertainment market. At this time Sony had finished the development of their new product, Playstation 2. Now... what can they possibly come out with to better the situation?... damnnnn, they did hit the jackpot. Ok so, if you ever owned a PS2 you probably (if not surely) never noticed the really big step they took. They completly reinvented the gaming console. How?, well, simply by making it a "small" computer. Wow, now that was a radical new concept. You see, for the last 15 to 20 years, consoles have limited themselves to simply "play the disc/cartridge", but now you could go MULTIPLAYER only needing a minimum of 56k of connection to the internet, while many of the most popular PC games required a 1Mb connection, just to run smoothly. Well you could not only play smoothly online with a PS2 and a 56k uplink, but you could also video record (eye toy) and even better, it had a DVD reader built-in. Now that's what i call improvement, full integration, because why would i need 3 machines (console, dvd player, hi-fi stereo) when i can simply have one for less than half the price of buying all the others.
So seeing this formula worked exceptionally well for Sony, Microsoft said... "Hey, we are good (fairly decent in my opinion) in making Pc software, let's make a console", and that is how around the first half of the 00's decade Microsoft launched the Xbox, marking the slow but constant agony of Pc's in the gaming market.
Since 2005, the gaming industry has provided us with two of the most impressive pieces of entertainment technology they have ever created: Playstation 3 & Xbox360. Two consoles, same concept, "integration". These "puppies"are more computers than actual consoles, I've even heard some people call them "smart consoles" or simply "THE entertainment system", and believe me, both suit them perfectly.
CONCLUSION
Yes, Pc's have much more powerful hardware; yes, they SOMETIMES have nicer graphics; yes, you can use them for a lot of stuff. But that's the thing, they aren't meant for exclusively gaming, although neither are the new consoles (PS3/Xbox360), lets try to think of it in a PRAGMATIC way:
Let's say I am a Pc gamer (which you can tell i am not lol) and i'm playing BF3 on my super PC... suddenly... BLUE SCREEN....SHIEEET!!!!!, what happened?.... i take it to repair and they tell me i have a virus... how did i get it?, gee it must have been the bizarre porn i was watching last night...
What i mean to say with this example is that, if i just let the Pc to do what it is meant to do... "work"... (yeah right, lol) and had a console for gaming/entertainment, i wouldn't get my ass bored off until they fixed my Pc because i could still go turn on my PS3/Xbox360 and entertain myself... even with "work" (LOL, yeah PS3/Xbox360 have internet browsers built-in so you can surf the net for...."work"). So may the consoles be for gaming/entertainment and the Pc's for.....yeah whatever floats your boat.
* If you own a 286, 386 or 486 computer you must know that you can sell it to NASA, yes, NASA, because it is the technology the space shuttle uses (ironic huh), so go to the garage and brush the dust off the old dinosaur xD.
P.S.: Yes i know i didn't mention the Nintendo Game Cube nor the Wii, but c'mon, not to be mean but let's be honest... it's Nintendo, they still believe in the world of pixies and fairies.... xD
Console vs. PC
This topic is like the "tabu" no gaming company will openly talk about, maybe because even the developer teams are divided in this matter. Since the beginning of videogaming consoles have had the unquestionable dominance of the market. Up until 1984, when Apple Computers came out with the Apple Macintosh, the first "PC" with mouse and GUI. Of course, before that there where some "computers" for gaming, but usually ran on cassettes and took ages just to load the start screen, and when that happened you just didn't wan't to play more or were asleep already LOL.
In the 80's we saw how a flourishing electronics and entertainment industry started to launch products such as the Nintendo 8bit, Atari 8bit, Sega Master System, etc... All running graphic processors faster than the ones present in the latest PC's of that decade (*the 286, 386 and 486 processors*).
Personal computers where advancing at a similar, if not faster rate. It was popular in the mid-late 90's to play games like Age of Empires, Half-Life , Quake & Unreal Tournament (amongst many, many, and i mean MANY others); it was so damn popular that console manufacturers (even Sony) where having a hard time mainly because of the lack of innovation in the graphic engines, due to shorter processing capacity from the console processors. Around those days Nintendo also put out their new console Nintendo 64 (64bit, duh). Resisting the tendency of using digital discs (stupidly but hey, whatever floats your boat), Nintendo made the last bet for cartridge consoles. Although an amazing R&D job was done, the Nintendo 64 was short lived, again because of lack of developers developing games for the platform, and being more "attractive" a disc console than the traditional cartridge.
THE 21st CENTURY A NEW MILLENIUM
At the beginning of the new millenium (12 years ago, for you stoners xD) Pc's seemed to dominate not only the "office" market, but also the gaming and home entertainment market. At this time Sony had finished the development of their new product, Playstation 2. Now... what can they possibly come out with to better the situation?... damnnnn, they did hit the jackpot. Ok so, if you ever owned a PS2 you probably (if not surely) never noticed the really big step they took. They completly reinvented the gaming console. How?, well, simply by making it a "small" computer. Wow, now that was a radical new concept. You see, for the last 15 to 20 years, consoles have limited themselves to simply "play the disc/cartridge", but now you could go MULTIPLAYER only needing a minimum of 56k of connection to the internet, while many of the most popular PC games required a 1Mb connection, just to run smoothly. Well you could not only play smoothly online with a PS2 and a 56k uplink, but you could also video record (eye toy) and even better, it had a DVD reader built-in. Now that's what i call improvement, full integration, because why would i need 3 machines (console, dvd player, hi-fi stereo) when i can simply have one for less than half the price of buying all the others.
So seeing this formula worked exceptionally well for Sony, Microsoft said... "Hey, we are good (fairly decent in my opinion) in making Pc software, let's make a console", and that is how around the first half of the 00's decade Microsoft launched the Xbox, marking the slow but constant agony of Pc's in the gaming market.
Since 2005, the gaming industry has provided us with two of the most impressive pieces of entertainment technology they have ever created: Playstation 3 & Xbox360. Two consoles, same concept, "integration". These "puppies"are more computers than actual consoles, I've even heard some people call them "smart consoles" or simply "THE entertainment system", and believe me, both suit them perfectly.
CONCLUSION
Yes, Pc's have much more powerful hardware; yes, they SOMETIMES have nicer graphics; yes, you can use them for a lot of stuff. But that's the thing, they aren't meant for exclusively gaming, although neither are the new consoles (PS3/Xbox360), lets try to think of it in a PRAGMATIC way:
Let's say I am a Pc gamer (which you can tell i am not lol) and i'm playing BF3 on my super PC... suddenly... BLUE SCREEN....SHIEEET!!!!!, what happened?.... i take it to repair and they tell me i have a virus... how did i get it?, gee it must have been the bizarre porn i was watching last night...
What i mean to say with this example is that, if i just let the Pc to do what it is meant to do... "work"... (yeah right, lol) and had a console for gaming/entertainment, i wouldn't get my ass bored off until they fixed my Pc because i could still go turn on my PS3/Xbox360 and entertain myself... even with "work" (LOL, yeah PS3/Xbox360 have internet browsers built-in so you can surf the net for...."work"). So may the consoles be for gaming/entertainment and the Pc's for.....yeah whatever floats your boat.
* If you own a 286, 386 or 486 computer you must know that you can sell it to NASA, yes, NASA, because it is the technology the space shuttle uses (ironic huh), so go to the garage and brush the dust off the old dinosaur xD.
P.S.: Yes i know i didn't mention the Nintendo Game Cube nor the Wii, but c'mon, not to be mean but let's be honest... it's Nintendo, they still believe in the world of pixies and fairies.... xD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)