Well, now we’re getting into territory that’s not only hard to define, but likely even harder to agree on a definition.
Your comment about “platforming sections in a 3d game are less likely to contain complex jumps” is demonstrably untrue…unless you were perhaps specifically referring to FPSs (which I suspect is what you intended, right?). Because if not, there are plenty of 3rd-person action/adventure games on the consoles (Mario Galaxy, Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted 2, Metroid Prime 1, 2, 3) that feature a hefty amount of platforming–that perhaps ironically–wouldn’t be as “precise” with a mouse and keyboard.
On the shooter front…is that really true? Half-Life 2, which was designed primarily for the PC, was ported without any sacrifice in the level design at all. And as I recall, that game had a good amount of ‘platforming.’ In fact, Half-Life 2 pretty much counters all of your arguments–the enemy spawn locations are identical, as are their AI patterns. Granted, Half-Life 2 is a few years old, but the case is the same for every Value game since, so far as I can tell. Episodes 1, 2, Left4Dead 1 and 2, were all ported without any core gameplay sacrifices.
Unless you’re perhaps arguing that the mere existence of the consoles is causing the platforming elements to be sacrificed across the board for FPSs? Again, is that true? (I haven’t noticed, but then again, I’ve never really thought–or cared–about it either). I would question how much the consoles themselves have to do with this than perhaps a general industry trend to minimize platforming in shooters.
You’re right that auto-aim is included in most console shooters, as is the option to disable it (which I always do). Maybe it’s just because I’m better than most at gaming (it is my job after all), but I have never had a problem aiming using the control stick. But for those who do, auto-aim’s purpose is to essentially compensate for the loss of precision that the control stick brings, which should (in concept) bring the difficultly level in harmony with the PC version.
As for your ‘difficult portions being scripted’ remark–what? Halo has, what seems to be, some of the least scripted enemy encounters I’ve seen in a shooter, in contrast to Half-Life 2, for instance, where many of the enemies are ‘on-rails’ and can’t stray from a very confined path. Killzone 2 (a game I despised, btw…) also had relatively dynamic AI that didn’t seem to hinder their movement.
I don’t know–it feels like we could sit here and cherry pick examples and counter-examples all day. I mean, when games such as Far Cry 2 exist across both platforms and features, what are perhaps the least scripted encounters of most recent shooters, I find it difficult to point to any general trends (that may or may not objectively exist) and then point to the mere existence of consoles as the cause.
Slight clarification: I meant to use the Metroid series as an example of featuring platforming in an FPS (or 1st person action/adenture), and not a “3rd person action-/adventure.”
Which has nothing to do with the original mention of emulation in this thread. Originally, BigT was claiming that being able to pirate old NES and SNES games is a point in the PC platform’s favor.
I was merely saying that that’s a shitty position to take.
A few posts before you made this I detailed exactly how you’d go about making the $450 PC. Well, I did say “find a case with power supply locally for $60 or $70” instead of listing a specific model, but everything else there includes model numbers and links to newegg. A 3 ghz CPU and GTX285 are not minimums required for gaming… you could get a 2.5 ghz CPU for considerably cheaper and a 9800GT instead and so you have 20 times the power of an xbox 360 instead of 30. It’s still a fine system.
I’m not sure there’s anything morally wrong with acquiring games where even if you made a thorough good faith effort to compensate the creators, you couldn’t find a way to. Or for that matter playing games you owned on that system… I owned dozens of games for old consoles over the years, and while I’m not really interested in emulating them, I wouldn’t feel bad if I did.
I don’t understand how you think this bolsters your argument. It works against you.
Half-life 2 was released in 2004, before any of the current generation of consoles. It was developed solely for the PC, and later ported to be released on the consoles. So there were no compromises, no multiplatform development, no dumbing down. It pushed the technology that was available at the time, and it’s only a coincidence that because the consoles came out shortly thereafter that they had the horsepower to run a port of the game.
It’s an interesting example to pick, though. There were 6 years between the release of Half-life 1 and Half-life 2. If you can, go back and play each and marvel at how much progress was made in that 6 years, how the gameplay experience was enriched in pretty much every way. This used to be the way of PC gaming - we were constantly pushing the boundaries of what we knew was possible in gaming.
Now compare that to the 5 years between today and the release of half-life 2. How far have we come? Nowhere, really. If you played Half-life 1 in 2004, it’d still be a good game, but it would feel ancient. However, if you played half-life 2 today, it would still feel like a modern game, better than most games released today. We’ve made no technological progress from gaming in those 5 years. The hardware has - the CPU and GPU hardware available today is vastly more powerful and has more features than the stuff that was available in 2004, but the gaming development has not at all kept pace with it… because they are stuck using the set-in-stone 2005 technology of the lowest common denomnator of the multiplatform target.
We’ve gone from being amazed at things we’ve never seen before being done on a regular basis in PC gaming to having technological stagnation for 5 years… and we’ve still got at least another 5 years to go on this generation of consoles, so we’re going to see a decade of stagnation.
Take the Call of Duty games. Games 1 through 4 were clearly all more advanced than the last, and gave a new gameplay experience. I just played through call of duty 6, and it could’ve easily been an expansion pack on Call of Duty 4. Basically the same engine, the same capabilities, with a new campaign and set of weapons. Call of duty 8 will be the same thing too.
Of course. If you develop for the consoles first, and just port the game to PC as an afterthought, you aren’t going to take advantage of the flexible and precise control schemes that PCs allow, you aren’t going to take advantage of the greater processing power they allow (and not just for graphics - physics, AI, level of detail that greater memory allows, etc).
my point is that though the two are on separate platforms, 3D FPS are designed for the console and ported for the PC. and yes, i agree it’s the developer’s fault, though i can see the allure of not having to overhaul your game to fully utilise a platform when it also works as is.
me too. so much more could be done for the genre if it’s not limited to the gamepad. like Spectralist said, this could be UI and other stuff. the example i was thinking of was the 3D setting. in Bioshock, it seems enemies only appear on the same level as you are, or at most one level above or below you. seriously about as useful as a side-scroller in 3D. i want huge, multi-storey buildings where you can snipe from one; to parachute from the roof and be able to shoot wherever the enemies may be; to fear and have to look not only forwards, backwards, left and right, but also up and down!
let me put it another way - if all consoles were to come with keyboard and mouse instead of gamepads and games are designed in such an environment, a gamepad user would be severely crippled while playing. the scale is obviously not balanced and that is what i’m trying to say. i’m not saying you’re not having fun with your console right now, but that I am not having fun with the way most games are designed for the consoles and labelled ‘multi-platform’.
That’s actually not quite right–there was a fantastic port of Half-Life 2 for the original Xbox that retained all of the gameplay, and had few visual sacrifices aside from the usual resolution and texture difference (but it did have an improved lighting model, oddly enough).
See, this is actually where we differ. I felt Half-Life 2 was inferior to its predecessor, as an overall experience, and I’m still not convinced the “progress” since the original has been, ultimately, that significant. The use of physics was an interesting–if over-hyped–feature (imo), as was the gravity gun it enabled.
You say that as if the PC platform was the only one pushing boundaries, where I would argue that the consoles had their own equally significant (if not more so–again, imo) achievements. But to be fair, I am talking mostly in regards to a generation or two back–much as you seem to be. Using your logic, however, I suppose it would seem that the cross-platform development of PC and consoles has actually hampered the console’s progression (or, as it might seem to be, both are being harmed by the homogenization of the industry.)
Well, again, I felt Half-Life 1 was the better of the two, but for the sake of the argument, let’s assume Half-Life 2 is objectively superior in every category. The reason we have not seen as large as developments in the most recent generation is because of that pesky law of diminishing returns. Frankly, it would seem hardware got to a point in this last generation or so that most developer’s ambitions could be fully realized–something that may not (and likely not) was true for the generation prior. Short of slightly upgraded graphics (by comparison) and other incremental technological advances, any game a developer could think of has been practical for the last several years.
I think you’re lending the old Call of Duty games much more credit than they deserve. Based on my experience, Call of Duty 1, 2, and 3 all played near identically (hell, it was widely recognized by reviewers that 3 was the a step-down from 2). Modern Warfare (or CoD4) did do some interesting things from a gameplay perspective, but how much of that really was due to hardware advancements as opposed to the drive to do something new? I doubt much.
I really do think you’re attributing way too much to the hardware than you should be. Better graphics aren’t going to compensate for poor gameplay, and there’s little that can be done with a state-of-the-art computer, from a purely gameplay perspective, that a current-gen console wouldn’t be capable of. The console side too saw rapid development in terms of game design for generations–Mario 64 was a watershed moment for the entire industry! But I’ve long felt this most recent generation of consoles has been the worst yet, but I attribute that no more to the PC side of gaming as I do to the industry at large.
Graphics, sure (but anything game-changing–please). Physics–there’s been plenty of advancement for games that require it, such as Mercenaries 2, or that horrible Battlefield game. And I’ve read plenty of articles that (IIRC) purport the main limitation of of A.I. isn’t memory–it’s programming. Basically, A.I. just amounts to a really large table of “if this, do this,” and filling in that table is actually the tricky bit. And let’s not forget that while Half-Life may have ready stepped-up the level of AI for FPSs, it was a console game, Halo, that took it to the next level. And there have been incremental improvements since–F.E.A.R., or Killzone 2 for instance, but I think you’re grossly over-estimating both the capibilities of AI with current (not-hardware) limitations as well as their overall impact on a game–let’s not forget the average baddie lives for, what, no more than 20 seconds on average? What kind of intelligence would you like to see demonstrated in that time?
In conclusion, I actually sort of agree with your overall point that games have stagnated, however, I would apply this to the industry at large instead of pointing fingers specifically at consoles and/or PCs being the catalyst (though that may be because we seem to fundamentally disagree on what’s important to a game–clearly you believe state-of-the-art graphics are crucial, I do not).
No I don’t just mean FPSs. Take Mario64 for example, if you had a mouse most of the jumps would be unbelievably easy. But using a stick many of them are quite difficult because it’s near impossible to line up the camera just right with a stick. And that influences level design. They design the levels around the control scheme(as well they should!) but then when they port such a game to a PC it typically feels unusually simplistic.
Again it’s not just FPSs it’s any game where the position/angle of the camera dictates how your character moves and where you can control that camera.
And the mere existence of auto aim or lockon systems is going to effect any good level designer. And it should. But then when the levels get ported to the PC with no tweaks from the console version and the gamer wants to turn off auto aim(if they even can, screw you Bethesda!). Then the levels are going to feel slightly off as they assume features that aren’t enabled.
I didn’t mean necessarily in battle. Take Uncharted for example. When you come across a jump puzzle it’s typically blatantly obvious what you have to do. The player is scripted into a set of jumps that he or she cannot deviate from*. Even worse the game doesn’t actually use any sort of collision detection for many of them and decides at the start of the jump whether or not you made it correctly(and gives a completely different jump animation depending on what it decides) rather than waiting until the end of the jump and detecting whether or not you made it to the ledge. This gives the game a very “on rails” feel. You’re almost always controlled by developers on what you need to do to pass an area but, generally, console games don’t seem to hide it as well as PC games. But again there’s nothing in the consoles themselves that says it should be this way. It just seems to be far more common in console games.
*I know this isn’t how the word scripted is usually used but I couldn’t think of a better word for it.
We’re not back into this silly “PC gaming is dying” thing, are we? While 15 million PCs are installed with the most financially successful video game ever created?
As long as people have computers, they will want games to play on them.
What, so one mediocre but extremely popular game being successful somehow proves that development for PC games isn’t in a period of massive stagnation and even regression considering that games aren’t even developed to take advantage of the PC’s features?
I’ve been involved in PC gaming for all of my life and there’s never been a relatively worse period than the last 2 or 3 years than I’ve ever seen - and it’s only going to get worse because the PC hardware will get better for the next few years while game development still centers around 2005 technology.
“My main hobby is being destroyed” actually means “Companies aren’t making games I want to play right now”
Game players (and let’s be honest here, this especially true of PC game players) often drama-queen-it-up and expand that out to the whole industry being full of nothing but crappy games that no one in their right mind would play.
Yeah, personal insults completely nullify all of the factual points I made about multiplatform development on systems with vastly different technical capabilities and control system.
I mean, seriously - how could it not?
And how is “Companies aren’t making games I want to play right now” not actually a measurement by which one would judge the health of their hobby? If the reason companies aren’t making games that I want to play “right now” is because they simplify their games both in gameplay and technically because all of their development needs to be compatable with 5 year old technology in an industry where amazing progress is made all the time, and that this situation isn’t going to change anytime in the next few years and hence “they won’t be making the games I want to play in the future” either, how is this not actually a sign that my hobby is dying?
:rolleyes: Your main hobby is not being destroyed. “Video games” have never been stronger as an industry or as a cultural force. The particular type of game you like to play is becoming harder to find. Nothing more, nothing less.
If that’s not dramatic enough for you, please direct your tears to fans of adventure games, sidescrolling shooters, sidescrolling platformers, arcade-style sports games and a variety of other genres that are being pushed out by the same games that are pushing out your genre of choice.
I don’t care how strong video games are as a cultural force or how popular they are. No one watched Firefly or Arrested development and they died early deaths, and yet boring as fuck sitcoms survive for 12 years. Telling me that TV ratings are higher than ever does not make me feel good about that fact.
It’s not only that the games I like are being pushed out, it’s the fact that the easiest path to take is to develop for consoles and then release a shitty port for PC (shitty in this case meaning equal to the consoles). You get games like “Civilization: Revolutions” instead of Civilization 4, both because the console controls are inferior and because console gamers probably don’t want long, slow strategy games. This whole thing is happening to an industry on a large scale. You lose depth, complexity, interface, design, technical factors, etc. Instead of Lock On: Modern Air Combat, you get Ace Combat 5 or HAWX. Instead of getting a modern warfare 2 that blows your mind with the new edges it pushes in gaming, you get basically modern warfare: the expansion pack. The problem is not only that entire genres are dying (although this is true), but even what remains is stagnant and inferior.
The irony you don’t see here is that the reason that gaming has “never been better” is essentially that the current generation of consoles are just crappy PCs. So you’ve elevated console gaming somewhat. But at the cost of pulling down actual PC gaming and forcing an industry to be stagnant FOR A DECADE in an industry where there’s dramatic change from year to year. So to you, console gaming has never been better because it essentially closes some of the gap towards becoming PC gaming. You’re looking from the end that has been pulled up, not the end that has been pulled down.
Blah blah blah. More PC vs consoles crap that doesn’t effect the vast majority of games players in the world. I’m sorry the stuff you like is being pushed out, but there are still plenty of great games out there and there will always be great games out there. New Super Mario Bros. Wii is proof positive of that.
Also, please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said gaming has “never been better”, I said it’s never been stronger as an industry. Big difference. You’re talking about specific games and I’m talking about a chance to grow and reach more players in the future.
Finally, if you’d stop and get off your “PC gamer” mentality once in a while, you’d realize that consoles and PCs have always been connected. What do you think inspired the guys at id to get into games in the first place? It was Super Mario Bros. on the NES.
I already said that I’m happy with the coexistance of consoles that try to cover a different gaming spectrum than PCs. I already said that I think the Wii is fine and could coexist with PC gaming without harming it. I wish the other consoles were more like the Wii.
It’s the X360 and PS3 which just try to be shitty PCs that are locked into a particular point in technology for a decade that really bother me. So a great Mario game coming out for the Wii doesn’t bother me at all.
I completely disagree. You’re right, camera control would be better in Mario 64 with a mouse, just as it would be if Mario 64 were re-released today on a modern console–camera control has come a long way in games since Mario 64 regardless of platform. Take Mario Galaxy, for example, which features a near-flawless camera that rarely needs direction from the player. Add to that many games have a fully rotatable camera, via the right-stick, and often a ‘center behind character’ button, the need for a mouse is practically non-existent.
Not to mention I have never heard anyone praise controlling a 3rd-person platformer character using a keyboard. Mario 64 introduced the analog stick for a reason–it needed it. Four-way directional arrows wouldn’t cut it. In fact, I remember numerous reviews of the PC version calling out the awkward nature of controlling Splinter Cell’s Sam Fisher via the keyboard instead of the analog stick.
And I again I disagree that camera control that precise is beneficial in most any genre aside from FPSs (and even that’s subjectuve), plus it comes with the aforementioned pitfall of poor character control.
I seriously doubt auto aim makes that significant of a difference, considering plenty of PC games have been ported to consoles long before consoles were the primary development platform (Quake, Half-Life, Half-Life 2, etc). We’re going to have to agree to disagree here,
Not necessarily in battle? Did you actually mean that originally? Short of my Uncharted example, few games would fit that same mold, imo–Uncharted’s kind of its own beast.
But you’re right–about Uncharted specifically . That’s more due to the developer’s clear intentions to make platforming as simple as possible (not because of game pad limitations, as plenty of games–such as Ratchet and Clank, have proven that to be a non-issue), thereby emphasizing the combat. I can’t recall any big games similar to Uncharted in recent years that mixed combat with such simplistic platforming. That aside, I’m not quite sure you’re seemingly treating it as a negative. Uncharted wasn’t trying to be a great platformer–it was trying to be a great shooter with platforming elements, in which it succeeded.
Why do you believe so much that hardware actually impacts the quality of the game so much? You don’t believe that the law of diminishing returns is applicable here?
I don’t care if you have a PC 10x more powerful than what you have now–games are not magically going to play better because they have higher-res textures.
Did any of the Call of Duties really blow anyone’s mind? It would seem that the one that came closest to that would be Modern Warfare, and that was primarily a console-developed title, right?
Why wouldn’t impact the games? How is it not better to have a game run at several times the resolution, or have better textures, or better post processing effects, or more physics detail, or more interactable objects.
All throughout gaming history better hardware has allowed for a more immersive experience, and gives developers more tools to create the games that they want.
I don’t even see how this is arguable. Gaming has always pushed new boundaries in pretty much every way. The difference between wolfenstein 3d and battlefield 1942 was a decade. Imagine if we’d decided in 1992 that wolfensten 3d level technology was advanced enough for a decade and decided to stagnate there, like designed lifetime of the current generation of consoles.
The severe contraction in the breadth of PC game genres is NOT evidence that the hobby is being destroyed, or at least that the PC market is not thriving? Amazing how you can look at that set of genres, which are now extinct on the PC, and use it to argue the opposite viewpoint. Add this to the list: flight sims, modern naval combat sims (1st and 3rd person-Dangerous Waters & Harpoon series respectively), tank sims (teetering on the brink, one canceled title in the past year, one online-only sim (Red Orchestra), one standalone (Steel Beasts)). I’ll repeat sports sims because I’d love to play a hockey or baseball title for the PC, if they only made some.
This is a pet peeve of mine, I’ll admit, but I hate that PC gamers want to pigeonhole themselves as special and separate from console gamers.
Once again, nothing about “the hobby” is being destroyed. PC gamemakers are moving on to different genres and leaving genres you like in the dust. It sucks, and you have my sympathy, but the same is happening to console gamers. Look at myself or Red Barchetta or Cisco (who I don’t see around much anymore). We love sidescrollers and outside of a handful of games a year (although more now since the success of Mega Man 9), you don’t see sidescrollers on consoles anymore.
That doesn’t mean “the hobby” is being destroyed. It just means games we love are harder to come by.