As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Complexity, games and condescending arseholes
DodgeBlan
PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
PSN: dodgeblanRegistered User regular
So i watched the Zero Punctuation feature on Bioshock, and I'm currently playing it. He thinks that it has been dumbed down for the 'console tards' and the 'console tards' think that he is a 'pc elitist dick'. I've never played SS2, but I can certainly believe that Bioshock is in many ways a simplified objectivist high def version.
There was a time when the PC was the bastion of extremely complex games: from mech sims to complex ww2 history games. I remember reading a PC mag where Grand Prix Legends (a hardcore sim) was described as the greatest racing game ever, and now nobody even remembers it. I guarantee it would fail if released today. Deus Ex and Thief, two of the great examples of PC complexity were simplified (to varying degrees) for the console incarnations. Rainbow Six is now almost unrecognizable.
So is the console to blame? I think not. This trend towards simplification can't really be attributed to the rise of consoles, as it has occured across pretty much every major franchise (except MGS3). If you go back and play Ocarina of Time again, I guarantee you will get stuck more times than you did on your first play through of Twilight Princess. The MMO, which stepped into the graphical world with Ultima Online has become World of Warcraft. Wild, lawless and incredibly high learning curve frontier has become a well regulated and safe playground.
So what do you think? Are games simpler now, or are they just not growing faster than our familiarity? Do you mourn the death of the sim and the adventure game? Would Bioshock be any better if you had to choose a class and you weren't given unlimited lives?
There was a time when the PC was the bastion of extremely complex games: from mech sims to complex ww2 history games. I remember reading a PC mag where Grand Prix Legends (a hardcore sim) was described as the greatest racing game ever, and now nobody even remembers it. I guarantee it would fail if released today. Deus Ex and Thief, two of the great examples of PC complexity were simplified (to varying degrees) for the console incarnations. Rainbow Six is now almost unrecognizable.
So is the console to blame? I think not. This trend towards simplification can't really be attributed to the rise of consoles, as it has occured across pretty much every major franchise (except MGS3). If you go back and play Ocarina of Time again, I guarantee you will get stuck more times than you did on your first play through of Twilight Princess. The MMO, which stepped into the graphical world with Ultima Online has become World of Warcraft. Wild, lawless and incredibly high learning curve frontier has become a well regulated and safe playground.
So what do you think? Are games simpler now, or are they just not growing faster than our familiarity? Do you mourn the death of the sim and the adventure game? Would Bioshock be any better if you had to choose a class and you weren't given unlimited lives?
DodgeBlan on
0
Posts
The simplification can be blamed on consoles for certain types of games. Things like sticky aim and full on auto-aim aren't necessary with a PC title. You can also typically manage units in an RTS situation with a dozen hotkeys and full mouse capability a lot better than you can using an analogue scroll stick.
I do not think this trend will continue forever. I m hopeful that systems like the Wii make it so that you get all the benefits of a console game:
Ease of use.
Lack of need for upgrades.
Good buddy list management.
Level playing field.
While at the same time the familiarity and quick-to-master control style still allows a great deal of control and motion, able to closely match what is available on the pc today.
It probably wont happen for another two generations in my opinion, but it is happening.
Also, I hate to say it. Yes, Bioshock would have been a much deeper and more interesting game had console development been out of the picture. Even the addition of an inventory management system and the ability to properly manage plasmids without maneuvering though the clunky made-for-console menus would have been nice.
Also, I can't help but think the respawn-tube system was made the way it was simply for the sake of consoles having to rely on checkpoints. It ruined the atmosphere and risk based underwater about to die environment almost completely for me.
I also like to think that a pure PC version may have had some online play support via simple ip connect like SS2 did... 8 years ago. That may not be entirely realistic, but I firmly believe the other stuff is.
But does that make the game dumbed down or streamlined? It's really a matter of perception, and you'll always get elitist pricks who think their console or their PC is better than the others..
What you're seeing here is a large percentage of gamers who use PC's to game and to browse the nets with (the same medium you see the "console tards" argument on) and deliver a message about their preferred gaming box. The "console tards" don't usually have many supporters as they don't use the internet as much as PC gamers (not to say they don't use the net at all).
To summarize my rambling: Games are more streamlined, but the popular perception of dumbing down games for console users is merely a coincidence and not a consequence.
Bullshit. Firstly, if you can show me one interview where Ken Levine or anyone else on the Bioshock team says something like "We wanted to do all this stuff, but ... you know ... Xbox LOL", then I'll eat my motherfucking cock. Secondly, and I've had this debate before, inventories != depth. What the hell is it that makes people think that arranging items on a grid is some kind of heady exercise that only bulbous-brained PC gamers can hope to understand?
Deus Ex was not a deep game because it had inventory Tetris. SS2 was not a deep game because it had inventory Tetris. No fucking game ever has been deep because it had inventory Tetris.
Yes, because super-genius PC gamer favourite, System Shock 2, certainly didn't have anything similar. I mean, there were those Quantum Reconstruction Chambers that respawned you every time you died, but they were totally different because ... uh ... they weren't made for console. Right?
(Incidentally, I'm pretty sure Yahtzee was taking the piss with that comment about Bioshock being "dumbed-down" for console. You know, just like he was with the rest of that review.)
So all of that stuff is no longer a part of the current game development atmosphere. Sucks if you were into high difficulty but it's kinda unavoidable. Also, difficulty and depth are usually not syonymous. Frustration and depth are almost never syonymous. These days i'd rather play games that don't require 80 hours to finish, cuz i don't have that kinda time or cuz there are two other games i'm trying to get to.
The PC still has plenty of them, and even consoles have them as well.
On the other hand, PC gaming has also always had simplistic games as well, throughout its history. As a matter of fact, I would argue that extremely simplified 'casual games' have always been way, way more popular on the PC than any of the extremely complex games.
The only difference now is that we're starting to see a middle ground on the PC, where there are games that are simpler than some PC stuff but not as simple as the casual games.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Except on the pc it did cost resources to use a tube. You couldn't just run up and wrench Shodan to death. You also had weapon decay, which was fine because you had an inventory and a set of skills you could develop to keep them repaired.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they could have made all that stuff work on a console. It sure seems like they wished they had an inventory system a good portion of the time. The combat seemed balanced for a small set of weapons, not a rack of never ending weaponry strapped to your back by the time you're 4 hours in. Plus there's the whole food laying around thing.
I really wish someone merely suggesting that a game could have been improved upon, or they'd have even just preferred to play it on a pc would stop being seen as some sort of console bashing elitist hatred. Really, I'm not making fun of the cock size of console owners or throwing bags of flaming shit on your porch... because I happen to be a console owner. Someone with a console mentions Halo is the best fps ever and someone else contends that they prefer Half-Life and somehow, the Half-Life fan is elitist. I don't run around boasting at how awesome and superior PC shmups and platformers are, because I accept the majority of good titles are on consoles. A little bit of reciprocated respect would be nice.
Edit: And the fucking inventory is what made Deus Ex a good game, you try fitting every goddamn gun in your inventory at the end of the game. It can't be done... you're forced to pick your favorites. Maybe someday, 11 years from now when Ken Levine gets to write a book like some of the stuff id software has put out based around their development of the doom and quake games, we'll find out if he wanted an inventory system. The PC version of Bioshock, awesome as it may have been, definitely felt like a console port.
Reconstruction Chambers, if I recall correctly, are not on every deck in SS2. ANd they have to be activated. So, you can still die in SS2. I sure as shit did. The huge difference is that it is functionally impossible to die in Bioshock. Honestly, I'm not sure which is better. Bioshock loses a good bit of intensity, but it's still exciting, I've never gotten stuck, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.
edit - beaten
Back to the topic at hand, PC Games in general were complicated affairs before PC Gaming became less exclusive and more mainstream. Today there are still about as many complex games (PC is still the only real place to go for 4X games for example), but in general other more mainstream genres have come to the front now, as is to be expected. Some games have adapted by simplifying and streamlining their interfaces and gameplay in order to make it easier to get into for a larger player base. That's not because of consoles, that's just business sense.
Would I have liked a slightly more in-depth system in Bioshock? Sure, but I don't think it's consoles that are the reason they did that. It's just being less insular in order to sell more.
My problem with games like Bioshock and R6:Vegas on PC don't really involve the depth of the gameplay. Moreso they just feel like awful ports of a console game (not so much Bioshock). It's the shift in attitude towards PC gaming by the people who want to make moneyhats. They develop for the lowest common denominator and then don't even bother fixing things (in the case of Vegas) like the UI, netcode, server browser, etc.
The most extreme and obvious example of this was the sequel to Deus Ex. It still had code in the configs for the fucking X-box. I understand you want to make a multi-platform game that is available to a wide audience, but don't pull that kind of shit.
Gamers are also getting more adept at their hobby so the games you think are simple may be ridiculously complex to a novice.
...
I honestly can't believe you just said that. Leaving aside the fact that the PS2 version of DX is just as fucking good as the PC original (and I know this, having played both multiple times), you seriously think that inventory management is what made Deus Ex brilliant? You think that if Ion Storm had taken out inventory Tetris, everything else - the brilliant level design, story, dialogue, and characters - would have amounted to nothing?
Why do you even bother to play games at all? Why not just buy a big cardboard box and see how many different things you can fit inside it? Man, that'd be just like real-life version of Deus Ex!
Was Bioshock dumbed down from SS2? Pretty much, yeah. Is it the console's fault, or the market's fault, or a descision to make the game more open? Probably the third.
Though I do blame the Xbox version of Morrowind for getting rid of nudity in the base version of the PC game. The models were so horrible they were probably doing me a favor.
See, that part is just nonsense. What typically happens is that someone will call Halo their favourite shooter, and then some PC elitist will come in and say "Halo is a mediocre game to anyone who has played shooters for X number of years on the PC, where shooters are always better, etc etc." Bit of a difference there. And an inventory system is not the only way to limit weapon choices. Just look at Halo, where it was done perfectly.
Yes. Are you surprised?
As a side-note, how is having that idiotic respawn system a consolification of the game? Most console shooters use a checkpoint save system, which is completely different than what Bioshock does. Nowadays I actually prefer it to Quicksave/Quickload, because you can't just inch your way through the game, saving every time you accomplish something.
Did a PC kick your ass in grade school and make the girls laugh at you or something? Inventory can easily be done on a console, that's not the point. It's designing something without having to shy from complexity, hoping you're not alienating your biggest market.
Except now, the market that ends out alienated is often the one that supported the development houses in the first place. Rainbow Six goes to console and it becomes something definitely not Rainbow Six. Tribes? Thief? Deus Ex? GRAW? You don't even have to say that the games became bad (some did, some improved) but merely suggesting it changed them somehow is akin to ramming a baseball bat with a nail through it up a fervid console fans mothers vagina.
I guess not. Only I got enough of people telling me I was an idiot purely for still playing PC games in the last thread as it was. Bah, I was hoping for some other discussion this early in the morning.
/ exits thread before the fireworks really start.
The 3rd reason is exactly it, you hit it.
System Shock 2 was fun because it was restrictive to all the good parts of the game. It was more rewarding to upgrade my character and weapons because it was so hard to do.
So instead of blaming consoles, how about you blame publishers for wanting their games more accessible so they can make more money? Or blame developers for not being creative enough to make a decent, balanced system in lieu of a full-blown and clunky inventory system? There are many more factors than just "lol console port."
Actually, it usually starts with "Halo is the best shooter ever made." Someone usually ends out saying "While Halo was an alright game, it was nothing new when compared to the library of shooters available in all flavors for the PC."
Coincidence would also have it that Halo wasn't the first game ever to limit you to two or three weapons. The system is also hardly perfect when someone wants to say... carry a rifle and a backup rifle in case the first one breaks and their character has progressed with rifles very much in mind for this game. What if you want to use a bunch of smallish weapons. That was my favorite in Deus Ex, going through it with a pistol, crossbow, throwing knives, and a bunch of different explosives.
They could (and eventually did) let you do that on a console, but because the game was developed for the PC they didn't have to add a bunch of features to make it PC friendly. As it is now they strip a bunch of shit out to make it "console friendly" and then you end out with a lackluster PC game. The console friendly part isn't even about computing power anymore, it's what they think the market wants... I have a feeling if you let console gamers play complicated things, they'd probably end out a little smarter than they're given credit for.
Edit: I'm not fucking blaming anyone. That's the problem, I'm not attacking consoles. There can still be a cause and effect without blaming someone or demanding they change their crazy unfairness right this instant. If you read my very first post I say I don't think it will continue much longer, I myself would like to stop upgrading my PC just so I can play games I enjoy. That doesn't mean that I really like it when they take what could have been an awesome sequel/continuation of some of my favorite PC games and turn them into dumbed down multi-platform dogshit, with the PC getting the shortest end of the very short stick.
Is the PC gaming world suffering from excessive ports of games that were once native? Yes
Are these games often simpler and easier than what they may have been used to in the past, even among iterations of a single series? Yes
I'm going to have to side with this as well. By the end of Bioshock, I had the most ridiculously overpowered character capable of achieving anything I wanted to try my hand at. In SS2, you had to prioritise what you're going after and make some hard choices about what works best for you, you can't have everything.
Really, I think that was down to a design decision, and I would have preferred it if I had had to tailor my character in some more significant ways than was offered. I think they were just worried about it being to difficult to play (because admittedly in SS2, if you didn't know what you were doing and spread yourself too thin, it was easy to make things a lot harder for yourself).
/exits thread again, fo reals this time, honest.
Bioshock could have done with a hard mode where your shit was limited ala SS2. But it's not a huge deal.
Kind of like Real Survivor mode in the ReMake. Makes the game harder while bringing some life/frustration into it.
I don't have a problem with PCs. I bought and played Bioshock for PC precisely because I'd prefer to play that sort of game in front of a keyboard and mouse. What I take issue with is sneering pricks who think that the archaic genre conventions of PC games somehow make them "deeper" than their console counterparts. Depth is not a function of complexity; the two sometimes go together, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other.
And nobody is "alienating" PC gamers - PC gamers are alienating themselves with their ridiculous, almost fanatical fondness for needless complexity. It's like it doesn't even matter if a game is fun or not; if it doesn't have a goddamn inventory and forty-billion hotkey commands and a thousand guns (each of which has three different types of ammo) then by God, it must be a dumb piece of shit for those stupid console kiddies.
Also, I think it's kind of funny that you mention Thief, because I happen to think that Thief 3 is by far the best in the series. Even with - OMG! - loot glint. I know, I know: I must just like stupid games.
I never said the console games were stupid or sucked. They just end out VERY VERY different from the PC games that spawned their series. Typically in the direction of simplicity. Please, stop acting like I've just kicked your dog. I'm starting to think you've got the rabies or something.
I love how you went from "I never said console games were stupid" to "console games go in the direction of simplicity" in the space of two sentences.
What the fuck is your malfunction?
I LOVE inventory management in games.
No, I think he's right. Your PC-bias is fairly obvious to me as well, although you're doing a fairly poor job of trying to hide it. You're implying simplicity = stupidity, although not explicitly stating it. But heck, console games aren't even "simple" in the first place. Many of them just aren't. Or it has nothing to do with the fact that it's a console, but for other reasons (like broadening).
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
GEE, I WONDER WHAT THAT IMPLIES ABOUT CONSOLE GAMES.
Also, that means the console game would've been better if it had been exclusively console.
That they take resources away from what could be an amazing single platform game? The platform interestingly enough that hosted the "spiritual prequels" for the game? Holy shit!
Thinking it would have been better isn't the same as saying it was awful? Do I think being on a console held back the complexity of what could have been a much deeper game? Yes I do. Did the game turn out pretty spiffy? Yes it did.
I also said I don't think the limitations of consoles will be around much longer. For a long time the hardware was holding them back. Now it isn't. Developers just need to learn that a little complexity is okay, and console gamers aren't all mouth breathers who just play Madden. Devoting more resources to a single platform will always yield a better game. Ports end out like mush almost universally, it doesn't matter what you're porting from or to.
Edit: For some reason, console games that stay console exclusive for a year or so before coming to the PC never fall victim to this on the console. Where for some reason, PC games that are going to go to a console always need to be developed in parallel.
If you devote all of your resources to making Gears of War for the 360, it comes out awesome. Then you spend a year porting it to the PC.
If you devote your resources to making a PC Game (Deus Ex : Invisible War / GRAW / Rainbow Six Vegas / Tribes: Vengeance / Shadowrun) that will also come out on consoles, for some reason they have to come out at the same time. This almost always means trimming down the PC game, instead of releasing the PC game and then spending a year tweaking it for console release.
https://medium.com/@alascii
So is Tecmo Super Bowl for NES. Which is in my opinion better than any Madden title to date.