Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:47 pm 
 

FragKrag wrote:

Of course you can connect a mouse and keyboard to it, but the game will not have full support for it unless the developers want people using keyboard and mouse to have an advantage over the more popular controller.


That is where the nifty little device I linked above comes in. It is for games that do not come with full support originally. You can map everything from your controller onto the mouse and keyboard.
It is very popular in FPS games and gives people a pretty big advantage over gamepad users. RTS games do not make use of the Sixaxis usually so the adapter would work wonders for those.

The only downside is that it is a bit pricey (around $100 after shipping and everything is said and done)

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:05 pm 
 

How can you map functionality that doesn't exist? I'm sure many PC shortcuts don't exist on console RTS games due to the controller. This means there is nothing to map other than the watered down controls.

Anyway, the big problem with RTS games for consoles is that console players generally prefer simple games. I'm sure many of you will try to argue otherwise but this is pretty much a fact, and developers will be the first to admit this. This means that, regardless of using a mouse and keyboard on a console, you won't find as many RTS games on your favourite console.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:25 pm 
 

Shutdown wrote:
How can you map functionality that doesn't exist? I'm sure many PC shortcuts don't exist on console RTS games due to the controller. This means there is nothing to map other than the watered down controls.


I do not really see how they are "watered down". Unless you are talking about binding your keys to different units and what not. That is something I have never done when I play RTS games but it would be a deal breaker if it is important to others.
My issue with playing RTS games with a gamepad is that I cannot move around the map and feel as flexible as I can with a mouse and keyboard. It is more of a speed issue with me.

To be honest from Red Alert 3 I cannot think of anything that is not on the controller that I would not need. The issue I have with it is that it feels clunky and not as smooth. I will probably be purchasing the adapter for that game alone. It will not be of much use in KZ2 due to the Sixaxis functions that game takes advantage of.

Do you have a link where game developers said console gamers like more "simple games"? I would like to read that.

I do not play many RTS games because they bore me to tears. More of an RPG/Third Person/FPS fan. Just going to make an exception for Red Alert 3 because I am a fan of the series and do not feel like wasting space on the PC for it.

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
So Fast, You'll Crash

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6284
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:39 pm 
 

Shutdown wrote:
Anyway, the big problem with RTS games for consoles is that console players generally prefer simple games.


Or maybe you just prefer to manage 35 different shortcuts and commands.

Oh brother.

Your jab at console gamers was an incredibly sad attempt at PC gamer elitism. The fact has nothing to do with whether the games are simple or not, the main problem for real time strategies on consoles is simply the fact that you don't have a controller of some sort that can act as a mouse equivalent, allowing you to scan over the battlefield and be able to click and drag units/other stuff. I don't really know how real time strategies work on the PS3 (considering you can plug in a USB mouse/keyboard) and the likes. I only used a couple of commands when I played Red Alert 2 and most of my actions were from clicking the minimap to get to places and setting certain units to an F button control, besides the obvious clicking and dragging of selection areas. These types of things aren't, "so complicated that they won't work on a console," the controller is still just a little bit awkward. There needs to be some sort of mouse equivalent.

You can pull your head out of your ass now.
_________________
MutantClannfear wrote:
TheDarkHarvest wrote:
slamming brutal death metal

DID SOMEBODY SAY SLAMMING BRUTAL DEATH METAL

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:46 pm 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
work on the PS3 (considering you can plug in a USB mouse/keyboard) and the likes.


Unless the game comes with m&kb support you would need the rate up adapter or a similar device. That would just let you map all the controllers commands to your mouse and keyboard set up. It will not give you dozens of key binding possibilities but it will let you scan/jump around the map, drag and click units,etc. Just like you would with a mouse and keyboard on a computer.

The 360 has one as well.

Image

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:04 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
I do not really see how they are "watered down". My issue with playing RTS games with a mouse and keyboard is that I cannot move around the map and feel as flexible as I can with a gamepad. I do not use macros or all kinds of crazy key combos when I play RTS games.

Your argument seems to be that you don't think it's watered down because you happen to not use any of the key combinations that is so vital for competitive play.

What I'm getting at is that I assume shortcuts to build specific buildings don't exist on console ports due to the controllers. This would mean that you cannot map to these shortcut functions on a keyboard because they don't exist in the game. I may be wrong about this, but the only way it would work would be for developers to leave them in the game specifically for keyboard use.

Quote:
Do you have a link where game developers said console gamers like more "simple games"? I would like to read that.

Developers won't say so publicly because they want to sell their games. You'd have to speak to some yourself.

I guess that evidence that console games are simpler would be the fact that TBS and RTS games are far more common on the PC while consoles rely on more story driven action games. Also, jPGs are far more common on consoles than PCs while RPGs are (were) far more common on PCs.

Take a look at the regenerating health/shields in many console games such as Gears Of War and Halo, while the Half Life series forced players to pace their HP throughout the game. Compare the relatively slow speed of console FPS games to the speed of Quake 3 or even the original UT.

There are certain games that just won't go down well with the console players. Pretending that all 3 major console gamers and PC gamers enjoy the same types of games (on average) is pretty daft.

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:16 pm 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
Or maybe you just prefer to manage 35 different shortcuts and commands.

Yes. Have you ever played StarCraft multiplayer? Playing on a console would be way too slow. Criticising me for the way PC games are is not a clever thing to do.

FasterDisaster wrote:
the main problem for real time strategies on consoles is simply the fact that you don't have a controller of some sort that can act as a mouse equivalent

You are absolutely wrong. Do you think that the lack of an appropriate controller is the only reason for the lack of RTS games on consoles for the last decade and a half? Since when has such simple hardware ever been a bottleneck for developers? There have been many fancy controllers coming out for consoles over the years. If there was a demand for keyboards by developers there would be RTS games using keyboards on consoles.

FasterDisaster, I never said that moving around the minimap was too complicated for console players. Stop pulling quotes out of your arse.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:34 pm 
 

Shutdown wrote:
Developers won't say so publicly because they want to sell their games. You'd have to speak to some yourself.


I figured you would say something like this :P. My reaction to your statement was the same as FasterDisaster. I took it as some type of PC gaming elitism. That type of position is something I have never fully understood. Coming from someone who used to exclusively PC game, I never found the games to be any more "challenging" or harder to learn than ones on consoles.
I never used keybindings and macros because I never needed to. To be fair I was never a tournament level player but I did my share of online play with Red Alert 2 and Warcraft 3. Always managed to keep my wins above my losses in WC3 so I never considered myself a "bad" player.


I can agree with you that RTS games will stay (at least for now) as a PC dominated genre. The PC however can no longer completely claim FPS games Most of the big name shooters that I can think of are already on consoles.

Of course that has been going on for a while. I first played Quake III Arena on the Dreamcast and you can play Half-Life 2 on the PS3 & 360. The rate up adapter works wonders in Call of Duty 4 and Resistance FoM.

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:15 pm 
 

T51b wrote:
I figured you would say something like this :P. My reaction to your statement was the same as FasterDisaster. I took it as some type of PC gaming elitism. That type of position is something I have never fully understood. Coming from someone who used to exclusively PC game, I never found the games to be any more "challenging" or harder to learn than ones on consoles.


I'll give you an example of why I dislike consoles.

I've been following Dragon Age: Origins, the next game from the makers of Baldur's Gate (and Mass Effect to you console players) for a few years now. A few weeks ago they did the unthinkable by delaying the PC version 6 months to simultaneously release it with the XBox360 and PS3 versions. This is the story:

"Dragon Age: Origins is a PC exclusive game and will be the spiritual successor to the Baldur's Gate series (a PC RPG that wasn't released on consoles)."

EA buys out the company.

"We are thinking about releasing the game for consoles but will only consider it after the PC version has shipped."

"We will release the game for the PS3 and XBox360 too, but only after we have shipped the PC version."

"The PS3 and XBox360 version will be released half a year after the PC version."

"The PC version has been pushed back by 6 months and we can have a simultaneous release for all 3 platforms."

This is a reason why I cannot stand consoles. They have a negative effect on the games I've looked forward to. What is the difference between KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, and all of Bioware's pre-KotOR games? They have all been continuously watered down. Why do I care? Because consolised-features from these games have made their way into a supposed "PC exclusive" game that is meant to be the spiritual successor to my favourite game series.

Imagine if Half Life 3 included health regeneration. This is exactly the same thing.

If consoles had little to no effect on PC games then I wouldn't care about them and probably wouldn't complain about them. However, that is certainly not the case. Calling me a "PC gaming elitist" might be correct, but I certainly have my reasons.

If RTS games started to become very common on consoles, I would bet that many RTS series would start to get watered down and simplified over time. I don't want that, and neither do many PC gamers.

Top
 Profile  
T51b
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 1128
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:33 pm 
 

Yeah I am aware of the Dragon Age: Origins ordeal. There was a post on System Wars a while back with a bunch of pissed off people. Developers and publishers for the most* part however care more about making money than pleasing a select group of fans. You will continue to see more and more PC games "watered" down for console releases as time goes on.

That is probably something everyone is just going to have to accept. Developing games may be a passion for many but it is also a business first and foremost.

As far as RTS games becoming popular on consoles, I can see it happening possibly in the future. Especially when keyboard and mouse support becomes the "norm" with consoles. I would wager we are heading in that direction as consoles are becoming more and more like PCs with all the emphasis these days on hard drives, USB ports and so on.

Its always a possibility, but I would say it would be well on down the road and at the very least "next gen" before you see people even experimenting with the idea.
If you go and google up the Red Alert 3 PS3 port you will see many comments left by people who say "If it has keyboard and mouse support I will buy it".

I am not sure what kind of market there could be for such a thing on consoles but if there ever is one I am sure the developers will be there to exploit it. As you said before, they want to sell games.

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
So Fast, You'll Crash

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6284
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:33 pm 
 

Shutdown wrote:
IThis is a reason why I cannot stand consoles. They have a negative effect on the games I've looked forward to. What is the difference between KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, and all of Bioware's pre-KotOR games? They have all been continuously watered down. Why do I care? Because consolised-features from these games have made their way into a supposed "PC exclusive" game that is meant to be the spiritual successor to my favourite game series.


Stop whining. Jesus.

Mass Effect was a fucking masterpiece anyway. Oh, I'm sorry I can't talk about that without seriously offending your standards. But that's ok. I mean, really? Who gives a shit about a compelling atmosphere and universe if you can't have hardcore PC derivative gameplay? That shit is overrated.

Besides, your hate is seriously misplaced. You should be directing your hate at EA. But instead, you decide to go for the easy target - the console gamers who haven't really done anything wrong and are NOT responsible for the delay of the "spiritual successor game" that you pray for every night.

As typical with you PC gamers, you basically bank on a handful of series to keep delivering, and when one them doesn't it's the end of the fucking world.
_________________
MutantClannfear wrote:
TheDarkHarvest wrote:
slamming brutal death metal

DID SOMEBODY SAY SLAMMING BRUTAL DEATH METAL

Top
 Profile  
aChapo
Token Jew

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:34 pm
Posts: 697
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:33 pm 
 

So the game was just delayed, is that why you are upset?


"What is the difference between KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, and all of Bioware's pre-KotOR games? They have all been continuously watered down"


You keep saying they are watered down, yet you supply no evidence. Out of curiosity, do you even own a console?
_________________
Catachthonian - About a sentence in Russia wrote:
I don't know much about American prisons, but here in Russia one year would be more than enough to turn that Oklahoma man into a total wreck (particularly in the rectum area).

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:58 am 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
Stop whining. Jesus.

Mass Effect was a fucking masterpiece anyway. Oh, I'm sorry I can't talk about that without seriously offending your standards. But that's ok. I mean, really? Who gives a shit about a compelling atmosphere and universe if you can't have hardcore PC derivative gameplay? That shit is overrated.

Besides, your hate is seriously misplaced. You should be directing your hate at EA. But instead, you decide to go for the easy target - the console gamers who haven't really done anything wrong and are NOT responsible for the delay of the "spiritual successor game" that you pray for every night.

As typical with you PC gamers, you basically bank on a handful of series to keep delivering, and when one them doesn't it's the end of the fucking world.


You are so bloody hostile. I AM blaming EA. I'm also blaming consoles. I'm NOT blaming you or any other console player. I AM saying that because so many people love console gaming, it is having an effect on the decision of publishers and developers (as they are businesses after all).

What you can't seem to grasp is that consoles are having a negative effect on PC games, not console games. If they weren't then I, and any other of these "PC gaming elitists" will have no need to "complain".

aChapo wrote:
"What is the difference between KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, and all of Bioware's pre-KotOR games? They have all been continuously watered down"

You keep saying they are watered down, yet you supply no evidence. Out of curiosity, do you even own a console?


I'll tell you first of all that I really like KotOR and I liked Mass Effect. I can still explain to you what features were simplified and in some cases I can tell you why they were simplified for consoles.

KotOR, JE and ME came out for consoles before they were ported to the PC. This made the developers focus more on making the games friendly for the consoles instead of how PC gamers wanted them. Here are a few examples.

KotOR and Mass Effect had list based inventory systems instead of a grid based inventory system. The reason for this is because having to manually place items in various grid slots is a pain in the arse when using console controllers. They decided that looted items will just get sorted in a specific order into an inventory list. Their games before KotOR (PC exclusive games) had a grid based system. The advantages (for PC users at least) of a grid based system is so that players can choose where to put various types of items and can automatically create a mental map in their heads to allow them to find items they want, quickly.

If any "NPC" in your party "died" in combat, they would come alive at the end of the fight. In Bioware's first two RPGs, your NPCs could properly (and permanently) die in a battle. This made far more sense from a role playing perspective. If half of your party died in a tough encounter, you could continue playing and recruit other NPCs to fill your party. This allowed you to suffer non-scripted loss of life in the game, which you can't do in KotOR and Mass Effect. I believe that non-killable NPCs has something to do with making encounters easier (since in Baldur's Gate it could take up to 20 reloads to beat a semi-major encounter without losing a party member).

Not being allowed to choose all of the NPCs who follow you around is another thing that was removed with KotOR and continued forward to Mass Effect. You always ended up with Ashley or Liara in your party whatever you did, even if your character didn't like them. You ended up with Bastilla and Carth in your party even if your character hated them. They removed player choice, possibly due to console players replaying games less. I remember Bioware even stating that they do this so that the player can experience as much of their work as possible in one play through so that they don't waste time developing things that the player won't see. The number of NPCs in the old Bioware games is by far one of the highlights and adds so much replayability to the games.

Itemisation in KotOR (but especially Mass Effect) was much weaker than previous games. Mass Effect had the worst items/weapons in any game that I've played. The weapon improvements were so minor at each step and they had no thought placed into them. Did anyone honestly care whether one gun had 1 more accuracy than another but did 1 less damage when everything was on a floating point scale from 1 to 300? KotOR had really weak items too, although the lightsaber crystals allowed for a degree of flexibility with regard to one type of weapon. In the older games you could pick up all sorts of items that did really varying things to your character. You could pick up artifacts that you could use once a day to summon a spider or a giant skeleton, or blast the enemy with a burst of energy. You could find a cloak that reflects back spells to the caster as well as a sword that hilariously speaks to the wielder. My guess would be that they scrapped this because console players don't like to do mathematics while playing a game to work out which item is better, while doing mathematics in PC games has been common from the 80s.

If Dragon Age: Origins was a true spiritual successor, you'd think they would keep or improve upon the things that made Baldur's Gate so great. Instead they have stuck with the simplified elements from their new games, possibly because EA made them release a console version. I hope you can see why I'm annoyed. People who liked the simplified elements in their later games obviously won't care.

I have just thought of another example of a game simplified for consoles. Deus Ex: Invisible War. Many, many fans of the original were annoyed when this game came out due to being heavily simplified. The original was made exclusively for the PC and was ported to consoles a few years after. The sequel, however, was released simultaneously for consoles and the PC and the game ended up being far more simplistic in terms of gameplay.

Top
 Profile  
VoidOfEternity
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 228
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:58 am 
 

A lot of your complaints seem to be a result of the developer making poor choices for whatever reason, rather than the medium.

That is to say, many of the things on your list do exist in console games, but for whatever reason, companies like BioWare chose not to use them.

I don't blame you for your frustration, but it's not specifically the fault of the consoles. The consoles are just a medium of playing games, and consoles have been capable of keyboard / mouse input for many years now - its the developers who run on the assumption to dumb things down.

I'd wager the issue is that they want to make money, and to make money, you need to reach a wide audience. Since owning a console is easier than putting together / buying a gaming quality PC for many people, they lean more and more towards consoles. But even though there are plenty of people out there who would / could enjoy these sorts of complexities, they run on the assumption that they can capture a wider audience by making the game more simple.

Rather, these days, more and more younger and older people are entering gaming. Back in the 80's and 90's, it was a much "smaller" thing. I don't think the move towards more simplistic things in games is a result of there being consoles (as consoles, too, have been around since the 80s, etc.), so much as it is a result of there being more people outside of the "core gamer" category who want to play games. Reaching them, as Nintendo has kindly demonstrated, can be an absolute goldmine, and many businesses would much prefer to be raking in large amounts of money than to please a smaller group of devoted fans.

In short, don't blame the consoles or the people who play them. Blame the developers and publishers who care more about making tons of money than their devoted fanbase happy. Personally, I think that, if buying a gaming PC was easier for a lot of people and we had no consoles, things wouldn't be much different. As long as there's a market of simple gamers to be exploited, it's going to be exploited.

That's just how I see it, anyway.

Top
 Profile  
LordGothic
Metal newbie

Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 324
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:42 am 
 

Mass Effects storyline is amazing, i completed it in a day because i got so immersed in the story i couldnt stop playing till it was done

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8691
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:14 pm 
 

Street Fighter IV

Platform: PC
Release Date: June 2009
Release Region: North America

niiiice...

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:19 pm 
 

I'm getting it for PC. I have a Saitek controller a 360 controller, and if I really love the game I might get an arcade joystick.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
rexxz
Retired

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 8691
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:21 pm 
 

I'm definitely getting it too. Finally a good fighting game with a PC release with netplay capabilities. God I wish GGXX# had netplay :(

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:22 pm 
 

VoidOfEternity wrote:
A lot of your complaints seem to be a result of the developer making poor choices for whatever reason, rather than the medium.

That is to say, many of the things on your list do exist in console games, but for whatever reason, companies like BioWare chose not to use them.

I don't blame you for your frustration, but it's not specifically the fault of the consoles. The consoles are just a medium of playing games, and consoles have been capable of keyboard / mouse input for many years now - its the developers who run on the assumption to dumb things down.

I'd wager the issue is that they want to make money, and to make money, you need to reach a wide audience. Since owning a console is easier than putting together / buying a gaming quality PC for many people, they lean more and more towards consoles. But even though there are plenty of people out there who would / could enjoy these sorts of complexities, they run on the assumption that they can capture a wider audience by making the game more simple.

Rather, these days, more and more younger and older people are entering gaming. Back in the 80's and 90's, it was a much "smaller" thing. I don't think the move towards more simplistic things in games is a result of there being consoles (as consoles, too, have been around since the 80s, etc.), so much as it is a result of there being more people outside of the "core gamer" category who want to play games. Reaching them, as Nintendo has kindly demonstrated, can be an absolute goldmine, and many businesses would much prefer to be raking in large amounts of money than to please a smaller group of devoted fans.

In short, don't blame the consoles or the people who play them. Blame the developers and publishers who care more about making tons of money than their devoted fanbase happy. Personally, I think that, if buying a gaming PC was easier for a lot of people and we had no consoles, things wouldn't be much different. As long as there's a market of simple gamers to be exploited, it's going to be exploited.

That's just how I see it, anyway.


I was blaming the developers and the existence of the consoles, I wasn't blaming the players.

Games are getting bigger and more expensive to produce so I can't see an end to the simplification of games for a wider audience until the market becomes too competitive and niche games start to make money. Indie games will always remain, but with limited budgets and small teams, most projects hardly get off the ground. Many that do usually rely on a simple "unique" game mechanics and therefore get boring quite quickly.

Games focus too much on graphics, full voice acting, cutscenes and other unnecessary features. These are bottlenecks that prevent developers from focusing on features that matter. This is another reason why games in general are getting simplified.

Computers being "too complicated to buy" is completely crap. You don't need an above average IQ to buy a gaming computer (or even build one). The problem is that many with consoles don't feel the need to do any research into gaming PCs and so end up never purchasing or building one. Consoles by their very nature are "dumbed down" PCs and this is reflected in the games produced for them. Also, I never bought into the whole idea of making life simple for everyone. I'm sure that will cause the deviation in IQs to increase over time. That can't be a good thing.

Top
 Profile  
josephus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:04 am
Posts: 1288
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:37 pm 
 

If a great PC game (or series) can be made to work on a console, then great. Deus Ex for the PS2 was a good example, but of course it wasn't released at the same time as the PC version. Deus Ex: Invisible War was poop compared to the original, although not a terrible game, it had too much to live up to. Gameplay had changed, for the worse. The feel of the game was not quite the same. Half Life 2 feels rather different to Half Life to me, but not in a bad way. Half Life 2 on the consoles turned out alright, but again it came after the 2004 PC original (HL2 on Xbox, Orange Box for PS3/360).
I'm not going to suggest that all games must be designed from the ground up for PC, and that there cannot be a great PC version of a console game. Psychonauts for PC plays really well, even on a mouse and keyboard IMO. So it can be done. The first Halo played decently on PC. I am a fan of the Battlefield series, and unlike some rabid PC gamers on the GS and GT forums, I wasn't too upset with Battlefield Bad Company. It was obviously a purely console game, and though it could have been fun on PC, it would not have been a proper BF game.
If Battlefield 3 is watered down however, I will be upset. Very much so.

As per usual, any time I post more than a couple of sentences I start waffling on with the usual Bullshit. I don't even know where I am going with this.
Joe out.
_________________
Carrying Concealed

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:53 pm 
 

That's exactly what I've been saying. I mentioned Deus Ex as an example a few posts up. As the sequel was designed with consoles in mind, it was simplified. You said that the original Deus Ex for the PS2 was a good game, I'm sure it was, but you only think that because it was designed primarily for the PC, else it would have ended up like Invisible War, which was designed for consoles too. What I've been getting at is that this isn't happening as much now. Games are being designed either for consoles first, consoles and PC at the same time, or exclusively for PCs (RTSs, TBSs, MMOs only, pretty much). Only that last category has stayed similar to the 90s when the crossover wasn't prominent. RPGs and FPSs have both been changing to cater for another audience and the result, for me and many other PC gamers, is that these genres are moving away from my taste of complexity. Now I'm not saying RPGs and FPSs shouldn't exist for consoles, not at all. What I am saying, though, is that developers shouldn't be forced to produce these hybrid games all the time due to very high development costs.

Top
 Profile  
Kutulu
Tzeentchian Rubric Manipulator

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 3:13 am
Posts: 684
Location: Prospero, Ultima Segmentum
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:55 pm 
 

On a whim I went out and bought a 360 elite and a few games(got a killer discount) and now I am trying to find out which games are actually worth owning, any suggestions?

Please keep in mind I have a PC, so FPS need not apply.

Right now I have the following:
The Last Remnant
Infinite Undiscovery
Blue Dragon
Phantasy Star Universe
Fable

Honestly I got it for Resident Evil 5, and my wife wanted to play Star Ocean, and this cancels out the need to shell out an extra 500 bucks for Final Fantasy XIII.
_________________
macrocosm wrote:
Since Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS, I'm gonna say there is a pretty high chance of him being gay.

Top
 Profile  
Rocker114
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:11 pm
Posts: 14
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:05 pm 
 

LordGothic wrote:
Mass Effects storyline is amazing, i completed it in a day because i got so immersed in the story i couldnt stop playing till it was done


I agree, I did the same. I also completed the expansion pack "Bring Down The Sky", a good addition indeed.

Top
 Profile  
VoidOfEternity
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:18 pm
Posts: 228
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:06 pm 
 

Quote:
Computers being "too complicated to buy" is completely crap. You don't need an above average IQ to buy a gaming computer (or even build one)


You'd be surprised. I've known people who have difficulty even using a computer, much less knowing what they're looking for when they buy one or what any of the technical jargon means.

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
So Fast, You'll Crash

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6284
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:44 pm 
 

Shutdown wrote:
Games focus too much on graphics, full voice acting, cutscenes and other unnecessary features. These are bottlenecks that prevent developers from focusing on features that matter. This is another reason why games in general are getting simplified.


I think it's kind of funny that in all of your arguments you have failed to mention the obvious evolutionary change of storytelling in videogames. Games are now considered an artistic medium for which developers can covey an interesting, powerful and emotional story. Videogames, development wise, are on par with that of movies. Faceless characters, shitty graphics and 16-bit videogame-y music are of a past era. (I certainly don't have a problem with old school games from the SNES and Genesis era, but the medium has changed). Now developers are using full orchestras, fully fleshed out characters and a beautiful and incredible universe for which the player to engage in through characters, universes and complex and interesting plots. Players get to experience these created universes and in ways that we have never really seen before. Attachments to characters is something that happens much often than it used to, and these full worlds are so incredible and amazing to experience.

It's a shame that you can appreciate and enjoy videogames as an artistic and creative medium that they have developed as.

Shutdown wrote:
Computers being "too complicated to buy" is completely crap. You don't need an above average IQ to buy a gaming computer (or even build one).


This statement is complete crap.
_________________
MutantClannfear wrote:
TheDarkHarvest wrote:
slamming brutal death metal

DID SOMEBODY SAY SLAMMING BRUTAL DEATH METAL

Top
 Profile  
invoked
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:54 pm
Posts: 1699
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:35 pm 
 

Shutdown does have a point about too much focus being on graphics, voice acting, etc. and not on aspects of the gameplay. It does not make the game inherently flawed, but does not make up for significant flaws either. This is one of the reasons that Morrowind was, is, and always will be better than Oblivion. By the way, I have played both on console and it's still fun but certainly less convenient seeing as you're lacking a lot of shortcut keys. As far as RTS goes, I still remember playing Starcraft 64 back in the day with friends and it was very, very slow. PC's will mostly likely continue to dominate in that realm, although I'm curious as to how Halo Wars will run with the 360 controller.

Kutulu wrote:
Please keep in mind I have a PC, so FPS need not apply.


What the fuck are you talking about? It's fine if you just prefer not to play FPS on PC, but don't act like the two are completely incompatible.
_________________
MEFITIS- Death and/or black metal
http://www.myspace.com/mefitisband

Top
 Profile  
FragKrag
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:36 pm
Posts: 475
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:50 pm 
 

FPS is in fact better on PC than on console, it's just that most console users have not experienced the flexibility of a PC keyboard and mouse. I don't think of myself as a PC elitist, I just prefer to play RTS on PC because it is much more fluid and efficient... and in fact, I prefer consoles for any RPG or Fighting game. However, any idiot must agree that a RTS is much better suited to PC than it is to a console. A RTS that is ported onto console will inevitably be watered down simply because the controller is relatively simple.

FasterDisaster, you don't really need above intelligence to build a decent machine. I built my machine when I was 12. It really takes nothing but motorskills, and a manual. A bit of research or simply a thread on a forum will get you all the feedback you need on the parts you need.

Consoles by nature are not dumbed down PCs. They are still PCs, they just lack the OS. In fact, many consoles had more power when they came out than the PCs of that time. That's why little/no modifications to a console is needed.

Top
 Profile  
Kutulu
Tzeentchian Rubric Manipulator

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 3:13 am
Posts: 684
Location: Prospero, Ultima Segmentum
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:01 pm 
 

invoked wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about? It's fine if you just prefer not to play FPS on PC, but don't act like the two are completely incompatible.
Don't get mad at me because console FPSes are terrible. Excluding Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I was about to say don't recommend any RTSes either, but then I remembered there are no good RTS games on consoles.
_________________
macrocosm wrote:
Since Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS, I'm gonna say there is a pretty high chance of him being gay.

Top
 Profile  
Star-Gazer
Trust and you'll be trusted

Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 1:21 pm
Posts: 2489
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:22 pm 
 

neonchipmunk wrote:
einvolk wrote:
if anyone here can help, Id appreciate it

I am looking for the lowest-priced version of the XBOX360 that (and this is the very most important part) IS BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE (insomuch that it plays [most] original XBOX games - I know there are many that no 360 will play, I want one that will play the most)

I have started to get confused from all the information I have read since there are upwards of 5 varieties of the 360, some no longer made (but still available to buy), others that are updated versions, and others that are new (Arcade version)

so I am asking if anyone can direct me (preferably at Amazon.com) to the LEAST EXPENSIVE VERSION (used/refurbished is fine by me) THAT IS THE MOST BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE

thank you very much


For backwards compatibility you need a 360 with a hard drive. Doesn't need to come bundled with the 360, you could by one seperate. So any 360 with a hard drive should be backwards compatiable.

For the most backward compatibility apply the latest update from xbox live.

The most backward compatiable 360 is any 360 with a hard drive and the latest update.

Given the lifespan and failure rate of the 360 I would reccommend buying new.
thanx for your help - I appreciate it
so if I bought the 'Arcade' or 'Core' versions I would have to buy an external hard drive, correct? (which would essentially defeat the purpose of me trying to save money by buying a cheaper system)

Top
 Profile  
Kutulu
Tzeentchian Rubric Manipulator

Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 3:13 am
Posts: 684
Location: Prospero, Ultima Segmentum
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:51 pm 
 

Just make sure to get a jasper system. They are pretty easy to find in the arcade versions.
_________________
macrocosm wrote:
Since Chuck Schuldiner died of AIDS, I'm gonna say there is a pretty high chance of him being gay.

Top
 Profile  
neonchipmunk
Metalhead

Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 6:03 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:19 pm 
 

einvolk wrote:
thanx for your help - I appreciate it
so if I bought the 'Arcade' or 'Core' versions I would have to buy an external hard drive, correct? (which would essentially defeat the purpose of me trying to save money by buying a cheaper system)


Yes. By the time you buy a hard drive I'm guessing that it would probably be cheaper to buy the one bundled with it. This is Microsoft we're talking about.
_________________
Trust no one.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9514
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:25 pm 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
Shutdown wrote:
Computers being "too complicated to buy" is completely crap. You don't need an above average IQ to buy a gaming computer (or even build one).

This statement is complete crap.

Yes, it's so difficult to buy a pre-built PC with Windows already installed on it. :roll: I bought mine last April for $600 and it still plays games like Fallout 3 at max settings just fine.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
So Fast, You'll Crash

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6284
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:33 pm 
 

neonchipmunk wrote:
einvolk wrote:
thanx for your help - I appreciate it
so if I bought the 'Arcade' or 'Core' versions I would have to buy an external hard drive, correct? (which would essentially defeat the purpose of me trying to save money by buying a cheaper system)


Yes. By the time you buy a hard drive I'm guessing that it would probably be cheaper to buy the one bundled with it. This is Microsoft we're talking about.


Basically. Hard drives cost roughly $130.00 by themselves. Talk about fuckin' price gouging.
_________________
MutantClannfear wrote:
TheDarkHarvest wrote:
slamming brutal death metal

DID SOMEBODY SAY SLAMMING BRUTAL DEATH METAL

Top
 Profile  
BardInTheForest
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:59 pm
Posts: 967
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:49 pm 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
neonchipmunk wrote:
einvolk wrote:
thanx for your help - I appreciate it
so if I bought the 'Arcade' or 'Core' versions I would have to buy an external hard drive, correct? (which would essentially defeat the purpose of me trying to save money by buying a cheaper system)


Yes. By the time you buy a hard drive I'm guessing that it would probably be cheaper to buy the one bundled with it. This is Microsoft we're talking about.


Basically. Hard drives cost roughly $130.00 by themselves. Talk about fuckin' price gouging.


Depends how big a drive you want. You can buy a smaller internal drive and one of those cases that basically make them external for probably half that. I got a terabyte internal drive and a case for $140.00, I think.

Top
 Profile  
Osgilliath
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:38 pm
Posts: 282
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:55 pm 
 

Street Fighter IV is the second coming. I've been playing it at my local arcade for months, but I have a deeper appreciation for the game now that I have it at my fingertips.

I'm a little late to the party, but I agree with Rexxz to some extent. Controlling space, limiting your opponent's options, manipulating their actions and punishing their mistakes are the cornerstones of competent Street Fighter play, while combos offer the most reliable way to deal large amounts of damage very quickly. That being said, you can know extremely technical combos that can take away 50% of your opponent's health bar, but they're useless to you unless you can set up situations where you can pull them off. A good balance of technical skill and strategy goes a long way, though strategy is definitely more important. It's very possible to win without combos, as long as you can make up for it with solid fundamentals.

Though for Street Fighter IV, combos are broken at high level. Sakura can combo into her Ultra off of a cr. LK, so you can punish any laggy move with a massive combo; you don't really need to be strategic to pull it off, just wait for your opponent to make a mistake.
_________________
MikeyC wrote:
Empyreal wrote:
Now she's coming over to spend the evening...

Pics or it didn't happen.

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:29 am 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
I think it's kind of funny that in all of your arguments you have failed to mention the obvious evolutionary change of storytelling in videogames. Games are now considered an artistic medium for which developers can covey an interesting, powerful and emotional story. Videogames, development wise, are on par with that of movies. Faceless characters, shitty graphics and 16-bit videogame-y music are of a past era. (I certainly don't have a problem with old school games from the SNES and Genesis era, but the medium has changed). Now developers are using full orchestras, fully fleshed out characters and a beautiful and incredible universe for which the player to engage in through characters, universes and complex and interesting plots. Players get to experience these created universes and in ways that we have never really seen before. Attachments to characters is something that happens much often than it used to, and these full worlds are so incredible and amazing to experience.

It's a shame that you can appreciate and enjoy videogames as an artistic and creative medium that they have developed as.

Cut the arty farty bollocks. People who play real pen and paper D&D (I don't) would say that it is far more immersive than watching a film, and they have fuck all for visual aid. You don't need good graphics and voice acting to create a powerful emotional attachment to a game, it's one of those myths. Ever heard of books?

I just want to pull out a sentence from your post that is really bad:
FasterDisaster wrote:
Now developers are using full orchestras, fully fleshed out characters and a beautiful and incredible universe for which the player to engage in through characters, universes and complex and interesting plots.

I have no problem with better sound quality for in game music. I have always found that music is an effective tool to eliminate "dead" moments within a game. Better quality music isn't exactly something that takes away from development time, like graphics engines, so I have never had a problem with this.

Fully fleshed out characters are a new thing? Where did you get this from? Fleshed out characters have all been tied in with the quality of the game writing and technology has hardly done anything to improve this, just as technology hasn't really improved the quality of fictional stories in books. The quality of character depth hasn't really changed much from what I can see. What has changed, though, is the number of optional characters in non-linear games. Lots of highly fleshed out and memorable characters have been replaced by a few highly fleshed out and memorable characters. This ties in to having to create new graphics and new voices for these characters, a bottleneck that we're discussing right now. The plots aren't any better for the same reason as dialog and character depth.

Graphics and voice acting is an interesting topic. The majority of non-children's books don't have pictures and contain no voices. To this day people would still tell you that books paint the best stories in your mind. Now, I'm not one to dismiss technology from games. Of course games should have voices and games should have graphics as the technology is there. However, the insistence on voice acting for every single piece of dialog is absurd and massively restricts the dialog in a game, unless the game is linear in nature and contains no conversation options. Mass Effect had a staggering amount of voice acting but the drawback was both simplified dialog options and less dialog as a whole. What does full voice acting achieve? The fact that your main character spoke in Mass Effect broke the role playing for many people and is a mistake they have learnt from for Dragon Age: Origins (at least). This was wasted time that could have been spent adding more characters to the game world. The two voice actors for the main character (male and female) could have played the parts of 2 additional characters on your ship which, in my opinion, would have been far more beneficial.

The reason I have kept mentioning "full voice acting" is because if you hear a few lines here and there you can build up a picture in your head of how that character would speak any line of dialog. This is a most effective solution that would only require a minute or two of voice acting for each major character but have a very similar effect to voice acting everything. This allows for far more dialog to be written in the game which, in my opinion, would far outweigh hearing someone speak every word. It can also allow for certain lines of dialog to stand out above the rest and hence you get highly memorable dialog in games such as "butt kicking for goodness" and the really obscure but strangely memorable "so i kicked him in the head till he was dead, hahahaha" (points to those who remember this).

Now, for linear games with fixed dialog (no choices), voice acting can be far more straight forward. The reason for this is that it doesn't become a bottleneck for dialog due to dialog not playing a massive part in these games. If you look at all the lines of dialog in Half Life 2, say, it doesn't amount to much that would make you question whether voice acting would be a good idea or not. However, these really weren't the types of games I was focusing on. Still, my point still holds that voice acting, even under these conditions, doesn't add much to the game.

Graphics is very similar to voice acting. Why spend half of the programming development time coding rendering techniques when you could spend a day outputting the absolutely breathtaking images* at the end of this post.

Games have had amazing characters, huge amounts of world depth, great atmosphere and everything else you mentioned (other than music) for ages now. If you value these high enough then you should understand how fancy graphics and full voice acting have, if anything, pushed these features down the pecking order and made games, if anything, worse.

Another point that I feel the need to mention is that games are games. They aren't all interactive stories. Neglecting game play features in order to add features that the player has no control over during the game (voice acting, graphics) is simply not on. It's like cutting your favourite story down to half the size in order to fill the remaining pages with pretty pictures. There is a balance between these two and these days the balance just isn't right. Developers are forgetting what games are.

*Amazing graphics with little rendering code needed. These screenshots show that you can have awesome graphical atmosphere without the need for resource hogging "realistic" 3d rendering.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Picture 4
Picture 5
Picture 6
Picture 7
Picture 8
Picture 9
Picture 10
Picture 11
Picture 12
Picture 13

And one more piece of epicness I spent a while creating:
Picture 14

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
So Fast, You'll Crash

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6284
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:50 am 
 

Shutdown wrote:
Another point that I feel the need to mention is that games are games. They aren't all interactive stories. Neglecting game play features in order to add features that the player has no control over during the game (voice acting, graphics) is simply not on. It's like cutting your favourite story down to half the size in order to fill the remaining pages with pretty pictures. There is a balance between these two and these days the balance just isn't right.


I really have yet to see a great looking game that plays like absolute shit or is just purely shit all around. Take a look at Gears Of War. The game looks fucking incredible, the game plays amazing, but the storyline is almost non existent. Generally if a developer spends a lot of making a world that looks beautiful there is generally either awesome characterization, or awesome gameplay included in that package. Most games that suck really hard, oftentimes not enough attention was paid to the total package altogether, so you're probably not going to get a game that looks awesome but fails on all other fronts.

I could even go against my past argument I previously set up in the case of GodHand. That game has some serious technical graphical issues, but the gameplay is by far some of the most fun I have ever played. Also, not to mention the hilariously cool surf rock soundtrack.

Shutdown wrote:
Developers are forgetting what games are.

I have to go against you once again on this. Developers are realizing what other interesting things they can achieve with this technology. Not to mention, the storytelling in videogames is on par with screenwriting for movies at this point. Developers are starting to realize how important characterization and narration are in videogames and they are more than willing to take full advantage of that. Just take a look at Grand Theft Auto IV, which is by far the greatest game of 2008 in terms of storytelling which is absolutely superb. Every characters nuance comes through in the game and every character is completely different and entirely original. You can't honestly tell me superb storytelling has existed since the inception of videogames. It just hasn't and I am willing to call you on that. Back in the day on the NES, Genesis and SNES the plot for a game was generally something entirely absurd, or, "Here's a gun - KILL SHIT."

Developers are now willing to spend way more money on making an awesome script with likable characters because technologically, it allows for them to so that. Certainly, you can't compare books to videogames, that's not even fair. Books are books, thoughts are written down. Videogame development is a medium that has not even hit a peak and the tools for which creation is dealt with and used is constantly changing.
_________________
MutantClannfear wrote:
TheDarkHarvest wrote:
slamming brutal death metal

DID SOMEBODY SAY SLAMMING BRUTAL DEATH METAL

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9407
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:09 am 
 

Kutulu wrote:
On a whim I went out and bought a 360 elite and a few games(got a killer discount) and now I am trying to find out which games are actually worth owning, any suggestions?

Gears of War
Gears of War 2
If you're into that sort of thing, get Rock Band 2 and Guitar Hero 3 (or wait for GH: Metallica, it will have Mercyful Fate in it)

Top
 Profile  
Wet Pussy
Waterlogged

Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:13 pm
Posts: 4323
Location: Pakistan
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:25 am 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
Shutdown wrote:
Another point that I feel the need to mention is that games are games. They aren't all interactive stories. Neglecting game play features in order to add features that the player has no control over during the game (voice acting, graphics) is simply not on. It's like cutting your favourite story down to half the size in order to fill the remaining pages with pretty pictures. There is a balance between these two and these days the balance just isn't right.


I really have yet to see a great looking game that plays like absolute shit or is just purely shit all around. Take a look at Gears Of War. The game looks fucking incredible, the game plays amazing, but the storyline is almost non existent. Generally if a developer spends a lot of making a world that looks beautiful there is generally either awesome characterization, or awesome gameplay included in that package. Most games that suck really hard, oftentimes not enough attention was paid to the total package altogether, so you're probably not going to get a game that looks awesome but fails on all other fronts.

I could even go against my past argument I previously set up in the case of GodHand. That game has some serious technical graphical issues, but the gameplay is by far some of the most fun I have ever played. Also, not to mention the hilariously cool surf rock soundtrack.

Shutdown wrote:
Developers are forgetting what games are.

I have to go against you once again on this. Developers are realizing what other interesting things they can achieve with this technology. Not to mention, the storytelling in videogames is on par with screenwriting for movies at this point. Developers are starting to realize how important characterization and narration are in videogames and they are more than willing to take full advantage of that. Just take a look at Grand Theft Auto IV, which is by far the greatest game of 2008 in terms of storytelling which is absolutely superb. Every characters nuance comes through in the game and every character is completely different and entirely original. You can't honestly tell me superb storytelling has existed since the inception of videogames. It just hasn't and I am willing to call you on that. Back in the day on the NES, Genesis and SNES the plot for a game was generally something entirely absurd, or, "Here's a gun - KILL SHIT."

Developers are now willing to spend way more money on making an awesome script with likable characters because technologically, it allows for them to so that. Certainly, you can't compare books to videogames, that's not even fair. Books are books, thoughts are written down. Videogame development is a medium that has not even hit a peak and the tools for which creation is dealt with and used is constantly changing.


They may be focusing more on the story than before, but at what cost? Just compare GTA4 to San Andreas, the game lacks in everything and for a sandbox game, there's hardly shit to do. I came to the same conculsion while (re)playing Oblivion and comparing it to Fallout 3. Fallout, though it has a better and more fluid story, there's hardly anything to do and the game experience just lacks. Developers realized what an immersive experience was many years ago, it used to be the whole package. Storyline, gameplay, fun factor, everything. Now they seem to be focusing on just the story and I actually think that games these days are a hell of a lot more casual compared to the games released in the early 2000's, back when I first discovered the awesomeness of pc gaming. I mean, if I look at an average (story-wise) game like Arx Fatalis and compare it to, say, Fallout 3 or Infinite Discovery, I'll pick Arx Fatalis just because it has an overall immersive experience compared to Fallout 3 and Infinite Discovery
_________________
Previously MegaHassan
Paki thvg music, My Extreme Metal/Punk Label

Top
 Profile  
Shutdown
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:20 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:51 am 
 

FasterDisaster, I believe you are trying to tell me that genres that traditionally had weak stories are starting to have stronger stories to match up with story driven games (adventure games and RPGs). I agree with you on that. But the games with the best stories now don't have better stories than the games with the best stories in the 90s.

Gears of War is a typical example of an awful console game that sacrifices interesting gameplay for top quality graphics (although of the brown and grey variety). The game does nothing exciting. The weapons are plain, the enemies are generic, the cover system is made simple and the story blows. How this game is so popular I'll never know. It's a complete mystery. Now there is a sequel so it must have sold well. Criminal.

GTA4 was like a big interactive movie. However, the only interaction you really had was when doing the missions. The story was told through cutscenes which caused a divide in the game, similar to Japanese PGs. Would you prefer to play a cutscene or to watch a cutscene in a game? If you just wanted to watch a story through videos you could just watch a movie. The worst thing is that Rockstar North decided to focus so much more on the cutscenes, animation and story that they negelected the gameplay. This resulted in the worst GTA to date, as that Wet Pussy guy explained.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 589  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group