My Problem With Console Games

[linthat22]

*mods if these needs to be moved, please forgive me*

I've noticed a trend over the years with console games: the graphics get better with little substance as far as game play.

I'm not talking about the epic mega games that have a huge intrinsic story and graphics to die for, but the majority of games for consoles.

I was console-less after I sold off my Dreamcast, Xbox, and Gamecube for a couple years. I ended up purchasing a Wii sometime in 2007 and sold it two weeks ago.

I sold it due to lack of decent games (decent, being subjective, because I haven't played them all) and I really started missing hi-resolution graphics.

I ended up getting a PS3 two weeks ago and many games are visually impressive.

My gripe?

PC games might be a bit slower to where you can take in all the beauty of the graphics while playing, but in consoles many games are so fast you lose the ability to see how pretty they are.

Plenty of the FPS I've played on the PS3 are really fast and the graphics are very nice (Killzone 2, for example). Where as on PC the pacing is a little slower (Half Life 2, for example) and you can take in the surroundings.

It seems the disconnect between console players and PC gamers is that PC's strive for the best graphics and want games to take advantage of all the latest hardware, where consoles strive for the best graphics that are set within the hardware requirements set before them.

So where's the happy medium of great graphics and gameplay that displays the length and breadth of said requirements??

I know it's all subjective, and anyone can post about this or that game, and how crazy I am, but this is a general question (not tied to any one console).

 

[Nesh]

Ever played a game especially a FPS, on a powerful PC?

Thats what I call too fast.

PC games are extremely fast when running on high specs.

Console games arent exactly THAT fast. They are as fast as they should because of the limitations and the developers are trying to make the speed and framerate to at least be at the level where the player feels that the controls and speed is satisfactory.

Uncharted 2 has a natural movement.

Killzone 2 is slow compared to COD games and in general compared to other FPS games.

In general consoles always lacked next to the highest PC specs available. This is not anything new

But in general I always felt that consoles offered a better experience than PCs due to their exclusive content. Consoles imo brought more often unique or fun experiences than PCs.

PCs on the other hand always tried to reach the best possible graphics and biggest scale that the highest specs can offer (i.e see Crysis)

Multiplatform games of course always performed better on PCs therefore PCs excelled.

PCs are more technical, whereas consoles due to competition between the manufacturers try to bend technical limitations through innovative ideas, or great executions.

 

[linthat22]

I guess I should've specified that I wasn't talking fast as in clock speeds, but as in action. Like along to point A you're being blasted at and while you're at point A all hell's breaking loose. Know what I mean? no breather....

 

[patsu]

PC games might be a bit slower to where you can take in all the beauty of the graphics while playing, but in consoles many games are so fast you lose the ability to see how pretty they are.

Plenty of the FPS I've played on the PS3 are really fast and the graphics are very nice (Killzone 2, for example). Where as on PC the pacing is a little slower (Half Life 2, for example) and you can take in the surroundings.

What FPS have you played ? Did you finish them all in 2 weeks ? ^_^

So where's the happy medium of great graphics and gameplay that displays the length and breadth of said requirements??

What happy medium are you looking for ?
You only mentioned FPSes. Have you tried other games ?

 

[Rotmm]

Killzone 2 isn't the place to start if your looking for someone other than style over substance There's a reason that there's only ever hundreds of players online at any given time, as opposed to games such as Halo 3 and Modern Warfare with hundreds of thousands.

But anyway, as to your point, it all really depends on what you're looking for and what you consider "depth" to gameplay... especially in shooters and the "action adventure" genre.

For me, this has been the best console generation (Wii excluded, as I haven't and don't own one) to date. Yes, I have been disappointed as you seem with some titles, where flashy graphics seem to have the sole role of hiding derivative and/or shallow gameplay. But it's also true that good graphics can also enhance a title that already has strong core gameplay elements.

So to continue with that theme, there have been some standout gaming experiences that have drawn me into a world, or given me a greater sense of achievement than others this generation. Note: I will focus on games that are shooters, as that's what you mentioned in your post, and also note these are my opinions only. Additionally, any Multiplayer component of a game doesn't feature into my thoughts here and I will focus on SP campaigns only.

The game that defined the "Next Generation" for me was Ghost Recon: Advance Warfighter. Not quite as unforgiving as the previous PC Ghost Recon titles, or games such as Full Spectrum Warrior, the game was (and still is) gorgeous, was very well paced and there was plenty of time to take in the environments as well as a number of "ah shit, how am I gonna survive this" moments. The sequel was a shorter affair, but increased the graphical fidelity and tightened up the gameplay.

Mass Effect and/or Bioshock you may have played on PC. The former is very possibly in my top 10 games of all time. The depth of the emotional experience I had with that game is hard to put into words. To me, it was like a great book that you want to read again just as soon as you finish it. There are issues with pacing and many of the sidequests were a little too "filler" for my liking. But as a game that looked great, played great and had a deep and engrossing story, it's pretty much unparallelled this gen. Bioshock is a more linear affair, but again the style and ambience of the world just drags you in. Again, a real gem this generation.

GTA4 seems to be one of those titles that was reviewed exceptionally, bought in the millions and is derided over the internet as sub-par today. My suspicion is that many of those who talk the game down are of the ilk that need a big set-piece and explosion every 30 seconds for a game to keep them interested. GTA4 is a stunning game. Yes, some of the "friends" stuff is superflous, but then the player can get involved with it or not. But the story, acting and core gameplay mechanics just work. It's also one of the few games that has caused me heartache, making a gameplay decision that I agonised over afterwards.

There are, of course, games that have become a phenomena such as Halo 3 and Modern Warfare. The former left me underwhelmed, but I can appreciate the craft of the title, with the core gameplay element of "30 seconds of fun, repeated" and the exceptional AI. I can also respect the fact that Bungie focused on gameplay over wizz-bang special effects, motion blur, depth of field, etc. but the game didn't say anything to me. That is, until I played it co-op. Then it became for me something truly special. But not everyone wants a co-op experience. Modern Warfare again didn't do it for me. Yes, I enjoyed the SP campaign while playing it, but I had no desire to revisit it once finished.

MGS4 I just couldn't finish.

The Gears games could be seen as style over substance, but for me the substance is strong enough and the style just complements it. In many ways I see the Gears titles as the spiritual successors to the original Unreal, where there were plenty of "action" moments, but they were broken up with enough downtime to allow you to really appreciate the world around you.

The Uncharted titles are in many ways similar to the Gears games in that they are purely linear 3rd person experiences. They also have unarguably stronger stories. My personal issues with both of those games is that (I feel) the core gameplay isn't quite as strong and, while undenyably beautiful games, you are more led by the nose from one action moment to the next, from cutscene to cutscene, without ever really feeling in control of the action.

Then there are more niche titles such as The Darkness, Crackdown, Battlefield: Bad Company, Rainbow 6 Vegas titles, Condemned (another real favourite of mine, though not the sequel), Dead Space and even the new Batman game (loved it) that offer attractive "Next Gen" environments alongside great gameplay and immersive worlds.

That's my 2c anyway

 

[linthat22]

What happy medium are you looking for ?
You only mentioned FPSes. Have you tried other games ?

FPSes were an example of the overall picture.

 

[patsu]

What have you played since you bought your PS3 ? and did you finish them all in those 2 weeks ? That alone would explain why you felt rushed. ^_^

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Plenty of the FPS I've played on the PS3 are really fast and the graphics are very nice (Killzone 2, for example). Where as on PC the pacing is a little slower (Half Life 2, for example) and you can take in the surroundings.
.

Do you have a really really really shitty PC or something?

KZ2 is very slow paced compared to HL2, and allmost all FPS games outside of the "realism" fps games

 

[Acert93]

The consoles have a wide range of "gameplay pacing". On the 360 you have very slow paced shooters (Gears of War 1/2, Ghost Recon, RB6, etc). You have some twitchy shooters (e.g. UT3 and Team Fortress 2). You have a middleground like BFBC. You also have Halo 3 and CoD4 which both have slower moving characters in terms of foot speed BUT in terms of look speed are very fast. These games tend to blend twitchiness and strategical pacing.

Oh, and HL2 is on the consoles

 

[Cheezdoodles]

GTA4 seems to be one of those titles that was reviewed exceptionally, bought in the millions and is derided over the internet as sub-par today. My suspicion is that many of those who talk the game down are of the ilk that need a big set-piece and explosion every 30 seconds for a game to keep them interested

Ever thought that this may be due to the fact that R* send review copies out super late, so all the reviewers had 1-2 days to review the game?

So GTA4 gets high review scores, not because its the best game ever, but because none of the reviewers had time to properly play the game, and the initial 10-15 hours where good, so review scores where just based on extrapolation of this?

Wheras gamers actually play the entire thing, notice that outside of the main story there is nothing of interest, and that the city is not nearly as interactive and immersive as the reviewers portray it to be...?

I think your suspicion that people who talk the game down needs big set pieces and explotions is ridiculous. The prior GTA's didn't have this at all, and people loved them. Why should they suddenly bash the game because of lack of action now, when they didn't previously? Im sorry, but that logic doesn't hold water.

I think its more likely that gamers noticed that outside of the better graphics, physics and AI, the game has less features than GTA:SA and seems much more rushed.

 

[patsu]

Yes, that's why I was confused by his post.

Considering only FPS...
Tactical shooters, stop-n-pop gunning and stealth shooters are generally slower pace (e.g., MGS/MGO, Splinter Cell, KZ2, Gears, Tom Clancy's stuff). Run-n-gun shooters are fast pace (UT, Halo, Resistance, Team Fortress). Platforming shooters (e.g., Uncharted 2, R&C) are somewhere in between.

It seems to me that the "rushed gameplay" comment may be more related to his play schedule (He got the PS3 for only 2 weeks)

 

[Acert93]

I agree, although I wouldn't divide the categories that way. Which is something I have been thinking about in regards to how we define a game and the expectations attached to it.

e.g. Gears MP. You have it as a tactical shooter. True enough as the gears are slow and cover is an essentialy part of the gameplay. But it also is more "spammy" in regards to how a lot of guns work (bullet sponge enemies with most weapons) but also delves into the "theatric action" side-play. Halo 3 would often be called run-and-gun, but anyone who plays it knows that the guns have a broad range of ranges/usefulnesses and the rebounding shield requires very thoughtful tactical play. So most would not call it a tactical shooter, but it requires a lot more strategy and tactics than I have found Gears requires--and cover is every bit as important. Sometimes overt mechanics obscure the nuances of the game design, which I find fascinating. You can have a shooter that is cover "stop and pop" that is dressed in the garments of "tactical" but actually be more "spammy shooter, spray and pray" with very basic tactics that a more refined "run-and-gun" game actually puts to shame in terms of strategy.

The FPS genre is just so rich in terms of health mechanics, player movement and looking, environment interaction, gun design/balance, customization, world design, etc that the old design categories really fail to capture just how diverse the demographic is. There are a ton of shooters and a ton of variety of ways they play out. This is one reason I protect to "3ps" as a distinct category because you can have 3rd person shooters play JUST like a 1st person shooter for all practical purposes.

Anyhow, sorry for the side track...

 

[obonicus]

Ever thought that this may be due to the fact that R* send review copies out super late, so all the reviewers had 1-2 days to review the game?

AFAIK, it's not even as simple as that. They actually had people sequestered to play the game. For all I know they had the reviewers on a low-protein diet, to addle their decision-making.

Joshua:
I really don't think you can say that Gears is a tactical shooter. At least not along the lines of say, the original rainbow 6 or swat games. I'm not sure if R6V is still the same sort of game anymore, but it still is significantly different from GeoW. I mean, these games of course require a lot of tactics, as do most not-bad shooters but tactical shooters, at least as I've heard the term, is defined more the ability to plan out small-unit tactics amidst the FPSing. I'm not even sure if anyone's making tactical shooters as described by those games anymore.

 

[Arwin]

Plenty of the FPS I've played on the PS3 are really fast and the graphics are very nice (Killzone 2, for example). Where as on PC the pacing is a little slower (Half Life 2, for example) and you can take in the surroundings.

It seems the disconnect between console players and PC gamers is that PC's strive for the best graphics and want games to take advantage of all the latest hardware, where consoles strive for the best graphics that are set within the hardware requirements set before them.

So where's the happy medium of great graphics and gameplay that displays the length and breadth of said requirements??

I know it's all subjective, and anyone can post about this or that game, and how crazy I am, but this is a general question (not tied to any one console).

I understand where you are coming from, but in the end it is a matter of choosing the right game. Even Killzone 2, if you take, what was it, chapter six? Suddenly after playing in fairly hectic near claustrophobic urban environments, here you are in a much more open space, hills and a few structures, with lots of wind and dust flying around. And you walk around in it a fair bit more before the shooting starts, etc.

Now a game that fits your bill much better is definitely Uncharted 2. If you've played the full game you'll have found quite a few areas where you are just climbing around, etc., and you can find a lot of extra additional breathing space by moving around searching for treasure. So I highly recommend that game, as it sounds like just the thing for you!

But of course there are even more relaxing games that have a nice pace - give Flower a try for instance. Or a little more inbetween, Trine isn't bad either. And LittleBigPlanet is a lot of fun too, especially in co-op (online or off up to four players).

 

[tha_con]

*mods if these needs to be moved, please forgive me*

I've noticed a trend over the years with console games: the graphics get better with little substance as far as game play.

I'm not talking about the epic mega games that have a huge intrinsic story and graphics to die for, but the majority of games for consoles.

I was console-less after I sold off my Dreamcast, Xbox, and Gamecube for a couple years. I ended up purchasing a Wii sometime in 2007 and sold it two weeks ago.

I sold it due to lack of decent games (decent, being subjective, because I haven't played them all) and I really started missing hi-resolution graphics.

I ended up getting a PS3 two weeks ago and many games are visually impressive.

My gripe?

PC games might be a bit slower to where you can take in all the beauty of the graphics while playing, but in consoles many games are so fast you lose the ability to see how pretty they are.

Plenty of the FPS I've played on the PS3 are really fast and the graphics are very nice (Killzone 2, for example). Where as on PC the pacing is a little slower (Half Life 2, for example) and you can take in the surroundings.

It seems the disconnect between console players and PC gamers is that PC's strive for the best graphics and want games to take advantage of all the latest hardware, where consoles strive for the best graphics that are set within the hardware requirements set before them.

So where's the happy medium of great graphics and gameplay that displays the length and breadth of said requirements??

I know it's all subjective, and anyone can post about this or that game, and how crazy I am, but this is a general question (not tied to any one console).

I don't think you're crazy, I just think you have a lot of things confused and mixed up.

You say that console games strive for the best graphics that are set within the hardware requirements before them. Why would you even bring this up? Essentially you're saying console's aren't upgradeable. I don't think this is news to anyone. What else are developers supposed to do? Shoot for the worst graphics possible on that system within the hardware constraints?

Then you say that Console games are pretty and have "little substance". And to that, I say, Crysis was pretty and had zero substance. No message, a weak story, forgettable characters. The only thing it had going for it was the gameplay (which was essentially just an FPS with super powers in a sandbox) and the graphics. It wasn't ground breaking or revolutionary in anyway.

I don't see how Half Life 2 is slow paced when there are multiple sections where you are being chased and / or have to clear out multiple area's to get to your objective, not allowing you time to look around.

What I really think is going on here, is a case of "this is my favorite and I'm very nostalgic, but this stuff I don't like. Why isn't game x like game z!?" and then you concluded that it was because one is on console and the other is on PC.

 

[TheD]

Ever played a game especially a FPS, on a powerful PC?

Thats what I call too fast.

PC games are extremely fast when running on high specs.

Console games arent exactly THAT fast. They are as fast as they should because of the limitations and the developers are trying to make the speed and framerate to at least be at the level where the player feels that the controls and speed is satisfactory.

Uncharted 2 has a natural movement.

Killzone 2 is slow compared to COD games and in general compared to other FPS games.

In general consoles always lacked next to the highest PC specs available. This is not anything new

But in general I always felt that consoles offered a better experience than PCs due to their exclusive content. Consoles imo brought more often unique or fun experiences than PCs.

PCs on the other hand always tried to reach the best possible graphics and biggest scale that the highest specs can offer (i.e see Crysis)

Multiplatform games of course always performed better on PCs therefore PCs excelled.

PCs are more technical, whereas consoles due to competition between the manufacturers try to bend technical limitations through innovative ideas, or great executions.

What the hell?

A "high spec" PC does not make a game run too fast!

Game speed has had nothing to do with the speed of a PC for 15-20 years!

Then you say that Console games are pretty and have "little substance". And to that, I say, Crysis was pretty and had zero substance. No message, a weak story, forgettable characters. The only thing it had going for it was the gameplay (which was essentially just an FPS with super powers in a sandbox) and the graphics. It wasn't ground breaking or revolutionary in anyway.

Crysis had a lot of substance!

Not all games need a message! Crysis's story was fine, Crysis Warhead did not have "forgettable characters" at all and NEWS FLASH! gameplay is what a lot of games are all about!

And what was very different from just about all other FPS in that you could go about doing things in a lot of different ways.

The attacks you level at Crysis could also be leveled at a lot of other games, Gears of War for one, Halo 3, Killzone 2, Resistance Fall of Man ect.

 

[Neb]

What the hell?

A "high spec" PC does not make a game run too fast!

Game speed has had nothing to do with the speed of a PC for 15-20 years!

Yeah odd comment however perhaps he meant smooth as in 60fps. However to call it "to fast" when console gamers in this sections are 'whoring' for 60fps framerates in games is kinda hilarious. "See but not touch"!

Crysis had a lot of substance!

Not all games need a message! Crysis's story was fine, Crysis Warhead did not have "forgettable characters" at all and NEWS FLASH! gameplay is what a lot of games are all about!.

Mmm really odd comment considering gameplay becouse it is the thing adding most substance to a game. Without gameplay there will be little substance as cutscenes are just a small part of games and cant be a stand in for bad gameplay.

About "message" I find it hilarious as why should it be needed? "Save the whales", "save the rainforests"? If so I would say the "message" is how beauthiful the nature is and how closely it is reproduced in Crysis as well as animals..

Story was pretty good to and immersive which is the most important thing. And then there where several memorable characters which had their stance re-inforced through imersive cinemtatic cutscenes. Offcourse one actually has to play or atleast have seen gameplay videos to know that!

Also hilarious how Crysis [everything] so rapidly became a target when the talk is about gameplay pace. I guess it is so good it really ticks people off that cant play it due to personal reasons.

And what was very different from just about all other FPS in that you could go about doing things in a lot of different ways.

And becouse of this you the player controlled the game pace. Neither to fast nor to slow but just as you want it. Metacritic average scores and those that played it clearly vouches for an excellent game.

I
What I really think is going on here, is a case of "this is my favorite and I'm very nostalgic, but this stuff I don't like. Why isn't game x like game z!?" and then you concluded that it was because one is on console and the other is on PC.

You gave yourself a fine example of the reverse going against players expressions and media. However I think the OP is reffering more to 'tactical' games with slower pace (Arma 2 vs OP2, etc). On consoles games tend to generally have faster pace, maybe to not be to time consuming. Dragon Age difference in gameplay pace strikes to mind between PC and console versions especially regarding battle mechanisms etc. Hack and slash style vs tactical need to conquer.

 

[Rangers]

AFAIK, it's not even as simple as that. They actually had people sequestered to play the game. For all I know they had the reviewers on a low-protein diet, to addle their decision-making.

This seems to be the way Microsoft does their big exclusives for a while now, I believe it's to prevent review copies from escaping into piracy.

Doesn't seem the best way to necessarily review a game to have to play through it in one sitting though.

 

[Phil]

Killzone 2 isn't the place to start if your looking for someone other than style over substance There's a reason that there's only ever hundreds of players online at any given time, as opposed to games such as Halo 3 and Modern Warfare with hundreds of thousands.

Err what? Style over substance? I'll agree that gaming has changed quite a bit from the old days, with the main focus going more and more onto visuals and how the game looks rather than how it plays and how innovative it is. Killzone 2, is definately not one of them, despite being one of the most stunning looking games. The gameplay has a lot of substance and is a lot deeper (even the MP) then most games in its genre. You can definately tell that gameplay has been the focus of the team for months, well after the graphics side of the engine were pretty much set in stone. The game is also pretty much bugfree in both MP and SP and shows a very solid result, while delivering in framerate, impressive AI and diversed gameplay (for a FPS anyway).

I'm also not sure what this has to do with any online numbers. Certainly not with the quality of the game itself.

 

[Yemeth]

My suspicion is that many of those who talk the game down are of the ilk that need a big set-piece and explosion every 30 seconds for a game to keep them interested. GTA4 is a stunning game.

My suspicion is that you and I have fundamentally different tastes. What I really noticed that certain things have started being political, instead a matter of taste. My favorite game in this generation is Demon´s Souls, talk about short attention span with big explosions every 30 seconds...

GTA IV is worse than any GTA so far, I played every one so far so I can back up my claims. GTA Vice City is one of my favorite PC games of all times, as the humor, atmosphere etc. is great.
GTA IV was a stupid attempt to mix the GTA humor with a "serious" story, IMO, it failed miserable (I will not even go into the "Serbs with russian accents who listen to russian radio shows"; seems that for certain americans every non american must be either: german, russian or a middle east guy; ah then there are some asians too).

It is far from being bad (the multiplayer is even very good), but even when it did came out it was not even near the PS3 top ten, IMO.

How about make GTA V where you are "Donnie Brasco", with the choice to stay legit or side with the mob? How about writing a real story for GTA instead of those boring, amateurish stories? How about being critical to the games you like, instead of giving out 10/10 and then when improved/patched version comes out you give a 11/10?

At least in the 80s you heard "Shadow of the Beast has great graphics! Gameplay, what gameplay?", today you hear "Assassin´s Creed has great graphics!". I mean in an E3 presentation I saw that in AC2 you have Leonardo da Vinci who helps out the assassin?! WTF? Sometimes I really think the designers read one Wikipedia article (or asume the average gamer is an idiot) and then say "Da Vinci is cool, he will help the hero in AC2!".

What really bugs me in PC and console games is that cheesy stories are hyped up to the sky, where in literature or movies you would just sigh at such storytelling, or say it is stupid (I have yet to see a storytelling praise of e.g. Die Hard! In games I need to read reviews who mention the great story of GTA IV; if that is great what kind of story has Planescape: Torment?). If a game per se is hyped up ok, but at least don´t tell me it has an great story, if its something I saw 1000 times before...

Ok, it could be worse, our hero in game X could have special upgrades with Nike shoes, he could buy a Rolex to read the time and, finally, some nice and sexy swedish twins with german accents (played by canadian women) are some stupid sidekick to implement the latest breast physics engine... Ok, seems I forgot Da Vinci or someone else from history, but we will squeez him somehow in the story. Maybe we could put in some white body builders who play indians? The possibilities are endless!

Cheers,

Mijo