My Problem With Console Games

If you want deeper and sophisticated gameplay of course you have to stick with a PC, its always been like this and it always will be. You'll never find a Railworks, Europa Universalis 3 or Red Orchestra on a console and nor should you, because they'd bomb just like when Sports Interactive tried to port Football Manager to the 360. Consoles cater to a different audience, and if your preferences don't map well with that audience then its no surprise you'll end up disappointed.
 
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.

I really agree with you and I was quite surprised people mention KZ2 as a bad example for gameplay and substance :oops:
 
I'm also not sure what this has to do with any online numbers. Certainly not with the quality of the game itself.

If a game has sold a couple of million copies and you regularly see only a couple of hundred players online, it clearly says something about the compelling nature (or not) of the online experience. Imho of course.
 
My suspicion is that you and I have fundamentally different tastes.

Probably.


What I really noticed that certain things have started being political, instead a matter of taste.

So you're saying that I have stated my opinion as a matter of fact, as opposed to a matter of my personal taste? If that's the case, then I apologise. However, I did put in the preamble to my thoughts about certain titles, "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."

GTA IV is worse than any GTA so far, I played every one so far so I can back up my claims.

Ah, here you are claiming that your opinion is a matter of fact and you can back up your claims because you have played every GTA game?

Funny how that works.
 
Probably.




So you're saying that I have stated my opinion as a matter of fact, as opposed to a matter of my personal taste? If that's the case, then I apologise. However, I did put in the preamble to my thoughts about certain titles, "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."

Ah, here you are claiming that your opinion is a matter of fact and you can back up your claims because you have played every GTA game?

Funny how that works.

Hello, thanks for replying. My last OT post about GTA IV. Well, if I write that everyone who does not likes marshmellows wants them to taste like chicken, I should be prepared for some reactions. Same with you and "those who criticise GTA IV".

About my opion, I have mentioned I played every GTA because I can back up *my opinion*, which has nothing to do with yours or some "objective truth"... There is a difference between "I like/dislike x" and "Everyone who does not like y must have expected z".

See?

Cheers...
 
If a game has sold a couple of million copies and you regularly see only a couple of hundred players online, it clearly says something about the compelling nature (or not) of the online experience. Imho of course.

This has less to do with whether the online experience is "compelling" and more to do with the learning curve and what the game asks from the player, if anything the levels are very well designed, well-executed team play is extremely satisfying and the team-based objective modes require a lot of co-ordination, it's not as accessible and friendly to people who just want to drop in all by oneself and mess around. With the bulk of PS3 shooter fans basically attracted to CODWAW and COD4, it's always going to be hard to maintain a large online player base.
 
I can understand the slowness (It has nothing to do with framerate). After playing HL2, I played Halo 2, and Halo 2 felt faster. Halo 2 is also regarded as a slow fps. I think it is just the nature of the games. Games like Quake and UT are ultra fast in comparison.
 
Way too many shooters in this gen. I miss the action RPGs and platformers of the past gen; compared to that this generation is generally sterile. Will wee see another okami this gen? Another beyond good and evil? The games that most ppl care about now and the games that make the headlines are just shooters. I really only see hints of the games of old in the ps3 lineup (forget about wii) but those games arent getting ppl riled up.
 
I appreciate everyone's input and didn't take offense to my first post.

I guess I really shouldn't have limited it to FPSes, so that's my fault. There was one game I played (sorry don't remember the name) where you play as a chick with sword and you can do karate moves and there were some QTE's and such. That game just seemed like a mess, because there was a ton of enemies and I was just mashing buttons to kill them all. QTE's don't bother me, because they are what they are.

But I guess that's what I'm getting at. On some of the demo's I tried from the PSN store, many seemed twitch based (never heard that term before for a game). Guess I just need to branch out a little more from what's available to download as a demo. I do understand that the store isn't everything that's available to the PS3, but man, from the 25 games I tried, they seemed to be the same (as in super duper fast).

btw, on a side note: After playing Resistance for awhile longer, I noticed that Killzone 2 isn't as fast as I originally thought. The only reason I stuck with Resistance was because it was a blind buy, so I don't know......

But again, thank you all again for the input
(ps. my computer is still holding up great for the comment earlier haha)
 
I do understand that the store isn't everything that's available to the PS3, but man, from the 25 games I tried, they seemed to be the same (as in super duper fast).

btw, on a side note: After playing Resistance for awhile longer, I noticed that Killzone 2 isn't as fast as I originally thought. The only reason I stuck with Resistance was because it was a blind buy, so I don't know......

Maybe your just getting old and not notice the difference?

There is a big difference in pace in games, KZ2 is veeeeery slow while other things like say CoD is very fast.
 
Maybe your just getting old and not notice the difference?

There is a big difference in pace in games, KZ2 is veeeeery slow while other things like say CoD is very fast.

Well, as mentioned in my second post. Killzone 2 now seems slow, since I've been playing Resistance.

I'm just 31, so hopefully I'm not "game aging" fast!?!?!? :runaway:
 
Way too many shooters in this gen. I miss the action RPGs and platformers of the past gen; compared to that this generation is generally sterile. Will wee see another okami this gen? Another beyond good and evil? The games that most ppl care about now and the games that make the headlines are just shooters. I really only see hints of the games of old in the ps3 lineup (forget about wii) but those games arent getting ppl riled up.

I've been thinking of how to reply to this post for the last couple of days, because generally I agree with you. This gen has become somewhat "shooter heavy" and, as much as I enjoy a good shooter, there's a lot of dross that's found its way onto the HD consoles. And yes, it's the Halo, Resistance, Gears and Killzone titles that seem to get all the press.

But I also don't entirely agree with you, because there have been some gems this generation that have maybe unfairly fallen under the radar. Just, ironically enough, as Beyond Good and Evil did before. Titles such as Kameo, Valkyria Chronicles, Eternal Sonata, Viva Pinanta, Siren, Folklore and even Rare's attempt to reinvigorate the platforming genre with Nuts and Bolts... there games are all worthy of having a place in the discerning gamers collection. That doesn't mean that are all faultless, but there's enough originality along with solid core gameplay to make them worthwhile purchases.

However, what I think has saved this generation for me, and indeed made it the best generation so far in my eyes are the smaller marketplace-type titles. I wouldn't have bought Braid as a PS2 boxed product, but I bought it over Live. TrialsHD would never have seen me order it on physical media, but I'll download it for about £10. Games such as Pixeljunk Eden, flow, flower, Castle Crashers, Geometry Wars, Critter Crunch, 'Splosion Man and many others. On top of that you have re-issues of classics, many of them updated to take advantage of the power of the new consoles such as Bionic Commando Rearmed, RezHD, Pacman Championship Edition and others.

Microsoft, through either extraordinary vision or blind luck (or a little of both) heavily promoted the concept of small, downloadable titles and has maintained a release schedule of (usually) 2 titles a week since launch. Sony, while slow to catch on, eventually saw the benefit and now have a pretty decent release schedule of smaller titles over PSN.

These outlets (along with the WiiWare store I suppose, though I don't have a Wii so know little about it) have allowed smaller developers to take risks on newer game concepts that just can't get funding in the era of $20m budgets.

So along with a good number of high quality "blockbuster" games and also many boxed games that are well worth playing, there's also an ever growing library of unique, fun games to be bought over PSN/Live for the price of a couple of beers.

Me? I'm lovin' it :)
 
This has less to do with whether the online experience is "compelling" and more to do with the learning curve and what the game asks from the player, if anything the levels are very well designed, well-executed team play is extremely satisfying and the team-based objective modes require a lot of co-ordination, it's not as accessible and friendly to people who just want to drop in all by oneself and mess around. With the bulk of PS3 shooter fans basically attracted to CODWAW and COD4, it's always going to be hard to maintain a large online player base.

Lol nice argument.

I get it now, KZ2 is amazing no matter what. 3 million copies sold and 5000players online doesn't mean the MP was terrible, it was tooo good and to deep. lmao.

I love how people state things like, amazing design on level, well executed team play that is extremely satisfying blah blah blah, like they are facts.

Its quite obvious it couldn't have been all that satisfying, going by how many are playing this game. Maybe to you, but not to everybody else. KZ2 is not deeper than CoD, its just a different. Many, like me, where not particularly thrilled with anything KZ2 offered aside from graphics. The MP is one of the most boring multiplayer games i have ever played. Poor balancing, poor netcode, and imo, not particularly good maps either.

I understand that you might like it, but its far from the masterpiece so many people here try to make it out to be. And presenting arguments that basically say KZ2 is to good for most people to enjoy, is just beyond retarted. KZ2 in the eyes of allmost all gamers simply wasn't good enough\ fun enough, as evident by online players.
 
Lol nice argument.

I get it now, KZ2 is amazing no matter what. 3 million copies sold and 5000players online doesn't mean the MP was terrible, it was tooo good and to deep. lmao.

I love how people state things like, amazing design on level, well executed team play that is extremely satisfying blah blah blah, like they are facts.

Its quite obvious it couldn't have been all that satisfying, going by how many are playing this game. Maybe to you, but not to everybody else. KZ2 is not deeper than CoD, its just a different. Many, like me, where not particularly thrilled with anything KZ2 offered aside from graphics. The MP is one of the most boring multiplayer games i have ever played. Poor balancing, poor netcode, and imo, not particularly good maps either.

I understand that you might like it, but its far from the masterpiece so many people here try to make it out to be. And presenting arguments that basically say KZ2 is to good for most people to enjoy, is just beyond retarted. KZ2 in the eyes of allmost all gamers simply wasn't good enough\ fun enough, as evident by online players.
Wow..since when did we start judging the quality of a game solely on MP? I was under the impression that the game was touted as an extremely cinematic war game and much of that was well displayed in the campaign. Yes, some people complained about the weighty control yet a good portion of players had no problems with it. Why go by the popular opinion or number of copies sold? KZ2 is indeed a masterpiece in tons of people's eyes because we enjoy for what it is.
 
Wow..since when did we start judging the quality of a game solely on MP? I was under the impression that the game was touted as an extremely cinematic war game and much of that was well displayed in the campaign. Yes, some people complained about the weighty control yet a good portion of players had no problems with it. Why go by the popular opinion or number of copies sold? KZ2 is indeed a masterpiece in tons of people's eyes because we enjoy for what it is.

Agreed ...its the best FPS I've played this gen right up there with Warhead & FC2
 
Its quite obvious it couldn't have been all that satisfying, going by how many are playing this game. Maybe to you, but not to everybody else. KZ2 is not deeper than CoD, its just a different. Many, like me, where not particularly thrilled with anything KZ2 offered aside from graphics. The MP is one of the most boring multiplayer games i have ever played. Poor balancing, poor netcode, and imo, not particularly good maps either.

Since when did sales become the largest factor in how well a game has been received or how good it is? It has been received quite well by those that do play the game mind you. Fair point that CoD has a larger market, it being at its 6th game and a very successful 4th part when competition wasn't exactly high (on the PS3, the only competition was RFOM).

KZ2 on the other hand didn't exactly have a stunning entry on the PS2, so it's pretty much a new franchise in that regard. If it does well in MP or not is all relative. Considering that its learning curve is a lot higher and deeper than its competition, it's doing quite alright.

I understand that you might like it, but its far from the masterpiece so many people here try to make it out to be. And presenting arguments that basically say KZ2 is to good for most people to enjoy, is just beyond retarted. KZ2 in the eyes of allmost all gamers simply wasn't good enough\ fun enough, as evident by online players.

Evident by online players? Compared to what? CoD, a multiplatform game that lists 50000+ online players across all platforms that probably aren't even playing online? And you call that evidence that a game is not good/fun enough? You right, that's a very plausible argument there... ;)

Netcode is not poor, most certainly not worse than what CoD is offering. And the great thing is, you don't get all the glitches and cheating either in KZ2, not to mention statistics that come up wrong most of the time and aren't counted properly.
 
Back
Top