I'm not saying console gaming ruins every game ever put out in the last # of years, but I do firmly believe that consoles ARE the primary cause for the decline in FPS games/gaming. My reasoning for that is the trends of the last few years, and the fact that, within those trends, virtually every FPS that failed hard core on the PC was a port, or a multiplatform.
- - - - -
SW:FU was not virtually but completely unplayable when released for the PC, as a result of horribly poor porting. So in that regard, Consoles directly and inarguably hurt PC gaming.
snared04
There are good ports, and there are bad ports, and they swing both ways. There have been just as many bad ports of PC titles to consoles over the years, but they don't get as much attention. A bad port of a game is a separate issue from the actual design decisions for that game taken during development. A bad port could simply be the result of the developer running out of money, or not being competent on a particular platform, or just trying to cash in on the success of a title. So both console gamers and PC gamers have had some raw deals over the years.
When it comes to 'multi-platform' games, I understand where you are coming from, and agree that the constraints of console hardware can have an impact on design decisions as well, such as smaller levels, changes to the interface, lower quality graphics, zoomed in FOV, etc. When it comes to these factors, developers are obviously trying to make 'one game to fit all' in order to save costs, but you can't fit a square peg in a round hole without trimming off the corners, and it can be a false economy if gamers on a particular platform dislike the changes enough to not buy the game.
And take a look at a couple popular series from a few years back. During the Medal of Honor days, it was the PC games that really shone in the series. The PS game was great for what it was, but MoH: Allied Assault was breathtaking in its day. Again, a PC only game. Call it a niche if you want, but in my opinion when the dev's stop worrying about accessibility for silly console gamers, the game turns out better.
snared04
First, I didn't call PC gaming in general a 'niche' market. Space strategy games are a niche market, and so too are games with high end graphics because they are aimed squarely at a minority of PC gamers able to run them. But PC gaming as a whole is very far from a 'niche' market. :)
Second, I think it's disingenuous to label all console gamers as 'silly' or for PC gamers in general to view them as somehow mentally challenged. Many PC gamers also own consoles, and play games on consoles, and that is an increasing trend. Does someone's intelligence quotient suddenly drop sharply when they use a gamepad rather than a keyboard and mouse? Of course not.
In fact, alternative control devices have been around on PCs for the past couple of decades, including joysticks, game pads, pedals, steering wheels, etc. That being the case, it is harder to blame the constraints of the console controller for the 'dumbing down' of gaming - after all, in any fighting game you can use different combinations of buttons to pull off dozens of different moves. So fewer available buttons should not automatically equate to fewer options.
Take the MS Strategic Commander (exclusive to PC) as another example - 8 buttons, and a slider with 3 positions, as I recall - and you could program it with over 70 commands, while also using it for forward/backward/side-to-side movement, and leaning left to right. Considerably fewer buttons than a keyboard, yet it had the same functionality (and I could play FPS and RPG games just as easily as the RTS for which it was designed). The Xbox 360 controller basically has 10 buttons (including the triggers/bumpers), a dpad (4 options there) and two sticks (for movement, panning). Technically, it should be able to offer more functionality than the MS Strategic Commander - but most developers simply ignore that potential. Why?
That means the only real physical constraint on a console is the limited memory, which leads to a reduction in physical size of game assets, such as textures, game levels, model complexity - and these 'visual' constraints are much more noticeable when that game arrives on the PC.
In my view, the dumbing down of games has far more to do with the attitudes of developers toward the perceived competence of their market. They are the ones putting stupid pop-up messages in the games (which is nonsensical if a game has a tutorial level), streamlining interfaces, cutting features so you only have to press a few buttons. They are the ones assuming that every gamer has the attention span of a gnat, and is too retarded to remember which button to press to jump or grab an item in game. I think you'd find many hardcore gamers who prefer console platforms would also enjoy a more feature-rich gaming experience with more depth.
Next came Call of Duty 1, originally just for PC, and utterly groundbreaking in terms of FPS. I remember being totally swept away by this when it was released. Iron sights, weapon swapping, and some of the best damn gunplay ever. CoD2 was even better, and while a horrible-looking version was released on the 360 as well, it was certainly still geared towards the PC side of things. However, since then, CoD:WaW, CoD:MW 1 & 2 have come out, all geared and developed towards their console versions, instead of the PC, and I have been less than impressed with all of them. A steady decline, you might say, as the series has become more entrenched in its new found console homeland.
snared04
Blame Infinity Ward for the decline of the CoD series. They wanted to become a console-focused developer after CoD 1 (ActiVision said 'no'), and CoD 2 was very much aimed at casual gamers, which you can clearly see in many of their design choices that carried over into the PC version: regenerating health, enemies showing up on radar, shooting scoped while jumping, one-shot kill shotguns, a grenade button for quickly throwing grenades (which led to increased grenade spamming), crosshairs going red over enemies (meaning you couldn't hide in bushes), and shoebox-sized maps so people didn't have to run too far to find the next target. Engine constraints also led to bushes popping in and out of view when scoping. No anti-cheat out of the box, in spite of the fact they knew CoD 1 was hacked to death. No mod support for half a year, in spite of the fact they knew custom maps and mods were popular.
Hmm...if hardcore PC gamers had been the focus of CoD 2, as you seem to believe, you probably wouldn't have seen any of those things. I played CoD 1 and United Offensive to death online, and I disliked many of the changes they made to CoD 2, because I could see straight away that those changes were aimed at casual gamers (or 'console' gamers, if you prefer). And yes, the series went rapidly downhill from there as they catered more and more to the casual market.
Another indicator of the 'casual' mindset can be seen in many RTS games in recent years, where developers have largely removed or toned down base building, resource management, etc., ie, the 'fiddly bits', so that gamers can more quickly jump into the front lines and 'blow stuff up'. How can consoles be blamed for this 'dumbing down' of games in a genre that is basically a stronghold on the PC platform? The only possible reason for streamlining a PC exclusive RTS game is to make it 'more accessible' to appeal to casual gamers, which goes back to my argument in my previous post. Dumbed down games appeal to a wider audience and attract more sales.
Log in to comment