[icycalm]

These relevant comments were posted by two of the members of my forum:

'Recap' said:

Americanizing console games and alienating Western PC players at the same time. The X-Box was really something despite all you hear.

"Worm" said:

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was mentioned, though I don't see how the difficulty scaling is attributable to consoles. More arguable is the decreased number of weapon skills, with the amusing result of "Axes" getting lumped in with "Blunt Weapons."

I never played Oblivion, so I can't really speak about those changes. But an obvious point of simplification was the interface:

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
http://i39.tinypic.com/11afigx.jpg

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
http://i44.tinypic.com/14o8v1k.jpg

Hmm, which one was designed with consoles in mind?

Oh, and here's some more detail about Napele0n's example of the Rainbow Six games: prior to the fourth game, Rainbow Six: Lockdown, you could look at a 2D layout of each level and assign waypointed instructions to your team members, allowing you to determine when they would wait, snipe, cover, clear rooms, etc. Each node could also be assigned a go-code, so during the mission you could trigger the AI's next action at your whim. The levels themselves were nonlinear, usually based on actual buildings or realistic building layouts, and offered multiple entry points.

Lockdown ditched all of this. No pre-mission planning, linear start-to-finish levels, and no sniper rifles outside of multiplayer. Player health was increased, and enemy accuracy was decreased. Overall, the game was a rather generic FPS.

[icycalm]

matt0, on Feb 15 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

I think the disadvantages of using a pad are always massively overstated. Especially with a turn based game like Civ (in all it's iterations) where all you need is good menu structure. Moving units around or selecting tiles on a grid isn't a problem (see games like Shining Force, Fire Emblem etc.).

Surely you must be able to see the difference between Civ and something like Shining Force or Fire Emblem! I mean of course the latter work fine with a pad -- the maps are tiny!

The difference may be in play style too, I suspect. When I am playing Civ, SMAC, etc. and I have these gigantic empires sprawling halfway across the globe, I like to (and I am often forced to, since I always play at the hardest difficulty settings) spend a long time panning across the entire map, going inside cities and making sure everything runs fine, maximizing resource output etc. It's the little things like these that ensure victory at the higher difficulty levels, but playing like this requires even more clicks and moving around than normal.

[matt0]

Simplifying interfaces isn't a PC to console phenomomenom and it doesn't necessarily simplify the game.

PC games in the 90s were going through the same changes, especially point and click games (think the change from the old Sierra games through to Maniac Mansion / Zak McKracken, then Monkey Island era stuff leading to games like Sam and Max).

I play roguelikes and I've never been able to figure out why it's taken 20-25 years to go from "Z"apping a wand, "Q"uaffing a potion, "R"eading a book, "E"quipping a sword to just one universal "U"se command. It makes no difference at all to the complexity of the game it's just far more efficient. Most new roguelikes still stick to the old command set :)

[matt0]

icycalm, on Feb 14 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

Surely you must be able to see the difference between Civ and something like Shining Force or Fire Emblem! I mean of course the latter work fine with a pad -- the maps are tiny!

I wasn't comparing the games I was comparing the relevant bits of the interfaces as well you know.

icycalm, on Feb 14 2009, 08:49 PM, said:

The difference may be in play style too, I suspect. When I am playing Civ, SMAC, etc. and I have these gigantic empires sprawling halfway across the globe, I like to (and I am often forced to, since I always play at the hardest difficulty settings) to spend a long time panning across the entire map, going inside cities and making sure everything runs fine, maximizing resource output etc. It's the little things like these that ensure victory at the higher difficulty levels, but playing like this requires even more clicks and moving around than normal.

Map screen: Left and right bumpers cycle through cities. Left and right triggers cycle through units. Left stick moves cursor. Tap A to select a unit with cursor. Double tap A to enter city screen. Tap B to deselect a unit or exit city screen. Move units like you do in Fire Emblem / Shining Force (get it?) EDIT: Right stick quick scrolls map.

City Screen: Left and right triggers or bumpers cycle through menus. Tap X to allocate workers to surrounding map tiles, select the tiles like you'd arrange your formation at the start of a battle in Fire Emblem / Shining Force (again.)

Piece of piss.

[icycalm]

Quote

Simplifying interfaces isn't a PC to console phenomomenom and it doesn't necessarily simplify the game.

PC games in the 90s were going through the same changes, especially point and click games (think the change from the old Sierra games through to Maniac Mansion / Zak McKracken, then Monkey Island era stuff leading to games like Sam and Max).

Adventure games were really logical puzzle games. Part of their challenge was the fact that you had all these commands, and all these items/situations, and had to figure out which command would solve which item/situational puzzle at which point. If you take away ALL the commands and replace them with a single "ACTION" command, which is context-sensitive and automatically does whatever needs to be done at every point, you are reducing the complexity of the game. I know this claim might sound strange to some people, but that's how those games worked. They forced you to THINK about which command to use, if for no other reason than to save time from mindlessly clicking on every command/item combination with the hope of eventually stumbling upon the correct one.

Now, I am not saying that this kind of adventure game is superior to the "streamlined" point-and-click kind. But some people developed a taste for the old style, which had its charms. Simplifying the interface in such games is tantamount to killing them. Some would call it "evolving" them -- and that is true too. But something was also lost in that evolution.

To sum up: all I want to say is that, sometimes, figuring out a complex interface can be part of the fun itself -- if you are the kind of person who likes to tinker with complex stuff just for the hell of it. Take the old Microprose simulators. Getting the damn submarine in Silent Service or the damn tank in M1 Tank Platoon to even BEGIN TO MOVE was a challenge in itself -- and therefore offered its own rewards. Sure, you could always make a Silent Service eXtreme for the 360, or an M1 Tank Platoon console sequel, where everything would happen with the press of two buttons -- but wouldn't you be robbing the games of a great part of what made them interesting in the first place?

The interface question is not at all a cut and dried one.

Quote

Map screen: Left and right bumpers cycle through cities. Left and right triggers cycle through units. Left stick moves cursor. Tap A to select a unit with cursor. Double tap A to enter city screen. Tap B to deselect a unit or exit city screen. Move units like you do in Fire Emblem / Shining Force (get it?) EDIT: Right stick quick scrolls map.

City Screen: Left and right triggers or bumpers cycle through menus. Tap X to allocate workers to surrounding map tiles, select the tiles like you'd arrange your formation at the start of a battle in Fire Emblem / Shining Force (again.)

I guess you are completely disregarding what I said about the way I play the game. Or you play it so differently (smaller maps/lower difficulty) that you have no idea what I am talking about.

Quote

Piece of piss.

Also, this just flies in the face of all evidence. If the control issue was a non-issue, we'd have been seeing complex strategy games on consoles since the days of the NES. Instead, 90%+ of them are computer exclusive.

[Kryptonian]

I find this a strange topic as it's quite obvious that it's more difficult to port some games to consoles just because of the controls. Compromises will have to be made. The example above with Morrowind & Oblivion seems a bit stupid as the Oblivion menus contain all the same information but on different pages of the menu - the developers can't assume everyone with an Xbox would be running it at 1080p and have a small font - it will all have to be readable at 480i/p aswell - it's nothing whatsoever to do with 'dumbing down'

I don't think the Halo 2 weapon thing was anything to do with 'dumbing down' either was it? Have they said that? Was it not just a designed decision that worked well?

Also, simplified controls (or optimising for a console) doesn't equal dumbing down, does it?

[Jam_sponge]

Feck off with this Xboxification coinerism nonsense... There's a very good reason that so few games are massively complicated these days - people don't have the time and patience. When I was 12 or 13 I was massively into highly complex PC gaming, but these days I want something I can sit down and play immediately without any kind of reading up.

And as for the PC / Console divide, the best PC game of last year was World of Goo. Dumbed down? No - just simplified beautifully.

The fact of the matter is the number of gamers with the time and energy to dedicate themselves to one highly complex game enough to master it is now dwarfed in comparison to the number of people who just want a bit of simple fun, and to be honest the number of games which caters for people like you might seem small, but actually it's probably very reflective of the actual demand. Stick that in your essay and smoke it.

[Taurus]

This is a comedy account, right?

[Rudi von Starnberg]

It's a comedy life.

[RubberJohnny]

Quote

To sum up: all I want to say is that, sometimes, figuring out a complex interface can be part of the fun itself -- if you are the kind of person who likes to tinker with complex stuff just for the hell of it. Take the old Microprose simulators. Getting the damn submarine in Silent Service or the damn tank in M1 Tank Platoon to even BEGIN TO MOVE was a challenge in itself -- and therefore offered its own rewards.

This is stupid. Overcomplex interfaces and punishing difficulty are simply obstacles that get in the way of gameplay, you're mistaking them for the gameplay itself. Either it's elitism or annoyance at the sunk cost of going to the trouble of suffering through the system only to find that others can just skip that and get straight to the gameplay.

An Example: Dwarf Fortress has about 138 menus and submenus, and uses terribly inconsistent commands for all of them, space backs you out of a menu, except sometimes it's F9. WASD are used to expand fields, except when it's 4862 (and only the NumPad ones), or KLMN. Sometimes Up and Down Arrows are used to scroll except when it's + or -, again NumPad only. The game has no tutorials, and is incredibly hard.

This is not gameplay, this is not fun, this is not worthwhile in any way. If all of that were to be stripped out the game would be better for it, since it wouldn't require hours of investment to learn, but the people who have gone to the trouble of learning it would be annoyed at it being 'dumbed down'. This can be seen on a greater level with the whole hardcore/casual split. Check out this article for more, he says it better than I could.

Quote

Experienced gamers have spent enormous time and effort at learning games. When computer magazines came out, old timers were irritated that one did not have to learn how to program games themselves. Instead, they could just copy what was shown in a magazine. And those gamers, as they aged, became irritated when games were sold in zip-loc bags in stores. Now, gamers did not even need to put in the code! When the NES came out, computer gamers were irritated that the new gamers, the NES generation, would not know the burn of long loading times or dealing with a complex keyboard for all gaming. Arcade gamers were irritated that the 3d gamers did not have to play and replay a part of the game a thousand times until he got it right to advance. Games were becoming easier and removing those obstacles previous gamers had spent so much of their time and effort to work. Imagine the frustration of a computer gamer, having to create multiple boot discs to get a certain VooDoo graphics to work to play a huge RPG epic, become annoyed at younger gamers who do nothing but pop in a disc!

The people who are opposed to eliminating additional obstacles are those who have spent the time and effort surmounting the prior ones. Along their intense focus of surmounting those obstacles, they become confused that the obstacles were the point in the first place! For new games, they demand more obstacles to be placed in their path. In time, the gamer becomes twisted to think gaming is nothing but surmounting obstacles.

[icycalm]

Well, it's no surprise that in a large forum there would be many people who prefering simpler games. It seems that some also prefer getting through a greater number of simpler games, instead of investing the same amount of time on one or two more complex ones. Again, no surprises here.

At any rate, if anyone has any more examples of consolization/simplification to contribute, I'll be happy to see them.

[RubberJohnny]

Quote

Well, it's no surprise that in a large forum there would be many people who preferring simpler games. It seems that some also prefer getting through a greater number of simpler games, instead of investing the same amount of time on one or two more complex ones. Again, no surprises here.

No, you don't get it. This is like asking "Why do people make bad games?", and getting people say that they don't mean to, and that it's often time or money issues that force compromises on quality, then ignoring that and maintaining that developer deliberately make shit games because they're evil. If it weren't for your regdate, I'd almost think you were an alt having fun trolling.

A quote from the article again:

Quote

”I do recall when computer gaming shifted from DOS to Windows. There was a vocal group of people unhappy with the change. I also recall gamers annoyed when PC game companies offered their own free version of online multiplayer for they became used to independent paid services.”

And what was the reaction from these experienced players when gaming opened up?

”They called the new gamers ‘noobs’ and themselves as ‘old school’ or ‘real gamers’. They considered the invasion of new players as a type of diluting effect on the gamer population. Keep in mind that these observations are not just for the hardcore of today or a specific time but for all times.”

It is the hardcore gamer who readily accepted 720 and 1080 HD gaming. This move to HD before HD has become mainstream is another additional obstacle. Hardcore will view that obstacle as ‘progress’ and ‘sophistication’ while normal people view it as a pain in the butt. The same can be applied to any hardcore quality from extreme game difficulty, control complexity, to paid online gaming.

This is you. You've learnt micromanagement skills through trial and error with incremental improvement over time and are annoyed that other people don't have to go through all that rigmarole and can just jump into having fun, which is after all what gaming is about. These console gamers are the 'noobs', while you are the PC gaming master race, to quote Yahtzee.

Quote

It seems that some also prefer getting through a greater number of simpler games, instead of investing the same amount of time on one or two more complex ones. Again, no surprises here.

Having more fun over less time, against having less fun over a longer time? Why is it even a contest? Learning the system before reaching that enjoyment isn't fun, the fun is when you've learnt the system. Fun doesn't increase with the complexity of the game.

[Joyrex-J9]

This thread is an embarrassment, the title doubly so.

[Vin]

Taurus, on Feb 14 2009, 08:40 PM, said:

This is a comedy account, right?

Thought it was Simmy for a moment. Same avatar and all.

Mental note - read the bit of text above the avatar, first.

[RubberJohnny]

Quote

“Do not game makers try to get their fringe franchise to enter the mainstream? Do they not try to remove the obstacles that are limiting their games’ sales? Don’t you see the push to move the game to the mainstream? In fact, the ‘hardcore’ do not really want to become mainstream. As soon as a game enters the mainstream, it must be hated because then it is ‘popular’.”

“Like Grand Theft Auto III. Like FIFA.”

“Exactly. One can see this effect occur within individual genres. In shmups, the ‘hardcore’ will compete among each other to name the most obscure Japanese only shmup while ignoring the mainstream hits such as Gradius or even R-Type. Hardcore confuse the obstacles to gaming as its sophistication where it is the exact opposite.”

“That explains why the Treasure shmups like Radiant Silvergun or Ikaruga were endlessly praised by the hardcore until they became popular. And then, suddenly, those games were ‘no good’.”

“Yes. The ‘hardcore’ are not core but fringe. They want to be different from the mainstream. As soon as something hits the mainstream, they move away from it as if it contained the plague. One cannot be simultaneously sophisticated and tasteful if it is mainstream.”

This is your whole 'Xboxification' argument. You do not like the idea that the types of experiences available on the PC are becoming accessible to a wider audience, because a large part of your attraction to them is that they are fringe or niche in the first place.

This movement against the mainstream is true for everyone on this forum, to some extent, because we as gamers are fringe and niche. We like fantasy and science fiction, and niche music and TV series - but only the first album/series, you know - before it got popular.

[Captain Toss]

Do the likes of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance or Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel count?

Not console conversions per se, but both were successful 'proper' RPG franchises on the PC, and clearly someone thought that for them to flourish on consoles, they needed to be turned into button-mashing RPG-lite rubbish.

Although Dark Alliance was alright. Ish.

[Liquid Myth]

Joyrex-J9, on Feb 14 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

This thread is an embarrassment, the title doubly so.

What's the point of this post? "Oh hey, a bandwagon, better hop on (again)!" Fuck debate. And I'm one more likely to normally complain about an icycalm topic.

The complaint is that some games have been simplified to the detriment of the overall content of a game. And some perfectly valid examples posted, Deus Ex being a more obvious one to those who played it. I could say X-Wing/Tie Fighter against the recent Rogue Squadron games, but you'd be more interested in scoring cheap shit posts.

[Achilles]

Has anyone said 'streamlined' yet?

[Napole0n]

Why the hate? The word 'Xboxification' may be a bit off, but as that was the console that more or less started the migration of PC titles to consoles it's forgivable. I think some valid points are being made, and it's undeniable that some games have been simplified in order to make them playable with a controller.

The other way round also happens though, what with all these console games that appear on PC these days?

[RubberJohnny]

Quote

Why the hate? The word 'Xboxification' may be a bit off, but as that was the console that more or less started the migration of PC titles to consoles it's forgivable. I think some valid points are being made, and it's undeniable that some games have been simplified in order to make them playable with a controller.

The issue isn't the name, it's the idea that any sort of movement that does away with barriers to entry is a bad one. It's the latest in the line of the same type of elitist scorn directed at the 'newbs' by the 'tru gamers', be it from DOS to Windows, from Coding to Magazines, from Hardcore to Casual, or from PC to Console.

The very question and the mindset behind it are reactionary and backwards.