Console limitations - How much truth in such claims?

[Abhay]

Firstly, I'm a PC player and never in my life have I been a console player, which is precisely why I want to understand from the codex as to exactly what makes consoles ( specifically, the popular brands from the manufacturers like Sony/Microsoft ) a platform often faces the common criticism that they hold games back?
Even on this next gen, I find people that still expect ( or probably know ) the situation with PS4/X1 to be not much different than the consoles on the last gen, and "limitations" will exist in some way, or the other, and the games will not move forward by much in terms of gameplay and improvements than what PC could achieve for the developers.

I understand the limitations with regards to graphics and details for consoles falling behind PC, but now, with next gen machines they are not really as bad as they used to be in last gen.
The only thing left to compare is design and innovation from pure gameplay standpoint, which I fail to see how consoles have been falling behind PC.
Any console game can still be developed in the same quality level as PC without scaling back the mechanics and the core game design itself, apart from maybe the controller issues on consoles require some tweaking to make them suitable for the experience as good enough as the KB and M offers on PC, but that's not really a limitation of the hardware but I'm interested in the main differences here from a pure gameplay standpoint and how consoles have an impact on the game's development to such an extent that it'll always fall behind PC?

How much truth is in such claims when people blame console limitations for anything they believe could've been done better, if the developers made the game exclusively for PC, or keeping PC in Mind before porting them to consoles?

Are next gen consoles still not to the point where we can see the differences narrowing down between PC and Consoles after all these years - outside the graphical capabilities - in terms of being capable for more complex and better gameplay experiences?

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

I don't think it's the capability that is the problem, but rather the audience that either one is seeking to please.

 

[Winslow]

I suggest you play Morrowind and Oblivion back-to-back if you want a concrete experience of the damage such a shift in focus can do.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I suggest you play Morrowind and Oblivion back-to-back if you want a concrete experience of the damage such a shift in focus can do.

"I suggest you play Daggerfall and Morrowind back-to-back if you want a concrete experience of the damage such a shift in focus can do."

Remember that Morrowind was also released for the Xbox.

 

[Winslow]

Morrowind was ported to consoles later, Oblivion was designed for consoles first and foremost. I'm not implying any Elder Scrolls is a good game in any way.

 

[Dev_Anj]

Most of the claim of consoles holding games "back" stems from the idea that most AAA and even mid budget developers target consoles first and port to PCs later. Since consoles generally have less maximum power than PCs, this inevitably leads to claims that developers make cuts and compromises to release their games for both consoles and PCs these days. Usually multiplatform games were rare before the advent of the Xbox, which is another reason why the Codex often blames it for the poor state of the industry today.

I would say that these claims do have merit, but they don't give the full picture. Especially since there are design decisions which were clearly influenced by developer choices rather than the choice of platform, like quest markers. But ultimately, it would be safe to see that it's mostly humongous budgets and trends to play it safe that are to blame over anything else.

 

[Severian Silk]

Console players so butthurt over K&M setups.

http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/3/14502282/overwatch-mouse-and-keyboard-ps4-xbox

K&M so good they are ILLEGAL!!1

Blizzard doesn’t want Overwatch console players using mouse-keyboard setups
114
Keyboards for all, or keyboards for none
by Allegra Frank@LegsFrank Feb 3, 2017, 6:15pm EST TWEET

• SHARE

• PIN

Blizzard Entertainment
Director Jeff Kaplan has a message for Overwatch players on console who use a mouse and keyboard as their controller of choice: Don’t do it. In a post on the Battle.net forum, he spoke on behalf of Blizzard Entertainment to explain why the developer “objects” to PlayStation 4 and Xbox One owners going out of their to use mice and keyboards.

“The Overwatch team objects to the use of mouse and keyboard on console,” Kaplan wrote. “We have contacted both first-party console manufacturers and expressed our concern about the use of mouse and keyboard and input conversion devices.”

Neither the PS4 nor Xbox One natively support mouse-and-keyboard setups. That means people who want to use them go out of their way to buy convertors to hook them up to their consoles.

As Overwatch players on PC know, using a mouse allows for much more precise aiming than a control stick does. Since not everyone has access to a mouse on console because of the lack of native support, it creates an unfair advantage for those who cough up the bucks for a convertor.

The controller dichotomy on consoles has generated some controversy in the Overwatch community in the past. Last June, Blizzard released a patch to weaken Torbjorn, a character who gained particular popularity on console. The reason for this was that he was one of the few heroes who didn’t require good aim to deal massive damage; his turrets did all the work.

Nerfing Torbjorn was an important step toward keeping the console game balanced just as well as the PC version, but the larger issue remains gamepads’ more imprecise aiming.

“To make precise movements, you need to move your stick a ridiculously small amount,” a user explained in a popular Battle.net thread last September, calling out the development team for not addressing the aiming issue. “If you move it [20 percent], which is not much at all, you're already at half or more of your maximum sensitivity. This leaves you with an incredibly small range to make precise movements. This is the main reason that aiming on consoles feels clunky, odd, and imprecise.”

Aiming remains a sticking point for Overwatch fans who prefer consoles to PC. For their part, the folks at Blizzard said they’ll change their tune about keyboards if console makers ever introduce support for them out of the box.

“I encourage you to reach out to the hardware manufacturers and express your concerns (but please do so in a productive and respectful way),” Kaplan said.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Morrowind was ported to consoles later, Oblivion was designed for consoles first and foremost. I'm not implying any Elder Scrolls is a good game in any way.

Oblivion was shit because it was a bad game, not because it was or wasn't designed and developed for a certain machine.

 

[Winslow]

Every Elder Scrolls is a bad game but Oblivion and its sequel are worse precisely because they aren't even fun to break because of their horrid UI.

 

[Grotesque]

Firstly, I'm a PC player and never in my life have I been a console player, which is precisely why I want to understand from the codex as to exactly what makes consoles ( specifically, the popular brands from the manufacturers like Sony/Microsoft ) a platform often faces the common criticism that they hold games back?
Even on this next gen, I find people that still expect ( or probably know ) the situation with PS4/X1 to be not much different than the consoles on the last gen, and "limitations" will exist in some way, or the other, and the games will not move forward by much in terms of gameplay and improvements than what PC could achieve for the developers.

I understand the limitations with regards to graphics and details for consoles falling behind PC, but now, with next gen machines they are not really as bad as they used to be in last gen.
The only thing left to compare is design and innovation from pure gameplay standpoint, which I fail to see how consoles have been falling behind PC.
Any console game can still be developed in the same quality level as PC without scaling back the mechanics and the core game design itself, apart from maybe the controller issues on consoles require some tweaking to make them suitable for the experience as good enough as the KB and M offers on PC, but that's not really a limitation of the hardware but I'm interested in the main differences here from a pure gameplay standpoint and how consoles have an impact on the game's development to such an extent that it'll always fall behind PC?

How much truth is in such claims when people blame console limitations for anything they believe could've been done better, if the developers made the game exclusively for PC, or keeping PC in Mind before porting them to consoles?

Are next gen consoles still not to the point where we can see the differences narrowing down between PC and Consoles after all these years - outside the graphical capabilities - in terms of being capable for more complex and better gameplay experiences?

compare the power source of a mid/high range PC and the power source of a high end console. the answer is in there.
also there are numerous developers quotes where they clearly state they were neutered in level/game design by console technical limitations (quick example: Thief 3)
when a console will generate the same amount of heat, consume the same wattage and will cost around the same as a PC, then you can say consoles does not hinder game design and they're on par with a capable PC.

 

[Ash]

Remember that Morrowind was also released for the Xbox.

A highly faithful port too.

Consoles undoubtedly hold certain things back, but it's mostly on a minor technical level and doesn't justify utterly shit design (Oblivion, Invisible War). A relatively recent example of a good, mature PC-like game a console supported is Fallout: New Vegas. Sure the Vegas strip was meant to be bigger and seamless, and could have possibly been so if it was PC only, but all in all it's a great game despite any minor setbacks.
They're just low-end PCs, essentially. I wish more devs would dial back the focus on graphics and instead focus on gameplay, story and everything else. Something that New Vegas is also notable for considering there was very little noticeable work regarding graphics, but very noticeable work in every other respect...but all the graphics whores kick up a fuss.

Regarding audience: both arguably as decline enabling as each other. The majority of PC games RPGCodex likes sold poorly, the developers now defunct or producing decline. The vast majority of PC games I am most fond of (many also on the list) also sold poorly. The PC gaming audience were only interested in what Valve and id had to offer, and today it's even worse. Just look at the top games played on steam, frequently it is filled with popamole. Shit like Bioshock vastly outsold System Shock 2 on PC. Even on the modding level there's a lot of decline-enabling from the consumers.
The masses just follow the hype and marketing, and it is an upsetting realization.

The real enemy is sellout mentality, the power of marketing, the tight grip of publishers, the extremely high stakes involved in game development these days and plenty more...console on a technical level level is the least of my concerns, especially since they only really became associated with major decline once M$ and PC devs abandoned the PC market and started shoveling shit en masse. Most of our favorite games were developed on PC hardware considerably inferior to console hardware of today. What matters is game design, and good game design is a dying concept. Although things have possibly been looking up a little of late compared to the hordes of garbage we got from the xbox 360 generation.

 

[abija]

Console players so butthurt over K&M setups.

http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/3/14502282/overwatch-mouse-and-keyboard-ps4-xbox

K&M so good they are ILLEGAL!!1

They are actually hacks since most shooters on consoles have aim assist to compensate the poor input.

Aaaaanyway, console limitations are real but more often then not they are not the reason for shit design. Stuff like the UI from skyrim is the result of gross incompetence not designing for consoles.

 

[Dexter]

The decline comes in several ways, I left a long rant about it over here years ago: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/what-happened-to-gaming.78085/page-2#post-2375643

- The kinds of games that are being produced, with the focus being consoles there's different kinds of games being produced, you can thank this phenomenon for the "death" of old-school Strategy games, Adventures, Simulators/Mech games and until they returned Tactical RPGs, Fast-Paced shooters (you've usually got slow cover-based Shooters instead) and even in some cases Jump & Runs. Some other games like MMOs are also only possible to a lesser extent on consoles, but due to their Online nature and monthly fees they usually sell enough on PC alone to merit it.
You can follow the track record of several companies under the umbrella of Microsoft and their decline over the years, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_Studios#Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aces_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASA_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionhead_Studios#Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Anvil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioWare#Games

- Control scheme, it adds to the effects listed above, since the reason different games are being produced (e.g. no Strategy/Tactical RPGs/Adventures) is the limited control scheme of consoles, having to control everything with a controller and a limited amount of buttons, and it has to be "intuitive" and easy to pick up and use. UI also plays a role, it has to be simplified a lot to be usable with a Controller.

- Hardware requirements, for the longest time not only the limited graphics capabilities were a problem, but especially their limited amount of RAM (with the Xbox 360 coming with 512MB RAM - and even that thanks to intervention by Epic and the PlayStation 3 with only 256MB RAM), one of the reasons you see a lot less loading screens and larger levels or generally more "Open World" games on the Xbone and PlayStation 4 is that they don't suffer from amount of RAM

- Audience, consoles are generally geared towards a more Casual crowd that got it gifted by their parents or bought it because of kids and use it every now and then but aren't expected to have deeper technological knowledge and often don't really like "specialized" games, that's why the Wii was successful for a while, that's why Microsoft tried to push Kinect on people and PlayStation had some stuff like EyeToy. Even the more dedicated "gamers" and the main audience often play stuff like the newest Madden/Call of Duty/Halo etc. religiously (Cinematic! Cover Shooter! Exclusive! Accessible!) and don't touch some of the more intricate or complex games, leading to a dumbing down of design if they want to sell to said main console audience.

 

[Skittles]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the impact that designing around a game played on a television screen at some distance from the player has. Larger text means either less text or more scrolling around--I'm fairly certain this is why Bethesda and Bioware RPGs transitioned from Morrowind wikis and IE 10 responses dialogue systems to four to eight sentence fragments around a wheel, for example. I think this limitation in addition to the menu design necessities of using the larger screen and a controller to navigate also cripple many strategy games--they struggle to present relevant information and players tire of excessive scrolling and navigating to dig it up.

That alone starts to deter developers who want a game to have a multiplatform release from publishing (traditional) RPGs and strategy games and I think contributed to their relative decline in quality and presence in the mainstream, which I consider a negative consequence.

 

[Ash]

At the end of the day larger font and UI is still a design choice. And if you go with small font it's basically telling the player to not sit so far away from the TV (which not all console players do) or to put on their glasses. My SO was playing Tropico 4 on her PS4 the other day and I noticed it has pretty damn small font:

- The kinds of games that are being produced, with the focus being consoles there's different kinds of games being produced, you can thank this phenomenon for the "death" of old-school Strategy games, Adventures, Simulators/Mech games and until they returned Tactical RPGs, Fast-Paced shooters (you've usually got slow cover-based Shooters instead)

Back in the day adventure games, strategy, mech and sim games all had a notable presence on consoles too. those games just aren't typically considered profitable in the big budget AAA era I guess.

 

[Skittles]

At the end of the day larger font and UI is still a design choice.

It is. I think the recent history of consoles shows, though, that most mainstream developers have trended in that direction and not because they woke up one morning and though they'd try something crazy. People don't want to move their couches closer to the TV.

 

[sullynathan]

One thing I will say is that there's a clear difference in level design when it comes to console games vs pc games.

 

[Ash]

One thing I will say is that there's a clear difference in level design when it comes to console games vs pc games.

Level design principles (and design principles in general) are based on the developer, with the machine being developed for having only minor influence over that.

Although things have possibly been looking up a little of late compared to the hordes of garbage we got from the xbox 360 generation.

The majority of that absolute shit coming from ex-PC devs, for the record. Fable, Gears of War, Oblivion, Bioshock...since when were console games that shit? You ever played a good console game, like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? Dark Souls?

 

[pippin]

Specs don't matter when devs are worthless. The Deus Ex port was meant to take advantage of the Play Station Keyboard and mouse, but then again, using that kinda defeats the point.

 

[Ash]

The DX port was rather needlessly butchered in some respects, but it was still infinitely better than Invisible War.

Anyhow, I've played anything I could get my hands on over the years, from PC to consoles to handheld, and from my POV old school PC and console gaming = incline. Modern PC and console gaming = pure decline, generally speaking. Blaming consoles is nonsense when it was the people behind the PC scene abandoning it in favor of making trash for consoles, instead of doubling down on the PC and attempting to strengthen its popularity as a game-playing platform in the industry. Or these companies could have, you know, not made absolute trash and aggressively marketed it when they abandoned the PC. There is such a thing as a good console game.

 

[Baron Dupek]

Old console generations had limits but they make workarounds for them. For example - great music of GameBoy games. When was the last time music tune played in my head (when it comes to more modern games)? I don't remember now. See?

no Tactical RPGs due control scheme limit aka few pad buttons

Deus Ex PS2 version had only one problem and that was small maps, sometimes you feel like a hobo turning in the carboard box from TV.
Shooting was better, NPCs models (eyes) too. Then you get to the ultraawkward UI and inventory management. Horror, Horror - said col. Kurtz Gunther

 

[Ash]

Deus Ex PS2 version had only one problem and that was small maps, sometimes you feel like a hobo turning in the carboard box from TV.
Shooting was better, NPCs models (eyes) too. Then you get to the ultraawkward UI and inventory management. Horror, Horror - said col. Kurtz Gunther

Nah, it was way more than that that was dumbed down, most of which I suspect was needless dumbing down just to make the game more accessible for sales. In fact, considering the existence and motive behind Invisible War it's almost a certainty.

Perhaps it was more a matter of cutting down on temp memory usage though, due to the PS2's limited RAM. But that's only speculation. The game also had poor framerate in a couple of places, which is odd, but the PC version had a rep for being poorly optimized too despite the lack of graphical prowess. Doesn't matter now though as modern PC hardware handles it just fine.

 

[A horse of course]

Morrowind was ported to consoles later, Oblivion was designed for consoles first and foremost. I'm not implying any Elder Scrolls is a good game in any way.

I can't be bothered to dig out the scan but Todd specifically said the Xbox "port" was the true version of Morrowind

 

[Ash]

can't be bothered to dig out the scan but Todd specifically said the Xbox "port" was the true version of Morrowind

How come? The GUI in the PC version was (slightly) better in my opinion and the xbox version often had to stop and stream the game world when on the open plains. Doing the old jump spell 1 second 1000 magnitude trick and jumping from one side of the map to the other resulted in constant stopping and loading. Still was relatively fast though and not really a problem in the grand scheme. Other than that I don't recall other notable differences, but there is bound to be some.

 

[Severian Silk]

Morrowind was ported to consoles later, Oblivion was designed for consoles first and foremost. I'm not implying any Elder Scrolls is a good game in any way.

I can't be bothered to dig out the scan but Todd specifically said the Xbox "port" was the true version of Morrowind

And when speaking with Kim Jong Un I'm sure he said North Korea was the true target audience.