Console limitations - How much truth in such claims?

[Telengard]

In answer to the OP, people blame consoles because in general they like to name an enemy and then foist the blame for everything on them. It's kind of humanity's thing. It keeps the hate simple. Markets are far too complex entities to be represented by that model - one single actor very rarely has such an identifiably solo influence on everything, but like people care about details.

Howsoever, it is true that console limitations are one factor that influences game development. One factor among many, but definitively still a factor. Now, the people who blame console limitations broadly speaking fall into two camps: 1) those who blame consoles for the limitations they place on UI and on gameplay (the good people), and 2) those who blame consoles for the limitations they place on graphical advancement (the horrible people).

For the former group, consoles place limitations on UI for the reasons already discussed, but then there is the limitation on gameplay. But it is not direct limitations on gameplay, as so many like to claim. Instead, those limitation are a byproduct. A byproduct of the horrible people mentioned above. In service to the graphical Decliners, console devs play fast and loose with the graphical capabilities of consoles. To put it in basic terms, console machines are a fixed tech, so resources are a fixed limitation. They are a computer that is the same and will be the same for a long time. And if all of those fixed resources are devoted to processing shiny graphics in order to please the Decliners, then there isn't a lot left over to run anything else. To take but one example, strategy grognards are quite happy with units represented by colored squares with symbols in the center, whereas rpg players want every strand of hair in their dolly avatar rendered in exquisite detail. So, grognards get to have simplistic-looking but quite complex games wherever they play their games, while rpg fans are stuck with shit, though it's shit with very pretty hair.

However, the trick for the good gameplay-centered folks is: there are a lot of limitations that come into play once graphics becomes a priority, not just the console-y nature of the game. After all, people's pocketbooks are not endless; they will only buy the latest toys so many times, and that's even when they're not feeling the pinch of a recession. And when a dev wants to sell 20 million copies of his game, he's got to look at what's the below average specs of all the PCs currently connected to Steam. Because after all, only the horrible Decliners are going to upgrade their computers just to see the latest level of detail on the hair follicles of the dolly in the latest dumb powerhouse blockbuster. And while there are a lot of nerds who of that ilk, they're aren't 20 million of them.

Which plays into the other side of the console limitation - the graphics. For the Decliners, PC tech is always progressing, while consoles are static. And thus, they insist, graphics would constantly progress along with PC tech if there wasn't the anchor of the fixed unit that is the console around devs' necks. That, if the consoles weren't there, PC games would be free to race ahead like they once did in the 90s, making you, the players, buy a cutting edge computer every 2 or 3 years. Of course, that 90s tech quest ended the lives of a number of different companies who spent a whole bunch of money scooping up all the latest tech advancements to introduce into their game, and so spending money hand over fist to acquire and develop the materials to have the game's characters' individual strands of hair wave around in 3d, and then their game turned out not to be a mega blockbuster in sales. being on the cutting edge costs a lot of money, so not being a sales blockbuster means you just gutted the company's finances.

Not to mention, as more and more money gets dumped into graphical tech, the budgets of games begin ballooning, quickly sending the costs spiraling out of the range of personal financing. Which means, instead of companies founded and fully invested by the owner, dev companies are forced to begin looking towards investment money to pay for development. And investors are horrible people - avoid them whenever you can. The greater the percentage of money a dev takes from their ilk, the more the investors are going to have a say in how that money gets spent. And how they want it spent is in safe bets, so that they can guarantee a return on their investment. Or in other words - games like the latest 20 million-selling mega blockbuster with all the latest hair details. Not to mention, that also mean you need a game with broad appeal, not niche, since the only way to get to 20 million and thus pay for all those pretty hair options is to reach the masses.

And so, the Decliners like to claim we could have even shinier and prettier hair than we do right now, if only those consoles with their fixed hardware would just get out of the way and so allow the PC market to get into another tech race (which inevitably ends with most of the good companies dead, since a tech race favors companies able to make the prettiest hair, not the prettiest gameplay - so, ginormous companies like EA). So they blame consoles for eliminating their chance to play with even prettier dollies than they have right now.

 

[SCO]

There is some merit. Games designed to be ported to both platforms have a least common denominator and if console oriented then necessarily WIMP interfaces or other less complex mouse interfaces will not happen. This is somewhat more relevant to the 'kind' of games that will get made over the the limitations of each platform. That isn't to say console menu versions are always imposssible, see, Wizardry etc. But games like Starcraft 64, nes king's quest V (!) are just disasters on every front.

Now talking about texture and resolution limits and framerate, in the late 1990s and early 2000, that was a bad time for ports, but i find later games, in everything except framerate, it's just tedious graphics whoring. You get less FoV, less framerate, less resolution etc, but it's not really fundamentally different (especially now that digital sales and multilanguage 100% voiced have ballooned games size to blue-ray sizes goddamn).

However honestly, pc still and forever has the better exclusives, especially now that consoles have slowed down in games production. Expensive even with the so called indie revolution that is pc-first. Almost the complete opposite of the picture if you looked at nes exclusives in the early 1990s where you had a library of ~= 1300 games in japan, most of them 'console exclusives'. Porting killed the Japanese video star.

 

[Makabb]

There is no limitation hardware wise, the only limitation is the physical aspect.

Controller with about 10 buttons compared to keyboard + mouse.
Consoletards usualy sit on couch away from TV, need to design a game with big UI or lack of UI.

 

[KILLER BEAR]

There is no limitation hardware wise

citation needed

 

[Makabb]

For the Decliners, PC tech is always progressing, while consoles are static

New consoles come out around every 6 years, so it can be said consoles are also progressing, but in leaps and not by a steady pace like PC.

 

[Ash]

There is no limitation hardware wise, the only limitation is the physical aspect.

Controller with about 10 buttons compared to keyboard + mouse.

Controler button limitations are also overstated. For example, Left stick = WASD + Walk key, and is way deeper than that. Variable walking/run speed and considerably more directions than WASD eight-directional movement.
Buttons are also pressure sensitive, adding specialized gameplay depth not possible on PC.
Furthermore double tap, on-hold input and other possible methods provide additional input not understood by the uninitiated.

Nonetheless console controllers certainly do need more buttons despite all that, and it's a shame game elements that make use of the alphabet are not very viable on consoles. Still possible with the use of virtual keyboards (rendered in the game), but highly lacking intuition and accessibility.

 

[Makabb]

There is no limitation hardware wise, the only limitation is the physical aspect.

Controller with about 10 buttons compared to keyboard + mouse.

Controler button limitations are also overstated. For example, Left stick = WASD + Walk key, and is way deeper than that. Variable walking/run speed and considerably more than WASD eight-directional movement.
Buttons are also pressure sensitive, adding specialized gameplay depth not possible on PC.
Furthermore double tap, on-hold input and other possible methods provide additional possible input not understood by the uninitiated.

Nonetheless console controllers certainly do need more buttons, and it's a shame game elements that make use of the alphabet are not very viable on consoles. Still possible with the use of virtual keyboards (rendered in the game), but highly lacking intuition and accessibility.

You won't play a simulator game on a console, where you need a lot of buttons

 

[Ash]

Hey, I said they were overstated, not that they weren't a problem and don't hold back potential gameplay depth.

 

[sullynathan]

Ash why'd you reply to yourself?

 

[Lyric Suite]

Controler button limitations are also overstated. For example, Left stick = WASD + Walk key, and is way deeper than that.

Not this shit again.

 

[Ash]

You've got to be utterly retarded to think otherwise. Do try to be objective about things. Just because WASD does the job good enough, it doesn't mean alternatives are not better on a technical level. Platformers and racing games in particular are much better with a pad and it's primarily due to this method of input.

 

[Excidium II]

The only thing a good CRPG needs is 4 directions and confirm/cancel

 

[Gerrard]

Hentai is forbidden on cucksole.

And yet God of War had tits and sex QTEs. Fucking hypocrites.

 

[sullynathan]

god of war has gameplay, porn games don't.

 

[Ash]

^Gameplay consisting of hammer the x button to make love to bitches.

But I kid, the God of War games aren't terrible. Some good puzzles, OK combat and platforming. Considerably overrated though.

 

[KILLER BEAR]

Wait, you think God of War has ok combat, while you consider Gears of War to be terrible?

 

[Machocruz]

PC is still the place to go for more ambitious, varied, and cerebral fare. No Crusader Kingses, Mounts and Bladeses, Subnauticas, Kerbals, Factorios, STALKERSes, or ARMAs on console. Basically you have your choice between shooting balls and stabbing faces on consoles. Occasionally punching chests in a fighting game. Because audience.

 

[Ash]

Wait, you think God of War has ok combat, while you consider Gears of War to be terrible?

Lol. I don't recall the entirety of God of War consisting of an on rails mole shooting gallery sitting behind cover and sucking my thumb whilst my health regenerates, so that's a resoundingly clear YES. Additionally GodWar had numerous other elements of gameplay that segments the meh combat so that it doesn't become overly tedious and repetitive. All in all it's acceptable. I don't think I'd recommend it to anyone, but it's acceptable; it's OK.

 

[Harpsichord]

You can sum up the root of the issue in one sentence.

An investor will always back a product that can be marketed to more people over a product that is marketed to fewer.

 

[sullynathan]

No Crusader Kingses, Mounts and Bladeses, Subnauticas, Kerbals, Factorios, STALKERSes, or ARMAs on console

3 of those are on consoles. STALKER is already dead.

 

[KILLER BEAR]

Lol. I don't recall the entirety of God of War consisting of an on rails mole shooting gallery sitting behind cover and sucking my thumb whilst my health regenerates, so that's a resoundingly clear YES. Additionally GodWar had numerous other elements of gameplay that segments the meh combat so that it doesn't become overly tedious and repetitive. All in all it's acceptable. I don't think I'd recommend it to anyone, but it's acceptable; it's OK.

The point is that you criticized the Gears of War combat model for being shallow, while God of War is literally just press squaresquaresquare to kill HP bloat enemy. They put these rudimentary puzzle & platforming segments so you won't fed up with the simplistic combat.

 

[Ash]

Yes, God of War combat is shallow, perhaps even just as much as Gears, but the fact there are other elements of gameplay and actual level design (even if it too is pretty linear) means everything. If God of War was just that shallow combat and nothing else it'd be utter shit too.

Even plenty great games have shallow+shit combat, like VTM:B, so I don't see your point. VTM:B is a good game despite the fact it has garbage combat. And that's another game that would be pure shit if it was combat only; no exploration, no character interaction, no RPG systems, no C&C etc...

 

[sullynathan]

God of War is purely shallow combat, quite frankly, the non-combat parts end up being its weakest aspects. From the pretty poor platforming to the annoying puzzles, the games would have been better without them. Giving sympathy points to God of war for having other aspects to its gameplay just seems rather weak.

 

[Ash]

Never going to get any sensible discussion from kids that think Gears of War is an exceptional game, nor God of War for that matter. The fact you even wrote a thread asking WHY Gears was seen as decline among the old school shows a clear lack of understanding and point of reference. Some people don't like mindless repetition, believe it or not, and that's what God of War would undoubtedly become if it consisted of its shallow combat only. Not many games get by on one form of gameplay alone unless that element is actually good, which GodWar combat is not.

 

[sullynathan]

Never going to get any sensible discussion from kids that think Gears of War is an exceptional game, nor God of War for that matter. The fact you even wrote a thread asking WHY Gears was seen as decline among the old school shows a clear lack of understanding and point of reference. Most people don't like mindless repetition, believe it or not, and that's what God of War would undoubtedly become if it consisted of its shallow combat only. Not many games get by on one form of gameplay alone unless that element is actually good, which GodWar combat is not.

No, I made a thread asking in what ways Gears of war could be changed to not be considered decline. Its more than possible to have a pure hack & slash game with no platforming or puzzles and rely solely on its combat system, it would just need a better combat system than GOW. That we can agree on.