The problem with Halo is that there are a ton of similar scifi shooters on PC and the game does not do anything to outshine the competition. Even the multiplayer was UT lite when the first game came out on PC.
The problem with Halo is that there are a ton of similar scifi shooters on PC and the game does not do anything to outshine the competition. Even the multiplayer was UT lite when the first game came out on PC.
I think sadisti just proved you wrong.Originally Posted by Sparafucil
Whole series like Halo, Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto 4, Brothers in Arms, Bioshock and to certain extent even Call of Duty are often criticized for their console gaming traits. They shine on console, where stuff like regenerating health, fully automized matchmaking, lower fields of view, larger button prompts, focus on gamepads, smaller player numbers etc are all "part of the game", due to whatever technical or design limitation is in place. When ported over, gamers are often very critical of anything that shows a game's console heritage, despite the intrinsic merit (which is obviously there in all these games).
Now, I'm not saying PC gamers don't appreciate these games at all. That wasn't the point I was making about Dark Souls, either. I'm just saying that PC gamers are a critical bunch and ports in particular have a hard time convincing PC gamers. Sometimes that's for good reason, sometimes it's not. And like Irontiger said, I imagine there will be overly critical elitist PC gamers who will dismiss Dark Souls, just because it's a port with the inevitable features a port has. Hell, the same goes the other way around, with all the 12 year old Call of Duty fanatics who dare not touch Battlefield 3, just because it's not Call of Duty...
There's no reason to pretend this isn't true. Not every group of gamers (regardless of platform) is as enlightened as others. It's a disadvantage for any multiplatform game, especially one that wasn't originally designed to be ported or even released on another platform to begin with.
No, I think these games are rightly criticized because they simply are not as good as their console fanbase make them out to be, owing largely to their increased susceptibility to branding, marketing hype, and bandwagon effect. Regenerating health, etc. are only part of a larger problem endemic to console games in general: they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.I think sadisti just proved you wrong.
Whole series like Halo, Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto 4, Brothers in Arms, Bioshock and to certain extent even Call of Duty are often criticized for their console gaming traits. They shine on console, where stuff like regenerating health, fully automized matchmaking, lower fields of view, larger button prompts, focus on gamepads, smaller player numbers etc are all "part of the game", due to whatever technical or design limitation is in place. When ported over, gamers are often very critical of anything that shows a game's console heritage, despite the intrinsic merit (which is obviously there in all these games).
Popular console games are not well received on the PC because the gameplay is shallow and dumbed-down, or because the writing is poor, or because it is a franchise cashcows that offers nothing new. When a console game appears that is truly remarkable on every level, then it stands a good chance to succeed on the PC.
Last edited by Sparafucil; 04-08-2012 at 12:59 AM.
Look at the difference, Spara.
"If a game has any intrinsic merit, it can shine on the PC"
"When a console game appears that is truly remarkable on every level, then it stands a good chance to succeed on the PC"
The first sentence is what you would like to believe, the second is the elitist PC nature that you let shine through whever you can. All of the games I mentioned have intrinsic merit, and are in many ways truly remarkable with no equal on any platform. And yet, there will always be a group of diehard PC gamers dismissing them for whatever features they can slag off. And it's exactly that kind of group that will be at the ready for Dark Souls' release as well, only too willing to overlook the game's qualities, and focus on whatever downsides it has. For them, fantastic gameplay isn't going to matter if there aren't at least 40 performance parameters to adjust, art style isn't going to matter if the mouse and keyboard controls don't feel 120% natural... You fill in the blanks. There's no reason to generalize and say this will go for everyone playing it on PC, or that this will be the port's downfall, but you know such PC elitists exist and their foul mood can bring down just about any awesome game.
I'm all for raising the bar and aiming high when setting it, but as a gamer it's important to realise our hobby is someone else's business, and that means that one's demands may not always suit the other's.
I expect the biggest complaint will be controls.
Depending what you read into each statement, there is little difference between the two. I define a game as having intrinsic merit if it is more than the sum of its parts.
That's a stretch. Most of the games you mentioned were good to average, and few were without equal on any platform. I could cite you equals for many, if you'd like. Also, cowadoody is just garbage.The first sentence is what you would like to believe, the second is the elitist PC nature that you let shine through whever you can. All of the games I mentioned have intrinsic merit, and are in many ways truly remarkable with no equal on any platform.
And there will always be a group of diehard console gamers dismissing games for whatever features they can slag off. Yet, I've never heard you refer to them as "console elitists."And yet, there will always be a group of diehard PC gamers dismissing them for whatever features they can slag off. And it's exactly that kind of group that will be at the ready for Dark Souls' release as well, only too willing to overlook the game's qualities, and focus on whatever downsides it has. For them, fantastic gameplay isn't going to matter if there aren't at least 40 performance parameters to adjust, art style isn't going to matter if the mouse and keyboard controls don't feel 120% natural... You fill in the blanks. There's no reason to generalize and say this will go for everyone playing it on PC, or that this will be the port's downfall, but you know such PC elitists exist and their foul mood can bring down just about any awesome game.
Most PC gamers can appreciate any game on any platform if it is good enough. We are right to criticize some of the downsides depending on how numerous and prominent they are, especially when they can be so easily addressed in a port.
--- Post Update ---
If the controls suck then it won't just be the diehards who hate it, and such hatred might be warranted if it impedes the gameplay experience.
Last edited by Sparafucil; 04-08-2012 at 01:39 AM.
Go right ahead.That's a stretch. Most of the games you mentioned were good to average, and few were without equal on any platform. I could cite you equals for many, if you'd like. Also, cowadoody is just garbage.
I find console elitists to be less prominent. Not saying they don't exist - in fact, I described the 12-year old CoD fan who wouldn't dare touch BF3 already - but I think PC elitists are more abundant.And there will always be a group of diehard console gamers dismissing games for whatever features they can slag off. Yet, I've never heard you refer to them as "console elitists."
You know, Spara, if I didn't know any better I'd think you were trying to make it seem that PC elitists don't exist at all.
From what I've heard, the console version's controls are "very Japanese," meaning unintuitive, intentionally laggy, and counter-ergonomic. For people that like the game, this is part of its appeal. It's one of the things that makes me not even want to try it. It just doesn't seem to jibe with what modern PC gamers want.
Now if the developer reverses its ideology and makes the controls fully customizable, or even just changes the animation and timing to make things more responsive, it could be seen as fundamentally changing the game to make it "easier." Could you even respect a developer that did that?
The controls in Dark Souls are the opposite of what you described. In fact, the tight controls are one of the best aspects of the game. When you die (which you will), without fail it will be because you messed up or were unprepared...not bad controls. Actually, Japanese action games in general have responsive, intricate controls systems (ie Ninja Gaiden, DMC 3/4).
If anything the combat controls in most Western games, like Witcher 2, can be a hindrance to your overall performance until you learn the nuances.
I will certainly purchase the game again on PC. I just really hope everything about the game (aside from graphics) are the exact same, putting something like a quick save option in Dark Souls will ruin the experience.
From what I've heard it's kind of like how Capcom does. There's a long delay between input and response because there's so much animation in between. And once you input, you're committed to that action until the animation plays out. I believe there were a lot of complaints about Lost Planet because of that. Ninja Gaiden and DMC are far more twitchy and responsive, but they're trying to appeal to a different segment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
