Crotchety Old Gamers, Unite!

[johnman]

Yes 2008 was a bad year. Stalker Clear sky, Farcry 2 both being hotly anticpated but both being crushingly dispointing. Crysis Warhead is an overlooked game. 2007 is by far the best year for me. Crysis, company of heros, Medievil 2, Bioshock, CoD4 and most of all STALKER and Episode 2 being puchased in that year.
And thoughout that i played counter strike unreal tourdement and the oringal half life games. In fact im halfway though another play though of opposing force... so if you odnt mind..

 

[Anniko]

At the risk of re-hashing a topic that has been beaten to death a million forums over, I'd like to talk a bit about the "Fallout 3 is a shadow of its former self." It certainly isn't a shadow; it's much deeper in some ways, and shallower in others, but I don't believe this has anything to do with the fact that it was implemented on a console. Oblivion was a PC-first (and PC-centric) game, and F3 isn't substantially different from it in terms of depth. For me, the biggest perceived negatives were:

1. Dialogue trees went from being a "chose the wrong response and sections of the plot are closed to you" to "choose from the list of stuff to get the NPC to dump out some info". I can understand how story-centric gamers would see this as a huge negative, but I actually preferred it. The game already takes an extraordinarily long time to play (I'm 60 hours in and maybe halfway through the main quest) - I don't want to miss interesting content because I made some odd dialogue choice.

2. The main quest is pretty linear, and can be accomplished by following HUD reticules, compared to the original one that was more exploratory. But it's not like the first game's quest was hard, and it was basically linear anyway. There was never any uncertainty as what you needed to do next. This is another "streamlining" aspect that is a product of modern game design, not console design. "The Witcher" is seen as old-school and somewhat hardcore, but with its quest logging, it's pretty much the same; you can cruise through the game following waypoints.

1. You don't like choice and consequence. Gtfo. If I insult some prick because he's evil, he's not gonna ask me to blow up a town.

2. Fallout 1 and 2's main quest wasn't "linear", you had 3 objectives in 1, 2 of which are necessary and 2 in the 2nd, 1 of which is necessary. It wasn't "Go here, do this, go here, do this, go here, do this, go here, do this" as FO3's main quest is. You're not a coffee ***** being told where to go and what to do every single time someone needs their back scratched. You're told "We need this, go and find it" and subsequently thrown out of the vault with a 10mm pistol, some ammo and stimpacks.

Oblivion's primary platform was the 360, this is evident in the menu design. Very big buttons, nested lists, 5 items in a menu on screen at once. It was developed so you could sit 5 metres away and be able to read the text. If that doesn't scream "CONSOLE IS OUR PRIMARY PLATFORM" to you, then I don't know what will.

The game is shallow, this is not because of the platform it was developed on, it's because it was made by retarded developers who only know how to do one thing and are only interested in making a game that sells millions. They don't want to polish it. They don't want to expand on the non-combat elements. They want to get it out the door as quick as possible with a massive marketing budget, reap in the first week sales and laugh their way to the bank as you get left holding an unfinished, unpolished turd.

 

[Dommyboy]

I bought an Xbox360 last year and sold it this year to get a new PC. You can do so much more with a PC anyway and most of the 'good' games on consoles will eventually arrive to PC.

Like stated before, Oblivion was obviously for consoles. Dumbed down a fair bit as well with the fast travel and simple questing. Luckily for Fallout 3 Bethesda actually attempted to make it work well for the PC with the interface though I still say that it didn't need fast travel but at some point in the game you can get a car like F2.

 

[zBeeble]

Heh... Before you were a square (and liked it), you were a letter. Everything was a letter. And you liked it.

Seriously, though, I had an Amiga after having a C=64. Though most of the Early windoze years, I had either the Amiga or UN*X of some flavour. It's what I worked with.

I played the occiasional RTS that worked through wine, but that often broke.

Then... to get a really big notebook screen, I got a gaming notebook.

PC gaming isn't dead. Consoles, obviously, negatively affect the gaming culture --- same way TV always has --- by dumbing it down for "consumers". The main difference with PC gaming is that gamers are encouraged to be involved in the creation of content --- like the internet is to TV, PC gaming is to consoles.

 

[PopcornAvenger]

I miss my old Amiga 500 with the hundreds of games i had like Cannon Fodder, Worms and Lemmings. I've been PC Gaming since childhood and i don't intend to give it up.

Another "old fart" and Amiga owner here. I miss Shadow of the Beast and those other great Psygnosis games. I miss Populous and Elite!

My first console was the Pong game. Hockey on it was intense! I've never owned a Xbox or Playstation, and probably never will, not unless PC gaming dies entirely. Right now I'm looking to go wireless so I can sit on that couch, and use my big ole' HDTV instead of the smaller Samsung flatscreen.

The oldest and most kludgy game I can remember playing was a version of Star Trek (at school) where you crawled from sector to sector fighting Klingon warships, and docking with space stations. You had to calculate the exact angle to fire your phasers and torpedos. It wasn't played on a monitor, but by printer, which had to print out a new page every time you and the enemy changed spatial position. The modem was one of those big honkers that you plugged the entire handset into.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I'm going to assert my geezer cred by saying that I once had to flounder around dozens of used computer stores to try to find a replacement hard disc compatible with an MFM drive controller. Never did really get that PC back on its feet... so my Broderbund's Ancient Art of War (in glorious monochrome!) became lost to me, alas, because it was unplayable on a CPU with a clock rate higher than 4MHz no matter how I fiddled with specialised system boot discs.

That being said, I've transitioned to console gaming fairly recently and don't regret a thing. I've played the old games, I remember many of them with fondness, but I don't forget the turkeys and I don't pretend that there was some golden age in days of yore. Studios were idiots back then too, at no greater a rate than today; and I don't see any inherent merit of mouse-and-keyboard that always trumps other input devices in all genres of play. The play's the thing, and that's just as present in modern games as it was in the past.

I think the major "problem" in the gaming industry is that we are geezers now, and we're not experiencing games "from scratch" as we did back then. As noted by SF fan/critic Peter Graham, "[t]he Golden Age of Science Fiction is twelve." [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:VH01KUDFuKQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Science_Fiction+%22golden+age%22+science+fiction+twelve&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&lr=lang_en] Games can't make the same first impressions on us doddering elders as they did in our more callow years.

To crib from the Bard, the fault lies not in our games but in ourselves.

-- Steve

 

[Powerman88]

Let me preface my comment with saying that I was born and raised a PC gamer. I first started playing text based adventures on my dad's apple IIc, then graduated to his Mac Plus. My first console was my Genesis in 1991 when Sonic first came out (to think its been over 12 years since a good sonic game. Another discussion).

Through the years I always played both consoles and PC games. You couldn't get Monkey Island on SNES and you couldn't get Gunstar Heroes on a PC. Why can't someone enjoy both? There are good experiences to be had all around.

Yes Bethesda made an arguable mistake "dumbing down" Fallout and Elderscrolls for Xbox. I still enjoyed both games. Anyone who says PC gaming is dead, however, obviously has never heard of Blizzard, Maxis (Firaxis now maybe?), or Valve. There are still a lot of us PC gamers out there spending record amounts of money on A+ tens of millions of dollars in budget PC games. The only thing is it will never re-eclipse the market of console games.

P.S. I'm really hoping for Dungeon Keeper 3 someday =) One of my favorite and most underated PC franchises out there.

 

[Mister Benoit]

Heh... Before you were a square (and liked it), you were a letter. Everything was a letter. And you liked it.

Seriously, though, I had an Amiga after having a C=64. Though most of the Early windoze years, I had either the Amiga or UN*X of some flavour. It's what I worked with.

I played the occiasional RTS that worked through wine, but that often broke.

Then... to get a really big notebook screen, I got a gaming notebook.

PC gaming isn't dead. Consoles, obviously, negatively affect the gaming culture --- same way TV always has --- by dumbing it down for "consumers". The main difference with PC gaming is that gamers are encouraged to be involved in the creation of content --- like the internet is to TV, PC gaming is to consoles.

Your last line is great.

 

[Megacherv]

Erm, I would suggest Unreal Tournament 3 if you were to get a console game, since that has mouse support.

I can see what he means by that. I have a huge love of old games, I still genuinely enjoy DOOM (albeit enhanced with Risen3D) and PC FPS gaming is so much more accurate due to your mouse control, which is why I'm wanting a FragFX controller for my PS3. Once I get my old dusty PC upgraded I'm gonna become a more PC-oriented gamer (first stop, Orange Box, then the id Super-Pack from Steam)

 

[Ronwue]

I started my gaming career on Sega Mega Drive, but I fell in love with a PC the first time I set eyes on the pixelated graphics of Nightmare Creatures and Grand Theft Auto 1. Then it struck. StarCraft. And I was glued to the computer for 11 years. I am disappointed with the amount of attention console games receive and the poor quality of ports. I felt this coming since the first Lord of the Rings RPG which had such a great stench of the console it was meant for, I had to kick myself to finish it and not be sorry for the money I gave on it.

 

[FistsOfTinsel]

You don't like choice and consequence. Gtfo... you get left holding an unfinished, unpolished turd.

Oh, you're one of those "glittering gems of hatred" guys I've heard so much about.

For the record, I can't stand dialogue trees. No PC RPG has ever done them right - in fact, no CRPG on any platform has ever done them right. The absolute best CRPG (take your pick) is, in fact, much worse than the very worst paper & pen RPG experience I've ever had. Dialogue trees suck because they never contain what I'd really want to say, and when they do, half the time the response of the NPC isn't what I would have intended (e.g., they treat a response I would have considered sarcastic as sincere or vice versa - something that would be clear were I able to phrase something myself or in person). The result is that I'm brought out of the game - instead of feeling like I'm some heroic whatever involved in ticklish negotiations, I feel like I'm playing "guess which phrase the developer was thinking of" in some poorly implemented text adventure.

I felt that the "vague" dialogue trees of Mass Effect were a step in the right direction, until I quickly discovered that they were almost all for show - NPC reactions almost always proceeded apace regardless of your choices. Nothing's worse than playing a game with broken controls, and until someone can come up with a dialogue system that understands real language and doesn't force me pick pre-canned responses from a list, I'll consider RPG dialogue a broken control. Broken controls do not equal "choice & consequence"; action within the game's simulation engine (e.g., shooting someone or trying to pick their pocket) are choice & consequence enough for me.

Of course, that's just me; I understand that other gamers exist that like exploring dialogue trees - more power to you. But just because a game doesn't conform to your narrow requirements doesn't make it a turd, unpolished or not.

 

[Anniko]

Horseshit about a completely different topic.

We were discussing certain sections of the game being blocked off because you chose a response that pisses an NPC off. We were not discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the dialogue tree system. Until a customizable AI with variable personalities, word recognition/response construction is developed, it's the best we'll get.

Choice and consequence refers to something like "I think I'll insult this guy" and, apart from him denying you his services, he spreads the word to his associates that they shouldn't do business with you. You made the choice and you suffer the consequence. Regardless of whether you think the dialogue tree system is a "broken control" system (how can it be broken when it works exactly as intended?), you can't argue that being denied sections of the game because you're a dick to the characters you meet isn't "choice and consequence".

Having characters react to sarcasm/sincerity differently means those characters aren't just cardboard cutout helpers.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_bugs shows that the game is unpolished. That it butchers the gameplay design and setting shows that it's a bad game in the series.

Argue the point, don't insult me.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

You don't like choice and consequence. Gtfo... you get left holding an unfinished, unpolished turd.

Oh, you're one of those "glittering gems of hatred" guys I've heard so much about.

For the record, I can't stand dialogue trees. No PC RPG has ever done them right - in fact, no CRPG on any platform has ever done them right. The absolute best CRPG (take your pick) is, in fact, much worse than the very worst paper & pen RPG experience I've ever had. Dialogue trees suck because they never contain what I'd really want to say.
I felt that the "vague" dialogue trees of Mass Effect were a step in the right direction, until I quickly discovered that they were almost all for show - NPC reactions almost always proceeded apace regardless of your choices.

Better to have a dialogue tree than to have wiki-dialogue. The only game that ever got away with minimalist dialogue in an open-world was Morrowind... because there was so bloody much of the world.
Also, some series and games, notably the original Fallout games and early Bioware (Pre-Neverwinter Nights) and Arcanum games did dialogue really well. Yes, not every option is covered, normally "evil" dialogue options forcing people to end up being Evil-Stupid but other than that the dialogue was done really well.

The original Baldur's gate allowed me to say:

"Ok, I've just about had my FILL of riddle asking, quest assigning, insult throwing, pun hurling, hostage taking, iron mongering, smart arsed fools, freaks, and felons that continually test my will, mettle, strength, intelligence, and most of all, patience! If you've got a straight answer ANYWHERE in that bent little head of yours, I want to hear it pretty damn quick or I'm going to take a large blunt object roughly the size of Elminster AND his hat, and stuff it lengthwise into a crevice of your being so seldom seen that even the denizens of the nine hells themselves wouldn't touch it with a twenty-foot rusty halberd! Have I MADE myself perfectly CLEAR?!"

Which was pretty much exactly what I would have said... although maybe a bit longer. I actually didn't like Mass Effect's dialogue as much as earlier games. Whereas in say... Arcanum if I chose to say (Paraphrasing here):

"So I am supposed to be the re-incarnation of some 2000 year dead elf?"

That is what I would say.

In Mass Effect if chose say... "Calm down"

I might say:

"Right, everyone calm down or I shoot!"

Also, dialogue in newer games seems to be something that you do to make the killing bits make sense or maybe to choose a from a list of fairly black and white "choices and concequences", compare this to say, Baldur's Gate 2 where your dialogue throughout the game often determines how NPCs react to you, this is especially true of party-members. For example, you come across an old man who needs your help you get a dialogue tree that allows you to do anything from; murder or blackmail him to help him for no physical reward. This not only affects how the NPC in question reacts to you but other NPCs including your party members will react to it, from congratulating you on being ruthless (Korgan) to leaving in a huff and possibly taking half your party with you (Mazzy).

Of course, that's just me; I understand that other gamers exist that like exploring dialogue trees - more power to you. But just because a game doesn't conform to your narrow requirements doesn't make it a turd, unpolished or not.

It's not that we don't think other games are rubbish, its that we haven't had any games like the ones we used to enjoy for years. Coupled with that we get alot of new games that claim to be like the ones we used to like... and are not, they lie, they pretend to be what we used to like but are in fact not it at all.

 

[mokes310]

Sean's so old his social security number is 1!

Isn't that his telephone number as well?

I would consider myself an older gamer, having grown up with Apple II's and the idea that OS2 Warp would be the next big thing. I fondly remember plugging the Police Quest floppy into the drive and typing my little fingers away. Incedently, that's how I learned to key.

With age, I'm actually finding myself playing fewer and fewer games, with less and less enthusiasm. I don't know if it's the fact that I've been gaming for close to 20 years, going back to college, or just plain old growing up, but games have lost their luster to me. Don't get me wrong, I love talking about, reading about, and learning about games, I just don't find myself with the need to play them. Is that strange?

 

[FistsOfTinsel]

Thin-skinned reaction to an on-topic reply

Insult you? When did I do that? You're the one hurling profanities. For someone who is putting him/herself forward as an authority on all things Fallout, I'd assumed you were familiar with the phrase "glittering gems of hatred" as a calling card of hard-core Fallout fandom (c.f. http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=34542 ). You're clearly of this camp.

As for the rest of my comments: just because a something works as designed, it doesn't mean it isn't broken; the design itself may be broken. Just because something like dialog trees are a staple of the genre, it doesn't mean that they are, defacto, correct. Your comments of "choice and consequences" in gaming is an illusion. There are no consequences as long as you can restore to previous savepoints; I suppose it's possible that you're some kind of true-blue CPRG'er who's never restored to a previous save when you weren't happy with the outcome, but I'll assume you play computer games like 99.99% of the rest of humanity and use the save game feature for more than just allowing you to play a campaign over multiple sessions.

CRPG characters are cardboard cutouts. Having someone completely freeze me out because I asked what I thought was an innocent question or a well-intentioned jibe does not map with my real-world experiences. If I piss someone off in real life, I'll be given a chance to make amends or apologize, but in CRPGs it's a door that slams shut.

I find exploring dialog trees boring. If I want to read a book, I'll read a book. I play games for interactivity, and choosing someone else's idea of what I want to say is not fun for me, and suffering the "consequences" of being made to parrot someone else's words.

Sure, I wish that the interaction model in F3 was more sophisticated, and I understand that some people like the idea of being able to replay a CRPG multiple times with different dialogue choices to see how things turn out, but F3 is too long for that. It looks like it's going to be taking me 80 hours at least to finish it; when I'm done I want to move onto something else. A shorter game (like the original) could afford to have more branches and dead-ends - replay was a real possibility. Remember, we're old gamers here - I don't have hundreds of hours to devote to playing games anymore.

As for bugs - you have a point there. The original games were mirror-bright in their perfection, completely lacking any sort of bug that prevented you from finishing the main quest or becoming rich by selling goods to vendors for more money than you just paid for them.

 

[omnibus01]

I started 'PC' gaming on an Atari 800. It's been a long road...I can't play Sins of a Solar Empire on a console even now. Having said that, I am primarily a console gamer today for these reasons:

1. It cheaper...I'm not upgrading all the time to play the latest PC game.
2. It's easier...my printer driver will never crash or lock up the game.
3. Many really great games are now console-only.

The game developers are flocking to consoles because:

1. Piracy is minimal compared to the PC.
2. It's much cheaper and much faster to write code for consoles, especially the Xbox.
3. There is a lot more profit.

The games I play on the PC are strategy and RTS games. Shooters and RPGs are on the console. If there are great games out for the PC, then I will play them if I don't have to drop a wad on upgrades. I do agree that many PC developed games are simplified and even 'dumbed down' in order to run on a console. I also believe that the average IQ of PC gamers is higher than console gamers, but that cannot be supported by any scientific studies. It doesn't matter anyhow. I play the GAMES and not the platform. Give me a great game and I will play it on anything I can. That's the point of it all---GIVE ME THE REALLY GREAT GAMES!

 

[FistsOfTinsel]

It's not that we don't think other games are rubbish, its that we haven't had any games like the ones we used to enjoy for years. Coupled with that we get alot of new games that claim to be like the ones we used to like... and are not, they lie, they pretend to be what we used to like but are in fact not it at all.

I emphasize, I really do. But it's simply a matter of economics. To a developer, resources spent creating content that the gamer never sees are resources that could have been applied to another title. You have to pay people's salaries, and for a huge, A-List title like F3, they need to make sure that the effort they spend ends up hitting they eyeballs of their customers or they're going to end up closing shop.

It's a huge problem, IMO, if you're someone who wants to see many branching outcomes (with custom-created content) in a big blockbuster game. It's not going to happen, which is why I mentioned stuff like Dwarf Fortress (even though the content there is mostly generated, the idea is the same). Consumers with "taste" in any medium learn to accept that the mainstream stuff (and F3 is mainstream, like it or not) is not going to cater to their refined palates, and it's stupid to rail against them because of it.

F3 has been stripped of it's "Pick Your Path to Adventure" elements; so be it. If that's the kind of stuff that really turns your crank, there are still outlets for it ( http://ifcomp.org/ ), but you're going to have to accept that it won't be displayed in glorious technicolor with HDR lighting and expensive voice actors.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

For me its not a question of adapting its a question of lowering my standards and then pay two or three times as much for a oft not lousy product.

Gaming is teething on its "teen's" or a better saying its going through puberty shallowness over substance, and with the cost of development and the high cost of retail compared to the film indutry I wonder for how long can this "kid" called the game industry stay in cocaine and shallow relations until it burns out....

 

[Anniko]

Stuff

The phrase "glittering gems of hatred" was used to insult the Fallout fanbase by a goon. I don't like being insulted. It's like someone calling a black guy a "******" and then getting all pissed off at him being insulted because other black people use the word "******" between themselves.

If you load from a previous save, you have not made the choice you just made, thus you won't suffer from the consequences because you haven't made the choice. If you make the choice then continue on and there's no consequences, then it's a meaningless choice.

The character's Jeannette and Therese Voerman aren't cardboard cutouts, Prince Lacroix isn't a cardboard cutout, Baron Isaac isn't a cardboard cutout. They aren't cardboard cutouts because they've got well portrayed personality, their voice actors and animations bring them to life.

I'd rather have 5 hours of incredible gameplay with a well written story, well written characters and believable world than 80 hours of boring, badly acted dialogue, shoddy game design and stupid world.

You're judging a 2008 game to a 1997 game. They both have bugs. Fallout 1 and 2 have a shitload of them. Fallout 3 has a shitload of them. That something was done a bad way in the past does NOT excuse it from being the same way now.