Protagonists moving slower

[TehCookie]

primary reason is probably console controllers.

thumbsticks don't allow for the spot-on lightning fast accuracy a mouse does. they are more of a slow approximation tool than a real aiming device. the overal speed of games had to be lowered thus to make them still playable.

What... is... this... I don't even... you know, controllers have been around since the '80s, so I seriously doubt this nonsense is accurate. (rolls eyes). Also, most PC user don't use the mouse to walk. They use the W,A,S,D keys.

OP: Haven't really noticed. Then again, compared to Sonic the Hedgehog in the 16 bit era (on a controller I might add - lulz at above argument) everything is slow. ;p

I'm pretty sure they're talking about FPSes, and I don't recall any FPSes on consoles in the 80's. Can you imagine playing Doom on a controller and shooting accurately?

Yeah, I don't play FPS games so I can't picture shooting accurately with any input device. ;P

Either way, the title and OP don't specify FPS', so the original post that I quoted is still wrong. Unless of course, gaming has devolved to the point where the only genre that matters is FPS (I will quit gaming if this happens).

No you're wrong because the OP didn't exclude FPSes and Kathinka was just talking about the most popular genre.*

C'mon man this isn't some argument you have to win, it was a reasonable misunderstanding. You are both right, FPSes have been a lot slower than the old ones (and I think it's because of the same reasons they said) and other genres are still up for debate. It really depends what genre you're talking about. RTSes seem to be faster than before, though I don't play those so someone feel free to correct me.
[sub][sub]*said jokingly[/sub][/sub]

 

[Souleks]

Depends on the game in Left 4 Dead you move pretty fast comparative to some other first person shooters but it depends on the game Serious Sam 3 moves like Serious Sam and Red Orchestra moves like Red Orchestra I am sure there is thought behind it if you are doing it for balance to set the pace or to give the player some more time to admire the surroundings in a pretty area.

 

[Abomination]

I have noticed it and it annoys me to no end.

They make worlds larger and make the player move slower. Then they claim "40+ hours of gameplay!". I'm sorry, but spending 2-5 hours traversing the landscape is NOT gameplay.

The Drakensang series are especially bad with this. There is a lot of travel by foot but your character moves incredibly slowly.

 

[Luca72]

I actually didn't notice this shift until I went back and played a bit of Half Life 2 recently. I felt like I was playing Sonic the Hedgehog with even less regard for gravity than usual.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think it depends on the game and genera. For example, FPS characters tend to move ridiculously fast. If you actually clock there movement, many move at land speed records. It the nature of a fast paced game.

 

[Kathinka]

primary reason is probably console controllers.

thumbsticks don't allow for the spot-on lightning fast accuracy a mouse does. they are more of a slow approximation tool than a real aiming device. the overal speed of games had to be lowered thus to make them still playable.

What... is... this... I don't even... you know, controllers have been around since the '80s, so I seriously doubt this nonsense is accurate. (rolls eyes). Also, most PC user don't use the mouse to walk. They use the W,A,S,D keys.

while it is true that controllers have been used since the 80's, multi-platform action games, especially first person shooters on consoles, are a rather recent thing. ok, not that recent anymore, but still.
it's also true that on pc you move with the keys, not the mouse (allthough it is used in turning and thus does play a role in movement, by providing a much higher speed for more precise turns).
but mainly the mouse is used for aiming and target aquisition. it allows to track and successfully aim at things much, MUCH faster than a gamepad ever would. thus, to accomodate for the lower aiming speed and precision, stuff nowadays has to go slower, so it can be played at console.

look at any video of any quake installment to see what i mean. no one could do that with a controller, ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=W1ZtBCpo0eU#t=126s is a fairly nice example from q1 single player.

 

[Vigormortis]

I did see (on consoles): I was remembering back to the good FFVII'ish times where you're character walked unless you held a button to run =D Mad design

EDIT: I also think the sprint button works well as a tactical thing. If they're genuinely slowing players down for it, then naturally thats less cool

EDIT EDIT: Actually that raises a question, if consoles have been making successful console exclusive/dominant games since before Mario, how come stuff like lack of sensitivity of analogue sticks/poor memory is only being brought up now? Was there a divide between PC and console games which has closed and so the PC games are suffering by the union. I never really thought about it before. I guess that must be it, Infinity Engine RPGs and Thief were a world apart from the majority of playstation games and the JRPGs

Fair point on the Final Fantasy bit. Though, that was essentially an anomaly compared to the normal control mechanics of the day; where the norm was "always run" and extra buttons were used to slow down.

Unlike today, wherein the norm is to have the player character move incredibly slow, and only allow quick movement with the press of a "sprint" button.

That's what I was getting at.

As for edit 1, many game designers are genuinely slowing down player characters. The reasons why will vary, but there's no denying that characters just simply move slower today, on average, than they did in the past.

Now for edit 2.

Poor memory and other system-spec-related issues have been a point of contention between console and PC gamers since there were PCs and consoles to argue over. I.E. essentially since gaming began.

These arguments have become far more prevalent now-a-days for two reasons:
1 - The gap between console tech advancement and PC tech advancement has widened significantly.
2 - Gaming; console or PC; has become far more "main-stream" today, meaning more people are playing. And, as we all know, people like to argue. Especially when it's over which "thing" is "better".

However, the control issues arose when consoles biggest advancement in control inputs was, in effect, joystick technology; only shrunken.

This was essentially the same tech PCs had had for years and years. Hell, even older consoles like the Atari had these kinds of inputs. (sort of)

Add to that console developers attempting to recreate gaming experiences that relied very heavily on PC-centric control mechanisms (first person shooters, for example), and the issues of analog-stick "lag" become more pronounced.

This is not to say, of course, that analog sticks "don't work" for first-person games. On the contrary, they work just fine. And, plenty of players prefer it to a mouse setup.

Still, it's hard to argue, objectively, that analog sticks aren't inherently worse than a mouse; in regards to speed, accuracy, and responsiveness.

[sub]Though, analog sticks are significantly superior to most of todays motion controls.[/sub]