Skyrim to be a console port which "shouldn't be too hard"

[Atmos Duality]

Oh wow. Memory leaks, eh?
I think I avoided all those issues simply by having 12 GB RAM ...

Well, I didn't have the cash for a (then) equivalent mega-server.
Cripes, I could have hosted several dedicated servers with that.

 

[lovest harding]

Skyrim will be a great game on PC. Just as good if not better than consoles (even without mods).
I own Morrowind on PC and Xbox. It's better on PC.
I own Oblivion on PC and 360. It's great on PC (although pretty equal to the console version without mods).

I think Bethesda has proven they can make great(if buggy) games on PC and 360 (haven't played the PS3 version, so I can't say anything on that).
If you have a PC and buy a copy of Skyrim for PC you'll get a great game (and even better for you, you'll get unofficial patches making it even more solid than what console gamers get), unless Bethesda screws it up. I seriously doubt that they will seeing as how they've been working on games for PC for a very long time.

This is coming from someone who would consider themselves a primary console gamer.

 

[ImprovizoR]

I don't know what you're talking about. Just Cause 2 was 10x better on PC. Better controls, Dx10.1 support, mods etc. I actually think PC was the lead platform for Just Cause 2. Over 150 hours with absolutely no problems. Not one! And the game didn't even need a patch.

Mass Effect 2 ran better than some PC exclusives and a lot better than most ports.

Dragon Age 2 was intentionally dumbed down for consoles. The whole game suffered from a quick cash-in syndrome too.

 

[TheKramers]

I like PC gaming, but it's far too expensive. I've always wanted a good PC but have never been able to afford one at all let alone one that can run current-gen games. I'm glad they're focusing more on the console version.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Oh wow. Memory leaks, eh?
I think I avoided all those issues simply by having 12 GB RAM ...

Well, I didn't have the cash for a (then) equivalent mega-server.
Cripes, I could have hosted several dedicated servers with that.

Ok, it was a throwaway line, but I did have "a lot" of RAM.

I think the way it panned out, I had 12 GB for New Vegas, 8 GB for FO3, 3 GB for Oblivion.
Though it did seem 3 GB was plenty for Oblivion.

There were these rare times I'd leave the computer running overnight to train some skills, and come back to the screen having turned weird colours.
Maybe that was memory related or some other engine bug, but a quick restart fixed it.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

snippety

As horrible as your Oblivion experience sounds, I was actually referring to the New Vegas load times.

Loading screens in that game, after 20 or so hours of play, can be anything form a minute to 5 minutes. It's ridiculous, and made worse by the abundance of 'go from one area to the next and back' fetch quests.

 

[Zakarath]

Personally, I like hearing this, because even though I intend to get this for PC, as my PC is a laptop whose capabilities are starting to age a little bit; but if a game is first optimized enough to run on a console, there's a good chance my PC can run it too.

 

[Atmos Duality]

snippety

As horrible as your Oblivion experience sounds, I was actually referring to the New Vegas load times.

Loading screens in that game, after 20 or so hours of play, can be anything form a minute to 5 minutes. It's ridiculous, and made worse by the abundance of 'go from one area to the next and back' fetch quests.

Yikes. I heard the coding for New Vegas was even worse than Fallout 3, but I didn't think it was that bad.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[
Yikes. I heard the coding for New Vegas was even worse than Fallout 3, but I didn't think it was that bad.

Fallout 3 runs like Tetris compared to New Vegas

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Yes, tantrums. Criticism is "This seems unnecessarily simplified, to the point where it's losing depth rather than streamlining the experience." and not "continuing to shell out money so publishers can continue fucking us in the ass."


Here's the other thing. Being a console port would affect it if it were dumbed down, and yet all information released prior to this indicated it wasn't. But now, all that gets ignored once it's revealed to be a console port, which is equivalent to being made by the Antichrist and always ruins everything ever, no exceptions at all forever.

What is streamlining exactly? I always see this word thrown around as a way to respond to claims of a game being "dumbed down" but what IS streamlining exactly?

The problem with the fact that Skyrim is being ported is that it's not DESIGNED to play on a PC, it's DESIGNED to play on a console. They're removing features that simply can't work on a console and downplaying those that are to complex. Look, from a hardware point of view consoles are inferior to the PC. Things you can do on a PC just can't be done on consoles. You can't have huge, sprawling battles and you can't have huge, detailed worlds and cities with tons of NPC's. it won't happen on consoles because neither the processor nor the RAM allows it.

They had some good ideas, I'm not denying that, but after seeing gameplay videos I already saw how weird it played. I mean sure, the battles are epic but everything is so underwhelming. Whilst the graphics are decent enough and they HAVE improved the third person animations the AI is just as dumb as ever and don't even get me started on how unoriginal and boring NPC's look.

Here's the deal. If they want to design a game to run on consoles then that's FINE BY ME but that does not mean they should ignore their main audience. The fact of the matter is, Elder Scrolls Games have a much higher half life on the PC than on consoles. Oblivion is STILL played 6 years since its release with mods coming in almost everyday. There is a huge fanbase for the game on the PC and treating that fanbase with a port is just plain disingenuous.

They should have designed the game for both the PC and consoles rather than just do a quick port job and call it a day. At the very least they could lower the price to something like twenty bucks since we're not technically getting the full experience. I find it rather shit of bull to have to pay 50 dollars for a game that is essentially not designed to run properly on my platform.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Hang on. So you're saying that Red Dead was limited by hardware (generally) despite the fact in ran fine on 360s but not on your PC? I'm not sure I follow. Tinker or not, there's not way I could buy a half decent PC for the same amount as a game console every 4-5 years. Maybe its different in the US or if you're happy to build something yourself but a lot gamers want to play games not build PCs, I have other things going on, other hobbies, a wife, a job, I like PC tinkering but not that much.

Oh now you're just bullshitting. You obviously never played the game so you have no idea how it actually ran. Hell, if you did, you would've known the game is not out on the PC and will probably never BE released on the PC at least in the near future. I understand it might have been just a slip but through your entire comment you refered to the PC version of a game that is, as of 10th June 2011 a console exclusive.

I don't get what's so hard about "tinkering" with your PC. I mean it's not like you're performing brain surgery you're just yanking out a few wires and inserting your fucking piece then putting the wires back together. How is that complicated? Hell, if you're to inept then the guys at your local computer shop will happily put it all together. In fact, if you do go that route then I believe the assembling is actually done free of charge.

It's not like you spend 80% of your time "building" your PC instead of playing on it. It's no harder that figuring out which plug goes in where when you're trying to hookup your console to your TV. Add in the fact that consoles tend to chew discs and are extremely prone to hardware failure and in the long run you might have to spend a lot more than "just" 400 dollars. The RROD is infamous but recently the YLOD has been getting some attention as well. Let's also not forget games are more expensive and price drops don't happen as quickly so in the end you're still paying more for essentially less.

But in the end, let's face it. Gaming isn't an easy hobby. If you've got other responsibilities then

Well it depends what you value. I don't necessarily want a whole new gameplay experience everytime with a franchise like AC. I want new situations, stories, adventures - messing around with the gameplay could just ruin this if they get it wrong. If gameplay is satisfying it stays satisfying you just need new variables (which is why online shooter have such replayability for certain people - tight, rewarding gameplay - infinite variation from playing against people).

So you enjoyed AC2 but you don't want the formula to become better? That's like saying you enjoy having sex but you don't necearely want it to become more pleasurable.

All you're saying here is your tolerance for outdated graphics (Baldur's Gate) is lower than others (Morrowind). I love Deus Ex but every time I replay it the graphics are more blocky and comical. However, I'd say there's actually been a real slowing in graphics obsession (perhaps because the current console fleet is ageing). Oblivion is 5 years old now but is still very pretty, some of the character animations are a bit wonky but still visually impressive. Similarly Red Dead is a good looking game because of the map design and colour choice - individually the character models aren't that advanced. LA Noire has amazing facial animations but that's an effort application rather than a rendering one.

It's not that. The modern gamer can't even stand games 7 years old, I.E. KOTOR or hell, even Nox. The thing is, there's no reason to focus on making the game prettier when using that same technology you could make the world come alive. You don't need photo realistic graphics to make the world alive and immersive just like you don't need good graphics to make a good game. Technology has allowed us to do wonderful things with games but why waste it all attempting to create better graphics when so much more can be done?

There are only so many unique ideas per year that can be developed, what I'm saying is that games like Minecraft demonstrate outright that people can get them into the world just as easily as they could.

No and No on the sofa/desk assertion I'm afraid. I used to be an avid counter strike player. You know how much I miss the mouse and keyboard? A tiny, little bit. If you send all day at a desk working, you know what you don't want to do when you get home? Sit at a desk.

And that makes no sense. The fact of the matter is, the keyboard is one of the most advanced controllers to date and if you look at console games closely YOU'RE STILL SITTING AT A "DESK". You're sitting down, on a couch most likely in a sitting position that might just as well give you scoliosis right away staring at a screen that, giving its size, will have the same straining effect on your eyes like standing in front of your computer monitor. At the same time, you're holding a controller in hand with so few buttons that developers have to create work arounds to include MORE buttons.

Also, last time I checked, you could also use a controller on a PC if you so do prefer.

I sit at the same distance to play games as I do to watch TV, which is a pretty reasonable distance. Using a controller is so liberating - especially for FPSs. No longer is the person with the maddest mouse accuracy king. Its relaxing, I can sit back, have a beer and blast zombies with no sensation of not having accuracy. Its largely conditioning - mouse-ers are used to mouses, pick up a controller and feel lost, shock, they don't spend as long on the controller of course it will feel harder. A controller will never be quite as accurate as a mouse, but who cares as long as everyone's on the same footing.

You're right, the person with the "maddest" mouse accuracy is no longer king. The person with the "maddest" stick accuracy is. Put in the fact that you can easily link a USB keyboard to a console or the fact that there are specialized controllers out there to improve your aiming and that console FPS's always include a "auto aim" feature and in the end it's similar, if not worse to playing an FPS on the PC.

It's not JUST about FPS's. The reason there's a two weapon limit is because controllers simply aren't up to the task of handling more than two weapons. Oh, in single player you CAN open up a menu and select your weapon but do you really think people will wait for you to do so in a multiplayer game? On the other hand, keyboards can easily handle multiple weapons as changing them is as easy as clicking a button.

Controllers limit the amount of freedom you have when playing any game. This is why so many developers create work arounds.

Haven't played Dragon Age 2, played 1 on the PC and was a bit underwhelmed. As to the general point - no, they are not treating PC gamers like shit. They are working to make their game, the best for the most amount of people. There are more people in the console market who will buy Skyrim - so develop for them. As shown above, Red Dead works fine on the 360 but is limited on your PC.

How did you find it underwhelming?

There are? How so? How do you know there's a bigger market for Syrim on consoles rather than on the PC, the platform that Elder Scrolls games have usually thrived on for years after their initial release?

Also, Red Dead Redemption has not been released on the PC and no, it does not work fine on the 360. In fact, there are loads of threads complaining of lag issues.

If you were a writer, equally fluent in French and English, and you wanted to write something really good that was going to take you years. You figure, the English speaking world is a bigger, broader audience. So you'll focus on getting that right and translate it to French later.

But writing a book in English doesn't necesarely mean you'd end up sacrificing an entire amazing chapter of the book just so English readers might understand it.

Also, this analogy makes no sense. Writing a book and creating a game is not the same.

Nothing from the video I've seen makes it look like they've been restricted by primary development for the 360 - it looks astounding I can't wait. PC gamers have to get used to the fact that for big, triple A titles - they're the minority now. They're not going to get the attention they used to - after all what's the reward for developers?

Money would be a big one. Also, innovation since modders tend to do their work a lot of the times ESPECIALLY with Oblivion which required a couple of good mods before it became marginally decent. Hell, last time I checked, Bethesda is introducing quite a few user created mods into Skyrim.

What you're criticising in Dragon Age 2 is a choice by the developers, I can't imagine why exploration would be a limiting factor for consoles.

How is it not? Exploration is a big part of what makes RPG's and especially TES games unique.

 

[rossatdi]

Hang on. So you're saying that Red Dead was limited by hardware (generally) despite the fact in ran fine on 360s but not on your PC? I'm not sure I follow. Tinker or not, there's not way I could buy a half decent PC for the same amount as a game console every 4-5 years. Maybe its different in the US or if you're happy to build something yourself but a lot gamers want to play games not build PCs, I have other things going on, other hobbies, a wife, a job, I like PC tinkering but not that much.

Oh now you're just bullshitting. You obviously never played the game so you have no idea how it actually ran. Hell, if you did, you would've known the game is not out on the PC and will probably never BE released on the PC at least in the near future. I understand it might have been just a slip but through your entire comment you refered to the PC version of a game that is, as of 10th June 2011 a console exclusive.

I don't get what's so hard about "tinkering" with your PC. I mean it's not like you're performing brain surgery you're just yanking out a few wires and inserting your fucking piece then putting the wires back together. How is that complicated? Hell, if you're to inept then the guys at your local computer shop will happily put it all together. In fact, if you do go that route then I believe the assembling is actually done free of charge.

It's not like you spend 80% of your time "building" your PC instead of playing on it. It's no harder that figuring out which plug goes in where when you're trying to hookup your console to your TV. Add in the fact that consoles tend to chew discs and are extremely prone to hardware failure and in the long run you might have to spend a lot more than "just" 400 dollars. The RROD is infamous but recently the YLOD has been getting some attention as well. Let's also not forget games are more expensive and price drops don't happen as quickly so in the end you're still paying more for essentially less.

But in the end, let's face it. Gaming isn't an easy hobby. If you've got other responsibilities then

My apologies, I had no idea it wasn't available on PC. I certainly never experienced any gameplay problems on the 360 - don't know what to tell you. What I can tell you is I thought the ending was bullshit. Forcing

Spoiler

John's death in a cutscene was necessary and I felt cheated after a long story.

No, gaming is an easy hobby. Buy game, put game in console, sit down. Easy. No stress. I'll admit to a RROD, packed it off, sent it to Germany, back inside two weeks. A pain but hardly a hassle.

Hard Hobbies -
Sky diver
Marathon runner
Horse rider
Knife juggler
GMing 3.5 edition D&D

Easy Hobbies -
Computer Games
Drinking

Well it depends what you value. I don't necessarily want a whole new gameplay experience everytime with a franchise like AC. I want new situations, stories, adventures - messing around with the gameplay could just ruin this if they get it wrong. If gameplay is satisfying it stays satisfying you just need new variables (which is why online shooter have such replayability for certain people - tight, rewarding gameplay - infinite variation from playing against people).

So you enjoyed AC2 but you don't want the formula to become better? That's like saying you enjoy having sex but you don't necearely want it to become more pleasurable.

That's not what I'm saying and you're intentionally misunderstanding it. Refinement and new experiences inside the existing structure YES. But innovation is re working the structure. Sex is benefited from new variables not a complete overhaul in the gameplay.

All you're saying here is your tolerance for outdated graphics (Baldur's Gate) is lower than others (Morrowind). I love Deus Ex but every time I replay it the graphics are more blocky and comical. However, I'd say there's actually been a real slowing in graphics obsession (perhaps because the current console fleet is ageing). Oblivion is 5 years old now but is still very pretty, some of the character animations are a bit wonky but still visually impressive. Similarly Red Dead is a good looking game because of the map design and colour choice - individually the character models aren't that advanced. LA Noire has amazing facial animations but that's an effort application rather than a rendering one.

It's not that. The modern gamer can't even stand games 7 years old, I.E. KOTOR or hell, even Nox. The thing is, there's no reason to focus on making the game prettier when using that same technology you could make the world come alive. You don't need photo realistic graphics to make the world alive and immersive just like you don't need good graphics to make a good game. Technology has allowed us to do wonderful things with games but why waste it all attempting to create better graphics when so much more can be done?

I'm a modern console gamer and I can. That's why my Dreamcast is still plugged in for a bit of jet set radio and power stone. You're judging console gamers in a manner that's unfair. Most serious gamers play games on both, and given the average gamer age is somewhere in the mid-30s, they have likely played and loved games on the PC, playstation 1 and what ever they have now. The segregation is fundamentally artificial and can be co-supportive no destructive.

There are only so many unique ideas per year that can be developed, what I'm saying is that games like Minecraft demonstrate outright that people can get them into the world just as easily as they could.

No and No on the sofa/desk assertion I'm afraid. I used to be an avid counter strike player. You know how much I miss the mouse and keyboard? A tiny, little bit. If you send all day at a desk working, you know what you don't want to do when you get home? Sit at a desk.

And that makes no sense. The fact of the matter is, the keyboard is one of the most advanced controllers to date and if you look at console games closely YOU'RE STILL SITTING AT A "DESK". You're sitting down, on a couch most likely in a sitting position that might just as well give you scoliosis right away staring at a screen that, giving its size, will have the same straining effect on your eyes like standing in front of your computer monitor. At the same time, you're holding a controller in hand with so few buttons that developers have to create work arounds to include MORE buttons.

Also, last time I checked, you could also use a controller on a PC if you so do prefer.

Sorry, what? Gaming at a desk is not gaming on a sofa. Unless you have a crap sofa and a deluxe office chair, its just not the same experience. I can't remember the last time I played a game on a console and gone "you know what I need? more than the 4 face buttons, the 8 directional d-pad, the four shoulder triggers and two analogue sticks." That and keyboards can't offer variable walking speeds in the same way and analogue stick can (advanced!).

I sit at the same distance to play games as I do to watch TV, which is a pretty reasonable distance. Using a controller is so liberating - especially for FPSs. No longer is the person with the maddest mouse accuracy king. Its relaxing, I can sit back, have a beer and blast zombies with no sensation of not having accuracy. Its largely conditioning - mouse-ers are used to mouses, pick up a controller and feel lost, shock, they don't spend as long on the controller of course it will feel harder. A controller will never be quite as accurate as a mouse, but who cares as long as everyone's on the same footing.

You're right, the person with the "maddest" mouse accuracy is no longer king. The person with the "maddest" stick accuracy is. Put in the fact that you can easily link a USB keyboard to a console or the fact that there are specialized controllers out there to improve your aiming and that console FPS's always include a "auto aim" feature and in the end it's similar, if not worse to playing an FPS on the PC.

It's not JUST about FPS's. The reason there's a two weapon limit is because controllers simply aren't up to the task of handling more than two weapons. Oh, in single player you CAN open up a menu and select your weapon but do you really think people will wait for you to do so in a multiplayer game? On the other hand, keyboards can easily handle multiple weapons as changing them is as easy as clicking a button.

Controllers limit the amount of freedom you have when playing any game. This is why so many developers create work arounds.

D-pad. 8-directional weapon selection. Works fine for me.

Re-skill levels. I put a lot of hours into Counter Strike, could never get the accuracy quite down - never got that good directly for that reason. Modern Warfare on the 360, not the same issue, at all, even vaguely. You got half way good with any gun and then it was about reactions, play style and map knowledge - all of which means dick if a pc mousers can twitch take your head off.

Haven't played Dragon Age 2, played 1 on the PC and was a bit underwhelmed. As to the general point - no, they are not treating PC gamers like shit. They are working to make their game, the best for the most amount of people. There are more people in the console market who will buy Skyrim - so develop for them. As shown above, Red Dead works fine on the 360 but is limited on your PC.

How did you find it underwhelming?

There are? How so? How do you know there's a bigger market for Syrim on consoles rather than on the PC, the platform that Elder Scrolls games have usually thrived on for years after their initial release?

Also, Red Dead Redemption has not been released on the PC and no, it does not work fine on the 360. In fact, there are loads of threads complaining of lag issues.

Dragon Age just didn't give that much (and I had it on the PC). The combat felt like bastardised 3.5 edition D&D which is bastardised anyway. The one big setting innovation was making everyone a racist prick and calling the orc/demons something else. But then the story structure was to lazily go to each of these races/institutions and win them over or don't which will effect the final battle, there was the odd side quest thrown in.

Re-sales. It seems self-evident from their platform preference but the trend is pretty well established. Figures are hard to find but the trend here (http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/charts/computer-and-video-game-market-sales.htm) is clear although admittedly out of date. Would be interested to see if you can find contradicting figures.

If you were a writer, equally fluent in French and English, and you wanted to write something really good that was going to take you years. You figure, the English speaking world is a bigger, broader audience. So you'll focus on getting that right and translate it to French later.

But writing a book in English doesn't necesarely mean you'd end up sacrificing an entire amazing chapter of the book just so English readers might understand it.

Also, this analogy makes no sense. Writing a book and creating a game is not the same.

How is using language to build a world different using (programming) language to build a world? Many authors in pre-modern times wrote in multiple languages as they felt was appropriate.

I don't you think you would lose a chapter, because you would ... translate it. You may get the translation at 90% quality but if the 100% quality is going to the bigger audience and I had to make a choice, its not a hard one.

Nothing from the video I've seen makes it look like they've been restricted by primary development for the 360 - it looks astounding I can't wait. PC gamers have to get used to the fact that for big, triple A titles - they're the minority now. They're not going to get the attention they used to - after all what's the reward for developers?

Money would be a big one. Also, innovation since modders tend to do their work a lot of the times ESPECIALLY with Oblivion which required a couple of good mods before it became marginally decent. Hell, last time I checked, Bethesda is introducing quite a few user created mods into Skyrim.

So you're saying that post-release mods are going to be a major sales strategy for new games? That's just unrealistic. Most developers probably just like that they're game is getting free content creation without them having to do any work.

Who's the sucker - Bethesda for releasing a buggy PC release or hobbyists making patches for free?

What you're criticising in Dragon Age 2 is a choice by the developers, I can't imagine why exploration would be a limiting factor for consoles.

How is it not? Exploration is a big part of what makes RPG's and especially TES games unique.

I think you misunderstand. I can't see why the console would make exploration a smaller part of the development. I could buy an argument on combat complexity reduction, but console gamers like a nice juicy world as much as PC gamers. Oblivion did so well on consoles because they'd not really had that option before. Yes Morrowind was on the xbox but it wasn't given the status Oblivion was - and people loved, console players loved it.

===

Gah, too many quote clauses, can't be bothered to fix.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

My apologies, I had no idea it wasn't available on PC. I certainly never experienced any gameplay problems on the 360 - don't know what to tell you. What I can tell you is I thought the ending was bullshit. Forcing

Spoiler

John's death in a cutscene was necessary and I felt cheated after a long story.

Spoiler

I apologize for being so direct and confrontational then.

Either way, I see no problem with John's death. In fact, I believe it shows how greed can overtake anything. He went through a lot of shit just so he could be a simple farmer but in the end, his past mistakes overtook his attempts at redemption.

No, gaming is an easy hobby. Buy game, put game in console, sit down. Easy. No stress. I'll admit to a RROD, packed it off, sent it to Germany, back inside two weeks. A pain but hardly a hassle.

Buy a game, put it in a CD-Rom, wait 2 minutes for it to install then play. What's the hassle there? In regards to the RROD, you waited 2 weeks to get your console back. It only takes less than half an hour to install new hardware on a computer.

That's not what I'm saying and you're intentionally misunderstanding it. Refinement and new experiences inside the existing structure YES. But innovation is re working the structure. Sex is benefited from new variables not a complete overhaul in the gameplay.

Innovation can be made in the form of new gameplay mechanics as well. It keeps the idea fresh by complementing it. Innovating doesn't always mean changing the entire formula.

I'm a modern console gamer and I can. That's why my Dreamcast is still plugged in for a bit of jet set radio and power stone. You're judging console gamers in a manner that's unfair. Most serious gamers play games on both, and given the average gamer age is somewhere in the mid-30s, they have likely played and loved games on the PC, playstation 1 and what ever they have now. The segregation is fundamentally artificial and can be co-supportive no destructive.

And I also play both. I'm not a PC elitist I simply want the platform to be treated for what it is. It's capable of more complexity than a console, both hardware and controller wise and as such developers should attempt to use 100% of its capabilities rather than simply treat it as a way to gain a quick buck by porting games that were essentially not designed for this specific platform.

Also, the average gamer isn't exactly 30 years old. I understand there was a study conducted recently but there are to many variables to reach a conclusion like that.


There is no segregation here, that's not what I'm advocating. All I want is that PC gamers get treated fairly. If I bought a PC, I bought it so I can play games that use it to create games specifically made for it. I don't want to play a console port because the PC is not a console. It's fundamentally different, hardware and controller wise.

Sorry, what? Gaming at a desk is not gaming on a sofa. Unless you have a crap sofa and a deluxe office chair, its just not the same experience. I can't remember the last time I played a game on a console and gone "you know what I need? more than the 4 face buttons, the 8 directional d-pad, the four shoulder triggers and two analogue sticks." That and keyboards can't offer variable walking speeds in the same way and analogue stick can (advanced!).

When you play games on your console, do you sit in an upright position, similar to sitting in a chair but without something on which to lean on?

When you play games, do you sit marginally close to your TV?

In regards to the controller. What was the last game that used the D-pad for weapon selection? Nowadays, selecting weapons is done so by a circular HUD that slows down or pauses the game to allow for time to actually pick a weapon. This is just proof that developers WANT more buttons but since the controller is so limiting they have to resort to that. It would be much faster and intuitive to actually be able to select your weapon using a simple button rather than having to pause it every few seconds, whenever you feel like changing it.

GTA 4, if I remember correctly, used the D-pad for weapon selection but you had to circle through a bunch of weapons before you got the weapon you wanted. They're obviously finding ways to get around the fact that there's so little buttons on the controller but by doing slow they're basically slowing down the game.

Also, yes they can. I'm assuming you mean switching between walking and running which is the most common use for an analog stick. You CAN do this on a keyboard by simply binding "walk" to a button. Much more easier than concentrating on keeping the stick in the right position to walk. Also, it's bloody walking. Who gives a crap?

D-pad. 8-directional weapon selection. Works fine for me.

Last time I checked my Xbox controller, the D-pad had only 4 directions. Also, most games nowadays employ the two weapon system. Games that don't, like RDR, use the circular HUD.

Re-skill levels. I put a lot of hours into Counter Strike, could never get the accuracy quite down - never got that good directly for that reason. Modern Warfare on the 360, not the same issue, at all, even vaguely. You got half way good with any gun and then it was about reactions, play style and map knowledge - all of which means dick if a pc mousers can twitch take your head off.

But you can do the same thing on a console. It's still all about twitch reflexes the moment you see someone coming your way. Hell, it's the same on the PC. In fact, it's the same for all multiplayer online games, especially Call of Duty. Players get better at aiming using a stick as evidenced by snipers everywhere. It's not like it takes any longer to learn how to accurately aim using a controller. It's essentially the same thing except instead of slowly moving your mouse you're slowly moving a stick.

Dragon Age just didn't give that much (and I had it on the PC). The combat felt like bastardised 3.5 edition D&D which is bastardised anyway. The one big setting innovation was making everyone a racist prick and calling the orc/demons something else. But then the story structure was to lazily go to each of these races/institutions and win them over or don't which will effect the final battle, there was the odd side quest thrown in.

The combat was slow, steady and strategical. I saw no problem with it because that's what I wanted from it. Origins was not in any way an action game and should have not been played that way. It's all about positioning and properly managing your party. I understand why it might have been frustrating with the difficulty level and all but the recent patches have made the game easier.


Every Bioware game up until now was about going to X location and winning X character/characters over. Bioware games are heavy on characterization and light on plot though I quite enjoyed Dragon Age: Origin's take on political turmoil that penetrated the land to its very core, especially the Elf/Human rivalry.

Also, I believe the only way you could actually influence the final battle was with who actually aided you. The story essentially remained the same.

Re-sales. It seems self-evident from their platform preference but the trend is pretty well established. Figures are hard to find but the trend here (http://www.pvcmuseum.com/games/charts/computer-and-video-game-market-sales.htm) is clear although admittedly out of date. Would be interested to see if you can find contradicting figures

They only provide figures from 2005, at least for the PC sales section. Digital distribution has become quite a large industry as of late and they haven't factored that in. At the same time, these are all from the US and they don't really seem to factor in other regions except for Japan. The industry has always focused on consoles. PC's have been the launching pad for a lot of developers because console SKU's are expensive.

I also can't remember a lot of good PC games being released back then. You can't really blame PC gamers for not buying games when there weren't all that many available to begin with. Most developers still focused on console development.

How is using language to build a world different using (programming) language to build a world? Many authors in pre-modern times wrote in multiple languages as they felt was appropriate.

Because you're limited by hardware.

I don't you think you would lose a chapter, because you would ... translate it. You may get the translation at 90% quality but if the 100% quality is going to the bigger audience and I had to make a choice, its not a hard one.

But porting is essentially a different thing all together.

You've got a book written in English and there are French people who want to read it. So instead of making a proper translation you simply get the book, change a few of the words to English and give it to the French, selling it at the same price as the English version.

So you're saying that post-release mods are going to be a major sales strategy for new games? That's just unrealistic. Most developers probably just like that they're game is getting free content creation without them having to do any work.

Well, they are. I mean, Oblivion is STILL being played NOW, 6 years after its release and still being BOUGHT 6 years after its release on the PC at least. Mods are a major part of TES experience and they enrich the game quite a lot.

Who's the sucker - Bethesda for releasing a buggy PC release or hobbyists making patches for free?

How does that excuse their actions?

I think you misunderstand. I can't see why the console would make exploration a smaller part of the development. I could buy an argument on combat complexity reduction, but console gamers like a nice juicy world as much as PC gamers. Oblivion did so well on consoles because they'd not really had that option before. Yes Morrowind was on the xbox but it wasn't given the status Oblivion was - and people loved, console players loved it.

Because the hardware simply doesn't allow for it. Oblivion was plagued by "loading screens" whenever people would go on adventuring. If you've played it on the 360 I'm fairly sure you've seen how much the game stutters when you attempt to actually go out and explore the world. I believe there's a text saying it's loading the area whenever you run for a few seconds at a time in the widlerness or hell, even on the road. Like I've said so many countless times, hardware is one of the main reasons developers have such a hard time realizing their ideas. That and publishers but they can fuck right off a cliff for all I care.

 

[Danceofmasks]

What's with everyone assuming that line means it's going to be a quick and/or lazy port?!

There's another way to interpret "shouldn't be too hard" and that is ... similar to ...
"Can you run a five minute mile?"
"Shouldn't be too hard."

In the context of Skyrim, it could just mean that they understand their engine so well they're super confident in their ability to make a near perfect port.

Ok, ok, so that confidence may be misplaced, but irregardless, the engine could simply be both robust and easily ported.

 

[DaHero]

What's with everyone assuming that line means it's going to be a quick and/or lazy port?!

There's another way to interpret "shouldn't be too hard" and that is ... similar to ...
"Can you run a five minute mile?"
"Shouldn't be too hard."

In the context of Skyrim, it could just mean that they understand their engine so well they're super confident in their ability to make a near perfect port.

Ok, ok, so that confidence may be misplaced, but irregardless, the engine could simply be both robust and easily ported.

The only way the port could possibly work is if the files were translated, then went through an extensive UI and graphics overhaul.

Still not quite as expensive as building from the ground up, but no developer has yet to have the money, time, or drive for it.

 

[rossatdi]

Who's the sucker - Bethesda for releasing a buggy PC release or hobbyists making patches for free?

How does that excuse their actions?

Screw the rest of it, you're just being contrary to every point with out adding anything.

I can't state this any clearer. Gaming is a profit making market - it has been for the last 15 years at least. Developers do not have to excuse their action to you or anyone else. If they make something shit, people don't buy it (or they don't by the next produce). They follow the money, the money is now with consoles. Deal with it. If this causes a change in the product, its inevitable. It doesn't mean the focus of games is worse, only different.

All I can see is every year, loads of great games are getting released. More and more they're on consoles. Hooray for that. The Witcher II is coming 360, excellent I'll check that out.

Your perception of console gamers being some sub-class that doesn't like real games doesn't make any sense. Some of the biggest games (in terms of raw, painful content) are console J-RPGs. I think they suck, but others enjoy them, they certainly have a crap ton of content.

Your hardware arguments are non-nonsensical. You're saying the drive for graphics is damaging to games, then criticise games for apparently struggling (like Red Dead, apparently) to run graphically average but vast worlds, whilst all the time saying the solution is for developers to have preference for a platform that is actually an infinite combination of platforms making it harder for all but the elite to enjoy a game.

The world doesn't work the way individuals want it to.

Viva la console and long may it last. The PC can keep RTSs and WoW as far as I'm concerned.

And by the way, Oblivion has 8 way directional d-pad short-cutting and it works fine.

 

[Fappy]

Well look on the bright side. You guys get all the cool mods and will ultimately end up with the better game.

This.

Though unlikely, Todd has mentioned that they are lobbying to Microsoft and Sony for mod support through Xbox Live and PSN. We'll see if anything happens with that.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

I can't state this any clearer. Gaming is a profit making market - it has been for the last 15 years at least. Developers do not have to excuse their action to you or anyone else. If they make something shit, people don't buy it (or they don't by the next produce). They follow the money, the money is now with consoles. Deal with it. If this causes a change in the product, its inevitable. It doesn't mean the focus of games is worse, only different.

Yeah, actually, they have to. Just because the world has suddenly turned capitalist does not mean sleazy business tactics should be tolerated or accepted and that's exactly what Bethesda did, becoming successful from the money of PC gamers only to flip them off a few years later.

Oh, and the money isn't "with" the consoles. It's just that for some reason the console gamer seems to not have high standards. The fact of the matter is, consoles are a closed system and they are way easier to manipulate than the PC which is an open system. Just look at the Xbox and it's MS points policy and how easily it rips off customers. I can't believe people actually fall for that shit and actually buy MS points but whatever, that's a story for another time. The sad thing is gamers actually buy into that shit. Consoles are holding back gaming. It's been 6 years and for 6 years developers have had to work with the same outdated, shitty hardware.

And how is it not worse? There has been a noticeable decrease in the quality of games(see any game released in the past 2 years )and a bigger comercialization of gaming overall. The industry is turning into the fucking movie industry and the fact that people are accepting that and conforming is actually scary.

Different would be employing new mechanics to make the games innovative rather than employing new mechanics just to make the game playable on a new system.

All I can see is every year, loads of great games are getting released. More and more they're on consoles. Hooray for that. The Witcher II is coming 360, excellent I'll check that out.

A lot of great games? Like what? Please tell me because last time I checked there are about 2 or 3 good games a year with the rest being utter shit or just sequels that turned out to be utter shit.

It's not that great games are released, it's just that your expectations are so fucking low anything that is marginally mediocre is treated as greatness. See Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2, Call of Duty *insert number here*, Gears of War, Dead Space 2 etc.

Your perception of console gamers being some sub-class that doesn't like real games doesn't make any sense. Some of the biggest games (in terms of raw, painful content) are console J-RPGs. I think they suck, but others enjoy them, they certainly have a crap ton of content.

How much content they jab into it is irrelevant. Most of that "content" involves needless dribble between locations or in most cases grinding. Just look at FF13 where the "content" is just a huge story which can be realized on any platform. The driving point is just going from point a to point b and fighting anything in between. It's not that they're huge, they just rehash content.

I never said console gamers were subpar. I said consoles game were subpar. Content isn't the only thing. How you introduce that content to the player and what the game actually contains is more important. The game might be huge but if 50% of the time you're just grinding it won't be very long until you get bored.

Your hardware arguments are non-nonsensical. You're saying the drive for graphics is damaging to games, then criticise games for apparently struggling (like Red Dead, apparently) to run graphically average but vast worlds, whilst all the time saying the solution is for developers to have preference for a platform that is actually an infinite combination of platforms making it harder for all but the elite to enjoy a game.

What the fuck are you talking about? I claim that creating better graphics is the wrong way to use current technology, that creating richly detailed and huge worlds filled with interesting and detail NPC's is a better solution than making that bush look pretty. You don't necesarely have to have insanely good graphics to make a character behave naturally or to fill your world with actual life rather than just going through a forest and seeing nothing but trees all the time.

I never criticized Red Dead Redemption. What I said is that the vision for that game could barely be realized using console hardware, that the consoles simply aren't enough to actually run it properly due to outdated hardware. Whilst the game's graphics were pretty and all that shit, I would've loved is the world was more populated and if towns features more richly detailed NPC's rather than photo realistic graphics.


I never said developers should have a preference for the PC. What I ACTUALLY said was that if they were going to release a game on the PC market they damn make sure the game uses the full capabilities of the PC. Is that to much to ask for? Oh, I didn't know.

Also, building a gaming PC isn't hard at all. In fact, they'll even assemble the damn thing for you and do the same thing with any new piece of hardware you buy and it sure as hell doesn't cost a thousand dollars like most morons tend to say whenever a PC vs. Consoles debate starts rolling.

And I never SAID the PC should be favored or that you should be forced to have a PC. I MERELY SAID THAT DEVELOPERS SHOULD BUILD GAMES THAT USE THE FULL CAPABILITIES OF THE PC and the truth is, PC's are superior both controller and hardware wise.

The world doesn't work the way individuals want it to.

Yes it does. You just need to know how to appeal to the people who are not as intelligent as you.

Viva la console and long may it last. The PC can keep RTSs and WoW as far as I'm concerned.

Yes because the PC has only RTS's and World of Warcraft as games. Nevermind the fact that fucking RTS's were born on the PC and the only reason you can sit at home playing Call of Duty is because PC gamers actually bought those fucking FPS's and supported the developer back when they were just a bunch of fat guys in a garage.


But hey, viva le console as well. I mean, if outdated hardware and dumbed down games are your thing then sure, go for it.

And by the way, Oblivion has 8 way directional d-pad short-cutting and it works fine.

I remember it. I remember how you had to bind your spells to that shitty thing instead of using the much more easier and intuitive way of the fucking keybindings.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Yes, tantrums. Criticism is "This seems unnecessarily simplified, to the point where it's losing depth rather than streamlining the experience." and not "continuing to shell out money so publishers can continue fucking us in the ass."


Here's the other thing. Being a console port would affect it if it were dumbed down, and yet all information released prior to this indicated it wasn't. But now, all that gets ignored once it's revealed to be a console port, which is equivalent to being made by the Antichrist and always ruins everything ever, no exceptions at all forever.

What is streamlining exactly? I always see this word thrown around as a way to respond to claims of a game being "dumbed down" but what IS streamlining exactly?

The problem with the fact that Skyrim is being ported is that it's not DESIGNED to play on a PC, it's DESIGNED to play on a console. They're removing features that simply can't work on a console and downplaying those that are to complex. Look, from a hardware point of view consoles are inferior to the PC. Things you can do on a PC just can't be done on consoles. You can't have huge, sprawling battles and you can't have huge, detailed worlds and cities with tons of NPC's. it won't happen on consoles because neither the processor nor the RAM allows it.

They had some good ideas, I'm not denying that, but after seeing gameplay videos I already saw how weird it played. I mean sure, the battles are epic but everything is so underwhelming. Whilst the graphics are decent enough and they HAVE improved the third person animations the AI is just as dumb as ever and don't even get me started on how unoriginal and boring NPC's look.

Here's the deal. If they want to design a game to run on consoles then that's FINE BY ME but that does not mean they should ignore their main audience. The fact of the matter is, Elder Scrolls Games have a much higher half life on the PC than on consoles. Oblivion is STILL played 6 years since its release with mods coming in almost everyday. There is a huge fanbase for the game on the PC and treating that fanbase with a port is just plain disingenuous.

They should have designed the game for both the PC and consoles rather than just do a quick port job and call it a day. At the very least they could lower the price to something like twenty bucks since we're not technically getting the full experience. I find it rather shit of bull to have to pay 50 dollars for a game that is essentially not designed to run properly on my platform.

The way I understand (and use) it is the cutting of unnecessary bullshit. Say a game has separate stats for trigger control, hand steadiness, depth perception, shooting fundamentals, grip, and breath control. Streamlining would be reducing that to the accuracy stat. Occasionally it's over or unnecessarily done, though.