Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

"Consoles are not responsible for the decline of the shooter"

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
I played it for a couple of levels. It was alright. It's an example that consoles are not responsible for the decline of the shooter actually, but rather the push for increased realism, detail and sales, which originated on PC with Calladooty, Counterstrike, Half-life, Crysis, Battlefield etc. Every initial instance of decline was from a sellout PC dev, even console exclusives (Halo, Gears of War). Meanwhile non-sellout console FPS (Exhumed, Turok, Doom64 etc) were neither decline nor incline, just standard old school FPS. Turok may be the exception, pretty great inclined FPS.
 
Last edited:

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
It was alright. It's an example that consoles are not responsible for the decline of the shooter actually, but rather the push for increased realism, detail and sales, which originated on PC with Calladooty, Counterstrike, Half-life, Crysis, Battlefield etc. Every initial instance of decline was from a sellout PC dev, even console exclusives (Halo, Gears of War). Meanwhile non-sellout console FPS (Exhumed, Turok, Doom64 etc) were neither decline nor incline, just standard old school FPS. Turok may be the exception, pretty great inclined FPS.
The push for increased realism lead to games like Rainbow Six, Hidden & Dangerous and Operation Flashpoint, which are some of the finest games ever made that feature shooting things in first person. Incidentally, they were also utterly incompatible with consoles, either being PC-exclusives or having very simplified console ports. Half-Life, CoD etc. might have featured real-life locations, but aiming for "realism" was definitely not the reason for the decline — CoD was always cinematic rather than realistic, even if it tried to maintain some level of authenticity on the surface.

The push for increased sales is a real factor, of course, and it is directly linked to consoles: the preference of multiplatform games over PC-only titles. Halo was of course something of a milestone in this, being one of the first big titles for the Xbox and one of the defining games of its generation. Before it came out, there was a period when console shooters were generally considered inferior to PC ones (rightfully so), as they had to be designed for controllers whereas the PC shooters had established mouse and keyboard as the superior, more precise control method, aside from having all sorts of other technical advantages. A few years earlier this wasn't as big of an issue, as many of the old school shooters (like Doom) were perfectly playable with just the keyboard, something which translated pretty well to a gamepad, but the increasing importance of the Z-axis, the speed and the precision were something that was very hard to achieve on a controller. Halo managed to change that, though, at least in the eyes of the public, being a console shooter that apparently worked rather well on a gamepad. How did they do it? Lowering the general pace of the game, reducing the need for quick reflexes or precise aiming. Adding regenerating shields that encouraged staying in cover rather than running and gunning, something which was very hard to pull off with a controller. Adding a two-weapon limit to make up for the fact that you couldn't have hotkeys for tons of different weapons like you could on the PC. The game was a huge success, of course, and pretty soon others started blindly copying it, eventually turning its features into the industry standard — kind of like Half-Life ended up having tons of cargo cult copycats that tried to imitate it in all the wrong ways, filling their games with scripted events and linear level design without really understanding what it really was about HL that made it a good game.

Some of the decline did originate from the PC, but there's no doubt that consoles played a huge part in shaping the genre into what it is today.
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
Lowering the general pace of the game, reducing the need for quick reflexes or precise aiming.
You do need quick reflexes and precise aiming in Halo, especially on the later difficulties. It isn't a fast paced shooter though.

Adding a two-weapon limit to make up for the fact that you couldn't have hotkeys for tons of different weapons like you could on the PC.
This is wrong. Bungie had a two weapon limit because they wanted to force the player to carry weapons that they would need for different combat encounters. Granted, it wasn't well implemented in the first game because you would find a rocket launcher and carry it hoping that you would use it on a strong enemy but that never happened. Also, because they thought 2 weapons would be more realistic (funny). If they really wanted the player to keep all 20+ weapons at once, they would have added a radial menu or an inventory.

Adding regenerating shields that encouraged staying in cover rather than running and gunning
Regenerative shields were different between Halo 1 & 2. You still needed health packs in Halo 1. The game never wanted you to stay and hide in cover because a lot of locations were either too large or too claustrophobic for that. It wouldn't be until the 2nd game that had full health regen, that you were encouraged to take cover from fire.

There was a video somewhere on YouTube in which I read pc was the main source of decline of gaming in terms of game difficulty and the guy made a good point, too bad I can't remember it.
 
Last edited:

Maggot

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
1,243
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire
^

Everyone forgets Delta Force, I thought it was p. good.
Delta Force games were fun. I loved the pea soup fog maps and the ladder maps in Black Hawk Down where every wall was a ladder. Those games had good bullet drop too.
 
Last edited:

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Must be some crazy coincidence then that PC gaming went to shit the moment the Xbox showed up, right?

As did console gaming. Do you recall objective markers, regenerative health, linear as fuck level design, cover shooting, piss easy brainless game design in general commonplace in console games pre-xbox era? No, those concepts simply didn't exist for the most part. Game devs competed by attempting to create good games back in the day, not so much mass market ones. Not like today anyway. Console games were known for being hardcore. e.g the Nintendo Hard trope. Only ignorant fuckheads blame anything other than the devs which universally sold us out en masse, with one or two honorable exceptions.

There was a video somewhere on YouTube in which I read pc was the main source of decline of gaming in terms of game difficulty and the guy made a good point, too bad I can't remember it.

It's a mixture of games on the consoles typically having simpler design (but as Doom shows, simple doesn't necessarily mean bad) and a larger consumer base, and PC devs seeing that and taking simple to the extreme for optimized sales after years of a lack of success on the PC market (because every tard was playing Doom and Half life and ignoring Fallout, Ultima Underworld and System Shock 2, as some examples).

Halo as a singleplayer FPS experience was pure decline (one of the first, and by an ex-PC dev of course), so we don't need to argue the intricacies of that shit in particular.

Carrion said:
The game was a huge success, of course, and pretty soon others started blindly copying it

The only reason Halo was a success was because A) it was a lauch title, and more importantly, B) because 60% of the game's budget was invested in marketing. It's garbage design has nothing to do with it. It is well established the masses will eat up figurative dog shit that is shoved down their throats. And the controller has never been much an issue. An issue nonetheless, but it's not an excuse for the decline. Not even close.

Anyway, this has been discussed before, so let it be. Just point the finger at the sellouts, not console hardware that is superior to what PC hardware was back in 1993.
 
Last edited:

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Please stop quoting me, dev_anj. I'm seriously tired of your shit.

Alright then, System shock vs Doom, if you really must have matching genres, as if that truly matters. My point was simplicity was favored by the PC market too, which led to many PC devs selling out. If more PC devs enjoyed the success id and Valve saw, or that success was shared out more fairly by the masses, the decline likely wouldn't have been so steep to the extent it is today. Valve and id absolutely dominated the market. id squandered that success (but thankfully eventually funded games like Deus Ex), but valve still has the PC market by the balls, especially so with steam. Every idiot is screaming for a HL3 release. Who even gives a shit? Only tards. HL is decent, but nothing notably special.
 
Last edited:

Dev_Anj

Learned
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
468
Location
Auldale, near the great river
My point was simplicity was favored by the PC market too,

Simplicity has always been favored by people at large. That's just an integral part of human nature, and it's not one you can solve unless you have magical skills or mind control.

I pointed out the genre thing because you simply can't directly compare something from one genre to something from another genre and then make a broad claim about how people like one thing more than the other. An RPG never ever aspired to have the numbers of an FPS, because by default it's catering to a different audience. System Shock and Doom are not the same genre either beyond the sci fi theme and superficial similarities in gameplay.

If you're thinking that somehow the people who want to shoot things are exactly the same people who would want to play with stats and builds, then you're wrong. People like different things, and that's perfectly fine. It's just that they don't like the things you like as much, but seriously is that really so bad?
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
If you're thinking that somehow the people who want to shoot things are exactly the same people who would want to play with stats and builds, then you're wrong. People like different things, and that's perfectly fine. It's just that they don't like the things you like as much, but seriously is that really so bad?

Popamole decline-loving is not a viable preference.

Simplicity dominating complexity means:

-less complex games are viable to create
-Complex games struggle to have their place in gaming culture, and to set standards for the future.
-complexity is only simplicity multiplied, meaning devs of complex games work harder or seek to provide more ambitious gameplay, yet get rewarded less. That's just cruel.

Exchange "simplicity" for "popamole" as simple doesn't necessarily mean bad. There are many great simple games, but complex games should have a fair shot at success too, if not more.

Anyhow, I have a big problem with what I perceive to be shitty modern popamole garbage dominating the industry and ruining my hobby, yes. The decline is a problem and it is in part enabled by people's uninformed "tastes", e.g Bioshock vs System Shock.It's not so much a problem of taste, it's more that most people simply haven't played System Shock.
 
Last edited:

Dev_Anj

Learned
Joined
Jan 14, 2015
Messages
468
Location
Auldale, near the great river
it's more that most people simply haven't played System Shock.

And if they do and simply don't like it, what will you do? Hurl insults at them? Criticize them for their opinions? It's elitist attitudes like this that I don't like.

Look, I agree that the world would be better if people had better tastes, but that is not something you can achieve by merely moaning over and over about how people liking one thing don't like the other. The only real way to do that is to encourage better works and to teach people to appreciate the finer aspects of a work better.
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
The only reason Halo was a success was because A) it was a launch title, and more importantly, B) because 60% of the game's budget was invested in marketing. It's garbage design has nothing to do with it. It is well established the masses will eat up figurative dog shit that is shoved down their throats. And the controller has never been much an issue. An issue nonetheless, but it's not an excuse for the decline. Not even close.
Halo was pretty much the best console fps at release.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
says the 'tard that thinks GTAV is the best GTA.

Decline can never be the "best" anything. Turok 2 or any of the large number of PC shooters ported to consoles would qualify as the best FPS on a console. doom, Nukem 3D, whatever. Not fucking the definitive decline of singleplayer FPS, Halo.

dev_anj said:
And if they do and simply don't like it, what will you do? Hurl insults at them? Criticize them for their opinions? It's elitist attitudes like this that I don't like.

You do realize you're on RPG Codex, right?
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Yes there was. Namely every other fucking FPS in existence and playable on consoles at that time. Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Turok 2, Alien Trilogy, Half Life, even the average Red Faction. Heck, even the hugely overrated Goldeneye. Those games actually had engaging level design and non-popamole gameplay.
 

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
Most of those games aren't console exclusives, the ones that were didn't come out in Halo's time nor did they have the impact that Halo had. I can even guess that they didn't play as well as Halo did on a controller.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
"Guess"

Exactly, ignorance, as I was expecting. Anyhow, What makes it more "playable" than Red Faction or Half Life which too used twin sticks? Nothing. You couldn't rightly say anyway.
Regardless I'd rather play Doom or System Shock with a fucking keyboard only than Halo singleplayer with anything, because those are good singleplayer FPS experiences and the other is banal decline shit. As a multiplayer game its fine though, because multiplayer games don't need to focus on ancient incline like actually engaging level design, and regenerating shields is fine for typical multiplayer arena design, and so on.
 
Last edited:

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
nor did they have the impact that Halo had.

"Impact" :hahano:

Same way Bioshock had a greater "impact" than System shock 2, amirite? Because Halo was babbies' first FPS when they got their xbawks for Christmas. Because it invested most of the budget in marketing and accessible design instead of making an enjoyable game. Because those players are ignorant and did not know better, had no reference point or standards, and can only "guess", that is why.

Most of those games aren't console exclusives

All except Doom, HL and Nukem 3d are a mix of exclusive or console-first then later ported to PC, same way doom was PC-first and later ported to console.

Now comes the part where you tell me how Legend of Zelda: the ocarina of time is the greatest RPG of all time and shadow of the colossus is the only video game that is art. :hahano:
 
Last edited:

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
nor did they have the impact that Halo had.

"Impact" :hahano:

Same way Bioshock had a greater "impact" than System shock 2, amirite? Because it was babbies' first FPS when they got their xbawks for Christmas. Because those people were ignorant and do not know better and can only "guess", that is why.
You know what impact Halo had, from being the biggest console fps series, to setting the standard for console fps, to the regenerative health, multiplayer on Xbox Live etc. Bioshock didn't even have anywhere near that impact

"Guess"

Exactly, ignorance, as I was expecting. Anyhow, What makes it more "playable" than Red Faction or Half Life which too used twin sticks? Nothing. You couldn't rightly say anyway.
Regardless I'd rather play Doom or System Shock with a fucking keyboard only than Halo singleplayer with anything, because those are good singleplayer FPS experiences and the other is banal decline shit. As a multiplayer game its fine though, because multiplayer games don't need to focus on ancient incline like actually engaging level design, and regenerating shields is fine for typical multiplayer arena design, and so on.
I haven't played Half-Life on console but I have played it on PC, and I have seen analysis of Half-Life on console and it is almost an entire different game and runs like crap compared to Halo.
What set Halo apart from the other games was how the game was designed. Generally speaking Halo has a lot of large environments with vehicles and didn't have much scripting in the combat. This is what separated it from the pack, the first game did have very repetitive interiors though.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Yet more ignorance. Half Life on PC and Half life on PS2 are essentially the same game. PS2 has: new decay missions, new hi-res models, an optional shitty lock-on aim feature, and that's about it. Identical game otherwise.

Seriously, don't bother. I'm the bigger angsty nerd. I've played every notable shooter, then played their expansion packs, then I've played them all again in their port form, then again with mods //slightly exaggerating elitist

You know what impact Halo had, from being the biggest console fps series, to setting the standard for console fps, to the regenerative health, multiplayer on Xbox Live etc. Bioshock didn't even have anywhere near that impact

Yes, it ruined FPS in general, and set the precedence for decline. Marketing marketing marketing. Fuck good game design.
...That's not a good thing.
 
Last edited:

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe

This video says otherwise and the PS2 shooting for Half-Life looks awful compared to combat evolved. Like you said, Halo had a high marketing budget for Xbox. You can see why one became really big on console and not the one that came out 3 years after its initial release. Half-Life was a port of an already existing series while Halo was new and fresh. Halo on Xbox was more polished than the console versions of Half-life.


Yes, it ruined FPS in general, and set the precedence for decline. Marketing marketing marketing. Fuck good game design. that's not a good thing.
meh, Halo is/was good for what it is. It wasn't really trying to be a Half-Life or Doom clone.
 
Last edited:

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
You've never heard the phrase "polished turd"? I'd take a bastardized version of Half Life ("oh noes a frame skips from time to time") than the game that ruined the FPS genre. Though HL contributed to the decline in its own way but its not in that league. It may have been linear but it was well-designed linear, contrary to modern linear.

"Combat evolved". I don't believe I ever noticed the irony in that subtitle. Two weapon limits, banal level design, regenerating health and slow movement speed..."Evolved".

Anyway, you're clearly a mole-popper. Probably one of those achievement hunter tards. Or one of those tools that demand 60fps 1080p on every modern singleplayer game trailer instead of demanding, you know, it actually be a good game. any modern gamer archetype you'd probably fit.
 
Last edited:

sullynathan

Arcane
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
6,473
Location
Not Europe
You've never heard the phrase "polished turd"? I'd take a bastardized version of Half Life ("oh noes a frame skips from time to time") than the game that ruined the FPS genre. Though HL contributed to the decline in its own way but its not in that league. It may have been linear but it was well-designed linear, contrary to modern linear.

"Combat evolved". I don't believe I ever noticed the irony in that subtitle. Two weapon limits, banal level design, regenerating health and slow movement speed..."Evolved".

Anyway, you're clearly a mole-popper. Probably one of those achievement hunter tards. Or one of those tools that demand 60fps 1080p on every modern singleplayer game trailer instead of demanding, you know, it actually be a good game. any modern gamer archetype you'd probably fit.

I'm not a graphics whore or one of those that demands 1080p 60fps, but I clearly know why Halo became popular and influential. Half-Life is better than Halo but it was even slower, and you keep ignoring Halo's significance within the console market.

It's not Halo's fault that other developers chose to mirror its design decisions. The level design did get better as the series progresses, but the first game and a few later entries didn't have regenerative health.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
The distinction of regenerating health and no regenerating health in halo is barely significant. The regenerating shield represents approximately 80% of your health, your "actual" health represents the remainder 20%.

Half-Life was even slower

Hmm, you may be right there, if ignoring bunny hopping speed. I haven't touched Halo 1 in years, but played some reach the other day.

and you keep ignoring Halo's significance within the console market.

I've acknowledged, and subsequently dismissed it. It's "significance" is a notable mark of decline that had an influence on the PC market and console market, extending beyond FPS.why the fuck would that be any point in its favor? It's one of the first successful declines, successful through brute force marketing primarily.

meh, Halo is/was good for what it is. It wasn't really trying to be a Half-Life or Doom clone.

It is fine you think it is "good for what it is", just don't claim it's "the best" of anything. Like most games it does have its merits. I take no issue with its multiplayer, for instance. Bit slow but other than it's alright. Yet as a singleplayer experience it's pure decline over what came before. It's simply not very engaging. It's a devolution. But it probably isn't the worst offender out there when you consider 3 hour cinematic modern military shooter campaigns.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom