Anime How much do you hate consoles? (PC master race sentiment)

[Ol' Willy]

Can you name some PC games with actually "complex gameplay"? Most only look complex until you learn that you can ignore 95% of the options they give when it comes to overcoming the trivial challenges they throw your way, and thus they all boil down to incredibly simple brain dead games where the only difficulty is the initial learning curve of figuring out all the shit you can ignore.

Factorio, DCS World, Underrail, Silent Hunter (pick any), SWAT 4

Factorio is available on consoles.

DCS World -> Star Fox / Ace Combat

Underrail? Lol

Swat 4 -> Socom

I already got it that you have terrible taste in gaems and understand a jack shit, no need to push further

 

[Ryzer]

Can you name some PC games with actually "complex gameplay"? Most only look complex until you learn that you can ignore 95% of the options they give when it comes to overcoming the trivial challenges they throw your way, and thus they all boil down to incredibly simple brain dead games where the only difficulty is the initial learning curve of figuring out all the shit you can ignore.

Factorio, DCS World, Underrail, Silent Hunter (pick any), SWAT 4

Factorio is available on consoles.

DCS World -> Star Fox / Ace Combat

Underrail? Lol

Swat 4 -> Socom

I already got it that you have terrible taste in gaems and understand a jack shit, no need to push further

You haven't played any of the games I listed, YOU are just blinded by console hate, which make you retarded.

And I have played both Swat 4, Factorio and Underrail from the PC.

 

[Hellraiser]

DCS World -> Star Fox / Ace Combat

You're just trolling ain't you

 

[Ryzer]

DCS World -> Star Fox / Ace Combat

You're just trolling ain't you

He is too. DCS World is not a game but a simulator used to train pilots.

 

[Ol' Willy]

I watched a bit of socom footage, it doesn't really come close to stuff like SWAT 4, or pre-decline rainbow six and ghost recon

In fact it is quite close in spirit to consoletarded rainbow six entries like Vegas 1/2

 

[anvi]

I hate consoles because it fractured the game industry into multiple smaller camps. I also feel like they are generally retarded. PC could play anything, all the mainstream actiony shit is good on PC too. But it also has RTS, flight sims, Civilization, SWAT, and stuff. I always liked the variety, I loved arcade games and action games too but I also like more intelligent games. Consoles never had the intelligent games, you can't control an RTS and stuff on a goofy plastic controller, so it just always seemed like console gaming was PC gamings dumbass little brother.

I was ok with that seeing as a good PC is expensive and a Wii or something is cheap, but still. It doesn't have to be so.

 

[Ryzer]

I watched a bit of socom footage, it doesn't really come close to stuff like SWAT 4, or pre-decline rainbow six and ghost recon

When I mention consoles I mention 6th gen consoles and before, I agree completely with you about 7th gen consoles and latest. Though I admit I had good fun with DS/Wii.

 

[Nutmeg]

Can you name some PC games with actually "complex gameplay"? Most only look complex until you learn that you can ignore 95% of the options they give when it comes to overcoming the trivial challenges they throw your way, and thus they all boil down to incredibly simple brain dead games where the only difficulty is the initial learning curve of figuring out all the shit you can ignore.

Factorio, DCS World, Underrail, Silent Hunter (pick any), SWAT 4

SWAT 4 is a great example of what I was talking about. Absolutely every option the game gives you can be ignored in favor of going solo with a pepper ball gun. It is an extremely brain dead simple game (simpler than many "less complex" FPS games) when you do so, and playing it any other way is just for larping.

Haven't played any of the others but I feel I can comment by way of comparison with the classics.

Is Underrail any more complex than Fallout? If not then it's just a matter of remembering how to navigate dialogue trees and matching inventory items and stats to environmental interaction affordances. Really an obscurantist take on pegs and holes (popular game for infants). Entertaining as a "create your own story" game, but complex it is not.

For Factorio, I will assume it is like The Settlers (correct me if I am wrong), which I have played, combined with a manual "crafting" game (which is what puts me off playing Factorio -- I can't stand "crafting"). Basically these are tile matching games. 2 blue tiles and 3 red tiles give you 1 yellow tile. 1 yellow tile and 2 purple tiles give you 1 black tile and so on and so forth. Of course in these games the tiles (resources) also have to be transported to special tile matching sites, which is a matter of connecting the wires. This is actually less complex and simpler to accomplish than tile matching games with e.g. gravity and chain reaction mechanisms. Is there some additional complexity I have missed here?

Ironically the guy who made Factorio was (and still is?) an OpenTTD modder, and OpenTTD does have potential complexity beyond tile matching and wiring due to the market simulation it incorporates. I say potential, because it also suffers PC game syndrome -- you can completely circumvent 99% of the game while still meeting all the objectives it sets out for you by setting up airports and aircraft routes between them, which are by far the most in-game money efficient, and also the easiest to set up. IIRC there are some settings in OpenTTD that can be used to "fix" that, but it was unfixable in the 1994 original. Anyway, no one really takes OpenTTD seriously as a game, rather it's enjoyed as a model railroad simulator.

Silent Hunter and DCS are simulations, which may or may not result in complex games. With DCS which modules are you referring to? Also what do you feel is actually complicated about the way you play these games? I assume you believe these are more complex than console native games in the same genre, otherwise you wouldn't be mentioning them. Have you played any of the more well regarded console sci-fi simulation or robot programming games like Carnage Heart, Steel Battalion, Chrome Hounds or Verdict Day (esp. UNAC battles)? How would you compare them?

 

[Ezekiel]

I play console games almost exclusively. On my PC. My favorite games are console games, most arguably as good as they are because of the kinds of players those consoles had, buying the games, and the money provided by the console publishers. I hate many things about consoles, especially in this era, and wish there had been more controller innovation. But I can always be thankful for what was produced in the past, as I continue to discover it.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Can you name some PC games with actually "complex gameplay"? Most only look complex until you learn that you can ignore 95% of the options they give when it comes to overcoming the trivial challenges they throw your way, and thus they all boil down to incredibly simple brain dead games where the only difficulty is the initial learning curve of figuring out all the shit you can ignore.

Factorio, DCS World, Underrail, Silent Hunter (pick any), SWAT 4

SWAT 4 is a great example of what I was talking about. Absolutely every option the game gives you can be ignored in favor of going solo with a pepper ball gun. It is an extremely brain dead simple game (simpler than many "less complex" FPS games) when you do so, and playing it any other way is just for larping.

Haven't played any of the others but I feel I can comment by way of comparison with the classics.

Is Underrail any more complex than Fallout? If not then it's just a matter of remembering how to navigate dialogue trees and matching inventory items and stats to environmental interaction affordances. Really an obscurantist take on pegs and holes (popular game for infants). Entertaining as a "create your own story" game, but complex it is not.

For Factorio, I will assume it is like The Settlers (correct me if I am wrong), which I have played, combined with a manual "crafting" game (which is what puts me off playing Factorio -- I can't stand "crafting"). Basically these are tile matching games. 2 blue tiles and 3 red tiles give you 1 yellow tile. 1 yellow tile and 2 purple tiles give you 1 black tile and so on and so forth. Of course in these games the tiles (resources) also have to be transported to special tile matching sites, which is a matter of connecting the wires. This is actually less complex and simpler to accomplish than tile matching games with e.g. gravity and chain reaction mechanisms. Is there some additional complexity I have missed here?

Ironically the guy who made Factorio was (and still is?) an OpenTTD modder, and OpenTTD does have potential complexity beyond tile matching and wiring due to the market simulation it incorporates. I say potential, because it also suffers PC game syndrome -- you can completely circumvent 99% of the game while still meeting all the objectives it sets out for you by setting up airports and aircraft routes between them, which are by far the most in-game money efficient, and also the easiest to set up. IIRC there are some settings in OpenTTD that can be used to "fix" that, but it was unfixable in the 1994 original. Anyway, no one really takes OpenTTD seriously as a game, rather it's enjoyed as a model railroad simulator.

Silent Hunter and DCS are simulations, which may or may not result in complex games. With DCS which modules are you referring to? Also what do you feel is actually complicated about the way you play these games? I assume you believe these are more complex than console native games in the same genre, otherwise you wouldn't be mentioning them. Have you played any of the more well regarded console sci-fi simulation or robot programming games like Carnage Heart, Steel Battalion, Chrome Hounds or Verdict Day (esp. UNAC battles)? How would you compare them?

You seem to be confusing the game's systems potential to be abused with the term "complex gameplay".

The fact that the game could be abused doesn't mean that it is not complex. It just means that devs left an oversight that could be easily exploited by players. And even if exploit strats are ironed out, you can outright cheat and still claim that it is not complex because you just made it easy.

The complex game presumes rich and diverse system of game mechanics that could be used by player to overcome the challenges that game throws at him.

If we look at something braindead, like call of dooty, it's the game where you move forward and shoot braindead bots. There isn't much to it, you may sometimes throw grens or use melee, but most of the time it's just moving forward, aligning your crosshair with the bots and pressing LMB.

A complex game like Underrail gives you vast tools for creative and involved buildmaking, which you use to tackle various challenges thrown at you as you progress

 

[Ol' Willy]

SWAT 4 is a great example of what I was talking about. Absolutely every option the game gives you can be ignored in favor of going solo with a pepper ball gun. It is an extremely brain dead simple game (simpler than many "less complex" FPS games) when you do so, and playing it any other way is just for larping.

Until you reach enemies with gasmasks that is

 

[JarlFrank]

"Here's an example of PC games with complex mechanics and several ways to approach encounters."

"I only use one mechanic and approach every encounter the same way. Checkmate!"

 

[Nutmeg]

You seem to be confusing the game's systems potential to be abused with the term "complex gameplay".

I don't think I am confusing the two, rather I am emphasizing the distinction.

A complex simulation (or abstracted system) can give rise to more or less simple games within that system or simulation. The complexity (or lack thereof) the game is distinct from the complexity (or lack thereof) the system.

PC game chauvinists tend to pat themselves on the back for playing extremely simple games within ignorably complex systems, and look down upon "console peasants" who are often, ironically, playing just as or even more complex games, arising from systems which have been more lovingly pruned from excess fat (to mix metaphors).

It's actually a behavioral pattern with regards to a certain kind of player that goes beyond tribal affinity too. For example, non tribal codexers who frequent the Asian game subforum, frequently express love for e.g. Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre, which suffer heavily from PC game syndrome (complex systems, braindead games), even though they are Japanese console games.

My own psychoanalysis is that these people have some kind of learning or mental disability that allows them to still enjoy playing pretend, which is something most people grow out of as they transition from childhood to adolescence. Hence why it doesn't matter to them what the game actually is, as long as the interactive media product they are consuming gives them the tools to play pretend, they will enjoy it all the same.

 

[JarlFrank]

The goal of a video game is not necessarily to breeze through every encounter with optimal efficiency.

Complex systems allow you to approach a game differently, going for a second playthrough with a sub-optimal character for example.
Just yesterday I finished my sixth playthrough of Intravenous 2 to get all the achievements, and I've had a blast playing it with different playstyles. Going loud with guns and grenades, or knocking everyone out without being detected, or going commando with a silenced pistol and killing all the lights, or completely ghosting a level without touching a single enemy. Are there playstyles in the game that are more efficient than others? Of course. But challenging yourself or simply experimenting with different playstyles is fun.

I play games to have fun, not to win in the most efficient way possible. Computer games are more about the journey than the destination. Games with complex systems that allow several ways to engage with them are very replayable because you can keep changing your approach to every situation. That's what I love about immersive sims like Deus Ex, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, Thief, Dishonored, etc. So many playstyles, and so much fun interaction with the environment, all thanks to solid underlying systems you don't HAVE to interact with but CAN.

 

[Raghar]

Where is option: Emulation only bitches.

 

[Nutmeg]

"Here's an example of PC games with complex mechanics and several ways to approach encounters."

"I only use one mechanic and approach every encounter the same way. Checkmate!"

So what would be the point of not overcoming the encounter the most straight forward, simplest way? Is it a form of playing pretend? So one play through you might say to yourself, as you play, "I am a stealthy rogue, so I will sneak past my adversaries, they won't even know I was there" and then the next time you play you might say to yourself "I am a fierce warrior so I will slay any fool that stands before me!" and so derive enjoyment from this game of pretend? Or is it more a matter of expressing yourself artistically with the way you play the game ("style" in other words)?

Genuinely curious about your perspective here since you seem to be quite passionate and opinionated about it.

 

[Raghar]

BTW about what simple mechanic are you talking? For example Kagero deception had pretty complex mechanic. And the best ending was literally when you killed 100 people. And nobody told you that. (They kinda screwed up outro when they were trying to not get into trouble by saying murdering 100 people was awesome. But it was literally the best ending.)

Console developers were screwed up by lack of RAM on consoles, and completely obnoxious memory system.

 

[Ol' Willy]

You seem to be confusing the game's systems potential to be abused with the term "complex gameplay".

I don't think I am confusing the two, rather I am emphasizing the distinction.

A complex simulation (or abstracted system) can give rise to more or less simple games within that system or simulation. The complexity (or pack thereof) the game is distinct from the complexity (or pack thereof) the system.

PC game chauvinists tend to pat themselves on the back for playing extremely simple games within ignorably complex systems, and look down upon "console peasants" who are often, ironically, playing just as or even more complex games, arising from systems which have been more lovingly pruned from excess fat (to mix metaphors).

It's actually a behavioral pattern with regards to a certain kind of player that goes beyond tribal affinity too. For example, non tribal codexers who frequent the Asian game subforum, frequently express love for e.g. Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre, which suffer heavily from PC game syndrome (complex systems, braindead games), even though they are Japanese console games .

My own psychoanalysis is that these people have some kind of learning or mental disability that allows them to still enjoy playing pretend, which is something most people grow out of as they transition from childhood to adolescence. Hence why it doesn't matter to them what the game actually is, as long as the interactive media product they are consuming gives them the tools to play pretend, they will enjoy it all the same.

Therefore, Flappy Bird is the most complex game in existence. The game system is thoroughly pruned from all excess fat, leaving only unmitigated player skill to matter

 

[Nutmeg]

Therefore, Flappy Bird is the most complex game in existence. The game system is thoroughly pruned from all excess fat, leaving only unmitigated player skill to matter

No that doesn't follow at all from anything I wrote. Why do you think it does?

But yes if you have some super complex system and the only game inside of it is just flappy bird then that's just what it is and there's no point pretending otherwise.

 

[Ol' Willy]

So what would be the point of not overcoming the encounter the most straight forward, simplest way?

The most straightforward and simplest way of getting to the end of the game is watching the ending on youtube. That's it, I solved the gaming for you

 

[Raghar]

So what would be the point of not overcoming the encounter the most straight forward, simplest way?

The most straightforward and simplest way of getting to the end of the game is watching the ending on youtube. That's it, I solved the gaming for you

I did that recently with Outer Worlds game. It was interesting ending. INTO THE SUN.

 

[Nutmeg]

So what would be the point of not overcoming the encounter the most straight forward, simplest way?

The most straightforward and simplest way of getting to the end of the game is watching the ending on youtube. That's it, I solved the gaming for you

When you wrote this, did you think it made sense?

"The most straightforward way to win a game of Catan is to watch another player win"

Can you please try and make sense when you reply to my posts?

 

[Humanophage]

You seem to be confusing the game's systems potential to be abused with the term "complex gameplay".

I don't think I am confusing the two, rather I am emphasizing the distinction.

A complex simulation (or abstracted system) can give rise to more or less simple games within that system or simulation. The complexity (or lack thereof) the game is distinct from the complexity (or lack thereof) the system.

PC game chauvinists tend to pat themselves on the back for playing extremely simple games within ignorably complex systems, and look down upon "console peasants" who are often, ironically, playing just as or even more complex games, arising from systems which have been more lovingly pruned from excess fat (to mix metaphors).

It's actually a behavioral pattern with regards to a certain kind of player that goes beyond tribal affinity too. For example, non tribal codexers who frequent the Asian game subforum, frequently express love for e.g. Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre, which suffer heavily from PC game syndrome (complex systems, braindead games), even though they are Japanese console games.

My own psychoanalysis is that these people have some kind of learning or mental disability that allows them to still enjoy playing pretend, which is something most people grow out of as they transition from childhood to adolescence. Hence why it doesn't matter to them what the game actually is, as long as the interactive media product they are consuming gives them the tools to play pretend, they will enjoy it all the same.

"Pruning of excess fat" is a big problem in game design as it tends to "prune" complexity away and make everything into some kind of an "elegant puzzle" instead of a simulation. For example, this is why you get the degeneration of everything into a "mana" in Paradox games as the head autist probably reasoned in some such way as "it's resource distribution anyway so let's be elegant and make it all a single resource". This "I am very smart" attitude on the part of the devs is highly annoying. The best mods often try to fix this "elegance" (e.g. Long War for X-Com, MEIOU & Taxes, etc.)

For example, consider this bizarro description:

HoMM3 is simpler, as it's about visiting tiles with a cursor (hero), and the order in which you do so is determined by simple exploration heuristics and a fairly static ordering of tile values (e.g. Griffin Conservatories and other tiles granting high level creatures are valuable) (with some tiles only being accessible after meeting a certain power level). There's also a logistics chain set up puzzle aspect to the game.

In reality, it is not about "visiting tiles with a cursor (hero) in a certain order" but mostly a simulation of a tabletop war game. You get squads, you fight other armies, there are many options for squad composition, you have to consider the resource costs and unit availability, they all interact with your heroes transforming their value, and so on. There is a wide variety of factors to consider which means a large number of possible courses of action, meaning substantial application of judgement that is not reduced to a couple of "impactful decisions" - this is what makes it complex. There is no artificial narrowing of them to "truly significant factors" based on an attempt at elegance. Elegance may be important in a board game but not a PC game where you have plenty of processing power, no time limit on explaining rules to other players, etc.

Unfortunately, devs seem to be easily bullied by some game philosophers that discuss games as systems in those autistic terms. This might be one of the reasons we get declining gameplay compared to the late 90s when they were seemingly less prevalent.

Lastly, that is a pretty strange attack on imagination as a mental disability in the last paragraph. Games are generally supposed to stimulate your imagination and encourage immersion, but they must also be responsive to what you do. If when playing HoMM3, the way you see it is "a cursor with ordering of tile values", this sounds a lot more like a mental disability.

 

[Nutmeg]

You seem to be confusing the game's systems potential to be abused with the term "complex gameplay".

I don't think I am confusing the two, rather I am emphasizing the distinction.

A complex simulation (or abstracted system) can give rise to more or less simple games within that system or simulation. The complexity (or lack thereof) the game is distinct from the complexity (or lack thereof) the system.

PC game chauvinists tend to pat themselves on the back for playing extremely simple games within ignorably complex systems, and look down upon "console peasants" who are often, ironically, playing just as or even more complex games, arising from systems which have been more lovingly pruned from excess fat (to mix metaphors).

It's actually a behavioral pattern with regards to a certain kind of player that goes beyond tribal affinity too. For example, non tribal codexers who frequent the Asian game subforum, frequently express love for e.g. Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre, which suffer heavily from PC game syndrome (complex systems, braindead games), even though they are Japanese console games.

My own psychoanalysis is that these people have some kind of learning or mental disability that allows them to still enjoy playing pretend, which is something most people grow out of as they transition from childhood to adolescence. Hence why it doesn't matter to them what the game actually is, as long as the interactive media product they are consuming gives them the tools to play pretend, they will enjoy it all the same.

"Pruning of excess fat" is a big problem in game design as it tends to "prune" complexity away and make everything into some kind of an "elegant puzzle" instead of a simulation. For example, this is why you get the degeneration of everything into a "mana" in Paradox games as the head autist probably reasoned in some such way as "it's resource distribution anyway so let's be elegant and make it all a single resource". This "I am very smart" attitude on the part of the devs is highly annoying. The best mods often try to fix this "elegance" (e.g. Long War for X-Com, MEIOU & Taxes, etc.)

For example, consider this bizarro description:

HoMM3 is simpler, as it's about visiting tiles with a cursor (hero), and the order in which you do so is determined by simple exploration heuristics and a fairly static ordering of tile values (e.g. Griffin Conservatories and other tiles granting high level creatures are valuable) (with some tiles only being accessible after meeting a certain power level). There's also a logistics chain set up puzzle aspect to the game.

In reality, it is not about "visiting tiles with a cursor (hero) in a certain order" but mostly a simulation of a tabletop war game. You get squads, you fight other armies, there are many options for squad composition, you have to consider the resource costs, they all interact with your heroes, and so on. There is a wide variety of factors to consider which means a large number of possible courses of action, meaning substantial application of judgement that is not reduced to a couple of "impactful decisions". There is no artificial narrowing of them to "truly significant factors" based on an attempt at elegance. Elegance may be important in a board game but not a PC game where you have plenty of processing power, no time limit on explaining rules to other players, etc.

Unfortunately, devs seem to be easily bullied by some game philosophers that discuss games as systems in those autistic terms. This might be one of the reasons we get declining gameplay compared to the late 90s when they were seemingly less prevalent.

Lastly, that is a pretty strange attack on imagination as a mental disability in the last paragraph. Games are generally supposed to stimulate your imagination and encourage immersion, but they must also be responsive to what you do. If when playing HoMM3, the way you see it is "a cursor with ordering of tile values", this sounds a lot more like a mental disability.

No sorry you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying games should be "streamlined" or less complex. I like complex games, the more complex the better, in fact.

I am just explaining to you the games you think are complex are actually not very complex at all -- you simply mistake simulation complexity with game complexity.

In my experience, and I can find examples on this forum if need be, PC gaming chauvinists usually balk at actual complexity in games let alone challenge. What they like are complex simulations with (multiple) very simple and challengeless games arising from the simulation with plenty of opportunity for infantile play pretend. Your own post outlines this to a great degree.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

I don't just hate consoles, I DESPISE consoles.

A lot of gamers make it out to be a vacuum where "you can just pick to play on whatever you want, hating on consoles is just attacking people for no reason", and it couldn't be further from the truth.


Consoles are the reason why modding support has died out in the last 2 decades. Engines like Unity don't help matters, since they are very non-moddable by default, but consoles have definitely led to the extremely toxic "play the game the developers intended!" mindset, which has been a form of copium Console fanboys have been huffing for 2 decades now. No. I know better than the developers and want to be able to fix their game if need be.

Consoles (specifically controllers) are the reason why games moved away from complex control schemes into making everything "contextual". While there is an argument to be made that some PC games were so esoteric and weird that some control scheme streamlining was in order, moving to the "6 buttons to do everything" style has naturally meant that no more than 1-2 actions can ever be performed at once during gameplay, because otherwise you end up with a contextual system that barely works because it's trying to guess which one of the 30 actions you want to do at this given moment. This is exactly why every FPS game now has exactly the same "reload, use, throw grenade, melee attack" control scheme.

Every single predatory practice in gaming has come about because of consoles. Even super-intrusive PC-centric garbage like DRM has largely come about because of the (misguided) idea that "PC Players are all pirates!!!", an attitude largely pushed by console manufacturers and console fanboys as a way to justify their otherwise inferior platform. If you can't fairly compete in the market, your only option is to antagonise everyone else and try to make them look worse than you. Console manufacturers are tightening the screws year on year - I wager it won't be long until you're completely banned from putting in external hard drives entirely and you'll be forced to pay for Microsoft's or Sony's proprietary cloud storage - and they can get away with it because console players are powerless. Remember when Microsoft tried to charge PC gamers money to play online via Games for Windows Live? Gamers laughed in their face, stayed on Steam where the experience was better, and as a result GFWL was an abysmal failure. Meanwhile console players are still stuck paying for online after over a decade. People complain that gamers are "entitled" but the reality is that most gamers are absolute cucks when it comes to corporate greed and abuse, and console gamers are the primary reason why. When so many people are willing to put up with being treated like garbage, it becomes the norm, which encourages even worse behaviour. PC gamers generally tend to take a lot less crap because they have a lot more choice.

Console games are just, more often than not, bad games. While there are rare exceptions (like Dark Souls), the majority of console-focused releases (Last of Us, Uncharted, Halo) are oversimplistic or "cinematic" garbage designed to appeal to casuals and parents wanting something to buy for their 12 year old son. Whether games are good is obviously a matter of opinion, but I think even the most rabid console fanboy will agree that console games are made more for regular people and less for hardcore gamers, since consoles are supposed to be more accessible in general, which will naturally encourage development of simpler, easier, and less mechanically interesting games. Even the good console games suffer heavily from their console-first development. Had we not fixed it, Dark Souls would have been stuck at 720p and 30fps on PC, entirely because it was developed primarily as a console game. The irony here is that, as a result, the PC version of Dark Souls Remastered is pointless (and in many ways inferior to the original), whereas console players are forced to shell out a second time in order to have the optimal Dark Souls experience - so even when consoles get a good game first, they still always end up with the worst version.

Seriously, fuck consoles. They have done nothing but harm gaming since their inception. At least in the old days you could slap the caritridge in, plug in 4 controllers, and have an awesome time with some friends easily, but now you can't even do that. What are they good for other than being worse PC's that damage the industry and make their own players lives worse?

I can completely understand someone cherishing or remembering their N64 fondly. The console had some great games, was extremely easy to use, wasn't particularly predatory, and was unmatched for fucking around with 3 mates. I honestly don't understand how modern console fanboys can cherish their Xbox Series/PS5 or see them as anything other than a liability. All they do is run games poorly, abuse them, and make everyone's life worse. And they don't even offer any tangible convenience when Steam offers one-click game installs and installing or updating anything on a console is always an unmitigated disaster.