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

[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, 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.

Within the context of games (games like HoMM3, not "games" as in "type of interaction within a game" - if you want to introduce that concept, come up with some other name), complexity means things such as a large amount of interrelated elements which produce many potential outcomes, so players compete based on who is better at assessing this very large number of factors. Usually the best way to produce such complexity is through simulation, which often leads to many unexpected interactions as the dev simply tries to earnestly simulate something instead of predicting every potential outcome. These interactions are often so numerous that they cannot all be considered by the dev - which is why sometimes you get exploits and "strictly better variants" as there is such a large variety of things to consider that some end up unfair and strictly better than others even as the dev tried to have more balance. However, it is also quite common that some guy decides he found the strictly better variant, only to be beaten in MP, on a harder map, in circumstances where this unit is unavailable, etc.

(Probably there is some lesson about central planning here.)

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Ngl, Nutmeg, quite autistic takes on your part.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

The driving factor for depth is not complexity, it's balance.

I can add 50,000 complex systems to my game, it doesn't matter if 1 optimal solution is better than all of them.

This is why the most complex competitive games are usually mechanically straightforward but offer a lot of balanced choices (Dota 2 comes to mind as an example of a game that does this well, Counter-Strike comes to mind as an example of a game that does this extremely badly and ends up being bland and uninteresting as a result).

A lot of simulations suffer from trying to be TOO realistic and TOO complex, to the point where you have games like ArmA which have extremely complex troop movement mechanics, but the whole thing just ends up feeling clunky and not being very fun to actually play, while offering little depth because Assault Rifles are generally the right choice (since they tend to be the generally best choice in real life). I generally don't find the majority of simulation games (ESPECIALLY military simulations games) particularly fun or interesting because, while many of them offer a lot of complexity, when it comes to the actual gameplay strategy, a lot of them are either pure sandboxes, or are just clunky messes dominated by boring and repetitive optimal strategies.

 

[Ash]

No. You're misunderstanding the definition of popamole. It's a play on words and the game whack-a-mole, which is one of the most braindead games of all time, just whacking moles as they pop-up. Only a child or severely underdeveloped mind can enjoy this for more than 10 seconds. Popamole was coined after all the third person shooters of the late 2000s/early 2010s, which were almost comparable to the game whack-a-mole. The games largely consisted of shooting enemies as they popped up alongside zero real challenge thanks to things like regen health + hiding behind cover, as well as checkpoints every minute.

I hope you are aware that it were japs and consoles who first introduced sticky cover popamole?

Of course. Any shitty dev on any platform can and will shit out a bunch of garbage. Those were rightfully irrelevant games, with aggregate ratings of 7/10 at best alongside unremarkable sales. Gears of War changed that. With every other game journo rating it 9/10, Epic/Microsoft just HAD to be slipping money in their pockets. Blew my mind at the time and eroded any trust I had in gaming journalism for good. Absolutely not a 9/10 game in any way shape or form. In reality that was probably the rating they were giving the hooker and cocaine party hosted by Epic the prior night.

 

[Nutmeg]

Within the context of games (games like HoMM3, not "games" as in "type of interaction within a game" - if you want to introduce that concept, come up with some other name), complexity means things such as a large amount of interrelated elements which produce many potential outcomes, so players compete based on who is better at assessing this very large number of factors. Usually the best way to produce such complexity is through simulation, which often leads to many unexpected interactions as the dev simply tries to earnestly simulate something instead of predicting every potential outcome. These interactions are often so numerous that they cannot all be considered by the dev - which is why sometimes you get exploits and "strictly better variants" as there is such a large variety of things to consider that some end up unfair and strictly better than others even as the dev tried to have more balance. However, it is also quite common that some guy decides he found the strictly better variant, only to be beaten in MP, on a harder map, in circumstances where this unit is unavailable, etc.

What you are saying now is that you just simply like the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" school of game design, and that you think it's neat when a (mildly) interesting game spontaneously and unintentionally arises from a complex system (or simulation) or whatever.

It is neat, I agree. It would be wonderful if it were the case more often, but it kind of stands to reason that it isn't, no? I mean, what are the odds?

I also like intentionally well designed games. You don't, that's too lame for you, and that's OK.

But the discussion has moved on from game complexity. Stop beating around the bush and just admit that PC games are, in general, just as simple or simpler than console games and that you confuse simulation and system complexity for game complexity. It's OK that you like simple games. It's OK that you are a 40 year old man that likes to play pretend with his little virtual dolls in his virtual toy box and for you gaming is all about the wealth of possibilities the toy box provides. It's fine. It's valid. Just stop denying it and come to terms with reality which is that this preference of yours doesn't make you some gigabrain genius master of complexity or whatever you think you are.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

I have no familiarity with whatever prestigious console games Nutmeg plays, but you can see what he means by "throw shit at the wall". EU4 is a throw shit at the wall game that ends up being a truly repugnant cookie clicker that should be eradicated from existence. Dominions is throw shit at the wall, but it turns out dynamic and endlessly interesting.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

I hate consoles and controllers more than anything else in the world.

 

[Nutmeg]

I have no familiarity with whatever prestigious console games Nutmeg plays, but you can see what he means by "throw shit at the wall". EU4 is a throw shit at the wall game that ends up being a truly repugnant cookie clicker that should be eradicated from existence. Dominions is throw shit at the wall, but it turns out dynamic and endlessly interesting.

Yeah you've recommended dominions to me before, and ofc. it's well regarded here in general.

Humanophage also cited it as an example of a good complex game in an earlier post ITT. While I doubt what it boils down to will be very complex, I have much less doubt that it might be good nonetheless.

 

[Nutmeg]

For turn based games, there is no difference between HIDs (Human Input Devices). It really doesn't matter if you use a keyboard, keyboard and mouse, arcade stick or controller. The game is turn based, you can enter your inputs at your leisure.

Every time I play a turn based tactical RPG designed for console, with controller as the primary input method, I go insane from how cumbersome it is to control.
Examples: playing Tactics Ogre and Fire Emblem through an emulator, or playing a Tactics Ogre inspired SRPG like Fell Seal.

It's so cumbersome having to go through all these menus with keyboard only - and not even keyboard shortcuts like in 1980s PC RPGs, where you could just hit (A) for attack, but you have to scroll through a list of options with the arrow keys and hit space or enter to confirm. Including movement.

Just clicking on shit with a mouse is so much more comfortable for these kinds of games.

In something more simple, like a Wizardry clone, the mouse is also far superior, as is the keyboard which lets you use hotkeys to select any option with a single keystroke, rather than having to scroll through menu options.

The only reason turn based games are acceptable to play with a controller is that they don't give you any time pressure, so a cumbersome interface won't make you any less effective at playing the game. It just makes the experience more tedious.

This is perfectly valid criticism, although I don't necessarily share it -- for me the blame for shitty console UIs for strategy games rests squarely with the low resolutions they could output (at decent frame rates and without constant mode switching) (especially true for handhelds) (and I suppose the assumed distance of the viewer to the display), tho sometimes this limitation bred welcome creativity.

Anyway, as playing classic console games on PC gets more normalized (it's already the way the majority of people play classic console games, I think, but there are cultural hang ups still), it'd be good to see emulators add features that would allow romhackers to add mouse or keyboard support to various games. For any console that had actual keyboard and mouse peripherals (surprisingly many -- all "big 3" home consoles each generation since the 16-bit era), no special emulation support is required beyond virtual input device selection and mapping. There'd be more work for devices that never had such peripherals. I wonder if emulators will get there first or if it will be decompliation projects instead.

 

[Nutmeg]

Ngl, Nutmeg, quite autistic takes on your part.

I'm not as autistic as my posts here might have you believe. This is simply my reaction to what I consider undue arrogance and petty tribalism arising from ignorance on the part of the OP and a few other posters ITT.

For example, my description of Humanophage playing with his dolls in his doll house might seem disdainful, but this is something I literally do myself.

Recently I've been getting into Ma.K (Machinen Krieger) hobby kits and resin figurines.

Those aren't mine (they're from a Chinese collector that goes by the handle Yueh蛋蛋 on rednote), I have a long way to go before mine will look that nice. But yeah, literally playing with dolls.

Anyway, incidentally Ma.K was started by Kow Yokoyama who did the art for one of the games I've name dropped ITT (Carnage Heart).

 

[Lucumo]

I never understood how controllers survived to this day as a main input device on any platform. They're probably better for fighting games? Though fighting games are still completely playable with a keyboard, and if you really want to, you can use a controller with your PC, same as you could use a specialized gimmick controller for a specific game, like a steering wheel for a racing game. Consoles are not needed for games utilizing special controllers, if these controllers even need to exist in the first place. Maybe they're better for that kind of console action games where you run around with a sword and kill 1000s of Chinamen? I don't know what these are called. They're not better for platformers, but they function well for them. They're not better for turn-based games, every action takes much longer without mouse and keyboard. They're horrible for FPS, RTS and anything else that requires precise aiming in real time, and they're absolute shit for navigating menus.

Like you said, they should never be the main input device on a platform. However, a steering wheel also isn't "gimmicky". That + pedals is what's the optimal for the racing genre. Same with a fight stick due to how fighting games are designed...or a flight stick for flight games. Computers had that stuff very early on and unique input devices for certain genres is absolutely more PC than console.
So yeah, any argument about consoles and input devices is nonsense. Consoles have what they have because it makes sense for what they are: a toy for children in the living room.

Hm? Arcades were the vanguard of innovation until PCs took over. No clue where you are getting consoles from.

Oh that's simple: I consider arcades to be (oversized) consoles.

I apologize for not mentioning that somewhere, that's on me.

There were lots of PC games being sold in big boxes in 2002 and later.

It took longer for them to disappear in the US, but over here in Europe they disappeared almost overnight.

Japanese had lots of different genres on their home computers and also during the Win 95/98 era.

Like I said, I'm trying to get a feel for it, I'm sadly no expert on the topic. I'm not afraid to admit that I may be wrong on this.

That's a...very odd (and wrong) view. Arcades came first and consoles descended from that. As such, they can only be miniaturized arcades, not the other way around. That's also simply what they were for a time until they gained more breadth. But even with that you are wrong. Arcades were the vanguard of audio and video because they were a lot more complex (and as such, expensive). Advertisements for consoles were always about how close they were to the arcades and even then, it was more about FPS, input delays etc. In terms of audio, they could obviously never match, same with video. And when it comes to input devices...if there is anything more varied than what was/is available on the PC, it's arcades. The whole consoles in relation to arcades talk died down when arcades died in the US. In Japan, they were popular for much, much longer. So while comparisons ceased, arcades were absolutely ahead of the DC/PS2/XBOX/CG generation. Even the XBOX360/PS3 (Wii excluded) generation is questionable but I guess it can be called parity at that point aka from the mid 00s onwards. (Man, Falksi should definitely be the person setting you straight here, not me (And wasn't it Great Deceiver who actually owned an arcade in the US?))

I am European (German) though and I own a lot of big boxes games from 2002 and later though *cough* If anything, DVD cases were an American thing (and as such also became a UK thing).

Very wrong. Heck, as an example, I'm very sure even you have heard of the most popular STG (or Shmup or whatever outside Japan) series in the world: Touhou. Yep, five of those games were released on the PC-98 (well, I guess the first game is not like the others but still...).

 

[Nutmeg]

The last time arcade systems (to my knowledge) were ahead of consumer hardware (PC or console) was the Sega Model 3 era (so ~1996-1998). After that they literally all became consoles (with maybe a bit more RAM) in a cabinet, then PCs in a cabinet. And not even good PCs at that. But yeah before that arcade systems were 4 years ahead of anything you could have at home. Compare Daytona on the Model 2 in 1993 with anything else. When did PCs finally catch up with that? 1997? Consoles not until 1998.

Model 3 games still look beautiful today when run with basic image quality enhancements (higher resolution, better texture filtering, more anti-aliasing). IMO 3D graphics never really needed to go beyond what the Model 3 offered. Perfectly adequate for clearly displaying a 3D world for a game.

 

[Ash]

So while comparisons ceased, arcades were absolutely ahead of the DC/PS2/XBOX/CG generation.

These arguments are insane, not based in reality, and I can't stop grabbing my popcorn for them. For people that don't have much experience with consoles many of you sure do have a whole lot to say about them.

Arcades got superseded by home consoles in every metric by the mid 1990s. As games continued to grow in complexity, depth and length, that was it. Arcades died down massively (exception for Japan sure, but only in terms of popularity, not actual progress), developers shifted focus intently onto consoles. Design, technology and innovation rapidly outpaced what was seen at the arcade. In a number of ways, it even outpaced PC, for brief stints. e.g PS1 released in 1994 with CD-quality audio as the standard. MS-DOS was overwhelmingly stuck with MIDI at the time, very few exceptions until later.

 

[Nutmeg]

So while comparisons ceased, arcades were absolutely ahead of the DC/PS2/XBOX/CG generation.

Arcades died down massively

Meanwhile, some games popular in Japanese arcades:









Arcades in Japan are kind of like internet cafes everywhere else i.e. somewhere you go to play multiplayer with your friends after a night out, the difference being they have an alternate universe library of games.

 

[Ash]

Right. Nonetheless they were overtaken in terms of design, innovation, technology, worldwide sales, overall focus. This was in-part necessitated by them not being fit for singleplayer play and the advancements happening there (extended game length, stories, immersion etc).

 

[Nutmeg]

Right. Nonetheless they were overtaken in terms of design, innovation, technology, worldwide sales, overall focus. This was in-part necessitated by them not being fit for singleplayer play and the advancements happening there (extended game length, stories, immersion etc).

That's true (esp. outside of Japan, but also inside, largely) but one thing to note here is that many Japanese arcade games starting from the 00s let players bring their own memory card which they could save their games to and then come back with the next day (or week or whatever) to continue them for long form single player "experiences".

 

[Lucumo]

The last time arcade systems (to my knowledge) were ahead of consumer hardware (PC or console) was the Sega Model 3 era (so ~1996-1998). After that they literally all became consoles (with maybe a bit more RAM) in a cabinet, then PCs in a cabinet. And not even good PCs at that. But yeah before that arcade systems were 4 years ahead of anything you could have at home. Compare Daytona on the Model 2 in 1993 with anything else. When did PCs finally catch up with that? 1997? Consoles not until 1998.

Model 3 games still look beautiful today when run with basic image quality enhancements (higher resolution, better texture filtering, more anti-aliasing). IMO 3D graphics never really needed to go beyond what the Model 3 offered. Perfectly adequate for clearly displaying a 3D world for a game.

What are you talking about here specifically though? Ahead in what sense? What kicked this off was about video/audio stuff. It's not about hardware specs or whatever which is an apple-oranges comparison anyway. Or, to nail this down even further, is there something as good or better than Virtua Fighter 4 (arcade, NAOMI 2 board, 2001) on the DC, PS2, XBOX or GC for example?

Great Deceiver

Arcades got superseded by home consoles in every metric by the mid 1990s.

Lol.

 

[Oreshnik Missile]

I have no familiarity with whatever prestigious console games Nutmeg plays, but you can see what he means by "throw shit at the wall". EU4 is a throw shit at the wall game that ends up being a truly repugnant cookie clicker that should be eradicated from existence. Dominions is throw shit at the wall, but it turns out dynamic and endlessly interesting.

Yeah you've recommended dominions to me before, and ofc. it's well regarded here in general.

Humanophage also cited it as an example of a good complex game in an earlier post ITT. While I doubt what it boils down to will be very complex, I have much less doubt that it might be good nonetheless.

A huge amount of its options "boil down" into uselessness when critically examined, but it has so many that there's plenty of diversity left, lots of counter systems and unusual combinations too.

 

[Nutmeg]

hat are you talking about here specifically though? Ahead in what sense? What kicked this off was about video/audio stuff. It's not about hardware specs or whatever which is an apple-oranges comparison anyway. Or, to nail this down even further, is there something as good or better than Virtua Fighter 4 (arcade, NAOMI 2 board, 2001) on the DC, PS2, XBOX or GC for example?

NAOMI was just a Dreamcast in a cabinet but yes the NAOMI 2 was basically a multi-processor Dreamcast, which would have made it the most powerful thing of its time, that's true, (tho perhaps a high end PC in 2001 could beat it). The Hikaru was also Dreamcast based. Anyway the successor, the Chihiro was just an Xbox in a cabinet, so the Model 3 was indeed the last Sega board not based on console or PC hardware.

 

[Nutmeg]

What are you talking about here specifically though? Ahead in what sense? What kicked this off was about video/audio stuff.

What do you mean video/audio stuff?

Generally, arcade machines used large 30 inch CRTs to display 240p images for 2D games (which were the majority), while higher end boards for 3D "spectacle" games that started appearing in the early 90s used 30 inch CRTs to display 480p images. I don't know much about audio output (tho I do know a bit about the audio chips), except that it was generally bad (because there was no point of it being any good due to the environment) but also that some cabinets let you plug headphones in.

There were also some very specific machines that used 3 screen setups.

Outside of video/audio stuff, arcades offered and still offer better haptic feedback (e.g. hydraulics) than most people will have at home, so there's that.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

decline started

there's a very specific ground zero for decline: psx piracy. before that, console games were a land of exclusivity and exclusives, a battleground of ideas and executions which allowed very little mistakes or you were done as a dev. once piracy spread, and psx console sales decupled, suddenly every idiot had one in his home and devs moved to cather to all those idiots who now outnumbered gamers 10 to 1.

 

[Nutmeg]

Piracy is GOOD

 

[Lucumo]

hat are you talking about here specifically though? Ahead in what sense? What kicked this off was about video/audio stuff. It's not about hardware specs or whatever which is an apple-oranges comparison anyway. Or, to nail this down even further, is there something as good or better than Virtua Fighter 4 (arcade, NAOMI 2 board, 2001) on the DC, PS2, XBOX or GC for example?

NAOMI was just a Dreamcast in a cabinet but yes the NAOMI 2 was basically a multi-processor Dreamcast, which would have made it the most powerful thing of its time, that's true, (tho perhaps a high end PC in 2001 could beat it). The Hikaru was also Dreamcast based. Anyway the successor, the Chihiro was just an Xbox in a cabinet, so the Model 3 was indeed the last Sega board not based on console or PC hardware.

It wasn't. And even apart from that, you have to account for something like the Windows OS which Dreamcast used. That's one of the reasons why spec comparisons are pointless (which typically tends to happen between warring console factions). Needless to say, as a PC gamer this is obviously ridiculous and it doesn't work in this instance either.

What are you talking about here specifically though? Ahead in what sense? What kicked this off was about video/audio stuff.

What do you mean audio video stuff?

Generally, arcade machines used large 30 inch CRTs to display 240p images for 2D games (which were the majority), while higher end boards for 3D "spectacle" games that started appearing in the early 90s used 30 inch CRTs to display 480p images. I don't know much about audio output (tho I do know a bit about the audio chips), except that it was generally bad (because there was no point of it being any good due to the environment) but also that some cabinets let you plug headphones in.

I recognize that in the beginning consoles were the vanguard of innovation in audio/video technology, so they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

While he didn't elaborate more on it, it typically boils down to quality...rather than actual technology or how the technology is implemented itself. Not to mention that it's a slippery slope anyway with an arcade game like Dragon's Lair (1983), for example.

 

[Nutmeg]

It wasn't. And even apart from that, you have to account for something like the Windows OS which Dreamcast used

WindowsCE didn't come with the Dreamcast, it was an optional run-time for games which would be carried on the game disc. Very few games used it.

It wasn't

NAOMI 2 had the same SH-4 CPU as the Dreamcast, and the same PowerVR2 GPU, but two of them, and double the VRAM. The Dreamcast, Hikaru, NAOMI, NAOMI 2 and the Atomiswave were all the same kind of computer but differed in exact specs. I guess the Hikaru is the odd one out there as it had a different GPU altogether IIRC. You can use Demul to run all 5 systems.

While he didn't elaborate more on it, it typically boils down to quality...rather than actual technology or how the technology is implemented itself. Not to mention that it's a slippery slope anyway with an arcade game like Dragon's Lair (1983), for example.

Well idk what he was talking about, arcade machines were far far far ahead of anything you could have at home in the 80s and early 90s.

 

[Nutmeg]

I love the Dreamcast. It was the first PC like console in the "personal computer" sense (not the IBM PC compatible sense, which is what they later became).

You could run Linux on it and today you can run BSD on it:



The keyboard and mouse peripherals were widely available and so was the modem.