SHP Forums

DeadPoolX wrote: Yes, and my point is that developers are clinging to old console game creation methodology. They feel that since MOST console games haven't given the player the ability to save anywhere, they can continue the "save point" system and no one will question it.

Perhaps it's easier, or they see the benefit to it... I hated when SIERRA moved away from typing input and went to clicking input... because suddenly the games to me became WAY to easy! You just moved your mouse all over the screen and clicked like mad till you picked something up. And then just right click the stuff on your inventory till it worked... Lame. But, Sierra went that way despite my many letters of protest! (Both to Sierra and InterAction Magazine back in the day!)

audiodane wrote: BUT... when those games were "new," they drove hardware upgrades just as much as games today.. That's why I was agreeing that it is humorous..
..dane

I don't think technology moved as rapidly back then as it does today. Today it seems each new game requires just that much more. Where as back then, hardware moved at a much slower pace. Back then I could keep up with technology - now there's RAM, DDR Ram, 64 Bit OS, 32 Bit OS, FAT, etc... It's just become far too complex today, because it is moving so quickly and virtually impossible to keep up witht he new technology.

Consoles also have needed "upgrades" - like PS1 to PS2 to PS3, XBOX to XBOX360, N64, GameCube, Wii... but the difference is - these consoles typically last a long time before the next generation of consoles is required.

jujigatame wrote: Fair enough, but I simply cannot abide using a controller for FPSs. And there's no way I'm missing out on Civ 5.

Heh! You're a PC FPS'er!
Thankfully I learned FPS on PC as well with like DooM, DooMII, Heretic, etc - but when they announced Toejam & Earl III exclusively for the XBOX, I got the XBOX... and with it, HALO. I played Halo and beat it on my own. Then my friend Adam came over, he and I cooped HALO, and beat it. Then Chad came over, did the same. Then Chris came over, did the same. Then Paul came over, did the same. Needless to say I became pretty good on console gaming. But when HALO came out for PC we would do LAN parties with it, and thus I managed to stay pretty good at both!

"Halo 1 Predator Mode" was my favorite for LAN PC where everyone is invisible on a map, except for when they fire - so they're visible for that brief second (and if you're looking in the right direction, you could see the bullet trail).

And to be clear, sorry if I sound over bearing about Console > PC. Not my intention!

I dunno, I'd say PC gaming is a lot more user-friendly now than it was back in the Sierra glory days, and I really don't think technology is advancing any faster than it used to.

I remember back in late 1990 my dad bought a 486/33 with 4 MB RAM and a 120 MB HD. That machine cost $2500 and within a couple of years, games like Indy4 and KQ6 were coming out that demanded like 10% of the computer's HD space. So we bought a 2nd HD. Then another year later CD-ROM games started becoming the standard, so we bought a CD-ROM drive and a sound card. Then Wing Commander 3 came along and basically set a whole new standard for ridiculous system requirements, requiring more RAM and a faster CPU.

In comparison, I bought my current PC for $1500 about 2 years ago and haven't made any upgrades to it at all. If I eventually do, I'll just buy a new video card for $200 or so and I'll be good for another couple of years. Not to mention how we no longer have to deal with boot disks, IRQ conflicts, XMS/EMS management, joystick calibration, or any of that bygone crap.

It's a good time to be a PC gamer.

Tawmis wrote:Perhaps it's easier, or they see the benefit to it... I hated when SIERRA moved away from typing input and went to clicking input... because suddenly the games to me became WAY to easy! You just moved your mouse all over the screen and clicked like mad till you picked something up. And then just right click the stuff on your inventory till it worked... Lame. But, Sierra went that way despite my many letters of protest! (Both to Sierra and InterAction Magazine back in the day!)

I don't really see that as a valid comparison. The reason being Sierra changed its interface to move away from the "guess-what-I'm-thinking" style that the parser interface used. In many cases you had to use the EXACT term the designer programmed into the game, even if other words could be used to mean the same thing.

Moving to the P&C interface also allowed greater international exposure. Sure, some gamers knew English well enough to type it in, but the P&C interface let non-English speakers play the game just as well as those who natively speak it.

In contrast, the "save point" system doesn't make life easier or enhance playability for anyone. All it does is bring about frustration for those gamers who don't have hours upon hours to play a game.

Tawmis wrote:I don't think technology moved as rapidly back then as it does today. Today it seems each new game requires just that much more. Where as back then, hardware moved at a much slower pace. Back then I could keep up with technology - now there's RAM, DDR Ram, 64 Bit OS, 32 Bit OS, FAT, etc... It's just become far too complex today, because it is moving so quickly and virtually impossible to keep up witht he new technology.

I think technology is moving at roughly the same pace as it used to. The main difference nowadays is we hear about technology a lot more. Back in the early-to-mid 1980s, computers were more of a niche market. You certainly didn't see shelves full of magazines dedicated to the topic.

Computers were far less user-friendly then (DOS had one hell of a learning curve) and the "geek" stigma was in full force. Today being a "geek" is almost a badge of honor, Windows and MacOS have made computers easy to use and we see tons of information about technology everyday.

Oh and starting in the mid-1990s (probably around 1995), tech started getting more complex. Suddenly there were major RAM differences, CPU stats, video cards actually mattered (and let to some very heated debates). Win95 brought about a new ease-of-use to PCs and succeeded, even though there were competitors. Anyone remember OS/2 Warp?

Tawmis wrote:Consoles also have needed "upgrades" - like PS1 to PS2 to PS3, XBOX to XBOX360, N64, GameCube, Wii... but the difference is - these consoles typically last a long time before the next generation of consoles is required.

This is true. The PS2 is probably the longest lived console ever. It was first released in 2000 and there are still new games made for it today. Granted, it looks exceedingly dated when compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3 (and to some degree, even the Wii).

But that right there is the problem with consoles: they remain stagnant. Whenever a new console comes out, it blows away the PC competition. Magazines (and now websites) lament the "death of PC gaming" every time this happens.

Then suddenly... the PC not only catches up, but moves beyond the technology in the current generation of consoles. This has happened every single time a new console was released -- most recognized when the original PlayStation was released and from then on forward.

So console tech remains the same. While that does ensure greater compatibility (no console is as varied as a PC), it also means the technology gets more and more dated each year.

For some people that's not an issue. To these individuals, the overall ease-of-use and lower total cost of consoles far outweigh the eventual technological superiority and varied game library of the PC.

Tawmis wrote: Heh! You're a PC FPS'er!

I know I am!

I can't aim worth a damn with a controller. I like the ability to have fine control when aiming. I've used a controller in the past and my aim swings wildly. The analog sticks simply can't replace the overall accuracy that a mouse gives. I suppose that's why many console FPS games have a "lock on" button or use "auto aim" to assist the player.

I'll admit that some games do work better with a controller. Batman: Arkham Asylum is one such game. Unfortunately, since it's under the Games For Windows banner, it's set up for the Xbox 360 controller and rejects all other types. To fight that, gamers have come up with programs that circumvent that restriction. I'm glad too as the Windows version of the Xbox 360 controller is unbelievably expensive.

DeadPoolX wrote: I don't really see that as a valid comparison. The reason being Sierra changed its interface to move away from the "guess-what-I'm-thinking" style that the parser interface used. In many cases you had to use the EXACT term the designer programmed into the game, even if other words could be used to mean the same thing.

But game developers may think that saving ANYTIME may be making the game too easy. "Hrm, there's a strange door here. Let me save first. BLARGH! INSTADEATH!" Phew, load that restore from 2 seconds ago. I'm all good! (Granted that's a very extreme example) - but I think by doing Save Points, it forces people to redo a portion of the game all over again if they fail somewhere.

This creates frustration for some gamers (like yourself) but then doesn't bother others (like myself) and makes the game last longer.

So my point was, while you hate it (like I hated point and click) the game developers (like Sierra did back then) may think that this is a better way to do the game. You don't see the point because you dislike the idea of Save Points. It'd be like someone arguing that point and click was a greater way for gaming (in terms of Sierra games). I wouldn't see the point.

DeadPoolX wrote: But that right there is the problem with consoles: they remain stagnant. Whenever a new console comes out, it blows away the PC competition. Magazines (and now websites) lament the "death of PC gaming" every time this happens.

Then suddenly... the PC not only catches up, but moves beyond the technology in the current generation of consoles. This has happened every single time a new console was released -- most recognized when the original PlayStation was released and from then on forward.

PC Gaming will never die. No so long as there is WORLD OF WARCRAFT...

I kid. There will be games that will always be better on PC. But for me, 99% of my gaming now resides on console. I have bought, for example Dragon Age and Mass Effect 1 and 2 - for both PC and Console (because when the wife watches tv, I would play the PC version). While the PC had some better choices for things (more hotkeys and such) - over all, I enjoyed it on console better. My PC is probably 3 or 4 years old - and it would ALWAYS lag to hell and back if I played the game at my monitor's full resolution. No such problem on the XBOX which obviously plays on a 47 inch television vs 19 inch computer wide sceen. (Although for kicks and giggles I did play some Sierra games on my television through the VGA adapter on my laptop!)

I have to agree with DPX here. Save points may be fine for those that have few obligations or demands. Not being able to save where you need to is not realistic for many that try to squeeze a little gaming in between a busy schedule. Perhaps if one only plays such games late at night when you are not likely to be interrupted, but many need more flexibility. It is most likely done out of programmer laziness, as DPX suggested. Save points require less effort and information. A real save game system has to take into account the status of all variables. Not just inventory items and stats, but all flags and any other variables in the game that can trigger events. I don't see save points being much different than old console level codes.

Tawmis wrote:But game developers may think that saving ANYTIME may be making the game too easy. "Hrm, there's a strange door here. Let me save first. BLARGH! INSTADEATH!" Phew, load that restore from 2 seconds ago. I'm all good! (Granted that's a very extreme example) - but I think by doing Save Points, it forces people to redo a portion of the game all over again if they fail somewhere.

This creates frustration for some gamers (like yourself) but then doesn't bother others (like myself) and makes the game last longer.

Okay, I guess I just don't understand the concept of game developers deciding what is and what isn't "too easy."

By using save points, you're forcing the gamer to play a specific way. There is no choice. You're making players redo a portion of the game. Why? How is redoing a section of the game fun?

However, if you can save anywhere, there is a choice -- you can either save like crazy (such as most Adventure gamers tend to do) or space your saves out, thereby increasing the difficulty for yourself. All of that allows gamers to tailor the game to their way of playing, regardless of how much or how little time they may have.

Here's an example of a very frustrating save point system in a game called Trine. I don't know if anyone here has played it, but it's a lot of fun and can be played single player or co-op. It's for the PC and I believe the PS3 as well.

To make a long story short, the game uses save points. Really, really bad ones, too. While using save points may keep my characters' current levels and powers, it restarts me at the BEGINNING of the level. So if I've already beaten a huge creature and figured my way around numerous puzzles, guess what? I get to do it ALL OVER AGAIN!

Tawmis wrote:My PC is probably 3 or 4 years old - and it would ALWAYS lag to hell and back if I played the game at my monitor's full resolution. No such problem on the XBOX which obviously plays on a 47 inch television vs 19 inch computer wide sceen. (Although for kicks and giggles I did play some Sierra games on my television through the VGA adapter on my laptop!)

Interestingly enough, my PC is about four years old or so and the only thing I've ever replaced is the video card. I'm still able to play new games at their highest graphical settings while getting a good frame rate.

I have a 19" monitor as well. Maybe that helps my frame rates since the native resolution on it is 1280x1024. I could get a larger monitor (22" wide screen monitors are very inexpensive these days), but I like my dual-monitor setup. It doesn't do a thing for gaming, but all other applications, it's fantastic. I don't think I could go back to having just one monitor.

Collector wrote:I have to agree with DPX here. Save points may be fine for those that have few obligations or demands. Not being able to save where you need to is not realistic for many that try to squeeze a little gaming in between a busy schedule. Perhaps if one only plays such games late at night when you are not likely to be interrupted, but many need more flexibility.

Most of us are fully grown adults (although we may not always act that way ) and as such, we have busy schedules and lives beyond gaming. It's not always possible to sit and play for hours on end. Sometimes it can be done (I once spent almost all day playing Mass Effect 2), but there are often other obligations.

Collector wrote:It is most likely done out of programmer laziness, as DPX suggested. Save points require less effort and information. A real save game system has to take into account the status of all variables. Not just inventory items and stats, but all flags and any other variables in the game that can trigger events. I don't see save points being much different than old console level codes.

You know... I never thought of it that way. There is a similarity, no doubt about it.