# Why do console games suck so bad???



## Iron_Chef (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm over 30 and have extreme difficulty remembering multi-button combo moves, let alone successfully implementing them in stressful situations. I was raised on Atari 2600, Colecovision and arcade games like Donkey Kong, LOL. I could handle Sega Genesis and even 3DO, but once things starting getting more complicated (esp. controllers with triggers, sticks and buttons), I started having problems. This was around PS1, and has only gotten worse with the current generation of consoles. I don't expect it to get any easier, LOL.

What happened to fun and simple multiplayer video games? They hardly make 'em anymore. I guess they assume that video game players have no friends, LOL, or think "splitscreen" is a solution. Splitscreen sucks! I can't remember which half of the screen is mine, and end up totally confused and unhappy staring at only half a screen.

Why can't they make simple multiplayer or solo games like Combat, Qix or Tron for today's consoles but with better graphics?    Why the insistence on putting in traps, puzzles and riddles no one can solve without a strategy guide? No one wants to play Resident Evil to solve puzzles, LOL, they just want to shoot zombies! No one wants to dodge traps in God of War, they just want to kill mythological monsters! No one wants to master fancy multi-button controls, they just want to play the damn game! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH! 

I think I've developed Old Fogey Syndrome, LOL.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes, I think you have.

That's all I can say, since all I can do is shake my head and realize that we're worlds apart based on your post. "No one" indeed...


----------



## ElvishBard (Nov 14, 2005)

One of the reasons they add puzzles is so that they can prove their games are just a repetitive killing of things, that they require you to do different things.  It also helps to extend the life of the game, as few people enjoy short games that take only a few hours to beat.

If you miss the old school games, you could try www.gametap.com.  I think they charge a low monthly subscription and you can download any games you want, could be worth checking out.  I'll post again when I think of some good easy multiplayer games, the only one off the top of my head is Super Smash Brothers Melee from the gamecube.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 14, 2005)

Regarding the controls, I think it's a learning curve issue.

Some console games have a steep curve, meaning that it takes a long time to get comfortable with the controls -- to be able to move your character around and do stuff without thinking about it.

The only solution is to keep practicing. Play the game on the easiest setting. Clear a level, but don't finish it; instead, practice running around, jumping, opening doors, swapping weapons, or whatever else you do in that game.

It took me about a week of playing HALO to get the controls down. But after that, they were second nature. And then I could focus on enjoying the game instead of fighting the controls.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 14, 2005)

If you want fun and simple multiplayer games, get a Nintendo Gamecube. They have things like Mario Party and such for that.

Also, I think people do play RE games for the puzzles. If they just wanted to shot zombies, they'd be playing a FPS or something like House of the Dead. And I think RE has a option for the puzzles, to make them harder or easier.


And dodging traps and such was fairly common in old games as well. Haunted House, Pitfall, even Smurf were all basically platformers where you have to jump over things and the like. There were some hybrid jumping/platform games from Activision, too, Hero, I think.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm 30 and I still own my Colecovision! I find it hard to execute some moves as well. I do believe there is a controller that you can buy that stores move combos into one button. Not sure what it is called or who makes it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 14, 2005)

Ha-Ha, you're oooold!


----------



## RyanL (Nov 15, 2005)

I thought I wouldn't like Tales of Syphonia because of the real-time combat system with button combos and such.  It turned out to be one of my favorite console games ever.  I'm 28.  Just thought I'd throw out that data point.  I'm hopped up on cold medicine, so maybe this is completely irrelevant.

Thank you for your time,
Ryan

P.S.  Eat oatmeal.  It's the right thing to do and the tasty way to do it.


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Ha-Ha, you're oooold!




BURN!


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Ha-Ha, you're oooold!




Dang kids...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 15, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Dang kids...



 ...and our rock music and television and videa games?


----------



## ssampier (Nov 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...and our rock music and television and videa games?




I'm guess you could consider me Generation Y, I'm 25 years old. Like the original poster, I grew up playing Atari 2600 with Mrs. PacMan and Frogger. I prefer computer games such as RPG, adventure, and RTS. I don't really have the patience for console games with their "complicated" controls like the XBox and PSII (I got totally whippd in that 1st person Star Wars games, not sure of the name).

It's not that I couldn't learn, I just choose not to; I'm happily playing Warcraft III, Age of Empires, etc. on the PC.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...and our rock music and television and videa games?




Get off my lawn!


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 15, 2005)

Now that I think about it, it's almost a case of inversion.

Console games have gotten more complicated, but at the same time, computer games have gotten simpler.

When was the last time a computer game came with a keyboard overlay? Or the last time you had to map out a dungeon yourself in a computer RPG? Or had to type anything other than your name? Or were directed to read a paragraph in a book?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 15, 2005)

Iron Chef, do not play Ninja Gaiden! The new X-Box version, that is. It is like your anti-thesis. 

It is also, by the way one of my favorite video games! 

Most of your problems have been around for a while, though. Split screen was the only way to multiplayer in the old days. Now we have Halo 2 on X-Box live, wi-fi Nintendo DS, and generally multiplayer games everywhere. Traps, puzzles, and riddles? Zelda had 'em. You could even say the old platformers like Metroid had their puzzle elements. And, Resident Evil is an old game.  And, those fancy button combos, well, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct, and the fighting game genre pretty much created them.

So, I think its just nostalgia talking. By the way, I'm 26.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 15, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Get off my lawn!




*leaves a flaming fudge bag on the doorstep, rings doorbell and runs*


----------



## Iron_Chef (Nov 15, 2005)

Hated Nintendo; controllers were not rounded on edges and hurt my palms to hold. Never played Zelda, Metroid, etc. I was exclusively a Sega Genesis player (Sonic rules! LOL), then moved on to Sega CD and 3DO and then PS1 to play Suikoden I + II and Resident Evil I-III.

I only play RE to shoot zombies, for the same reason I only watch zombie movies to see zombies eat people and get shot in the head. I don't like fighting mutant Cthulhu boss monsters which belong to some other genre and I hate solving puzzles. I just look 'em up on the internet and solve 'em by cheating. RE4 was a huge improvement over all previous editions... hardly any puzzles or traps, no using typewriter ribbons to save, targeted firing to make headshots easier... I died 93 times beating RE4 on normal mode. I died 184 times beating Darkwatch on normal mode.

Don't like fighting games. Can't master the controls. Too hard, makes my thumb hurt.   

Hate Myst, 7th Guest, that kind of "smarty-pants" crap. 

You know what game rocked for multi-player? Gauntlet: Dark Legacy. You play one screen up to 4 players at same time. That's the kind of multiplayer game I want.

Gamecube has hardly any good games, just RE4 and Gauntlet.

Call of Duty 2 was awful and other random thoughts...  :\


----------



## aceofgames (Nov 15, 2005)

Well, I think theres a 'console' divide where complexity directly butts heads with simplicity.
I've been playing video games most of my life.  
Of course, I hate Sony and Microsoft and consider Nintendo to be near godliness.
If you willing to try, I'd say nintendo is your best bet- I've seen the Revolution controllers and I think they're going to get more people into video games simply because the setup seems intuitive. 
If you find consoles annoying, play on PCs.  If you want to play games, ignore the fighters and shoot'em ups and go for the solid RPGs.  Ya' don't need dexterity for playing solid RPGs.


----------



## babomb (Nov 17, 2005)

Well, I don't mind pulling off a Hadouken once in a while, but you've got a point about some of these combos.

There is a reason that console games have gotten worse. (There are plenty of good console games nowadays. It's just that there's a lot more bad games made.) The problem is analogous to the movie industry. Basically, video games have become Big Business. You've got marketers deciding what games are made, and they want generic games with "mass appeal", rather than something inventive (and therefore risky). Because the hardware abilities have gone up, more and more time and money is spent making the graphics look good. Now, people like you and me might not care much what the graphics look like, but there are a lot of people who would refuse to buy a game just because the graphics are on the Super Nintendo level, just like some people won't watch _Casablanca_ just because it's black-and-white.

The more time is spent on graphics, the less is spent on making the game fun. As a programmer, I can tell you that 3D graphics take a lot more work than simple sprite graphics or text-only. And in 3D, you have to worry about camera issues (which most games do a poor job with) and so on.

However, this is not true of all games. _Katamari Damacy_ for Playstation 2 is an excellent game, and you don't need to press any buttons. You move two joysticks. Nintendo is sort of the bright light of innovation in the industry. When they announced the DS, I thought they were insane, but it allowed them to create many fun, inventive games. Sony's PSP, meanwhile is a neat piece of hardware with very few good games. The Playstation and X-Box have some good games, but that's only because they have a lot more games. Percentage-wise, Nintendo has a great deal more winners. The Nintendo Revolution has me excited.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 17, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Console games have gotten more complicated, but at the same time, computer games have gotten simpler.




I came to the same realization on another set of forums.  I believe that the next generation of consoles will make PC and console games virtually indistinguishable in terms of complication.


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 17, 2005)

babomb said:
			
		

> However, this is not true of all games. _Katamari Damacy_ for Playstation 2 is an excellent game, and you don't need to press any buttons. You move two joysticks. Nintendo is sort of the bright light of innovation in the industry. When they announced the DS, I thought they were insane, but it allowed them to create many fun, inventive games. Sony's PSP, meanwhile is a neat piece of hardware with very few good games. The Playstation and X-Box have some good games, but that's only because they have a lot more games. Percentage-wise, Nintendo has a great deal more winners. The Nintendo Revolution has me excited.



Percentage of good to bad games should mean absolutely nothing when buying a console.  All you need to look at are the quantity of good games and games that you like to play and forget the rest.  There are plenty of sites that review games out there (and messageboards) and it's easier and easier to avoid the stinkers these days than it was in the past, at least for me.

The Gamecube has been a dissappointment to me, just like the N64.  Yes, those systems all had some outstanding games but there simply weren't enough of them, not to mention an almost complete lack of 3rd party games - which translates directly into diversity of games.

And for the record, yes some games are a bit too complex for my liking but I stay away from those.  Have consoles gotten worse than in the past, certainly not!  There are just many more games and types of games to choose from now.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 17, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Percentage of good to bad games should mean absolutely nothing when buying a console.  All you need to look at are the quantity of good games and games that you like to play and forget the rest.



This needs to be repeated for truth.

Percentages are valueless when buying a console - you need to look at _total numbers_ to get proper console value-for-money. (The whole "quantity vs. quality" debate is entirely nonsensical, because they don't have to be mutually exclusive - and they're not.)



			
				babomb said:
			
		

> Nintendo is sort of the bright light of innovation in the industry. When they announced the DS, I thought they were insane, but it allowed them to create many fun, inventive games. Sony's PSP, meanwhile is a neat piece of hardware with very few good games. The Playstation and X-Box have some good games, but that's only because they have a lot more games. Percentage-wise, Nintendo has a great deal more winners. The Nintendo Revolution has me excited.




If we want to look at "innovation" when it comes to (current) consoles, the PS2 has the largest number of innovations (everything from Katamari Damacy to Okami to the Eye Toy), no question.

With the Revolution, though, I expect that to change. (Though, IMO, "innovation" isn't the panacea that some people think it is.)


----------



## XCorvis (Nov 17, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Hated Nintendo; controllers were not rounded on edges and hurt my palms to hold. Never played Zelda, Metroid, etc. I was exclusively a Sega Genesis player (Sonic rules! LOL), then moved on to Sega CD and 3DO and then PS1 to play Suikoden I + II and Resident Evil I-III.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




The problem is not that console games suck, it's that you don't like the vast majority of video games. There's just more selection in computer games. You also don't sound like a hardcore computer gamer to me (no offense intended), and that's who consoles are aimed at now.

You want games like Mario Kart, Mario Party, Fusion Frenzy, Super Monkeyball, Baldur's Gate: Dark Aliance. Low learning curve, simple gameplay, minimal strategy or tactics. Read the reviews before you buy a game - they'll usually help you realize if you'll like it or not. Gamespot has a "party game" genre that you might want to look through.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Nov 17, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> ... I was raised on Atari 2600, Colecovision and arcade games like Donkey Kong...



Dang youngin's and their fancy smancy Atari "2600"s.  Back in the day, we had Pong... and we liked it!  If we got tired of Pong, we had to program our own games ... on our VIC-20 ... and we liked that too!


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 17, 2005)

dogoftheunderworld said:
			
		

> Dang youngin's and their fancy smancy Atari "2600"s.  Back in the day, we had Pong... and we liked it!  If we got tired of Pong, we had to program our own games ... on our VIC-20 ... and we liked that too!




Program your own game? What are you, a Communist?


----------



## farscapesg1 (Nov 17, 2005)

I'm more of a PC gamer, if for no other reason then not being able to justify buying game consoles to the wife when we don't have kids yet    It's easy to justify computer upgrades when we are both using it all the time, so I usually have a pretty good system.  

I've never been a big "Street Fighter" genre fan.  I don't care for playing First-person shooters with people across the state/nation/world.  Those are more fun to be sitting in a room with all you buddies so you can see their faces when you take them out   

I wouldn't mind the console games if there was just more "cross-platform" going on.  As it stands there are games that I will never get to play thanks to the fact that they haven't been "ported" to the PC.  The Gauntlet series is a good example.  When Gauntlet Legends was released on the arcade, I loved it.  Then I heard it was being ported to some of the consoles and there was talk of taking it to the PC.  Well, the PC idea seems to have died for the entire series    Why, for the love of god, can't they port them to the PC?  Now I am seeing a bigger trend of games only going to console  :\   Is the PC game platform dying?  And then you have the issue of three different game consoles with very little cross-over between them.  If I get a Nintendo system, that means no Halo.  If I get an XBox that means no Zelda


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 18, 2005)

farscapesg1 said:
			
		

> Is the PC game platform dying?



Absolutely it is - there's actually been a fair number of reports and editorials about it the last couple of years ago.



> And then you have the issue of three different game consoles with very little cross-over between them.  If I get a Nintendo system, that means no Halo.  If I get an XBox that means no Zelda



Yeah, but this is to be expected - the console manufacturers want exclusives, as it gives the consumer a reason to buy that particular console. Smart business practice on their part.


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 18, 2005)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, but this is to be expected - the console manufacturers want exclusives, as it gives the consumer a reason to buy that particular console. Smart business practice on their part.




Which is a double-edged sword for 'Cube: on the one hand, the exclusive titles for Nintendo are great, but there are a lot of semi-exclusive titles for the other two that 'Cube doesn't get, e.g. Star Wars: Battlefront.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 18, 2005)

I always choose console systems based on the games, not on the console itself.

I bought a Nintendo 64 so I could play Perfect Dark.
I'll buy an X-Box 360 so I can play Perfect Dark Zero.


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 18, 2005)

I'll agree with Arnwyn and add my own comments...


			
				farscapesg1 said:
			
		

> Is the PC game platform dying?



Yes.  The PC game, the way the industry currently makes big games, needs to sell big-time or not cost that much to make - which is getting harder with polygons and 3D graphics in most games.  Anything in-between and the company goes under.  These developers are getting swallowed up by the big companies like Take 2 & EA (hell, one could be owned by the other at this point, I've lost track).  So they will be less willing to take chances on games that aren't sequels or are typically on the PC.

So a game like Gauntlet, which was designed for a controller is most likely to stay in the console arena.  Strategy games (RTS & turn based), MMO RPGs, some normal RPGs, Tycoon/God games & FPS are the domain of the PC now.  There are a few exceptions but unless you like those genres you are better off getting console.

I think that PC games will still be around for quite some time, but the kinds of games available simply won't have the diversity of consoles.



			
				farscapesg1 said:
			
		

> And then you have the issue of three different game consoles with very little cross-over between them.  If I get a Nintendo system, that means no Halo.  If I get an XBox that means no Zelda



That's by design.  The average console, mid-way through it's life (say, 2 years old) will cost around $250.  Add in an extra controller and memory card and you are down maybe another $80.  That's not bad.  To play Half-Life 2 you need a system that can handle the graphics.  The video card alone will cost you $200.  So the whole system - which won't even be close to a top of the line system or even mid-range (without monitor or any accessories) will cost you $600.  That's 2 consoles right there and a few games.

And yes, most people already own a computer so it's easier to just have an all-in-one solution but that's not how things work.  I agree that it's frustrating to (my own life example) own a Gamecube that only has around 12 games over its whole existence that I would bother playing and I only got it to play the Resident Evil franchise (exclusive at the time), Metroid & Zelda.  Luckily, the hundreds of fun hours my friends and I had with Super Smash Bros Melee made up for the cost of the initial purchase it was still a system I could have lived without.  But I'm a HUGE Resident Evil fan so I had no choice.

In this next gen of systems, if you want a system at launch you will be spending ~ $500 to get the system and some games (maybe not Nintendo but we'll see).  But that price will drop after a holiday season or 2 (which is also when there will be big enough selection of games to know which system is for you).  There is an increasingly bigger amount of games every year that are ported or flat-out released on all 3 consoles (see the same reason about chance PC games above).  Now Nintendo is sometimes left out because the user base isn't large enough to do it.  I can see this trend continuing in the next gen systems.

The big titles like Madden will at the very least be on both Xbox360 & PS3.  There will be exclusives and if you only want to own one system you'll have to choose which ones are more important.  The safest current bet are on the Sony as their user base is easily bigger than anyone elses which means that more games are likely to come out for it.

I'm curious to see if Microsoft's first-release system get enough early supporters to make a dent.  Maybe a bit but their launch line-up isn't lighting the world on fire.  There isn't a single must-have, system-exclusive game on there.  There will be some fun games that will look great and the system will sell-out but we'll see.  I can't wait to play these games on my TV that I bought specifically to play high-res progressive scan games.  Mmmm.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Nov 20, 2005)

babomb said:
			
		

> The Nintendo Revolution has me excited.



Seconded! Plus, their controllers are much more simple. And it has the old-school 8-bit style.

I like that Nintendo tries to be creative, whether or not all their ideas are good.


----------



## Orius (Nov 20, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Hated Nintendo; controllers were not rounded on edges and hurt my palms to hold. Never played Zelda, Metroid, etc. I was exclusively a Sega Genesis player (Sonic rules! LOL), then moved on to Sega CD and 3DO and then PS1 to play Suikoden I + II and Resident Evil I-III.




The original Nintendo controller did have that blocky sqaure configuration, but there was a redesigned Nintendo made around 1993 or so that had rounded controllers that were a lot like the SNES controllers, but with fewer buttons.  If you could find a used system somewhere and the newer controllers, then you might like some of the games on that system, as Nintendo games still featured the kind of simultaneous multiplayer games you like.

I'm not overly enthralled by today's console offerings.  I don't care at all about the newest consoles.  Most of the games these days do not interest me, particularly the shooters and fighting games.  I tend to prefer RPGs, strategy and puzzle games myself.  Console RPGs might interest you since they generally just involve navigating menus and map screens and don't have or require a lot of complex controls; however console RPGs have nearly always been single player.

I also don't care about fancy 3d graphics polygon counts, and crap like that.  Game play has always been more important to me that graphics.  I'm perfectly happy with old Nintendo era games with their 8-bit graphics that are still a blast to play.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 20, 2005)

I've always adored console games (Nintendo specifically; I never play any of the other companies' consoles), and likewise disliked computer games. 

The big problem for me with computer games was that they always seemed to have problems in loading and playing. Just getting them properly loaded always seemed like it was trial-and-error. Worse, even after getting them loaded, they were subject to freezing, crashing, running slowly, and a host of other PC-specific problems.

Consoles never had that. The games on them always ran perfectly; the few times error did happen, they were isolated and didn't repeat themselves. It just never seemed worth the hassle to play computer games.


----------



## John Crichton (Nov 21, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The big problem for me with computer games was that they always seemed to have problems in loading and playing. Just getting them properly loaded always seemed like it was trial-and-error. Worse, even after getting them loaded, they were subject to freezing, crashing, running slowly, and a host of other PC-specific problems.
> 
> Consoles never had that. The games on them always ran perfectly; the few times error did happen, they were isolated and didn't repeat themselves. It just never seemed worth the hassle to play computer games.



I have the same thinking.  I will almost always choose to play a console version of a game or avoid a PC game completely because of running problems.  Now, I love turn-based strategy games and tycoon type games which are better on PC so I do buy & play those but that's about it.

I've had too many problems in the past with getting PC games to run or crapping out/skipping in the middle of a gaming session.  It hasn't happened very often but if it happens twice in a short period of time it frustrates me a and turns me off completely.


----------



## KenM (Nov 22, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The big problem for me with computer games was that they always seemed to have problems in loading and playing. Just getting them properly loaded always seemed like it was trial-and-error. Worse, even after getting them loaded, they were subject to freezing, crashing, running slowly, and a host of other PC-specific problems.
> 
> Consoles never had that. The games on them always ran perfectly; the few times error did happen, they were isolated and didn't repeat themselves. It just never seemed worth the hassle to play computer games.




     Well with computer games, you have to be aware of your computer specs to make sure the game will run decent on your computer. But there are some cases of companies putting out the beta so the consumer tests its and then report the bugs back.


----------



## KenM (Nov 22, 2005)

farscapesg1 said:
			
		

> Is the PC game platform dying?  And then you have the issue of three different game consoles with very little cross-over between them.  If I get a Nintendo system, that means no Halo.  If I get an XBox that means no Zelda




  Thats when you download an xbox or NES emulator to play them on your PC.


----------



## 3catcircus (Nov 22, 2005)

Hmm - I'm in agreement.  Consoles suck.  They emphasize graphics and are fine for "twitch" games where you gotta remember an obscure sequence of controller inputs and are by far the best platform for sports games, but otherwise they suck.

Try flying a Cat III approach using the Level-D 767 or PMDG 737NG for MS Flightsim on a console...

Try playing Morrowind, Ultima Online, or Pool of Radiance on a console...


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 22, 2005)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> Hmm - I'm in agreement.  Consoles suck.  They emphasize graphics and are fine for "twitch" games where you gotta remember an obscure sequence of controller inputs and are by far the best platform for sports games, but otherwise they suck.
> 
> Try flying a Cat III approach using the Level-D 767 or PMDG 737NG for MS Flightsim on a console...
> 
> Try playing Morrowind, Ultima Online, or Pool of Radiance on a console...




Try playing Super Mario Sunshine on a PC.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Nov 22, 2005)

And Morrowind was acutally pretty fun on the Xbox.


----------



## CarlZog (Nov 22, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I think I've developed Old Fogey Syndrome, LOL.




Let me get this straight: You have GENE RAYBURN as your avatar, and you THINK you may have developed Old Fogey Syndrome?!?!?    

Are you kidding me? Let me let you in on a little secret from further down the old fogey hill: Expecting someone raised on the Match Game and Gong Show to keep up with stuff like Soul Caliber III is just a joke. It's a miracle they even let people like us buy consoles these days!   

I got an Xbox a couple years ago. I don't buy any of the games 'til they drop under $15, 'cause that's about how much play I get out of them before getting stumped.

I do like some of the role-playing games (Deus Ex, KOTOR, Baldurs Gate, Morrowind), but I also end up online ALL THE TIME looking up the walkthroughs to figure out what I'm doing wrong.

I got Xbox Live -- mostly for Crimson Skies -- but never raised my rank above one star. I'm almost always at the bottom of the pile.

I bought Rainbow Six 3 more than a year ago, but I've never managed to finish the first mission -- even on the easiest setting.

I'd like to be able to play this stuff -- I read Penny Arcade every week and I'm a sucker for the media hype -- but the sad truth is I just don't have the eye-hand-brain coordination for it. 

Carl


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 22, 2005)

There are some games I can't get into because they're too intricate.

The tie in to Pitch Black? No problem. Halo 2? No problem.

Some of the other shooters though... man, too much detail, too many options, too much 'realism' that just sacrifices game play for me.

One of the things I liked about older games is that you didn't have to think about what buttons you were pressing or in what combinations. Now fighters style games are a notable acception to that, but most of them were pretty easy with a handful of maneuvers to master. Today's fighters have levels of intricacy built into them that is difficult to master and well, sometimes boring when button mashing works almost as well.

I love my X-Box, and enjoy games like Fable, Elder Scrolls and others, but I can see where the OP is coming from.


----------



## Express (Nov 23, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> I'm over 30 and have extreme difficulty remembering multi-button combo moves, let alone successfully implementing them in stressful situations. I was raised on Atari 2600, Colecovision and arcade games like Donkey Kong, LOL. I could handle Sega Genesis and even 3DO, but once things starting getting more complicated (esp. controllers with triggers, sticks and buttons), I started having problems. This was around PS1, and has only gotten worse with the current generation of consoles. I don't expect it to get any easier, LOL.
> 
> What happened to fun and simple multiplayer video games? They hardly make 'em anymore. I guess they assume that video game players have no friends, LOL, or think "splitscreen" is a solution. Splitscreen sucks! I can't remember which half of the screen is mine, and end up totally confused and unhappy staring at only half a screen.
> 
> ...





I kind of feel your pain. Im in my 30s and have been a gamer since I was a tadpole. But alot (not all mind you)of the current console games just leave me cold. Games seem shorter, there are a lot of "me too" copycat titles, stupppppid AI, and (most egregiously to me) it seems like game developers are trying to make interactive movies more than games.

Im mostly a PC gamer now. But if you want old school type experiences, I recommend a nintendo handheld, a gba or DS. The DS is great because of its interesting input capabilities, and it actually plays gba games, too. Handheld games especially nintendo's are a haven for 2d type games. And visual old schoolness aside, the games are about gameplay too. Advance wars, Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga, Meteos, Minish Cap..lotsa fun.

I sort of disregard the PSP, since it seems to me that Sony is pushing 3d "coolness" on its handheld. And I hate that dang analog nib thingee.

Im hoping the next gen of consoles will bring next gen gameplay. But I fear all we will get is shinier, more reflective surfaces, online play, more expensive games, in game product advertising and fewer titles per year due to budget concerns and complex development times.

And who knows the Revolution might be a haven for gameply when it comes out. 

Methinks Im an old fogey too


----------



## CronoDekar (Nov 23, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I'm guess you could consider me Generation Y, I'm 25 years old. Like the original poster, I grew up playing Atari 2600 with Mrs. PacMan and Frogger. I prefer computer games such as RPG, adventure, and RTS. I don't really have the patience for console games with their "complicated" controls like the XBox and PSII (I got totally whippd in that 1st person Star Wars games, not sure of the name).
> 
> It's not that I couldn't learn, I just choose not to; I'm happily playing Warcraft III, Age of Empires, etc. on the PC.




I find this interesting, since I tend to find getting accustomed to the controls on RTS games rather difficult, particularly for playing with skill.  Then again, I also don't really play action games, instead mainly playing console-style RPGs which aren't known for their complex control schemes.  And I'm not too used to using a keyboard and mouse as game input. 

Also, a second on the simplistic setup of the Katamari games -- even my sister, who only really plays puzzle games, can play them (though I hear the controls on the upcoming PSP Katamari are annoying).


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 23, 2005)

It's really a shame that the rumors of the DS Katamari turned out to be just rumors. Using the stylus for that game just seems naturally perfect, IMHO.


----------



## ssampier (Nov 23, 2005)

CronoDekar said:
			
		

> I find this interesting, since I tend to find getting accustomed to the controls on RTS games rather difficult, particularly for playing with skill.  Then again, I also don't really play action games, instead mainly playing console-style RPGs which aren't known for their complex control schemes.  And I'm not too used to using a keyboard and mouse as game input.
> 
> Also, a second on the simplistic setup of the Katamari games -- even my sister, who only really plays puzzle games, can play them (though I hear the controls on the upcoming PSP Katamari are annoying).




I'm no expert, but I find using the mouse in a RTS _much_ easier than trying to use the blasted thumb controls. Again, I'm sure with practice I could be learn, but I don't really care that much.

3D environments can give me motion-sickness anyway.


----------



## 3catcircus (Nov 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Try playing Super Mario Sunshine on a PC.




If the catridge can be read using a kit-bashed device (such as a prom reader/burner) or a CD can be read on a PC's CD or DVD drive, it can be played on a PC - there are tons of different (legal and illegal) options for playing console games (as well as the real arcade games) on a PC.  The same can't be said of trying to play a PC game on a console.


----------



## 3catcircus (Nov 27, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> And Morrowind was acutally pretty fun on the Xbox.




I don't necessarily consider an xbox to be a console - specifically because it is a PC with a hard drive running a stripped-down version of Windows 2000 disguised as a console...  The xbox uses Microsoft's directX 3D graphics API for games, which was originally developed Windows.

The newest consoles start to blur the line between consoles and PCs because they typically come with the option of a hard drive, however, a console will *never* have the flexibility of a PC so long as they continue to run a proprietary OS on a stripped-down mainboard with crippled I/O ports.

Do a search on google and see how many people there are who are attempting (with varying degrees of success) to convert xbox and PS2 into generic computers.

The problem nowadays is that the "golden age" (if there ever was one) for PC games has come and gone - no longer are there literally hundreds of titles released each month.


----------



## mojo1701 (Nov 27, 2005)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> If the catridge can be read using a kit-bashed device (such as a prom reader/burner) or a CD can be read on a PC's CD or DVD drive, it can be played on a PC - there are tons of different (legal and illegal) options for playing console games (as well as the real arcade games) on a PC.  The same can't be said of trying to play a PC game on a console.




That wasn't my point, though. My point was able to get the same quality of gameplay.


----------



## 3catcircus (Nov 28, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> That wasn't my point, though. My point was able to get the same quality of gameplay.




But isn't "quality of gameplay" completely subjective?  I like hard-core simulations (MS Flight Simulator with myriad free and payware add-ons, Falcon, Lock-On, etc.), cerebral shooters (e.g. Rainbow Six and it's various derivations) and "traditional" RPGs (BG2, NWN, Morrowind, etc.)

I dislike sports games (Madden 199x - 200x are all the same to me - the only difference is the names and numbers on the jerseys), and "fighting" games (to me, randomly tapping buttons appears to have no discernable difference in outcome from memorizing specific moves).

If I were to play a sports game (regardless of platform), I'd say the "quality of gameplay" sucks because I don't like those types of games.  Likewise, a highly-touted game about 10 years ago was Stonekeep - I thought the "quality of gameplay" sucked because it was a canned rpg.  Give me what I consider a good rpg (BG2, for example) and I'd probably like it regardless of platform.  Now, give that same game - BG2 and give me the choice of playing it on a console or on a PC and I'll take the PC every day for the following reasons:

1.  Nearly infinitely expandable memory and storage on a PC means the game can run better and better the more memory and storage I give it.  On a console, I'm stuck with the proprietary options that the manufacturer makes available.

2.  Multiple video card options means I can set the resolution to multiple modes and if I get a faster video card with more memory, the better the game will run.  With a console I'm stuck with  whatever video chip/card shipped with the console.

3.  The ability to edit save games (in case of an error in the game or if I just want to cheat and give myself more gold, better stats, or specific equipment).

4.  Likewise, the ability to create my own scenarios, missions, or levels.  The best example of this is Microsoft Flight Simulator - the ability to create my own scenery, airplanes, airplane panels, sounds, etc is limitless.

5.  Mouse and keyboard (or joystick for flight sims) is less cramping on my hands and allows more customization of what commands are assigned to each keystroke or mouse button.

Essentially - I prefer PC games over console games because of the greater ability to customize the gameplay to my particular situation.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Nov 28, 2005)

I'm 20 and I can relate to Iron Chef.

I just don't like the games that are popular nowadays. I used to be a big gamer, but
the business has gone into non-VB-compatible directions. I miss Sonic. He died to me
when he went 3D.

There's been enjoyable games, KotOR, Freedom Fighters and more, but I remember 
being in awe of all the available games I wanted to play but couldn't.

Now there's few and because I get too pumped over them because I miss gaming, I 
tend to get disappointed.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 29, 2005)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> But isn't "quality of gameplay" completely subjective?



Absolutely it's subjective. And he was responding to your subjective original statement.

As both you and he point out (albeit indirectly) - different types of games work better on different types of systems. Flight sims? RTSs? FPSs? MMOs? That's a PC. Everything else? Consoles.


----------



## Iron_Chef (Nov 30, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> I'm 20 and I can relate to Iron Chef.




Now, if you were only female and not too far away, LOL.   

But seriously folks, I'm in agreement with whoever said there used to be so many "cool" games being released you could never play 'em all, and nowadays you're lucky to have one or two come out per year that are of interest... and maybe only one of those is "good".  :\ 

I didn't like Morrowind despite liking Arena and Daggerfall, so I'm not excited about Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

Age of Empires III is what gets me excited now, and Gauntlet: Seven Sorrows.

I just tried Fable and didn't like it. Too cartoony -- what's up with the big hands and feet Hobbit look? Yuck. Next on my list is Jade Empire.

I also tried DOOM III and while it was scary, it was also confusing and too complicated for me to control. 

Tried Star Wars Battlefront 2; it sucked AFAIK.


----------



## Tewligan (Dec 19, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> Hate Myst, 7th Guest, that kind of "smarty-pants" crap.



Teehee! I am now officially adding "smarty-pants crap" to my vocabulary to describe things I don't like. I'll also hitch up my pants really high and shake my fist as I say it.

I have to admit to sometimes having trouble with learning all the stuff to do in a game. If a game uses more than a couple of controller buttons, I usually have the book open to the controller diagram sitting beside me or on my knee while I'm playing for easy reference. Crap - it's what I get for having crested the over-30 hill as well, I guess.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Dec 19, 2005)

Iron_Chef said:
			
		

> You know what game rocked for multi-player? Gauntlet: Dark Legacy. You play one screen up to 4 players at same time. That's the kind of multiplayer game I want.




God, the gauntlet games just suck.  They are the same game as the original, just updated graphics.  Mindlessly killing the same things over and over again.  What fun.  Oh, yeah, you could "upgrade" in between quests or whatever, but that really didn't do anything for you except keep you on the same playing field as the creatures you were fighting.  Might as well just skip the upgrades and make the monsters have the same health all the way through the game.  And the playing on the same screen thing is so annoying.  Players constantly getting stuck in the geometry as their friends wandered off ahead, then having to back track to get unstuck, meanwhile their friend is getting beat on.  You couldn't flank very well either.  At least w/ split screen you could do flanking maneuvers and what not, and you don't get stuck behind the geometry.

Don't get me wrong, the original Gauntlet was awesome for that time period, but in this day in age, I think gamers crave a little more substance in their games.


----------



## Orius (Dec 25, 2005)

I liked the arcade version of Gauntlet Legends.  The PS version wasn't as good, particularly because of the bad camera angles, and they removed my favorite level, the desert, although the desert world was a pretty good addition.  Sometimes some old-fashioned monster smacking is fun.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 25, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> And Morrowind was acutally pretty fun on the Xbox.




I actually prefered it on the xbox.  I'm getting a 360 almost just to play oblivion in my prefered format.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Dec 26, 2005)

I have a PS/2, and only a few games for it.  Most are variations on the Dynasty Warriors franchise, because they're simple and fun.  The combos are pretty easy, as everyone uses the same button pushes, it's just that they do different things.  And there's nothing quite so stress-relieving as hacking through swarms of enemy soldiers with your halberd, occasionally impaling one and flinging him around into his compatriots.

The other games I've gotten for it I haven't finished.  The 3-D Castlevania was so annoying it wasn't funny.  I hate games like that and Devil May Cry where the camera angle is pre-determined, so, say, YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THE (BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP) YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO JUMP TO!  Sorry, I'm still miffed at that.

I don't have any FPS games, but I really wasn't that good at those in the first place.

Brad


----------

