And The Orange Box Wins!!

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/the-12-most-incredible-games-of-the-decade-659755

My brother just showed me this 10 minutes ago. Never heard of the website, but it's really pleasing to see such recognition to Valve, and my favourite game of all time, the Half-Life series.

Well done Valve! Hope they can do just as well and even better during the course of this decade!

Was this at the Orange Bowl?

I do hate how the orange box is treated as a game in itself when it is really just a collection of [for the most part]unrelated games. I've always felt that looking at it that way is simply stealing credit from each individual game.

Well I'd rather look at it as channelling the glory of each individual game that people have presumably already played, into one great collection that takes the prize for the best product of.. ever.. for me lol! They should have added Half-Life 1 to the collection as well, that would have been even better.

FatStrings said:
I do hate how the orange box is treated as a game in itself when it is really just a collection of [for the most part]unrelated games. I've always felt that looking at it that way is simply stealing credit from each individual game.

i agree, some games in there were terrible compared to otheres to be really honest.

The Orange Box is not a game.. how can it be considered. Thats just asinine, and the outcome can not be taken seriously.

That's a terrible list, but that is more a function of all the terrible 'great' games released this decade than the list's writers. Outside of the Orange Box and GTA3 everything listed is barely passable or worse. Hell, I can think of 12 games released just between 1997 and 1999 that are better than the listed ones.

As I said before, stupid people make me itch. Stupid people are to blame for the console boom that took all the thunder away from the pc market.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

"Yak_Fighter" said:
That's a terrible list, but that is more a function of all the terrible 'great' games released this decade than the list's writers. Outside of the Orange Box and GTA3 everything listed is barely passable or worse. Hell, I can think of 12 games released just between 1997 and 1999 that are better than the listed ones.

I agree. I thought Call Of Duty deserved a spot in there, but other than the Orange Box collection, half of those games are quite stupid. Just look at Guitar Hero... I will never see the point in playing that game. Now if it was a real replica of a guitar where the player can actually practice guitar playing skills, then by all means it would deserve a place, but it's just a few buttons that people spend pointless hours pressing.

I'm still happy for Half-Life though. Any recognition is good recognition(I think), and it deserves all the recognition in the world.

Muhnay said:
The Orange Box is not a game.. how can it be considered. Thats just asinine, and the outcome can not be taken seriously.

Well, in defense of the list article, when they included titles of some of the games with series, they made sure they included in the description the rest of the series as part of that placing decision -Or at least that's how I took it.

And if you caught that, you would see why the Orange Box qualifies just as well, because 1: all the games in it were made in the last decade, & 2: "As a whole it is almost overwhelming in its depth, irresistible in value and certainly, unreservedly, brilliant." It was the only 'gaming product' that packaged completely different well-designed games. But I suppose that's my opinion anyway

To the choice in the list itself, I obviously do not agree with them either, but it would seem a lot of the games were chosen based purely on popularity and not necessarily quality, which as we all know don't exactly correlate.

But of course, this statement on the first page blows that theory out:

On which note, we debated long and hard about WoW's worthiness for inclusion in the following list, on the back of its sales, its 11 million-plus regular subscribers, its overall scope and its developers sense of ambition for what is possible… but we eventually knocked it off the bottom of the list.

So, they knocked it off because of "..." ok, now I don't know what their criteria is. ...Oh wait, here it is (right under the title):

"The games we took sick days for over the last 10 years"

Ok, now I see... WAIT! you skipped work to play Wii F'n Sports!?! How could that be? It's best played as a family game! The rest of your family would be in school or at work anyway. This list means nothing to me.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Orpheus said:
Stupid people are to blame for the console boom that took all the thunder away from the pc market.

Wth man.. there's nothing wrong with consoles they're a totally legit and effective gaming medium and have heaps of advantages over a pc. The prejudice towards consoles from pc gamers is getting really old now.

Anyway yes it's not fair that they had the Orange Box in the list at all. You absolutely can not compare 5 games as a single unit against individual games.

---

Aaron's Stuff

aaron_da_killa said:
The prejudice towards consoles from pc gamers is getting really old now.

Not by a longshot, not when I look at the shelves at the store and see all the crap for sale catering to the mindless ones.

As for advantages, the only one that sticks out is the simplicity. They even dummy down certain games for consoles so the average joe can play them. The only real advantage over PC's is driver related. I admit that much. I never understood how there can be so few big name pc part companies, and so many combination of drivers.

I despise consoles and there isn't likely to be anything new added to them in the future to alter that, unless they emulate pc games to the point to where the market for pc games escalates again to its former glory.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I had to read your entire post to come to the same conclusion you and I have. lol

On the subject of consoles.. I prefer PC gaming but Consoles offer just as much a challenge as many PC games in some cases more.. ever try to use one of them damn controllers.. hahahaha

Riven said:
This list means nothing to me.

"Muhnay" said:
.. ever try to use one of them damn controllers.. hahahaha

Agreed. I've never played a FPS on a controller, but I don't see how it would be as simple as using a keyboard and a mouse.

I also think that it's pointless to buy consoles really, when you can have everything that's possible in a console, plus much more, in a PC. Consoles are designed just for gaming, where as PCs are more universal. I guess it depends on the person really, but I thought everyone with some sense would prefer a PC to a console.

What's God of War? Who chose this list? I wouldn't have put HL2 at the top of the list personally, either. What is interesting here is the appearance of "games" like Wii Sports/Guitar Hero. That surely shows how video games have made a transition into the mass market and altered as a result (for better or worse depending on your opinion).

As for consoles/PC - meh. It's like a Harry Potter vs Shakespeare debate. Relative to whichever side you pitch on and ultimately moot - everything has merits and is symptomatic of the age we live in (and have always lived - bread and circus!)

The console shooter is the only part of consoles I have a problem with, not that they exist but, that they ruin the possibility of certain gamers to experience the pc shooter. The only reason they are so popular is because the people who played halo are all 10 or the best shooter they had played till then was Goldeneye on the n64.

I do enjoy playing certain games on the console: some RPGs, racing games, a few more, and yes Guitar Hero. If Guitar Hero was played with an actual guitar it wouldn't be a game, Dedi, the game isn't about learning to play the guitar and shouldn't even be compared to it. Guitar Hero is about making yourself look like an ass in front of your friends and still scoring higher than them, can be good fun.

Other than these points I agree with those saying the list was made by idiots.

aaron_da_killa said:
Wth man.. there's nothing wrong with consoles they're a totally legit and effective gaming medium and have heaps of advantages over a pc. The prejudice towards consoles from pc gamers is getting really old now.

Actually there pretty much are no advantages for consoles these days. There used to be real differences and advantages with older consoles, such as price, reliability, lack of upgrading, ease of local multiplayer, and a focus on different genres of games that didn't necessarily work well on a PC. None of this is true anymore, especially with the 360.

The worst part of modern consoles is that console games and PC games used to be distinct, with their own qualities and worth. Then the 360 cannibalized the PC market and provided players substandard PC games that would always be better on a real PC while at the same time pretty much closed the book on traditional console games, destroying both.

It's kinda sad, because now almost nobody will make the kind of PC games I want because they won't play well with the xbox crowd and at the same time nobody will make cool console games that aren't subpar PC games or Wii garbage. This 'prejudice' against the current crop of consoles is wholly justified.

Wow, Yak_Fighter, I never thought of it that way. I see your point, and you're absolutely right.[quote="FatStrings"] and yes Guitar Hero. If Guitar Hero was played with an actual guitar it wouldn't be a game, Dedi, the game isn't about learning to play the guitar and shouldn't even be compared to it. Guitar Hero is about making yourself look like an ass in front of your friends and still scoring higher than them, can be good fun.[/quote]
Maybe I should try. I still think that it shouldn't deserve a spot in a list of best game products. If it was based on an actual guitar, that would win me over, but not my cup of tea this way.

I certainly don't think it is one of the best of the decade, just good clean fun with the friends

**Dedi** said:
Wow, Yak_Fighter, I never thought of it that way. I see your point, and you're absolutely right.

I don't know... I disagree with him strongly.

Firstly, consoles are more convenient than pcs because:

• Consoles are smaller than computers and conveniently plug into a tv thus consuming very little space however computers require their own separate space.
• With computers you are bound to your computer setup, usually a desk and chair however with consoles you are free to stand, sit on a couch, floor, bean bag etc.
• To contradict Yak's point, no, local multiplayer IS still much easier on consoles than pcs. What has changed? How can you even compare plugging in an additional controller to having two separate computers requiring a connection to each other and having to go through the hassle of setting them up and essentialy say that console local multiplayer isn't easier than pc local multiplayer.
• You don't have to worry about, poor frame rates, installation, incompatibility, viruses etc on a console. You know the game you get WILL work, straight away and you don't have to worry about checking the requirements for the game either. In this manner, consoles are more reliable than pcs and perhaps if you discount the xbox 360 which let's hope is a one off mistake, consoles are just as reliable hardware wise as computers.

Also, consoles ARE cheaper than pcs to once again contradict yak. Even if we assume the price of consoles when they are first released which is when they are most expensive, they are still cheaper than an equivalent computer. Also consoles last until the next generation of consoles become avaliable and are still very much relevant after that where as computers require constant upgrades of hardware and software otherwise they become outdated so not only are consoles cheaper, but I think it is also cheaper to remain up to date with consoles than computers.

Any argument against consoles due to their controller arrangement such as "fps games don't work on consoles" is very poor. Not only do I strongly dislike people who jump to conclusions based on little/no evidence, but I also feel through my experiences I have concluded otherwise - any genre of game can work well on both consoles and pcs. Game developers aren't stupid and they tailor the game they're making to work well on the platform they're making it for. It always saddens me when a lot of thought is put into games and fallacies such as "fps games don't work on consoles" arise and spread by ignorant people.

And... I can think of more advantages consoles have over pcs!

To be honest, I can only think of three advantages pcs have over consoles. The first is that pcs have much more functions than consoles however I'm not sure if this is a fair argument when comparing consoles and pcs as gaming platforms. The second and most significant is that games are/can-be customizable on the pc. And lastly, pcs are also customizable which means people who can spend a lot of money can achieve a higher graphics quality than consoles.

---

Aaron's Stuff

aaron_da_killa said:

**Dedi** said:
Wow, Yak_Fighter, I never thought of it that way. I see your point, and you're absolutely right.

I don't know... I disagree with him strongly.

Firstly, consoles are more convenient than pcs because:

• Consoles are smaller than computers and conveniently plug into a tv thus consuming very little space however computers require their own separate space.
• With computers you are bound to your computer setup, usually a desk and chair however with consoles you are free to stand, sit on a couch, floor, bean bag etc.
• To contradict Yak's point, no, local multiplayer IS still much easier on consoles than pcs. What has changed? How can you even compare plugging in an additional controller to having two separate computers requiring a connection to each other and having to go through the hassle of setting them up and essentialy say that console local multiplayer isn't easier than pc local multiplayer.
• You don't have to worry about, poor frame rates, installation, incompatibility, viruses etc on a console. You know the game you get WILL work, straight away and you don't have to worry about checking the requirements for the game either. In this manner, consoles are more reliable than pcs and perhaps if you discount the xbox 360 which let's hope is a one off mistake, consoles are just as reliable hardware wise as computers.

Also, consoles ARE cheaper than pcs to once again contradict yak. Even if we assume the price of consoles when they are first released which is when they are most expensive, they are still cheaper than an equivalent computer. Also consoles last until the next generation of consoles become avaliable and are still very much relevant after that where as computers require constant upgrades of hardware and software otherwise they become outdated so not only are consoles cheaper, but I think it is also cheaper to remain up to date with consoles than computers.

Any argument against consoles due to their controller arrangement such as "fps games don't work on consoles" is very poor. Not only do I strongly dislike people who jump to conclusions based on little/no evidence, but I also feel through my experiences I have concluded otherwise - any genre of game can work well on both consoles and pcs. Game developers aren't stupid and they tailor the game they're making to work well on the platform they're making it for. It always saddens me when a lot of thought is put into games and fallacies such as "fps games don't work on consoles" arise and spread by ignorant people.

And... I can think of more advantages consoles have over pcs!

To be honest, I can only think of three advantages pcs have over consoles. The first is that pcs have much more functions than consoles however I'm not sure if this is a fair argument when comparing consoles and pcs as gaming platforms. The second and most significant is that games are/can-be customizable on the pc. And lastly, pcs are also customizable which means people who can spend a lot of money can achieve a higher graphics quality than consoles.

space: one computer requires at least 3 power cords [with speakers], and only a keyboard and mouse. The whole thing takes up less space than many TVs. Also, most decent TVs cost more than a computer that can run the vast majority of games out today. To play all of the console games available one must own three consoles that between them cost more than a brilliant computer by today's prices. This is also a lot of cable age and doesn't include the TV itself.

And aaron: 4 months ago I purchased a laptop for a little over $1000 that can run any game I have, and I do have a lot[many of them graphics intensive]. Please do tell me the part where that is more expensive, or larger, than an xbox+[decent]tv. Also, it can run professional architecture CAD software and renders with ease.

ZING!!!!!

No man not zing. I figured that having a tv is pretty much a prerequisite and as tvs are not used for gaming primarily they shouldn't be considered when contemplating the cost of consoles.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Ok, what I was getting at is that traditional console advantages over the PC are either eroding or completely gone, and it is easy to assume later generations will erode said advantages even further.

Price - Ignoring inflation, at release the N64 cost $200 and the typical new game cost $70. 360 cost $400, games cost $60. Then add in $50 per year for Live, DLCs, and whatever else MS can nickel and dime you for... Controller prices are a joke, system upgrades exorbitant. Plus good luck seeing anything while using that 360 if you don't have a $1000+ hidef TV. Pay-to-play multiplayer and DLC are both travesties. Inconveniently the price for consoles is increasing while the price of computers has been dropping, so this advantage is wearing thin.

Reliability - Do I really have to bother? Comparing a PS2 to the NES in reliability is a joke. Comparing a 360 to a Gameboy is an even larger joke. I'm pretty sure that the continued existence of the 360 shows that consoles are not more reliable than PCs.

Local Multiplayer - N64's four controller ports were a godsend, as were the copious amount of games with four player capability. Plug 'em in, start it up and go.

With the 360 you have to make profiles, sign in profiles, sign out profiles when you realize the current profile doesn't have any unlocks or saves, sign back in, then when all is said and done it turns out your game only does four players when locally linked with other 360s, or the game modes you want to play are Live-only, or you can't play together online because you need multiple paying accounts...

...and then my eyes glaze over and I go upstairs and play DOOM 2 online, for free, on dedicated servers, and if I could convince others we could unravel one of several ethernet cables, connect a laptop or two, and play a LAN game. Local multiplayer is of course still the chief advantage of console gaming, but quickly that is being dumped over a focus on internet multiplayer (which is of course something better done on a PC).

Lack of Upgrading - You bought the SNES, you were good to go, and as long as you didn't get suckered by any peripherals you didn't spend another dime on the system. Nowadays the 360 and the PS3 come in multiple configurations, with multiple overpriced hardware upgrades, and with deliberately missing functionality that requires additional purchases (hope you didn't want to use your wireless internet with the 360, otherwise...).

This is still an advantage, but Microsoft and Sony are trying really hard to eliminate it. As an aside, this computer I'm using now is almost six years old, cost only $700 at the time, and with a $50 RAM upgrade I could play anything that didn't require multicore processors. The only upgrade I've done over the original purchase is adding a DVDR drive, which cost like $80. This isn't spending thousands of dollars every year just to keep up.

Focus on Console Game Genres -
There are plenty of absolutely classic console games in genres that wouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole these days. But at least there's a boatload of dumbed down PC games in the genres of FPS and first person RPG to choose from!
(I'm tired and this post is already long enough, I'm halfassing this one cause it ended up responded to last)

And I didn't even touch on lost advantages such as: mostly bug-free games, no patching, lack of loading times, good controllers...

• Consoles are smaller than computers and conveniently plug into a tv thus consuming very little space however computers require their own separate space.

• With computers you are bound to your computer setup, usually a desk and chair however with consoles you are free to stand, sit on a couch, floor, bean bag etc.

Gonna have to go with a big ol' who cares on these two.

• To contradict Yak's point, no, local multiplayer IS still much easier on consoles than pcs. What has changed? How can you even compare plugging in an additional controller to having two separate computers requiring a connection to each other and having to go through the hassle of setting them up and essentialy say that console local multiplayer isn't easier than pc local multiplayer.

What hassle? The hardest part of plugging in an ethernet cable is having the computers.

• You don't have to worry about, poor frame rates, installation, incompatibility, viruses etc on a console. You know the game you get WILL work, straight away

Nope, outside of no viruses all of this is incorrect. Not having to worry about poor frame rates on a console is a laugher. As for installation and incompatibility, you forgot about patches, patches that, if not installed, make your game incompatible with other games online. Then there's DLC which prevents you from playing online if you don't purchase it, which is another forced, arbitrary incompatibility.

you don't have to worry about checking the requirements for the game either.

Reading and remembering computer specs are both hard I agree.

In this manner, consoles are more reliable than pcs and perhaps if you discount the xbox 360 which let's hope is a one off mistake, consoles are just as reliable hardware wise as computers.

PS2 had plenty of hardware failures as well. 'Just as reliable' isn't an advantage either.

Any argument against consoles due to their controller arrangement such as "fps games don't work on consoles" is very poor.

FPS games do work on consoles, if by FPS games you mean Goldeneye using the default control scheme and aiming for almost every shot. That's pretty much the only console FPS I have played that is actually designed around the controller.

I also feel through my experiences I have concluded otherwise - any genre of game can work well on both consoles and pcs.

Any genre of game cannot work well on both consoles and PCs, this is completely and obviously wrong. Ever tried playing a racing game with a keyboard? A 2d platformer? Both suck on a PC. RTS on a console? There's only a few RTSs I know of specifically designed for consoles and I'm not sure those simplistic pieces of crap are a ringing endorsement. Simulations on a console? Aside from the fact that sims are dead, there's only one real console one I know of and it cost $200 and required a dedicated peripheral to work.

Game developers aren't stupid and they tailor the game they're making to work well on the platform they're making it for. It always saddens me when a lot of thought is put into games

'Tailoring the [PC] game' to consoles in almost every situation means simplifying, slowing down, decreasing difficulty, or worse. You're right though, developers aren't stupid. Which is why they focus on consoles, where the money is, and why they port to PCs with almost no changes in gameplay designed around a controller. Which brings me to my point about consoles fucking the PC market: developers making crappy PC games for consoles and then shoveling them to PCs, maximizing profit at the expense of quality.

fallacies such as "fps games don't work on consoles" arise and spread by ignorant people

I can count on two fingers the number of decent/good fps games created for a console. I'm curious what besides Halo 1 and Goldeneye you consider good. (Halo2 and Halo3 aren't good, sorry :P)

Oh and...

No man not zing. I figured that having a tv is pretty much a prerequisite and as tvs are not used for gaming primarily they shouldn't be considered when contemplating the cost of consoles

PCs are a prerequisite for doing work, browsing the internet, printing stuff... pretty much everyone has one, so everything in a typical computer but the video card shouldn't be considered in the cost of a gaming PC

By that logic (and this is the point i argue to people on ocastion) pc gaming is cheaper. You most likely already own a computer with a acceptable cpu. A ATI 4850 cost $100 and a good mouse cost about $40. That card will easily run any game on the market. Not to mention that the 4850 has to be closing in on twice the gfx power of a 360. And if you have bought a TV in the last 5 years your pc plugs into it just as easy as your pc via hdmi port. (if your gfx card doesn't have that port the adapter from DVI to HDMI is like 5$)

I have played a unhealthy about of Golden Eye and Perfect Dark in my youth. I would sooner stuff my mouse in my ass and play L4D2 squatting over a table then go back to a controller for a FPS's. This is why i haven't bought a 360. And im one of the few who loved the 64 controller.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

RedWood said:
Not to mention that the 4850 has to be closing in on twice the gfx power of a 360.

The 360 uses Xenon, which is R500, ie a jimmied-together Radeon X1900XT with a fancy 10MB EDRAM buffer but no dedicated frame buffer.

A 4850 has at least five times the raw processing power, although obviously it's hard to compare absolutely as it depends whether you're comparing texture fill rate, shader power, teraflops etc etc. Something more modern like Cypress or Fermi is going to be around ten times faster, not to mention massively more capable with things like DX11 support, hardware tessellation, modern aniso and AA algorithms etc

Of course even R500 has considerably more power than the PS3's souped-up GeForce 7600GS

It's important to realise just how hugely anaemic and feature-sparse console hardware is when comparing relative values.

"Oh, consoles are much cheaper than PCs" is specious for two reasons:

1. They're not over the lifecycle of each system due to the cost of the games and peripherals (£60 for a wireless 360 adapter MS? Really?)
2. Consoles can just about achieve performance parity with top-end PCs when first released, but even after just a year they start to look increasingly poor indeed and PC hardware end sup being so far ahead there is no way you can fairly compare the price of a console against even a modest gaming PC.

Playing at 25fps with no decent IQ filtering, very low resolution textures and god-awful blur filtering to smooth out the atrocity may just about be ok on a big TV screen from 15ft away. On a PC monitor.... haha, er I'd quite like my 12x edge detect AA and euclidean aniso thanks, all at a minimum of 60fps and at four times the resolution of your anaemic little wind-blower.

im happy to hear that, forgive my ignorance.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

aaron_da_killa said:

• Consoles are smaller than computers and conveniently plug into a tv thus consuming very little space however computers require their own separate space.
• With computers you are bound to your computer setup, usually a desk and chair however with consoles you are free to stand, sit on a couch, floor, bean bag etc.

I'd 100% disagree with that. Why on earth do you think I can't hook the HDMI output on my 5850 up to my 42" Samsung TV? (hello multi-monitor and eyefinity already?)

And why can't I sit on my couch? Hell, even 360 controllers plug straight into PCs nowadays and most games natively support them. Dirt2 is awesome for this, and I'd much rather play in all it's DX11 superIQ crystal-quality glory than squint at yet more low-res over-blurred gigantic pixels from a leaf-blower-loud 360

PCs are also only larger if that's what you buy. Build something smaller if that's what you want, it's not hard. Geez, Antec are even showing off an SFF chassis that's big enough for Hemlock at CES this week!

It's 2010! Get with the programme dude!

I'd also agree to a limited extent with what Orpheus said earlier about console games being dumbed down. It's a real shame that a lot of PC games now are console-ports with horrible consolised-interfaces (I'm looking at you DiRT2, Oblivion and Fallout 3).

I also miss the innovation we had back in the mid-nineties where every game was a new experience. Now we just have "another C&C game, another Shooter game, another jump-about and stab people game". Nothing is different and every new release is just a retread of an existing genre title with slightly prettier graphics.

I understand why this happens, that the multi-million development costs ($28m on average) means that they can't take risks on new concepts that may not work out. It's sad when people get excited over Halo 27 and Call of Duty 15 though.

Tbh XNA and the 360 marketplace have been fantastic at actually spurring creativity once again. Things like GridWars and audiosurf are some of the best known examples of successes, and Steam has been pretty good to indie devs too... World of Goo, gratuitous space battles, osmos etc are finally giving us some variety again.

Still, it won't stop EA getting fat on the next LCD mass market dross.

I agree with you on the lack of innovation you mentioned. Thankfully Valve always brings something new to the table, like it did with the Gravity Gun at the time, and Portal. Portal was something completely new in the FPS(if you can call it a shooter) genre.

I also think that PC technology has a much greater potential for improvement and innovation than consoles do. I mean, most of the games on consoles nowadays, are copies of already made PC games... I could be wrong though as I am not with the flow of console games at present time, but I do get the feeling that consoles don't offer much new experience than PCs. When I say this, I of course exclude Nintendo Wii because they're just a whole other genre of gaming.

I could include "Guitar Hero" in the console 'uniqueness' area, but as I find Guitar Hero nothing special, I won't.

The keyboard and mouse over the controller argument.. I strongly move to the PC option on this one. I only use controllers when playing Pro Evolution Soccer. I guess racing games could also have more advantages with a controller than a keyboard, but I've just grown accustomed to the keyboard with racing.

Game designers would prefer everyone be on a console.. every spec is the same that way, so it makes it easier on them to program the games.

With a PC, everyones machine can be from very similar to very different, so they have to program for a wider spec, making it harder on them.

I prefer PC to consoles, but I see the merits in both.

or they just put the requirements on it and it's dependent on the computers capabilities...

"Yak_Fighter" said:
Any genre of game cannot work well on both consoles and PCs, this is completely and obviously wrong.

I still think otherwise. Halo Wars had some pretty good ideas for making an RTS work on a console. Keyboard controls can be smoothed out or perhaps steering could be done with a mouse for racing games on a pc. One good thing about humans is that we can easily adjust to small changes like a mouse/keyboard or controller and any one person can potentially be just as good using either.

"larchy" said:
Why on earth do you think I can't hook the HDMI output on my 5850 up to my 42" Samsung TV? (hello multi-monitor and eyefinity already?)

And why can't I sit on my couch? Hell, even 360 controllers plug straight into PCs nowadays and most games natively support them.

I don't know, I was more comparing the typical computer vs console setup. When you start to talk about hooking computers to tvs and plugging in console controllers to computers it sort of makes comparing computers and consoles... pointless. To take things to the extreme, I could just mod by Xbox (which it seems for the most part has substituted the word console in this discussion) and gain a lot of those pc advantages such as more powerful hardware and a more diverse operating system.

---

Aaron's Stuff

"Muhnay" said:
Game designers would prefer everyone be on a console.. every spec is the same that way, so it makes it easier on them to program the games.

With a PC, everyones machine can be from very similar to very different, so they have to program for a wider spec, making it harder on them.

I prefer PC to consoles, but I see the merits in both.

[EDIT]: I JUST re-read your post and realized you said 'GAME' designers instead of level designers, so I suppose I'll keep it, but please ignore my first paragraph

Well, I think it depends on the engine's capabilities first and foremost. So, perhaps not so much the 'level designers' problem, as the programmers writing the software. Valve has published papers showing the differences the Source engine can undergo to render itself in different DX versions as well as the differences they had to make to get the OrangeBox games to run on the 360 and PS3. So, for the level designer, not too much has to be changed (not anything for as much as I read). It's all in the engine.

Look at another modern games engine like the Unreal 3 engine and the games it supports. Unreal Tournament 3 by Epic Games was an obvious initial design for the console market, and its PC version was a joke. Sure you had the option to turn up the graphics which is probably the only difference, and they didn't even bother to fix the menu setups.

I recently bought and played GTA IV for the PC over steam, and I'll admit I felt better playing it mostly with a controller -when driving. But when on foot, trying to aim with the weapons and just generally walking around, I swear, it was soo much easier just to use the mouse and keyboard. Similarly, with Mirrors Edge on the PC, -No change whatsoever although at least the tutorials if you were using the M/K setup, it would show the correct corresponding buttons, but once again, the layout favors that of a controller and thumb stick. -But once again, I'll admit, I prefer using a controller to play that game as well, since it is indeed more of an arcade game, -almost like a fighting game, it requires you to remember many button-mashing combination just in order to move around the environment. You can imagine all the combinations that could be derived from a keyboard.

So, yes, menus, graphics and controls must be 'dumbed-down' for the console platforms, but I don't see them going away anytime soon. I don't agree with PC ports of console games; it just feels 'wrong,' But I don't count-out console games alltogether. Consoles are like the economy car, they're made for the masses and....
-Well, that's where the analogy stops...

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

aaron_da_killa said:
I still think otherwise. Halo Wars had some pretty good ideas for making an RTS work on a console.

Well I'm not exactly an RTS connoisseur, but I'd confidently bet that the game is probably more basic and simplistic than even ancient games like Warcraft 1 and Command and Conquer due to trying to fit a genre onto a controller that cannot support it. Making it work requires eliminating most of what an RTS is.

...buuuut since I have access to a 360 and a copy of Halo Wars I'll go try it for myself. Better to crucify you if I have real first hand experience

Keyboard controls can be smoothed out or perhaps steering could be done with a mouse for racing games on a pc.

Keyboards are digital, controllers have analog sticks and buttons, a car's steering wheel, brakes, and gas pedal are all analog. It is not hard to see why a car is better simulated using a controller than a keyboard.

One good thing about humans is that we can easily adjust to small changes like a mouse/keyboard or controller and any one person can potentially be just as good using either.

Two things, one, it's not so much about adapting the player to the controller, it's about adapting the game design to the controller, which is what has such a profound impact on the gameplay. Two, as humans we also can easily choose to play games that are better on a controller on a controller and play games that are better on a keyboard and mouse on a keyboard and mouse.

aaron_da_killa said:
I could just mod by Xbox and gain a lot of those pc advantages such as more powerful hardware...

No you can't.

larchy said:

aaron_da_killa said:
I could just mod by Xbox and gain a lot of those pc advantages such as more powerful hardware...

No you can't.

you can plug a keyboard and mouse into it, but if you put a computer OS on it then it's just a PC in an xbox case

it's gotten to the point that consoles vary little from computers hardware-wise, so the only real difference between the two is the inputs and the lack of capabilities intrinsic to consoles

Yak_Fighter said:

aaron_da_killa said:
I still think otherwise. Halo Wars had some pretty good ideas for making an RTS work on a console.

I'll go try it for myself.

Alright, I tried it.

The game is the most simplistic RTS I have ever played. This is pretty much the perfect example of a genre not being suited for the medium. So much of what an RTS is has stripped out just to shoehorn it into a controller interface and even then it still doesn't work well.

"Yak_Fighter" said:
Alright, I tried it.

The game is the most simplistic RTS I have ever played. This is pretty much the perfect example of a genre not being suited for the medium. So much of what an RTS is has stripped out just to shoehorn it into a controller interface and even then it still doesn't work well.

And all that just to get sales on consoles. It really is simplifying down games to an unsatisfying standard, just to make some bucks from them. I think it's a bad decision, even if it does make them a fraction more money than normal, it really sacrifices the image of the developer. I don't know, but I think a developer shouldn't lower their standards to meet those of other platforms.

Heh well the developer was closed immediately after release...

I would also like to point out that Xbox 360s are rifled with failures (red circle of death comes to mind). A friend of mine who owns a 360 has gone through 3 of them, all with overheating issues. If it were a PC, you could replace the poor component, but with 360s you have to replace the entire thing.

Yup, a massive 54% failure rate

What happened was the usual business of managers ignoring engineers and they ended up with mounts that were too rigid and thermals that were too high, which over time causes the GPU and/or the CPU packaging to fail. This is why the very common and easy reseating of the x-clamps works to fix RRODs - especially if you use the heat trick to remelt the LGA bumps.

There was a book released by one of the head engineers about the retarded management of the original production run prior to the 360's release... they had a failure rate of over 90% straight off the production line on the first units (that's before they get sent around again for repair.... so the overall yield coming out of the factory was much higher... but the yield on first assembly was atrocious).

The newer Jasper units are much better, but there is still a fundamental flaw with the way they designed the whole thing.

All I know is, if, in a distant future, they allowed the console players and the pc players to compete in the same servers, you'd see a buttload of elitest console players getting their arses scrubbed right quick, which is why that will most likely never happen.

I believe you can do that with the Xbox 360 on some games now.

Juim said:
All I know is, if, in a distant future, they allowed the console players and the pc players to compete in the same servers, you'd see a buttload of elitest console players getting their arses scrubbed right quick, which is why that will most likely never happen.

I agree with Juim.

Also: I normally don't defend consoles, much less the x-box, but I will say this: every friend of mine who has had a red ring has had it because he crammed the console in a tiny shelf in his entertainment system. The systems all overheated because they had no place to push the cool air, it's kind of like closing all of the vents on your tower. Of course, we all realize this and make sure the vents aren't blocked on our towers and console users should probably realize this and don't. The point I'm making is that it isn't entirely the system's fault it overheated in any cases I have witnessed.

On another note, one of my friends, I am sad to say, leads the world in suicides in Halo. Woopty-doo. The point of this story is that we traded a red ringed console out with his and taped a reaction video, I think he went into shock...hilarious. it's like his puppy died

Haha, hilarious. Guy was all serious like he just lost three thousand dollars or something.. Halo boxers !!!

Ps. Are you in the vid FatStrings?

Haha, That's funny stuff. I've had that experience before on my PC when after plugging it into an already tripped surge protector (didn't know it was already tripped) it got zapped a week later. -THAT was not funny.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

**Dedi** said:
Haha, hilarious. Guy was all serious like he just lost three thousand dollars or something.. Halo boxers !!!

Ps. Are you in the vid FatStrings?

no, sadly I was in class

every since i bought the 360Controller to my computer, the console died in my eyes. hehe

Let me clarify a point. I don't think all people who play consoles are stupid. I do however think that stupid people can only play consoles. PC games are just to much hassle for them. I have often heard avid console users say " I play games to have fun, not think"

My personal opinion is, if there is no thought involved to play a game, why bother?

Anywho's I just thought that I'd clarify my comment.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
Let me clarify a point. I don't think all people who play consoles are stupid. I do however think that stupid people can only play consoles.

Omg. There is absolutely no correlation between somebody's intelligence and what platform they play games on.

---

Aaron's Stuff

hmmm.

I think so.
Apparently you haven't watched them play. I've seen some of the dumbest games provoke mass hysterical laughter from these people.

I'll never forget the first time I saw one run down some whore in a game with a car. They laughed it seemed for hours.

Let me stress this again. We are not talking about normal people. JUST STUPID ONES...

If you haven't the ability to recognize stupid, I'm sorry.

Still in all seriousness, it does take a bit of sense to figure out many computer games now days. I'm not talking about your average FPS, many of those are fairly straight forward. I mean a really good RTS. I don't think its even in the purview of a stupid person to play one. I could be wrong, who knows?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.