Why modern gaming sucks.

[Aguraki]

giant LCD TVs

NO SPLIT SCREEN

[EinhanderZwei]

giant LCD TVs

NO SPLIT SCREEN

Resident Evil 5?..

[louisg]

giant LCD TVs

NO SPLIT SCREEN

Resident Evil 5?..

Call of Duty? Mario Kart? The new Goldeneye? Halo 3? Gears of War? Left 4 Dead? I think all of those games have split screen gameplay.

[ChainsawGuitarSP]

I don't get why you'd want more split screen multiplayer games... Every time I played one of those with someone they would always accuse me of "screen watching". Tch.

[Obiwanshinobi]

You can play some games in co-op mode on split screen. Twisted Metal: Black, ToeJam & Earl, Kuri Kuri Mix (a.k.a. The Adventures of Cookie & Cream)...

[louisg]

Split screen co-op Doom on 360 *rules*

[EinhanderZwei]

Quake 2 on PS1 w/4 players was a smash hit in my town back in the day

[Wonderbanana]

... Every time I played one of those with someone they would always accuse me of "screen watching". Tch.

That's part ofthe fun surely?

[Udderdude]

I don't get why you'd want more split screen multiplayer games... Every time I played one of those with someone they would always accuse me of "screen watching". Tch. :?

Get better and/or less retarded friends?

[neorichieb1971]

Best multiplayer games for me are the ones that require only one screen. Although back in the day split screen on Mariokart 64 was probably one of the highlights of my gaming adventures in multiplayer.

[louisg]

In other news, I pulled out my N64 the other day just for kicks, and almost every game for it is either terrible or badly presented (slow, muffled music, etc).

[Sumez]

Split screen co-op Doom on 360 *rules*

Damn they need to put out Quake 1 on XBLA - it's one of the best co-op FPS games I've played. Especially when you're not being cooperative

[EinhanderZwei]

Split screen co-op Doom on 360 *rules*

Damn they need to put out Quake 1 on XBLA - it's one of the best co-op FPS games I've played. Especially when you're not being cooperative

Yeah, the 'OMG FUCK ASS SHAMBLER!!!111' cries are worth 1000 words...

[Obiwanshinobi]

Apparently QIIIA on XBLA doesn't have split screen co-op (unlike the DC version, which you could even play with mouse and keyboard, funnily enough). Talk about missed opportunity (as if there wasn't any split-screen games built upon joypad controls from the scratch on 360).

Best multiplayer games for me are the ones that require only one screen. Although back in the day split screen on Mariokart 64 was probably one of the highlights of my gaming adventures in multiplayer.

ToeJam & Earl and Kuri Kuri Mix proved you can have it both ways in one game (screen splits when necessary and it's a smooth transition). I believe Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance (where co-op on one screen is technically almost flawless, and I'm NOT talking about the sequel nor the Champions games) could be only better if it had something along those lines.
(Local multiplayer in BG:DA happens to be cooperative and competitive at the same time as all the loot you snatch is yours and yours alone. No such luck in the sequel.)

I wonder if the dwindling of the PC game market has to do with the stagnation of hardware, given that the role of PC games in the past has largely been to demo cutting edge graphics cards and processors. At the height of the mainstream PC gaming craze (mid/late-90s), consoles were only briefly better than PCs in a purely graphical sense-- PSX and N64 might have briefly leapfrogged the 486 and early Pentiums, but it wasn't long before 3d accelerators offered a more fluid and high res version of what the N64 was attempting to do. Now that PC games look pretty much like 360 or PS3 games, except not as convenient, maybe that appeal is gone.

Not as convenient? When your average multiplatform game runs at 30 fps at best on consoles, whereas fairly affordable PC comes with benefit of smoother performance and greater variety of control schemes (mice and keyboards are still around, comfy sofa gaming has never been easier on PCs as the difference between monitors and TVs wanes and you don't need adapters for console joypads anymore), I'd say the PC still has quite a few things going for it.

[louisg]

Not as convenient? When your average multiplatform game runs at 30 fps at best on consoles, whereas fairly affordable PC comes with benefit of smoother performance and greater variety of control schemes (mice and keyboards are still around, comfy sofa gaming has never been easier on PCs as the difference between monitors and TVs wanes and you don't need adapters for console joypads anymore), I'd say the PC still has quite a few things going for it.

People generally settle for jittery framerates on PC (or no vsync at all because they're more concerned with benchmarks on paper than actual performance). They're just used to it. 30 FPS is much preferable to framerates which are all over the map, even if occasionally the numbers are higher, and target hardware is a nice thing to have in general. So, if better perceived performance is your thing, consoles are your system. If masterbating to specs and seeing what the figures do is more exciting to you, then PCs are a better bet.

[Obiwanshinobi]

So, if better perceived performance is your thing, consoles are your system.

Not anymore, they aren't. Stuff like J&D had inconsistent framerate and rampant screen tearing, but it was overall smooth and responsive. Stuff like Uncharted has got just low framerate (it's all the more apparent on a huge LCD TV) with the motion blur emergency service kicking in every time it drops below 20 fps or so (like when you just move the camera around). Who cares if it's more consistent on paper when even the slightest framerate drops are so in your face apparent? It's not without tearing too, unless it's v-synced like Uncharted 2, which of course makes the lag even worse (not that you need precise controls in a game with invisible rubber bands pulling your dude up to the platforms if you happen to misjudge your steps and jumps; I know even as fine action games as the original Rocket Knight Adventures had auto-correction of the platforming, but they still required precision and reflexes modern action adventures with cutting-edge graphics has generally given up on).
On the PC I can at least choose my poison.

[louisg]

So, if better perceived performance is your thing, consoles are your system.

Not anymore, they aren't. Stuff like J&D had inconsistent framerate and rampant screen tearing, but it was overall smooth and responsive. Stuff like Uncharted has got just low framerate (it's all the more apparent on a huge LCD TV) with the motion blur emergency service kicking in every time it drops below 20 fps or so (like when you just move the camera around). Who cares if it's more consistent on paper when even the slightest framerate drops are so in your face apparent? It's not without tearing too, unless it's v-synced like Uncharted 2, which of course makes the lag even worse (not that you need precise controls in a game with invisible rubber bands pulling your dude up to the platforms if you happen to misjudge your steps and jumps; I know even as fine action games as the original Rocket Knight Adventures had auto-correction of the platforming, but they still required precision and reflexes modern action adventures with cutting-edge graphics has generally given up on).
On the PC I can at least choose my poison.

I think the key to enjoying modern games is to play ones that don't suck. I don't remember framerate dips in Mario Galaxy 1 or 2 for example, and the design is excellent, too. So, you can pick your poison, or you can pick to not be poisoned at all

[Obiwanshinobi]

I sure hope Nintendo games for the Wii don't suck.

[louisg]

I sure hope Nintendo games for the Wii don't suck.

Some do I didn't care for the Zelda (though there was nothing technically wrong with it I guess). But there's no shortage of console games that perform very well, even if a game like Uncharted doesn't. Not to be too much of a dick, but I don't think western-programmed games have generally had very good luck with the whole framerate concept.

[Paradigm]

You and your fucking framerates all the time... do you realise how pathetic you sound?

Was playing Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts today.

Good Game.

[louisg]

You and your fucking framerates all the time... do you realise how pathetic you sound?

I didn't start the fire, dipshit

[Paradigm]

Didn't think a quote was necessary, obviously my comment wasn't aimed at you.

[neorichieb1971]

Framerates apparently don't sell games. Graphics do.

[louisg]

Didn't think a quote was necessary, obviously my comment wasn't aimed at you.

Pfft, don't say that about Obiwan either

[MadScientist]

every time it drops below 20 fps or so (like when you just move the camera around).

The Uncharted games have some problems, but the framerate certainly isn't as bad as you're suggesting. It's pretty much locked at 30 fps for the most part. The first one did have lots of noticeable screen tearing though.

[neorichieb1971]

Uncharted is one of the series of this generation which has won numerous accolades. Is there not a worse off candidate to be complaining about?

[Obiwanshinobi]

The Uncharted games have some problems, but the framerate certainly isn't as bad as you're suggesting. It's pretty much locked at 30 fps for the most part. The first one did have lots of noticeable screen tearing though.

Granted, I pulled the number 20 out of thin air. Framerate drops as such aren't the biggest problem and the motion blur emergency service is a neat trick of sort I always admired. My problem is the low framerate (I consider 30 fps "low"), particulary grating in a game by Naughty Dog. Choosing this path they shat on their own ways of yesteryear. Their PS2 games were one of the greatest guilty pleasures of mine. Playing Uncharted was like seeing a friend turning into a stranger. Imagine another Street Fighter game running at 30 fps and controlled by quick time events. That sort of stuff. The qualities of console gaming I used to adore are something of a rarity these days.

[louisg]

The Uncharted games have some problems, but the framerate certainly isn't as bad as you're suggesting. It's pretty much locked at 30 fps for the most part. The first one did have lots of noticeable screen tearing though.

Granted, I pulled the number 20 out of thin air. Framerate drops as such aren't the biggest problem and the motion blur emergency service is a neat trick of sort I always admired. My problem is the low framerate (I consider 30 fps "low"), particulary grating in a game by Naughty Dog. Choosing this path they shat on their own ways of yesteryear. Their PS2 games were one of the greatest guilty pleasures of mine. Playing Uncharted was like seeing a friend turning into a stranger. Imagine another Street Fighter game running at 30 fps and controlled by quick time events. That sort of stuff. The qualities of console gaming I used to adore are something of a rarity these days.

I can't believe this is on the same thread where people are nostalgic for mid-90s games. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with 30 for slow exploration games, which is the majority of this generation. Even something like Gran Turismo isn't going to need lightning fast updates. Sure, it wouldn't work well for Street Fighter or Strikers 1945 II, and full rate is obviously preferable. But even a game like Doom is locked at half you know. The issue isn't new, and I have trouble believing it's worse than it was on PSX, N64 (oh god!), PS2, or XBox.

In generations before, a game like Road Rash that was a complete slug would win awards, not to mention all the equally slow polygon games on home computers like Falcon, Stellar 7, or any number of other highly rated games.

I think what you're saying is that Naughty Dog's output took a turn for the worse. That might be true (haven't played much of 'em, I wouldn't know).

BTW motion blur should be banned

[Obiwanshinobi]

I can't believe this is on the same thread where people are nostalgic for mid-90s games.

The games are still around, performing silk-smoothly in high resolutions, with FA&AA if you want. Good thing about PC games is that you can at least hope to play them in all technical glory some day, even if your current machine is not up to the task.

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with 30 for slow exploration games, which is the majority of this generation.

I believe the performance to be the reason why these games are desiged to be on the slow side, not the other way round. It's N64 all over again (not as bad of course, but that wretched design philosophy seems to be rising from its grave).
Wii appears to be something of a parallel universe. Perhaps on Wii you can allow yourself to be indecent and make a decent game.

The issue isn't new, and I have trouble believing it's worse than it was on PSX, N64 (oh god!), PS2, or XBox.

How many generations of 3D-capable hardware it's been now, though? Games I bought a PS2 for - TPP action adventures - tended to perform better on that console.
The ones I know to run at more than 30 fps (at least in places) this gen: Devil May Cry 4 (well, I assume it does), God of War III, Dante's Inferno (solid 60 fps all the way on both consoles), Bayonetta (on 360), Ninja Gaidens, R&Cs (assumption again). Don't know about Way of the Samurai 3 (wasn't sober when I watched my buddy play it), Tomb Raiders and Conan. Hardly impressive number so late in the day.
On the PS2, however, most Capcom games (count them all) had smooth framerate (and oh boy, the gameplay and character animations were worth every frame). Then there goes MGS2 followed by The Bouncer, three J&D games, R&C (not sure about the sequels), supposedly the Sly series (haven't played those), The Mark of Kri (aesthetically off-putting game which performed smoothly nonetheless), Shinobi, Kunoichi (Nightshade), Blood Will Tell, a number of low profile slashers and platformers...
Backwards compatibility adds even more to the list. Omega Boost is pure tech porn (60 fps aside, just listen to the sound with good 2.1 setup or headphones - it'll blow you away) and a decent game at it. Look at action adventures released by Square alone: there was solid 30 fps stuff (Brave Fencer Musashi, Vagrant Story) and there was stuff reaching 60 fps when favourable winds blew (dungeon modes in Tobal 1&2 and Ehrgeiz, Cyber Org, Threads of Fate). If you consider Threads of Fate a spiritual sequel to Brave Fencer Musashi, it's quite stunning how they improved the textures, the models, the animations AND the performance. Oh yes, Ehrgeiz run in hi-res with textures, so cutting edge technology and 60 fps were to be found in one game even on the PSX.
Two generations down the line (for goodness' sake), is there at least one Square Enix game for the so-called HD consoles matching the performance of Einhänder? Even this gen tri-Ace games and that 0 Day Attack on Earth thing (arcade shooter) aren't exactly known from being all that smooth (unless these issues got fixed by now).
Furthermore, on the PSX 2D stuff looking and performing just dandy was still around: The Adventure of Little Ralph, Gunners Heaven, Silhouette Mirage, Rockman 8, arcade-perfect or near-perfect ports...
I know making a Square-slick game is a lot trickier these days than it used to be in late nineghties, but it's as if they all agreed that 60 fps is not worth the hassle. If this is the price to pay for progress, then what progress we're talking about?

In generations before, a game like Road Rash that was a complete slug would win awards, not to mention all the equally slow polygon games on home computers like Falcon, Stellar 7, or any number of other highly rated games.

I sometimes feel tempted to dust off my old Mac, give Spectre Supreme a go and check out my old scores, but I'm afraid seeing that game in motion now might be not worth the risk of disappointment.

BTW motion blur should be banned

Now you're being dogmatic. Permanent fulscreen motion blur is usually pretty lame (especially in badly performing games), but I can think of its many subtle applications enhancing the visuals. The tracelines glowing swords leave on their path in Einhänder and Brave Fencer Musashi (transparencies work a treat in the latter), or the speedlines appearing when you dash in Silent Bomber stand for motion blur done well in my book. Even the second's worth of fullscreen, software motion blur between your death and continue screen in Silent Bomber is something I can hardly imagine anybody having a beef with. It was too slow on the PSX to be of much use, but that particular touch was cool.

[louisg]

louisg wrote:
Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with 30 for slow exploration games, which is the majority of this generation.

I believe the performance to be the reason why these games are desiged to be on the slow side, not the other way round. It's N64 all over again (not as bad of course, but that wretched design philosophy seems to be rising from its grave).
Wii appears to be something of a parallel universe. Perhaps on Wii you can allow yourself to be indecent and make a decent game.

I don't think so; 3d games are just less twitch-oriented than 2d ones. A lot of times, you can't even have fast gameplay because the complexity of 3d controls and cameras is so much greater (e.g. could you imagine playing something as fast as Defender in 3d when you've got enemies behind you? I sure can't)

On the PS2, however, most Capcom games (count them all) had smooth framerate (and oh boy, the gameplay and character animations were worth every frame). Then there goes MGS2 followed by The Bouncer, three J&D games, R&C (not sure about the sequels), supposedly the Sly series (haven't played those), The Mark of Kri (aesthetically off-putting game which performed smoothly nonetheless), Shinobi, Kunoichi (Nightshade), Blood Will Tell, a number of low profile slashers and platformers...

Yeah, and I seem to remember a buggy and slow game called GTA taking top honors on that system somehow. And popping on random PS2 games like Silent Scope at friends' houses revealed plenty of bad framerates. If I wanted to dig through the library of top games, I'm sure I could find a bunch (I'd expect those WWII FPS games to all be pretty jumpy, for example.. haven't played them on that particular system myself; I remember one of the CoD games on GameCube being pretty choppy).

Anyway, there was plenty wrong with the previous generation that I could go on about, but maybe just the games you wanted to play were unusually well-executed. For instance, I liked arcade ports a lot, and shmups of course, and those were mostly all very slick. But if I strayed into made-for-console-land, I could find plenty of badly optimized and rushed crap very easily (e.g., GTA and R-Type Final just to name two). And then there's the stuff by Midway (D:)

Yep, I agree motion blur has its place, but I was thinking of the particular effect in which one frame is merged with a previous frame (I think blurred tail-lights and sword animations are just drawn on, in contrast). Whenever I think of motion blur, I always think of how muddy the first Metal Gear looked when it did that.