Topic: When did consoles become so complicated?

[Stogi]

More to the point, why is it necessary to become so complicated? And do all the features actually improve gaming?


I feel like Online is the trojan horse for all things expendable. Yes there is true value in bringing gamers together to play against one another or together, but simply because the system can go online, does it have to bring every feature an online product can?


Furthermore, innovations in gaming are rare these days. There are very few moments where something actually shocks me in the way its played. Does that dictate that more innovation is needed in how we interact with games? And are developers simply not able to expand genres or create new ones within a confined, traditional control scheme?

Lastly, is it the experience of gaming that has become more complicated or is it the framework behind them? And if either, is there a way to make them simpler or are we forever on a path towards something more complicated?

[bustin98]

The first two, I don't know/care. I just care that if there is an account system to track purchases that it isn't tied to the system where it was purchased.

Innovation is difficult to nail down. Mainly we are going to see streamlining or a different spin on an old idea. And really, those tend to be the most accepted. Radical ideas don't usually have all aspects nailed down, and some copycat and come along with a new spin and get it "right".

"complicated" is subjective. Can you provide a game and its aspects that you perceive as complicated? Or a number of games if you think the trend is going in that direction.

I do think games like The Witcher/ Monster Hunter are complicated, due to the nature of the stat building process, but it's that learning curve and once you get over the hump, then it's second nature. The challenge of the game is to be rewarding enough to encourage players to get over that hump. Actual button pushes are pretty nominal, except fighting games, in which case, yes they are complicated and I have a distinct lack of skill/desire of those games.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Look at our cell phones.

They are intended for talking on the phone when on the go.
But now that they are internet capable, they are expected to play games, take pics, browse the internet, watch movies/tv, word process, etc etc etc. basically be personal computers in your pocket.
We have been groomed for the all in one products.

Smart TV's, Smart Players, HTPC's, Roku's/Media Boxes - all adapted from bringing the internet into everything. It's expected that an internet connected experience will be provided all in 1 device... in almost every device now.

So if my entertainment box that is hooked to my TV is aiming to be the 1 box that I turn on everyday to accompany my television, then YES, I want it to provide as full of an experience as possible so that I don't need to switch inputs to watch Netflix, or Hulu, or check the internet or chat with a friend, or play a game.

It's too easy for other devices to compete and offer similar experiences, so for another device that wants to not be forgotten and/or be the one device I know I can turn on and to do almost whatever I want infront of my TV, then yes, it has to be that complex piece of machinery that do it all.

If someone like Nintendo wants to think that they are not competing with my smart player or game enabled media device for TV time, then they are sadly mistaken, and sales will show that.

[Adrock]

More to the point, why is it necessary to become so complicated? And do all the features actually improve gaming?

The short answers: it isn't and it doesn't.

I think Nintendo and Sony/Microsoft often try to justify the existence of consoles beyond their original intended purpose because the industry is still trying to figure out what it wants to be. Is it a separate kind of entertainment or is it part of merely part of the macrocosm of entertainment? Nintendo wants it to be just videogaming. Sony and Microsoft want gaming to be part of all entertainment. We can see this in their approaches. That's why Nintendo keeps pitching new controllers. Their focus is on providing different kinds of play. They don't really want you to stop playing videogames. Sony and Microsoft pitch these all-in-one devices. They don't want you leaving the living room when you stop playing videogames. It's a subtle difference with very different results.

I, personally, prefer Nintendo's approach because I really don't need or want half the **** Sony and Microsoft include in their consoles. It didn't really bother me before because I could just ignore the extras I didn't care about. What's annoying (and kind of creepy) is that it's becoming more difficult to ignore those things because they're becoming more intrusive. Sony has a Share button on the Dual Shock 4. I don't want to fucking share anything. I just want to play videogames and without having to worry about accidentally telling everyone how awful I am at it, goddamit. And Kinect 2.0 was incredibly invasive before Microsoft backed off.

I feel like Online is the trojan horse for all things expendable. Yes there is true value in bringing gamers together to play against one another or together, but simply because the system can go online, does it have to bring every feature an online product can?

I like the idea of online gaming more than I actually engage in it. I simply prefer being in the same room as others for multiplayer games. I don't think online gaming, even with video chat, can ever simulate that. Communication has evolved so much in the last 15 years. It's pretty cool how far technology has come in that time though it's kind of silly what people have done with it when you think about what people share on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter.

People like the idea of a connected world. We've never had it before. And who can argue with the convenience? And we can connect with people who share our interests. That's something l really like about Miiverse on a videogame console. The communities are centered around the games. I don't need to know what you ate for lunch. Tell me about the stage you're stuck on. Again, not all of it is useful, but it is nice how much more focused it is.

Furthermore, innovations in gaming are rare these days. There are very few moments where something actually shocks me in the way its played. Does that dictate that more innovation is needed in how we interact with games? And are developers simply not able to expand genres or create new ones within a confined, traditional control scheme?

Well, does something need to shock you in order to be enjoyable? I think there's a delicate balance. Certainly, I don't want to play the same thing over and over again, but I don't think everything has to shatter my mind to the point where I'm barely the same person anymore. Innovation can come in all shapes and sizes. Nintendo has introduced brand new ways to control videogames. They've also created Z-targeting. Innovation depends on what a developer wants to accomplish and how much they're limited by technology (though not so much anymore), budget, and publishers.

Lastly, is it the experience of gaming that has become more complicated or is it the framework behind them? And if either, is there a way to make them simpler or are we forever on a path towards something more complicated?

Technology has dictated how much more complicated videogames have become simply because developers want to try out their new toys. We've come to a point where we can do so much already so we may be returning to ideas. Before developers had to work within limitations and creativity sprung by what they couldn't do. Today, there are so few limitations and since they can create just about anything, it's less about pushing the bar in terms of technology and more about pushing the bar in terms of creativity.

[Ian Sane]

I think part of it is the entry of non-videogame companies like Sony and MS entering the market.  They have a lot of incentive to push non-gaming functionality to help other product lines, like Sony with Blu-Ray.  And as silly as this sounds, technology is more mainstream now.  Go back 20 years and most of the kids in my class were handing in handwritten assignments while I was like an extremely techy kid because I did assignments on the computer.  It was exceptional that my family even had a computer.  Now everyone is comfortable with high-tech gadgets which means that they all compete with each other.  Part of the idea of a console was that it was cheaper and easier to use than a computer so if you were only interested in games it was the ideal purchase.  But people are much more tech-savy now so they know how to use a computer or a tablet or a cellphone.  So now the console has to compete with these things.  Those devices can play games so a games-only machine seems under-featured.

Now we also have corporate-friendly ideas like DKC, microtransactions and just the ability to eventually remove the used game market by only offering downloads.  Obviously these companies will put those in, even if we never wanted them.  The ability to patch items allows for unpolished products to get out the door earlier.  These don't improve the experience for us gamers but it lets the publishers cut corners so they're going to put that functionality in.

As for items the directly affect the gameplay like online play and wacky controllers, the console makers know that they have to justify the need for new hardware every so many years.  So anything that can inspire new ideas, or at least provide the illusion of newness, is going to be considered.  We're going to reach that point where the advantages of new hardware pretty much doesn't exist and we could be there already.  But that's not good for the console-makers so they need to make us think we need extra doodads.  Hell Nintendo started the whole gimmick controller thing with the Wii, which was effectively just another Gamecube.  The only way to sell us something so utterly redundant was to push a new control scheme.  In reality videogames are mature enough that the "easy" improvements have been done.  You can do almost anything so it's all in the content and how much time and money you put into it.  Of course, that's incredibly intimidating so instead you make the same bullshit you always did but put in waggle controls or Kinect or the share button or whatever and hope enough people don't notice.

[ShyGuy]

Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated?

[nickmitch]

I think as far as the innovation thing is concerned, the video game industry is just following the movie industry.  There's a reason why Hollywood likes sequels over new, creative works.  Budgets are high, and publishers need to be assured that their investments will pay off.  Meanwhile, you find more innovative titles in the indie scene.

[lolmonade]

I will say that I miss the days where I could pop in the disc, play a quick intro (PS2/Gamecube) in case you forgot what system you were playing, and go right to the game.
 
Anyone know if any of the next-gen consoles have an option to hold down a button and skip the menu straight for the game, or some function similar to that?

[Ian Sane]

I will say that I miss the days where I could pop in the disc, play a quick intro (PS2/Gamecube) in case you forgot what system you were playing, and go right to the game.
 
Anyone know if any of the next-gen consoles have an option to hold down a button and skip the menu straight for the game, or some function similar to that?

The PS2/Gamecube intros are what you long for?  I remember when you put the game in, pressed "start" and were playing.  Check out the intro to Super Mario Bros. 3.  The game loads so fast that by the time I've backed away from turning the NES on to where I want to sit the game has been ready for me to hit start for several seconds already.  I remember NBA Jam had unskippable credits and it frustrated the hell out of me.  "Damn it, let me start the game!"  But there were legal reasons why all those credits had to be shown and that's what often annoyed me on the Gamecube.  Company X paid for their shoes or some **** to be worn in the game so the intro screen better flash their logo and I, the player, better never ever skip by it even when it's the hundredth time I've played the game.  I actually find the same problems with DVDs.  I want to get to the menu ASAP but there will be warning about piracy or a preview that I can't skip but on VHS, I could fast-forward through absolutely anything.

I also feel like I can't turn off a game easily.  In the old days I just turned off the power.  But now I feel I should formally quit the game to go back to the menu and then turn the system off.  I'm afraid if I don't some save data will get corrupted or something.  This became common as an adult so it hasn't been to real of an issue but as a kid it was normal to get "turn off that game right this instant" from one's mother and explaining save points was already complicated enough.  It must suck for kids today having to explain to their mom why they have to go through a whole ritual to turn the damn game off and get to their homework or go to bed or whatever.

[nickmitch]

I always thought the GC intro was giving me time to sit down and get comfortable before the game started.

I also have that problem with turning off my Wii U.  I'm more inclined to just leave it and let it auto-off than hitting the power button because I don't feel like backing out (which I have no reason to do).  Sure, I can just hit the damn button, but getting reminded that I need to save makes me paranoid that I didn't.

[Ian Sane]

I always thought the GC intro was giving me time to sit down and get comfortable before the game started.

I also have that problem with turning off my Wii U.  I'm more inclined to just leave it and let it auto-off than hitting the power button because I don't feel like backing out (which I have no reason to do).  Sure, I can just hit the damn button, but getting reminded that I need to save makes me paranoid that I didn't.

Yes!  It would be nice if Nintendo's games didn't remind me to save if I already did!  Too many times I've second guessed myself.  At least just show the time of when I last saved.  If it was five seconds ago, I know I'm fine.  If it was half an hour ago then I need to save.  I've literally gotten such warnings when I saved and did not even close the menu before quitting.  How could I have possibly lost any progress if I didn't even return control to my character?

[nickmitch]

Well, you could've just done a bunch of equipping.