Let's have an argument about game design

[Esrever]

I have to agree about Halo 2. "Good for a console shooter" doesn't really cut it for me, because I own a computer. I've never gotten used to using twin sticks in an FPS... I just don't have that kind of precision in my thumbs.

But the game should account for that, and, I think, does. And just because Halo doesn't have controls that work for you doesn't mean that no console FPS can-- they just need to be designed with console controllers in mind.

I don't think a functional FPS, as least not fitting the accepted definition of the genre, CAN be designed with console controllers in mind. I think they are completely at odds with each other. An FPS is generally all about quick and precise movement and aiming. Neither of these things are possible on a dual joystick setup, except maybe to a very grisled and dexterous minority. And I don't think piling on a ton of auto aim to compensate for the clunkiness of joysticks is a particularly endearing compromise.

[Popcorn]

I don't think a functional FPS, as least not fitting the accepted definition of the genre, CAN be designed with console controllers in mind. I think they are completely at odds with each other. An FPS is generally all about quick and precise movement and aiming.

Completely untrue. All you have to do is design a control scheme that allows for the 'quickest and most precise' movement possible on a controller (which naturally isn't gonig to be as quick or precise as a mouse), and then accommodate the design of the game to that specification. Not every FPS has to be as fast and precise as Quake was on the PC. Console FPS games tend to feel weaker than their PC counterparts largely because they haven't been designed with one format in mind, as successful console FPS games (Halo, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark) have been.

Neither of these things are possible on a dual joystick setup, except maybe to a very grisled and dexterous minority. And I don't think piling on a ton of auto aim to compensate for the clunkiness of joysticks is a particularly endearing compromise.

But you don't need to make it so that you necessarily need to be as fast at aiming on a console game as you do on a PC game. Halo, for example, is designed deliberately to accommodate slower and more thoughtful combat than, say, Unreal or Half-Life, and when you're playing multiplayer, everyone else is using the same controller as you so there's no disadvantage-- the game is just designed to not require the sort of precision facilitated by a mouse. I guess as a Halo fan I am part of the 'grisled and dextrous minority' who don't have a problem with it.

[Esrever]

Halo doesn't accomodate "thoughtful" combat! It accomodates running around and shooting in the general direction of someone. Removing precision removes the ability to be thoughtful, because your ability to actually aim for specific targets is reduced. It removes one of the primary sources of depth in an FPS, which isn't inherently a problem except that it doesn't replace it with anything else worthwhile. It's a game of minuses... it takes away things other FPS's have and then compensates by adding nothing.

The fact that all the other players have this same handicap is irrelevant. I could make a fighting game that only has one move, and that would have balanced multiplayer too. But it would still suck, because it would be boring. Halo is boring too.

And for the record, Golden Eye and Perfect Dark were ALSO terrible. Have you ever gone back and actually tried to PLAY those clunkers again? That's what Halo is going to feel like in another five years.

(By the way I really don't like Halo very much.)

[Light Speed]

First off, when I say Halo, I mean Halo 2, just to clarify. You may not be able to aim as fast in Halo, but you can definately aim precise. For instance, if a person with a SMG/Plasma Rifle combo is charging at a guy with a Battle Rifle, the guy with the Battle Rifle can win, but only if he nails 3 headshots. It is very doable, but depending on the skill of the players, that fight could easily go either way.

No offense, but your argument makes it sound like you just really suck at Halo. By some of your descriptions everyone would pretty much be equally good once they learned all the maps.

[Segaholic2]

And for the record, Golden Eye and Perfect Dark were ALSO terrible. Have you ever gone back and actually tried to PLAY those clunkers again? That's what Halo is going to feel like in another five years.

Ugh, tell me about it. Every Nintendo fanboy in existence thinks those two games are the holy grail of FPSes and they're SHIT, not to mention that they've aged more than Bob Hope. I hated those games back then, and I hate them even more now. I'd definitely choose to play Halo over those two puddles of steaming piss.

[Popcorn]

Halo doesn't accomodate "thoughtful" combat! It accomodates running around and shooting in the general direction of someone.

Au contraire: I'd suggest that Halo encourages considerably more strategic combat than its contemparies. Yes, it's a fast-paced run-and-gun shooter, but that doesn't mean it can't be 'thoughtful'. I think Half-Life 2 is an infinitely superior game, but Halo trumps it on combat. It's far deeper than a simple arcade-style reaction time contest... the recharging shields, offhand grenades, melee attacks, instant kills for attacks from the rear, an arsenal of weapons with no obvious heirarchy of guns-- suggesting that Halo is about "running around and shooting in the general direction of someone" is like saying Virtua Fighter is about "pressing buttons and sort of trying to hurt the other guy". If you don't want to suck at Halo-- and I rather suspect you suck at Halo-- you have to take the deeper implications of its design into account.

Removing precision removes the ability to be thoughtful, because your ability to actually aim for specific targets is reduced. It removes one of the primary sources of depth in an FPS,

What the fuck? Precise aiming is 'a primary source of depth' in the FPS genre, is it? What about such seemingly irrelevent game staples like, I don't know, level design, game design? You're oversimplifying the genre. More than most FPSs, Halo is very strongly combat-driven (being pretty much the driving reason for its multiplayer longevity), and I'd argue that it has by far the richest combat system of any FPS... how you can argue that aiming precision is a defining factor of 'thoughtfulness' in the genre absolutely bewilders me. What the hell, man?

I think where you're going wrong is with the assumption that there's something absolutely inherent to FPSs that means that complete and total aiming precision is an totally and immovably essential to the genre. It's not. All you have to do is design the game so it's not. Even if you don't like the games that have so far attempted it, I think it's madness to suggest that such a game could point-blank never be successful.

The fact that all the other players have this same handicap is irrelevant. I could make a fighting game that only has one move, and that would have balanced multiplayer too.

A good point well made.

And for the record, Golden Eye and Perfect Dark were ALSO terrible. Have you ever gone back and actually tried to PLAY those clunkers again?

Yeah, and they're definitely dated. But they came out like ten years ago... are you saying it's weird that they've aged badly? For the record, every game on the N64 feels like ass to me now thanks to the clunky analogue stick. We're used to better now, and the N64 shooters are no exception.

Ugh, tell me about it. Every Nintendo fanboy in existence thinks those two games are the holy grail of FPSes and they're SHIT, not to mention that they've aged more than Bob Hope.

I liked them at the time, but there's no denying that they don't stand up well now. Nonetheless, I would cite them as evidence for successful attempts at designing console FPSs for console controls, flaws and all.

[Esrever]

What the fuck? Precise aiming is 'a primary source of depth' in the FPS genre, is it? What about such seemingly irrelevent game staples like, I don't know, level design, game design?

Well, I would have brought up the boring level design as well, but I thought we were having an argument about controls. I'm saying the controls in Halo 2 suck. But I have lots of opinions about how the rest of the game sucks, too.

Easy precision aiming is an important staple of most first person shooters. Having the ability to easily and accurately aim for specific areas of a certain target, or a target that is very far away, are part of what gives these games depth and allows them to accomodate multiple playstyles.

These multiple playstyles are reflected in the weapons selection. You can take the lowpower rapidfire option and run in with guns blazing and broad aiming. Or, you can choose the highpower low-ammo option and rely on a small number of carefully aimed shots at specific areas on the enemies body. In most balanced FPS games, each weapon falls somewhere between these two options, and you pick the option that best fits how you want to play. Why do so many PC-to-console shooter ports suck? Because the loss of precision renders a portion of your arsenal useless.

And its not just ports. Golden Eye tried to use this model, too. Certain areas of the body, like the head, took more damage and rewarded accuracy. But it was totally defective because actually aiming for anything other than the chest was ridiculously difficult with that control setup. It worked in sneaking situations, where you had lots of time to aim, but in actual firefights there was no time to apply it and generally everything degraded into a big boring chest-shooting button mash. I'm sure it was really great for an n64 game, but so what? I don't give out a "least defective" award for attempts to translate genres into formats where they don't function properly. We were used to better before the game was even released.

Halo isn't as defective, but it still has problems. Aiming with a joystick is just not very easy to do. The speed at which your aim turns is being controlled by your ability to hold a tiny stub 2 mm to the left instead of 4 or 6, while the stub itself is always pushing back on you to center itself. The lack of precision aiming means the gameplay always winds up gravitating towards the "lots of bullets, little aiming" playstyle rather than making it just one in a series of viable options. That removes one of the most interesting dynamics in FPS games, and in my opinion, Halo doesn't compensate by replacing that dynamic with anything nearly as interesting. All the things you mentioned... the gernades, the melle attacks, the instant kills from the rear... everything other than the recharging shield (which IS interesting) can be found in other existing FPS games, along with a lot of other things that Halo DOESN'T have.

Also, the level design is bland and unmemorable and the art direction matches it perfectly. And how does anyone ever manage to drag themselves through the snoozefest one player campaign at all? I don't mean to keep crapping on everything you're saying, Pop, but I've played a fair bit of Halo 2 at lan parties and I honestly do not understand the fuss about it whatsoever.

[Popcorn]

Easy precision aiming is an important staple of most first person shooters. Having the ability to easily and accurately aim for specific areas of a certain target, or a target that is very far away, are part of what gives these games depth and allows them to accomodate multiple playstyles.

These multiple playstyles are reflected in the weapons selection. You can take the lowpower rapidfire option and run in with guns blazing and broad aiming. Or, you can choose the highpower low-ammo option and rely on a small number of carefully aimed shots at specific areas on the enemies body. In most balanced FPS games, each weapon falls somewhere between these two options, and you pick the option that best fits how you want to play.

I think that's just plain untrue. You're placing far too much emphasis on the importance of being able to aim with huge amounts of speed-- there are just far too many other factors involved to put it all down to that single factor. You can argue against Halo all you want, but what I take exception to is this suggestion that no FPS can ever function without super-accurate, super-quick aiming, because all you need to do is change the game's design so you don't need to. Halo does it by being somewhat slower than other FPS titles. If you think it fails, fine, whatever, but don't give me this 'FPSs are absolutely better with a mouse under all circumstances' shit because as far as I'm concerned it's factually untrue.

Why do so many PC-to-console shooter ports suck? Because the loss of precision renders a portion of your arsenal useless.

No, they suck for the same reason so many console-to-PC ports suck: they were developed with their native format in mind and not sufficiently altered to accommodate their new habitats. The phenomenon is in no way limited to FPS ports.

[Esrever]

I don't think its NECESSARY for a shooter to have fast, accurate controls. I think the Metroid Prime series has perfectly functional controls, and it doesn't really even let you aim at all. I just don't think Halo's design moves far enough away from the PC shooter formula to compensate for the loss of quick aiming. In my opinion, it just plays like a handicapped version of the same thing, it still feels like they have grafter a controller onto the genre because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to. Halo still rewards precision aiming, after all... it just makes precision aiming a lot harder to do.

[Popcorn]

I don't think its NECESSARY for a shooter to have fast, accurate controls.

Well, why the fuck didn't you say that in the first place? You know, instead of saying: 'I don't think a functional FPS, as least not fitting the accepted definition of the genre, CAN be designed with console controllers in mind. I think they are completely at odds with each other.'

[Esrever]

When I said "fitting the accepted definition of the genre", I was trying to narrow it down to the specific style of game that most people associate with an "FPS"... you know, games like Doom, CS, Goldeneye, Halo... but not not Metroid Prime or, say, Killer 7, even though they are essentially FPS's in the completely literal sense of the term.

Let me try to be less vague. I don't think that the genre that includes Unreal and Doom functions with a console controller. I think Halo and Goldeneye are examples of how that kind of gameplay becomes restricted and cumbersome. I think that making it work on a console controller without being frustrating (at least for me) requires stepping further away from the PC FPS formula than Halo. Metroid Prime is an example of a formula that does work, although it is certainly not the only possible forumla, and is so different from a PC FPS that it might not be right to place it in the same genre at all.

[Light Speed]

Let me try to be less vague. I don't think that the genre that includes Unreal and Doom functions with a console controller. I think Halo and Goldeneye are examples of how that kind of gameplay becomes restricted and cumbersome. I think that making it work on a console controller without being frustrating (at least for me) requires stepping further away from the PC FPS formula than Halo. Metroid Prime is an example of a formula that does work, although it is certainly not the only possible forumla, and is so different from a PC FPS that it might not be right to place it in the same genre at all.

I get what you are saying, but I think this is more personal to you. Most people agree that the mouse and keyboard control is superior to the dual joystick, but I think most people don't find the dual joysticks nearly as cumbersome as you do. I personally like them better, but I attribute that to me being a console whore and having way more expierience with them.

All the things you mentioned... the gernades, the melle attacks, the instant kills from the rear... everything other than the recharging shield (which IS interesting) can be found in other existing FPS games, along with a lot of other things that Halo DOESN'T have.

I might be wrong about this, but I think most if not all FPS's did not have the secondhand grenades, or the one hit kill rear melee attack until Halo. Hell, I don't even remember that many games having melee attacks period until Halo. I'd say the only thing Halo doesn't have compared to a lot of its PC counterparts is that absolute precision aiming, but you can still quite easily go with the sniper approach over the run and gun if the level allows it. Take for instance Lockout, it has two 'sniper towers' and a bunch of pathways leading to open rooms with multiple floors. If you want you can grab the battle rifle off one tower and start three headshotting people from their, or grab the sniper rifle from the other tower. One head shot or two bodyshots and the persons dead. It really isn't that hard to land a headshot once you have had any small amount of practice. Or you can stay down below and grab the sword or machine gun weapons/shotgun down below. A good player will try to utilize all these throughout a game rather than sticking with one or the other.

It sounds like you almost just have a personal vendetta against the dual joysticks. I know they are 'harder' but I wouldn't say it makes the entire genre unfunctional on consoles. Especially since they are some of my favorite games on consoles.

[Esrever]

I definitely have a vendetta against them, because I never get better at using them no matter how hard I try. I realize that not everyone suffers from this problem, but I know I'm not the only one. And the fact is, if you provide me with two controller options and one is easier to use than the other, I'm going to criticize the other one. I especially have trouble going backwards in ease of use. Remember playing 3D platformers with a dpad? No one yearns for that.

Is the melee attack from behind that different functionally from, say, shanking someone from behind with the knife in CS?

[BlazeHedgehog]

I think the Melee functionality is different, yes. In Halo, you can cold-cock pretty much anybody with any gun you have with the press of a button. Same goes for throwing grenades.

In most FPSes (CS included), you have to specifically switch to the grenade as a weapon, or switch to your melee attack. That means you have to put down the gun you are currently holding to do this. Halo eliminates that; you can press a button and do it without switching to anything.

[Esrever]

Right. And that's a good example of an adjustment made due to the limitations of the controller that is successful. It's very awkward to switch weapons using something like the dpad, so anything that reduces the need to switch is welcomed. I'm pretty sure that was the reasoning behind the entire dual weilding system Halo uses... to eliminate the need to toggle through weapon menus.

But on the PC, switching weapons is not very difficult, so using gernades or melee attacks or multiple firearms is not exactly uncommon. So it's not like Halo is introducing a new element here... just making an old element work on a console. And if it managed to make ALL the old elements work, it would succeed in being a completely functional but still pretty generic FPS.

[Baba O'Reily]

I think that preference is largely centered around the format that you started with. I prefer the dual joysticks to the mouse-and-keyboard format mostly because I'm used to the joysticks, and because I hate dealing with any sensitivity issues that my mouse may be feeling at the moment.

[Popcorn]

Right. And that's a good example of an adjustment made due to the limitations of the controller that is successful. It's very awkward to switch weapons using something like the dpad, so anything that reduces the need to switch is welcomed. I'm pretty sure that was the reasoning behind the entire dual weilding system Halo uses... to eliminate the need to toggle through weapon menus.

But on the PC, switching weapons is not very difficult, so using gernades or melee attacks or multiple firearms is not exactly uncommon. So it's not like Halo is introducing a new element here... just making an old element work on a console. And if it managed to make ALL the old elements work, it would succeed in being a completely functional but still pretty generic FPS.

I don't mean to add fuel to the "is Halo good or bad" debate, but, well... here we are. Okay: they're not just sacrifices made to accommodate the limitations of the Xbox controller. They're completely legitimate design features. It's not like "well, if we could swap weapons more easily then we'd let the player carry a hundred different ones at a time"-- there's a real possibility the context of the controller was a factor in making the decision, but the end result is a very rich and balanced weaponry system. Unlike most FPSs, there's no real hierarchy of guns in Halo, with each weapon suiting different purposes at different times, so choosing what to carry when plays an enormous role in the game. Once again, I think you're underestimating the game's design philosophy. Halo isn't a poor man's FPS hampered by the limitations of a console controller, it's an entirely separate approach to the genre.

The other things mentioned-- offhand grenades, only-two-weapons, melee attacks-- are, or were, very unique to Halo; yes, you can throw grenades in other FPSs, or use melee attacks, or whatever, but what you're missing here is the ingenious way Halo takes all these genre staples and weaves them into an innovative overarching design scheme that ends up having a drastic and tangible influence on how the game ultimately works. The way grenades are used in Halo, for example, is very different to how they work in Half-Life 2: in Halo they're like a third pillar of combat, something you use every two minutes at your own tactical discretion, but in HL2 they're used pretty much exclusively in situations the game has specifically set up for them, such as puzzle-solving or against sentry turrets. That may seem like a trivial difference, but it exemplifies the dual design philosophies of either game. It kind of comes back to the first post: Half-Life 2 is very much on rails, whereas Halo's more richer, more comprehensive combat ethic means it's far more encouraging of emergent gameplay.

For the record, I think Half-Life 2 is very much better than Halo... its story, art direction, sense of immersion, environments and so on are far superior. Halo is overrated-- its plot is weak, its environments repetitive and its art direction, whilst pretty stellar in a lot of areas, is still pretty much 'butch Americans in space'-- but I still think it's a great series.

[Esrever]

I honestly can't say much about the single player mode in Halo or the multiplayer mode in HL2 because I haven't invested much time in either. But you're certainly right about how "on rails" HL2's one-player mode is. Except in those specific events where you are required to use a specific weapon, I pretty much stuck with the pistol the entire game. I'm not really sure how well that arsenal would translate to a multiplayer deathmatch.

I always thought CS had solid weapon's balance, provided you were playing on a map that didn't overly favour AWP use. But no one really plays CS anymore, except for people who've been playing for so long that they can slaughter me with their eyes closed. ;)