Rage in Edge Magazine

[Shapeless]

The latest issue of Edge Magazine has an 8 page preview of Rage with some new screenshots. As an aside, the preview of Rage in the Playstation magazine just rehashed information from the Game Informer cover story. It explained that nano-tech is the reason for your regenerating health.

[DooMAD]

Shapeless said:

It explained that nano-tech is the reason for your regenerating health.

And I thought it was fad bandwagoning.

[kristus]

Shapeless said:

It explained that nano-tech is the reason for your regenerating health.

I'm confused. Is that supposed to make me feel better about this detrimental to game play mechanic?

[Shapeless]

I guess it's like when games explain a hud with a computer screen display in your glasses like in Sin.

[Mr. Freeze]

Shapeless said:

regenerating health.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

[kristus]

I was being sarcastic. They can come up with any explanation they want. It still is full of fail.

[DaniJ]

I think its time every one just learned to accept that the id software of today is just another console-centric game developer. If you read the article it is virtually an admission/testament to that fact. The sad thing is that it may even be the pc gaming community at large to blame, due to the rampant piracy on the platform. Sadly its becoming an all too familiar story and whats worse is that its a downward spiral.

[Kaiser]

kristus said:

I was being sarcastic. They can come up with any explanation they want. It still is full of fail.

You would be surprised just how hard it is to aim in console FPS. While honestly I don't see this feature as a appropriate solution, its a convenient way to prevent frustrations from the player when playing on a constrained gamepad.

DaniJ said:

The sad thing is that it may even be the pc gaming community at large to blame, due to the rampant piracy on the platform.

Thats part of it. Problem goes all the way back to the first Halo game and the Xbox. Because M$ is good with marketing (and I can't stress this enough) on this Halo game, it attracted a shitload of people who are new to FPS games or games in general and these features that made it appealing to the audience suddenly became a industry standard to attract the average joe.

[exp(x)]

Part of the problem is that good video cards alone cost as much as a console.

[DaniJ]

So then, buy a console :P

Being serious though, a video card with the capabilities to match the Xbox 360 can be picked up for less than 30 GBP where I live.

[kristus]

Kaiser said:

You would be surprised just how hard it is to aim in console FPS. While honestly I don't see this feature as a appropriate solution, its a convenient way to prevent frustrations from the player when playing on a constrained gamepad.

Not really. I'm well aware of how horrible it is to play FPS with a game pad. I just get frustrated that the PC gamers have to suffer for the stupid consoles sake.

[Kaiser]

kristus said:

Not really. I'm well aware of how horrible it is to play FPS with a game pad. I just get frustrated that the PC gamers have to suffer for the stupid consoles sake.

Majority of people are buying console games, thus most industries say 'fuck you' to the PC crowd. Take CliffyB from Epic for example.

Also, most games are being developed on consoles first, and on PC second. Developers don't bother with tweaking the gameplay on the PC platform and just leave it as is. Fear2 is a good example of what I mean..

[kristus]

Yeah. But these games aren't about gaming. It's just interactive movies.

[DaniJ]

FWIW I totally agree with you. If it weren't for the combat and minor diversion of "item quests" in the new Batman game for example, it couldn't be more linear if it tried.

Unfortunately, the nannying that is so prevalent in console games appears to be exactly what that audience is demanding. So who can blame the industry for giving the majority what they want?

Mega budget development on games primarily targeted for the much more demanding PC gamer is becoming less and less viable because the market is basically imploding.

At least with id software we can be fairly confident that they won't 'forget' how to implement a decent keyboard+mouse control system.

[Graf Zahl]

DaniJ said:

Mega budget development on games primarily targeted for the much more demanding PC gamer is becoming less and less viable because the market is basically imploding.

Not surprising. The games are getting worse, less people buy them so less money is invested in the next generation and the games get worse...

And so on. The companies are completely ignoring that PC gaming needs different standards than consoles. It's a completely different target audience.

Each time I hear 'console port' I know it's a disappointment. This hasn't started with Halo. Even a supposed classic like Tomb Raider was suffering from utterly crappy control settings on the PC.

[exp(x)]

DaniJ said:

So then, buy a console :P

No shit. My point was that developers are moving away from PCs because of this. I'm not a gamer, so I couldn't care less.

Being serious though, a video card with the capabilities to match the Xbox 360 can be picked up for less than 30 GBP where I live.

But would it be able to run Rage? It's true that consoles have lower-end hardware, but they are dedicated machines.

[Shapeless]

the Magazine is like 16 bucks plus tax up here in Canada. which means I may have to read the 8 pages in a few sittings. sounds like alot to read but then again the pictures take up some space.

[hardcore_gamer]

kristus said:

I was being sarcastic. They can come up with any explanation they want. It still is full of fail.

I don't think so. I honesty can't understand why people whine so much about games having regenerating health. It makes the game flow better as you can focus on the combat without having to worry about looking for medkits all over the place and it also ensures that you won't have to face a boss battle with only 7% of your original health left.

Some argue that having regenerating health removes the penalty from getting shot, but that just depends on the game. If your playing a game where you can only take a reasonable amount of damage before dieing then finding your self in a horrid combat situation is going to get you killed just the same as it would in any other game that does not feature regenerating health.

DaniJ said:

I think its time every one just learned to accept that the id software of today is just another console-centric game developer.

When is the baseless console hate going to stop?

Company's make there games for the consoles because that is were the largest consumer base is. The whole "console gamers are inferior" attitude also needs to stop.

kristus said:

Yeah. But these games aren't about gaming. It's just interactive movies.

And what makes a game a interactive movie? Not being able to blow shit up every 30 seconds?

Allot of people including me love being sucked into the world and atompshere of the game they are playing and creating cool worlds for the player to explore and people to talk to can really give him the impression that he is walking/driving around on a real world. Why do you think people like games like Fallout 3?

[Graf Zahl]

hardcore_gamer said:

And what makes a game a interactive movie? Not being able to blow shit up every 30 seconds?

Something where you go through the game without being able to make any real decisions. See Quake 4 for a really bad example. No matter where you go, all doors are locked except for the one behind which your next task lies. Once that task is completed another door opens and a previous passage closes.

[DaniJ]

Graf Zahl said:

...a supposed classic like Tomb Raider was suffering from utterly crappy control settings on the PC.

To be fair, Tomb Raider's controls were utterly crappy on console too :)

hardcore_gamer said:

And what makes a game a interactive movie? Not being able to blow shit up every 30 seconds?

Graf Zahl said:

Something where you go through the game without being able to make any real decisions.

Another fine example is the new Batman game. When you get to an obvious "story progression point" there is only ever one way to go and whats worse, its generally telegraphed to the point where you have to be a complete retard to miss it. There is one memorable point in the game just before you enter the penitentiary where you are seemingly offered a choice of entry points!!! Sadly you soon realize that the airvent which you think is another way in actually turns out to be nothing but a dead end (thats right, a ventilation system that doesn't actually ventilate anywhere).

hardcore_gamer said:

When is the baseless console hate going to stop?

Company's make there games for the consoles because that is were the largest consumer base is. The whole "console gamers are inferior" attitude also needs to stop.

Most right-thinking people don't think that "console gamers are inferior". What they are most likely referring to is how dumbed down console games tend to be when compared to games designed primarily for PC users.

Console gaming in general is far more laid back, perhaps due to being sat further away from the display and the mechanics of the input devices (i.e., gamepads) themselves. More likely however due to the manner in which console games are consumed i.e., they aren't meant to be intense experiences that deeply involve the player because the player is typically either; so young as to be more captivated by the spectacle, or old enough to have a job and commitments.

PC gaming on the other hand, is a very niche market. PC gamers demand an incredibly rich game experience which they are willing to commit time to if deserved.

In general, you 'pilot' a console game, where as, you 'direct' a "computer system" game.

[hardcore_gamer]

DaniJ said:

Most right-thinking people don't think that "console gamers are inferior". What they are most likely referring to is how dumbed down console games tend to be when compared to games designed primarily for PC users.

Console gaming in general is far more laid back, perhaps due to being sat further away from the display and the mechanics of the input devices (i.e., gamepads) themselves. More likely however due to the manner in which console games are consumed i.e., they aren't meant to be intense experiences that deeply involve the player because the player is typically either; so young as to be more captivated by the spectacle, or old enough to have a job and commitments.

PC gaming on the other hand, is a very niche market. PC gamers demand an incredibly rich game experience which they are willing to commit time to if deserved.

In general, you 'pilot' a console game, where as, you 'direct' a 'computer system' game.

I sort of agree and disagree with that. It is true that you can't really have games like Civ4 on a console (Well there was a console only Civ game for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 but the game was extremely simple compared to Civ4 on the PC) but i really don't agree with your claim that you can't "direct" or get immersed into the game your playing if your playing it on a console. And some games i can only get immersed into if i am playing them on a TV screen, like Mass Effect for the Xbox 360.

[DaniJ]

Note that I didn't mention immersion, or indeed atmosphere. I deliberately used the word 'involve'. An 'involvement' typically means something much deeper.

[hardcore_gamer]

DaniJ said:

Note that I didn't mention immersion, or indeed atmosphere. I deliberately used the word 'involve'. An 'involvement' typically means something much deeper.

Ok, how much deeper exactly?

[gemini09]

Graf Zahl said:

Something where you go through the game without being able to make any real decisions. See Quake 4 for a really bad example. No matter where you go, all doors are locked except for the one behind which your next task lies. Once that task is completed another door opens and a previous passage closes.

Well, to be fair, you are a marine and your job is to follow orders, and not to wander off and see if you can find random baddies and health packs in your own spaceship.

Personally I appreciate the story elements and the move towards more realism.

And I'm all for regenerating health. It does take away some aspects of the game, but if that's the sacrifice to make the game go easier on the new players and make the game a success for the company, I'm all for it. It's also a lot more orderly, as it otherwise is dependent on the level design and that's a lot harder to balance, especially for new players who have no idea they should be looking for health, and where to look.

[LordHavoc]

My own opinion of regenerating health is generally a positive one.

For new players, there are few things more annoying than saving the game and getting killed repeatedly because you did not know what to anticipate in the game (isn't that part of the fun?) and saved with 15 health before a boss battle.

For this reason I implemented regenerating health in the DarkPlaces Mod many years ago, it compensated for the nearly instagib-like monster damage, if you weren't dead, you would use up 3 rooms worth of health packs to get back to norm, and then be out of them if you get hurt again, it was a balance change but a necessary one.

Furthermore, health packs scattered around a level are illogical at best, and oppressive / frustrating at worst.

A somewhat opposing approach was demonstrated in Duke Nukem Manhattan Project where instead of Health you have Ego, which increases (over 100) with each kill, and goes down over time, so if you have a good kill streak you are unusually tough and can carry on playing fast and loose, which gives the game a different kind of momentum to its play style.

A parallel exists in ammo replenishment in levels - if the level designer does not anticipate the needs of the player (a nearly impossible task), it can be frustrating, and many ammo packs go untaken because the player is already at their limit for an ammo type they do not use much.

My own preference has always been looting corpses for equipment, it's a more rewarding mechanic than "sit behind this pillar while you wait for a timer to expire so you can make another foolhardy attempt in the fire fight" which the majority of modern console games use.

[Graf Zahl]

gemini09 said:

Well, to be fair, you are a marine and your job is to follow orders, and not to wander off and see if you can find random baddies and health packs in your own spaceship.

... thus negating the point of a game. The hero in Doom is also a marine - but look what he can do: Explore the entire level without restrictions. And if you want to see a task based level that is not linear, look no further than Nimrod's MAP07. You get your mission (find some crates and destroy them) but after that it's up to you how to do it - no retarded game mechanics that get screwed up if you do things out of sequence are in play.

Another great example is the Descent 3 level where you on that destroyer starship. You have your task but can go at it like you want in one insanely huge level. Granted, I think that this level is almost too non-linear as you can get lost easily - but it sure serves to disprove the point you are trying to make.

Personally I appreciate the story elements and the move towards more realism.

One could say that the primary focus on these 2 things is what kills all gameplay innovation and fun. Far too much work gets invested in technicalities. It all amounts to making the game look good instead of making the game good (which is not the same, I might point out!)

[LordHavoc]

Graf Zahl said:

One could say that the primary focus on these 2 things is what kills all gameplay innovation and fun. Far too much work gets invested in technicalities. It all amounts to making the game look good instead of making the game good (which is not the same, I might point out!)

I am always frustrated by linear story-driven games and have been calling them a plague on the industry for as long as I can remember, I want to approach problems my own way, even a game with multiple sandbox levels is more interesting to me than one without any sandbox elements.

Example: FarCry let you wander around a lot in the early levels, it was still boxed in and you soon found the limits, but it was not "on rails" in the same sense as most games, you were free to sneak past outposts, wipe them out with guns blazing, snipe them from a distance and shoot down a helicopter that came in retaliation...

I'm also rather fond of STALKER which is in a similar vein (as far as being a series of sandbox levels, with the ability to return to earlier areas - and indeed, often a need to do so).

I'm not mentioning Fallout3 here because that's more RPG than FPS.

I'm saddened by the lack of research into sandbox games these days, there was a time when many games simply defined the rules, provided a rudimentary backstory, and then set you off on your own to figure out how exactly you were supposed to win - now these games are called "strategy games" and "sandbox games" depending on genre (examples of modern attempts at this kind of you're-on-your-own gameplay include FarCry2 and Prototype).

[gemini09]

I think it's odd to complain that you can't wander around in an almost random manner in today's games, like you could in games a decade ago.

There has been made room for story and more interaction as the technology has progressed. If you have a serious (or call it just logical) story, you pretty much need the gameplay to be logical too. And that's where some elements of the older games fall out.

I'm saddened by the lack of research into sandbox games these days, there was a time when many games simply defined the rules, provided a rudimentary backstory, and then set you off on your own to figure out how exactly you were supposed to win

Have you heard of the Sega game, Super Monkey Ball?

What did you want from Doom 3, exactly? "Hell has broken loose - stop the invasion"? Or just to be able to take an elevator instead of the stairs on your next mission?

[Zaldron]

o noes my pc gaming is dying blah blah etc.

I've been hearing this for the past decade.

[Fredrik]

Zaldron said:

o noes my pc gaming is dying blah blah etc.

I've been hearing this for the past decade.

Sounds about right. The last good PC game I played is about 10 years old now.