VOGONS


PC vs Console: An Old-Timer's Perspective

Topic actions

First post, by KT7AGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I readily admit that the last consoles I was passionate about were the SNES and Genesis. After that, MS-DOS and Windows 3.x systems had my full attention.

I recently started playing Halo, the PC port, and I have a few observations:

F*** this game! It should be amazing, but fails so spectacularly from a PC gamer's perspective.

It doesn't save my game at the point I tell it to.

When loading a game, it doesn't come back up with the save-point, inventory, location, etc, of the game I saved.

It automatically deletes previously saved games without notifying me or getting my permission.

I can load a saved game, and characters that died previously are now magically alive again.

I know that Halo is the game that drove MS and XBox to console prominence, but with my experience I can't begin to understand how it happened. Even back then, I would have balked at this craven foolishness and stupidity. The Sega Saturn and PSX/PS1 never treated its users with this level of intellectual condescension, contempt, and disrespect.

How in the world did this become "a thing"???
Are modern console games like this today???

Was this some sort of awful Win10 foreshadowing?

Reply 1 of 27, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Have you never played another game with checkpoint saves only?

Reply 2 of 27, by squiggly

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Halo was one of my favorite FPSs on PC in the early 2000s. It had a plain fun factor that a lot of other games didn't. Don't even remember the save system so it can't have been that bad, or that good I suppose.

Reply 3 of 27, by KT7AGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
F2bnp wrote:

Have you never played another game with checkpoint saves only?

I am showing my post-SNES and post-Genesis legacy old-age.

If this is the blueprint that contemporary systems are using, I'm glad I have clung to an older ideology in the post-SNES and post-Genesis era. When I tell a game to "save", I mean it, and I expect it to save that moment in time. I don't want it making decisions for me. Don't let anybody or anything think for you.

Moment-in-time saves are a good idea.
At one time, we told machines what to do. Let's not let them, or us, forget it just yet:

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

Reply 4 of 27, by F2bnp

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

While I agree that limiting saves in an FPS games is usually bollocks, can't really say the same for every game. Survival horror games for example would seriously lose a lot of their impact if I was mashing that F5 button all the time.

It just really stuck me as odd that you got fixated on this while playing Halo which is one of the finer FPS games from that era. It really isn't all that intrusive and if you find yourself frustrated, you can always lower the difficulty a notch.

Reply 5 of 27, by buckeye

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I've been playing Doom 3 & Quake 4 and you can pretty save whenever, didn't Halo come out the same time as these? Doesn't matter anyways I play in "god mode".

Being an "old timer" myself, the consoles only appeal to me is the graphics but having to jump thru "all the hoops" to get games running because of the internet ruins it for me.

Asus P5N-E Intel Core 2 Duo 3.33ghz. 4GB DDR2 Geforce 470 1GB SB X-Fi Titanium 650W XP SP3
Intel SE440BX P3 450 256MB 80GB SSD Asus V7700 GF2 64mb SB 32pnp 350W 98SE
MSI x570 Gaming Pro Carbon Ryzen 3700x 32GB DDR4 Zotac RTX 3070 8GB WD Black 1TB 850W

Reply 6 of 27, by spiroyster

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
F2bnp wrote:

While I agree that limiting saves in an FPS games is usually bollocks, can't really say the same for every game. Survival horror games for example would seriously lose a lot of their impact if I was mashing that F5 button all the time.

It just really stuck me as odd that you got fixated on this while playing Halo which is one of the finer FPS games from that era. It really isn't all that intrusive and if you find yourself frustrated, you can always lower the difficulty a notch.

^^^ Yeah this ^^^

FarCry 2 is an example, this was a noticable difference form PS3 to PC (can't speak for xbox) which changed the dynamic of the game considerably imo.

It made it much more enjoyable (on PS3) because you couldn't just save at any point, you had to make it to a 'hut' and have a nap. While it could be argued it got annoying, I personally felt it added to the whole 'ambience' of the safari and added to thrill since you actual cared about health relative to your location and put effort in to make it to a hut, or you planned your route to cater for this... If i could save anywhere, it would not only have made it a lot easier, but also would have made me a lot more sloppy when attempting certain missions... change of tactics. So me, I like 'save points'... if you can save at any time, its more like saving the 'state' and not saving your 'progress'... if you get what I mean 😵

Having said that though, other games certinaly benefit from being able to save when you want wherever you want.... originally save states are something that I was jelous of being origonally a console gamer (sonic3 have save states on the cart, and I remember a few snes games you could save)... as a result though, when you complete a game on a console.... this was from start to finish (longplay... which is now a thing 🤣 )... fine for something like sonic (6 Zones x 3 acts).... not some much for Lemmings (180 levels) and also made level select cheats more valuable.

buckeye wrote:

the consoles only appeal to me is the graphics but having to jump thru "all the hoops" to get games running because of the internet ruins it for me.

Surely other way around? Consoles saving grace was the fact that you didn't have to jump through hoops to get stuff working? It's PC's that have configurable hardware and thus introduce almost infinite more possible points of failure (in terms of software). A PS3 game works on every PS3, a 'PC' game probably won't work on a lot of 'PC's.

Reply 7 of 27, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Traditionally, console first person shooters didn't have a save-anywhere save function, because save data could be relatively large considering that until the original XBox came along, every console first person shooter had to save to a memory card (which was either battery-powered, or used some sort of EPROM). These memory cards didn't have a large amount of storage space, compared to the PC's hard-drives of the time, so the games' developers tried to keep down the size of the save game data file by making game-saves either checkpoint only, or making the missions short enough so that they could be completed fairly quickly, and then only allowing saving between missions.

I mean, in a game like Halo or Half-Life, the save-game data must include things like:

- Which level the player is in, and where exactly in that level,

- The players health, weapons carried, ammunition carried, plus any special attributes such as if he has a shield power up (and if so, then how much of that shield power has been used up, or how many seconds until the shield disappears, etc), if he player is in a vehicle, and if so what position is the vehicle in and facing, what speed is it travelling a, is the vehicle damaged, etc,

- The position of every enemy, plus the health of every enemy, the current AI state and awareness of every enemy, and any other enemy-based information, such as if each enemy can have different weapon and different amounts of ammunition, etc,

- Information about which objectives have been completed, what flags have been set, what vehicles are were and in what condition,

and so on.

A good way to minimise the information you need to save is to just save between missions, as then you're mostly just saving the players details and nothing else. You don't even need to save the player's health then, if the player always begins each level with full health.

Failing that, you can make the game only save at certain points, usually when the player cannot go back to the previous playing area, as then the game can safely forget details about the previous area (what corpses are lying where, what places have bullet holes or explosive scorch marks, what enemies are sill alive there, etc), because you can't go back there so it doesn't matter if the game 'forgets' what was in that area.

So console FPSs mostly use either of the two above methods for saving. And it does work well, as long as either the missions aren't too long for games that only save between missions (Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, Timesplitters 2 and 3, etc), or the checkpoints aren't too far apart (such as the Halo games, the Crysis games, etc). But sometimes in a game where you can only save between missions, the missions can seem too long, or too dangerous, which can really harm the gameplay. The only game like this that I can remember offhand is Alien vs. Predator (Rebellion, 2000), but it received an unofficial patch to add the ability to save during gameplay, thankfully.

And some save-only-at-checkpoints games can be very long between some of checkpoints, unfortunately. Turok 2 on the N64 being a good example.

There were some pre-hard drive console games that could save at any point during the game (for example, the PS2 port of Deus Ex), but they were rare.

Reply 8 of 27, by Kerr Avon

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
buckeye wrote:

I've been playing Doom 3 & Quake 4 and you can pretty save whenever, didn't Halo come out the same time as these? Doesn't matter anyways I play in "god mode".

Doom 3 on consoles does let you save anywhere, don't know about Quake 4. Most cross-platform games do have the same save system on each version, so for example Half-Life 2 has save-when-you-like on the PC version, the original XBox version, and the XBox 360 version (I don't know about the PS3 version, but I'd imagine it's the same, and I don't know if HL2 was released on anything else).

Being an "old timer" myself, the consoles only appeal to me is the graphics but having to jump thru "all the hoops" to get games running because of the internet ruins it for me.

As Spiroyster says, surely that's the other way around. Some PC games require the user to do something to get them to play properly (mainly games older than a decade), such as downloading a fan-made patch, or 'trial and error'-ing the Windows compatibility modes, or manually editing a configuration file, and so on (http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Home is a great resource for help with troublesome PC games), and then the user often (by choice) wants to mess around in the settings to choose their preferred graphical/audio/control settings.

Whereas a console game just works, provided you allow the automatic downloading and installation of the damn mandatory game patches we've grown used to nowadays, since console + broadband + hard drive means that, like PC gamers, we console gamers are now unpaid beta testers for the games companies as they now release games untested and retro-fix (not all of, sometimes) the bugs with automatic patches). Yes, post-release patches are annoying, but it's a fault that applies just as much to PC games as console games.

And it's the PC that has potentially much better graphics (assuming the PC in question can run it), console graphics are pretty much the base standard that cross-platform games use.

Reply 9 of 27, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Of all the different aspects of PC vs Console you picked specifically the checkpoint-based vs save-anywhere? That's not even strictly a PC-vs-Console thing.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 10 of 27, by Shponglefan

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
F2bnp wrote:

While I agree that limiting saves in an FPS games is usually bollocks, can't really say the same for every game. Survival horror games for example would seriously lose a lot of their impact if I was mashing that F5 button all the time.

^ This. How the game saves can have a dramatic impact on how it plays and the game's design itself.

A great example is The Long Dark which features a perma-death mechanic coupled with auto-saving, preventing the player from simply 'reloading' their way out of difficult situations. It forces the player to take a careful approach and make calculated decisions. And when the unexpected happens, it creates incredibly tense situations where the player is forced to improvise and adapt.

IMHO, it's one of the best examples of how 'save anywhere/anytime' would ruin the game.

Pentium 4 Multi-OS Build
486 DX4-100 with 6 sound cards
486 DX-33 with 5 sound cards

Reply 11 of 27, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

When there was 'save anywhere' FPSes in the memcard console era it was quite slow. Duke3D on PSX for example

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 12 of 27, by KT7AGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

My problem with Halo's save system isn't that it's checkpoint-based. It's that it automatically deletes prior saves without notifying me or asking permission. Also, some of the prior saves are not accurate.

For example, I saved a game just as Master Chief was about to abandon ship from Pillar of Autumn. When I made that save, I had a plasma pistol and assault rifle. When I step out of the crashed escape pod in the next game segment, my plasma pistol is mysteriously gone and replaced with the standard M6D pistol.

Another example: I watch the platoon sergeant die during the covenant assault against other Pillar of Autumn survivors. Before jumping into the warthog, I save the game. After reloading from that save point, the platoon sergeant has returned to life and is now sitting in the warthog's passenger seat. I find this very frustrating.

This guy:

The attachment HaloSergeant.jpg is no longer available

Reply 14 of 27, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Halo DID come out on the Mac...

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 15 of 27, by buckeye

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

As Spiroyster says, surely that's the other way around. Some PC games require the user to do something to get them to play properly (mainly games older than a decade), such as downloading a fan-made patch, or 'trial and error'-ing the Windows compatibility modes, or manually editing a configuration file, and so on (http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Home is a great resource for help with troublesome PC games), and then the user often (by choice) wants to mess around in the settings to choose their preferred graphical/audio/control settings.

Whereas a console game just works, provided you allow the automatic downloading and installation of the damn mandatory game patches we've grown used to nowadays, since console + broadband + hard drive means that, like PC gamers, we console gamers are now unpaid beta testers for the games companies as they now release games untested and retro-fix (not all of, sometimes) the bugs with automatic patches). Yes, post-release patches are annoying, but it's a fault that applies just as much to PC games as console games.

And it's the PC that has potentially much better graphics (assuming the PC in question can run it), console graphics are pretty much the base standard that cross-platform games use.

Yeah I'm ignorant when it comes to consoles, just going by watching my son play his Xbox 1 and dealing with all the patches. To me if you're going thru all that you might as well play on a PC with the beefier hardware. Probably really off topic here, sorry don't mean to hijack the post.

Asus P5N-E Intel Core 2 Duo 3.33ghz. 4GB DDR2 Geforce 470 1GB SB X-Fi Titanium 650W XP SP3
Intel SE440BX P3 450 256MB 80GB SSD Asus V7700 GF2 64mb SB 32pnp 350W 98SE
MSI x570 Gaming Pro Carbon Ryzen 3700x 32GB DDR4 Zotac RTX 3070 8GB WD Black 1TB 850W

Reply 16 of 27, by The Serpent Rider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I know that Halo is the game that drove MS and XBox to console prominence, but with my experience I can't begin to understand how it happened

Halo is FUN and many PC shooters of that era don't.

I must be some kind of standard: the anonymous gangbanger of the 21st century.

Reply 17 of 27, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
The Serpent Rider wrote:

Halo is FUN and many PC shooters of that era don't.

Being in a country known for indexing all the fun shooters away does warp this retrospective quite a bit

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 18 of 27, by gdjacobs

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Halo allowed bro gamers to think vehicular combat in an FPS shooter was a new and revolutionary thing.

All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder

Reply 19 of 27, by KT7AGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
gdjacobs wrote:

Halo allowed bro gamers to think vehicular combat in an FPS shooter was a new and revolutionary thing.

I'm a bit of the way into the warthog portions of the game now. Am I the only one who finds the warthog annoying to drive? It handles like a poorly balanced 4-wheel ATV with worn out shocks in an ice rink in a low-gravity environment. Everything is slippery and incredibly bouncy. The vehicle itself is unstable and easy to roll over. The gunner lacks adequate situational awareness. I'm not really enjoying driving it. I want to yell at the gunner, "The aliens are right there! Shoot them dammit!".

I find myself positioning the warthog in a strategic area to provide cover fire, and then going on foot to actually get anything useful done. If the gunner actually starts shooting at aliens, I consider it a nice bonus.