I am similar to you two, but completely different at the same time.
In just about every other medium, I demand a modicum of intelligence before I dedicate any my time or money.
When it comes to games though, I only look for one experience and one experience only (that of the male power fantasy variety). Even here I usually still want some level of intelligence, but I have no problem playing the latest Gears of War game just after having read a Phillip Roth novel.
I suppose this is primarily the reasons why the mainstreaming of games does not bother too much: I never really took it seriously in the first place.
Nah, i'm exactly like you man, i can jump from one thing to the other no prob. cause like i said, i have two different standards, with my "critical thinking".
This also lead me to consider videogames more like toys, rather than something to take seriously.
This does not apply to every single game out there, though.
Still this shit? Deus Ex 3 will be what it will because it will sell more regardless of platform. Why not simply say that you've "yet to see a game emulate the level of complexity and granularity that the original DE achieved" and just drop the obligatory "console" remark in there? For fucks sake people.
I think the gap is closing, though. I think it is still a valid concern but it seems that with the nextgen consoles developers have to make less concessions between versions.
As someone who played Deus Ex before it achieved untouchable cult status, I'm really excited for Deus Ex 3. It sounds incredible.
And to think I wasn't even touching specifically on story- and characterization-related minutia. I was just talking generally about the appearance of oversimplified mechanics and a general slant more toward stylish and bombastic action, which I don't feel does the original Deus Ex justice. Perhaps I should've been more specific.
The mechanics displayed and talked about thus far seem to be derived from the needs of the ADD-era gamer who wants STYLISH SINGLE BUTTON PRESSES to carry out an otherwise complex series of actions for lack of possessing much in the way of manual dexterity.
In other words, looks and sounds like a shitty game made for shitty gamers thus far. Ain't got nothin' to do with being on consoles.
This is true, but we live in a generation where mechanics are streamline for accessibility, and mass appeal. Best Example is Mass Effect 2. Not a bad game by any means, but there's almost no RPG mechanics compared to the first game. Hell even the customization options that I loved in ME1 are no where to be found. So technically it was watered down. Sure the inventory management was a pain, but don't get rid looting completely.
I'll probably buy Deus Ex 3 though., but I just hope it's a good game, and not some generic shitty game with Deus Ex's legacy slapped on it.
Which was dumbed down mechanically compared to KotOR, which was dumbed down mechanically compared to Baldur's Gate 2. We're headed in entirely the wrong direction with the side effects of these insane development budgets. "Streamlining" and focus testing to strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience. I become more jaded by the hour.
Which was dumbed down mechanically compared to KotOR, which was dumbed down mechanically compared to Baldur's Gate 2. We're headed in entirely the wrong direction with the side effects of these insane development budgets. "Streamlining" and focus testing to strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience. I become more jaded by the hour.
How do you justify a 1-2 million dollar budget on a game that caters to the nerdiest nerds who expect the game to have the depth and freedom of a tabletop RPG? That's financial suicide.
How do you justify a 1-2 million dollar budget on a game that caters to the nerdiest nerds who expect the game to have the depth and freedom of a tabletop RPG? That's financial suicide.
Which was dumbed down mechanically compared to KotOR, which was dumbed down mechanically compared to Baldur's Gate 2. We're headed in entirely the wrong direction with the side effects of these insane development budgets. "Streamlining" and focus testing to strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience. I become more jaded by the hour.
The problem is not streamlining. Streamlining means "striping out the fat that adds nothing to the game". The problem, as you well say, is to "strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience". The distinction is important, though.
People with taste and intellect don't play videogames, sadly, and I don't see them ever getting into games. That's why I read more books and play less videogames nowadays -- this industry is going to be "by manchildren, for manchildren" for a long fuckin' time.
How do you justify a 1-2 million dollar budget on a game that caters to the nerdiest nerds who expect the game to have the depth and freedom of a tabletop RPG? That's financial suicide.
The problem is not streamlining. Streamlining means "striping out the fat that adds nothing to the game". The problem, as you well say, is to "strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience". The distinction is important, though.
I thought Mass Effect 2 was actually a successful example of streamlining, because they simply excised the shit from the first game and turned the game into what it was always meant to be: an effective third-person shooter with a dialogue tree and a large focus on conversation.
I never understood the gripes about ME2 removing the "RPG elements", because really, what RPG elements? A monstrous inventory system? The worst loot ever seen in a game? Useless and/or non-amusing biotic powers? Incredibly limited character-building? Mass Effect 1 went into the wrong direction, but Mass Effect 2 is the game that realized what direction that was, and didn't pretend to be going in another. I'd much prefer that games do that instead of trying to be something they're not even close to being.
People with taste and intellect don't play videogames, sadly, and I don't see them ever getting into games. That's why I read more books and play less videogames nowadays -- this industry is going to be "by manchildren, for manchildren" for a long fuckin' time.
I thought Mass Effect 2 was actually a successful example of streamlining, because they simply excised the shit from the first game and turned the game into what it was always meant to be: an effective third-person shooter with a dialogue tree and a large focus on conversation.
Maybe, I never played ME 2 because I hated the first one. I do think that the new fashion of limiting dialog options to a couple of words or to a general discriptive word is one of the most sad new tendencies that I would definetely not call "streamlining". But that's just me.
Maybe, I never played ME 2 because I hated the first one. I do think that the new fashion of limiting dialog options to a couple of words or to a general discriptive word is one of the most sad new tendencies that I would definetely not call "streamlining". But that's just me.
The dialogue was basically the same in both the first and second Mass Effect. It wasn't one of the examples of ME1 ---> ME2 streamlining I was referring to. Now if you're talking about how that's Mass Effect streamlining in general, then I'd agree. The dialogue options in Mass Effect are fun, but they're predictable and don't vary much in consequences.
Mass Effect's "consoliness" has always manifested itself to me most strongly in its dialogue options - very limited, binary (if that) stuff. A far cry from the choice & consequence we see in some PC RPGs.
People with taste and intellect don't play videogames, sadly, and I don't see them ever getting into games. That's why I read more books and play less videogames nowadays -- this industry is going to be "by manchildren, for manchildren" for a long fuckin' time.
People with taste and intellect don't play videogames, sadly, and I don't see them ever getting into games. That's why I read more books and play less videogames nowadays -- this industry is going to be "by manchildren, for manchildren" for a long fuckin' time.
The dialogue was basically the same in both the first and second Mass Effect. It wasn't one of the examples of ME1 ---> ME2 streamlining I was referring to. Now if you're talking about how that's Mass Effect streamlining in general, then I'd agree. The dialogue options in Mass Effect are fun, but they're predictable and don't vary much in consequences.
Mass Effect's "consoliness" has always manifested itself to me most strongly in its dialogue options - very limited, binary (if that) stuff. A far cry from the choice & consequence we see in some PC RPGs.
I was just taking the oportunity to refer to a tendency I dislike and think that doesn't add anything to RPGs, in fact, it's worse. I know that was not what you refering to, sorry.
I thought Mass Effect 2 was actually a successful example of streamlining, because they simply excised the shit from the first game and turned the game into what it was always meant to be: an effective third-person shooter with a dialogue tree and a large focus on conversation.
I never understood the gripes about ME2 removing the "RPG elements", because really, what RPG elements? A monstrous inventory system? The worst loot ever seen in a game? Useless and/or non-amusing biotic powers? Incredibly limited character-building? Mass Effect 1 went into the wrong direction, but Mass Effect 2 is the game that realized what direction that was, and didn't pretend to be going in another. I'd much prefer that games do that instead of trying to be something they're not even close to being.
I agree with this. I really liked ME2 and I consider it a shooter. If you want to judge it as an rpg, it is lacking big time, but they managed to make a fun shooter. Compared to ME1, which I thought was a weak RPG and weaker shooter, I thought they made the right choice in changing the type of game it was. It did have some problems like all the combat arenas mostly being the same, but w/e.
Right now I'm thinking that if DX3 is like DX1, I'll be into it. If it isn't but still a good game, I'll still be into it. Almost everything I'm hearing about the game sounds great. There are things that are different from DX1 but I don't need it to literally be the same game. I didn't like Invisible War because it wasn't like DX1, it was because I thought it was a bad game on its own.
If it does come out and turn out weak, then so be it. I had hope for Splinter Cell Conviction until I played it too.
Streamlining I think is okay to an extent when it comes to RPGs... while I like customizing my character with loadouts and equipment I really dont like the fact that you spent an insane amount of time flicking through menus, tables, and charts. Less time fiddling around in menus the better
Well it's a fact, that games once PC only, have been slowly dumbed down as the consoles took over.
Think about Rainbow Six Raven Shield--->Vegas.
Think about Ghost Recon 1--->Future Soldier
Think about Morrowind--->Oblivion
Think about Operation Flashpoint--->Dragon Rising
Think about Civ4--->Revolution(console version)
Think about The Sims PC--->The Sims Console
Look at the walkthrough of Gothic4, one of the first thing that's being said is that the game have been simplified.
It remains to wonder if this is simply a natural process, as the audience grows(in number)or has to do with the console audience having different tastes.
For example Splinter Cell is a series born on console, that have been dumbed down anyay, so.. :lol
Just to clarify, i love both PC games like ArmA or Total War, and console games like Super Mario Galaxy, i don't think one is objectively superior to the other, what bothers me is the broken balance we have now, with the first kind, almost extint.
Well it's a fact, that games once PC only, have been slowly dumbed down as the consoles took over.
Think about Rainbow Six Raven Shield--->Vegas.
Think about Ghost Recon 1--->Future Soldier
Think about Morrowind--->Oblivion
Think about Operation Flashpoint--->Dragon Rising
Think about Civ4--->Revolution(console version)
Think about The Sims PC--->The Sims Console
Look at the walkthrough of Gothic4, one of the first thing that's being said is that the game have been simplified.
It remains to wonder if this is simply a natural process, as the audience grows(in number)or has to do with the console audience having different tastes.
For example Splinter Cell is a series born on console, that have been dumbed down anyay, so.. :lol
Just to clarify, i love both PC games like ArmA or Total War, and console games like Super Mario Galaxy, i don't think one is objectively superior to the other, what bothers me is the broken balance we have now, with the first kind, almost extint.
I think it has more to do with audience growth. Most games you've pointed out have sold more in their newer versions than the older ones, including their PC versions. It's symptomatic of growing budgets and trying to cater to larger and larger audiences, PC or not. AND it's working (sadly).
Well it's a fact, that games once PC only, have been slowly dumbed down as the consoles took over.
Think about Rainbow Six Raven Shield--->Vegas.
Think about Ghost Recon 1--->Future Soldier
Think about Morrowind--->Oblivion
Think about Operation Flashpoint--->Dragon Rising
Think about Civ4--->Revolution(console version)
Think about The Sims PC--->The Sims Console
Look at the walkthrough of Gothic4, one of the first thing that's being said is that the game have been simplified.
It remains to wonder if this is simply a natural process, as the audience grows(in number)or has to do with the console audience having different tastes.
For example Splinter Cell is a series born on console, that have been dumbed down anyay, so.. :lol
As gaming becomes more mainstream the devs are going to make games that cater to more mainstream tastes. No matter how much we pine for the return of the old days of gaming where we could expect titles like Deus Ex, System Shock and Rainbow Six they are not going to return. For the forseeable future anyway.
If I had to respond to Timekiller's statements about the state of the industry, I'd have to say that I think most of the problem is the lack of auteurs really able to do what they feel like doing. The principles probably killing the type of game Timekiller wants are that everyone should be having fun all the time with the least amount of "dead" moments.
Is Blade Runner going to keep people's attention?
Not necessarily, they have to invest the thought to follow it. It's not an easily accessible experience like the Super Bowl or a Hollywood blockbuster. It's the reason pop music is more popular than classical music: it's more accessible.
Is the experience "fun"?
Not always.
The industry doesn't want a Blade Runner. They want the player to be entertained. I believe focus grouping is effecting this too. For figuring out where players get stuck or what's too difficult it works fine. But I think too many games have been compromised because Johnny in focus testing was kind of bored at one part. Maybe the creator intended to imply something, make a statement, or even create a sober moment. But it gets cut out because no one wants to risk something like that, especially at the beginning, when many movies don't have any action and are spending their time on character development.
I haven't played Heavy Rain, but the only example I can point to where the creator really seemed to be an auteur, who made choices that wouldn't always entertain or please most players seems to be the Metal Gear Solid series. But Kojima's excesses aren't on the same level of auteurship as a film director's.
The problem here is you're using 'PC' & 'console' when you mean 'niche' & 'mainstream'. A big budget game is always going to aim for the mainstream. A niche title would have to be low budget, and then you'd just bitch about the graphics.
Well it's a fact, that games once PC only, have been slowly dumbed down as the consoles took over.
Think about Rainbow Six Raven Shield--->Vegas.
Think about Ghost Recon 1--->Future Soldier
Think about Morrowind--->Oblivion
Think about Operation Flashpoint--->Dragon Rising
Think about Civ4--->Revolution(console version)
Think about The Sims PC--->The Sims Console
Look at the walkthrough of Gothic4, one of the first thing that's being said is that the game have been simplified.
It remains to wonder if this is simply a natural process, as the audience grows(in number)or has to do with the console audience having different tastes.
For example Splinter Cell is a series born on console, that have been dumbed down anyay, so.. :lol
Just to clarify, i love both PC games like ArmA or Total War, and console games like Super Mario Galaxy, i don't think one is objectively superior to the other, what bothers me is the broken balance we have now, with the first kind, almost extint.
I think Civ Rev doesn't really count since it's a spinoff developed specifically for consoles and the main series Civ games are still going to maintain their complexity.
Which was dumbed down mechanically compared to KotOR, which was dumbed down mechanically compared to Baldur's Gate 2. We're headed in entirely the wrong direction with the side effects of these insane development budgets. "Streamlining" and focus testing to strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience. I become more jaded by the hour.
I would say Mass Effect was a step up from Kotor. Kotor like FFXIII, might as well of thrown something like DDS's auto play feature in. There was no real strategy nor functions to learn. Just plug and chug.
UrbanRats said:
Well it's a fact, that games once PC only, have been slowly dumbed down as the consoles took over.
Think about Rainbow Six Raven Shield--->Vegas.
Think about Ghost Recon 1--->Future Soldier
Think about Morrowind--->Oblivion
Think about Operation Flashpoint--->Dragon Rising
Think about Civ4--->Revolution(console version)
Think about The Sims PC--->The Sims Console
Look at the walkthrough of Gothic4, one of the first thing that's being said is that the game have been simplified.
Some aren't really fair examples. Civilization Revolution is one built ground up to take advantage of a less complex control scheme and to be more casually play. It's more of a different take on the game. It's not like Dues Ex 2 which was marginalized to fit on consoles at sacrifice of the PC version.
The trend is here to stay. For the large budget titles, they are going want to reach out to the largest possible audience. And sadly enough, that same audience wants to feel like a badass within the first 10 minutes or the game sucks. It's why titles like COD and GoW do so well.
But it doesn't mean the end of quality titles with deep gameplay systems,unique takes, and so forth. I still feel like there are plenty of titles being created as long as I don't look at the "Blockbuster" Game of the year shit.
I haven't played Heavy Rain, but the only example I can point to where the creator really seemed to be an auteur, who made choices that wouldn't always entertain or please most players seems to be the Metal Gear Solid series. But Kojima's excesses aren't on the same level of auteurship as a film director's.
You clearly haven't.:lol
Just the fact that Madison is there just to show the tits, speak for how bad HR's story is.
A good attempt at something different though, i give them that, but the story and the character are just crappy.
I agree with your post though, and it all revolves around the fact that AAA games are too expensive to make.
@The List i made: Yeah, you can remove CivRevolution, but the point still stand.
Which was dumbed down mechanically compared to KotOR, which was dumbed down mechanically compared to Baldur's Gate 2. We're headed in entirely the wrong direction with the side effects of these insane development budgets. "Streamlining" and focus testing to strip everything down into "feeling like such a badass" while pressing A to win, to capture the largest possible audience. I become more jaded by the hour.
Where does Dragon Age fit in there? It's certainly no Baldur's Gate, but it's also nowhere near the streamlining of ME2.
Still, it's been a regression in many ways. BG2 went forward as a sequel should and didn't get rid of core elements which made the first game great. I can hardly stand to play the first because the second progressed so naturally and left hardly any destruction in its wake.
As gaming becomes more mainstream the devs are going to make games that cater to more mainstream tastes. No matter how much we pine for the return of the old days of gaming where we could expect titles like Deus Ex, System Shock and Rainbow Six they are not going to return. For the forseeable future anyway.
$50 million projects need mainstream appeal. That's fine. The problem is when EVERY game project wants to fit into that mold. We don't have the diversity and creativity of the PS2 generation with this gen of console games thanks to HD asset creation time and staggering budgets, and almost all the major PC developers have gone multiplatform on top of that to try to cash in on the large potential audience.
I don't need complex games that use System Shock or Torment as a starting point to have a 50 million dollar presentation. Leave that to the Michael Bay equivalents, that's totally fine by me. It's more of a problem that there's no perceived viability in the space between Michael Bay and Guy in His Garage. Extremely indie projects don't have the resources to expand on the concepts of those classic games that we don't have modern equivalents for (without going into Dwarf Fortress territory), but a small proper team absolutely can.
The increasing presence of digital distribution should help matters as time goes on. Tripwire, for example, have had great success in that big empty middle area, with smaller budget hardcore FPS games aimed at people annoyed by the CoD-style trends.
$50 million projects need mainstream appeal. That's fine. The problem is when EVERY game project wants to fit into that mold. We don't have the diversity and creativity of the PS2 generation with this gen of console games thanks to HD asset creation time and staggering budgets, and almost all the major PC developers have gone multiplatform on top of that to try to cash in on the large potential audience.
I don't need complex games that use System Shock or Torment as a starting point to have a 50 million dollar presentation. Leave that to the Michael Bay equivalents, that's totally fine by me. It's more of a problem that there's no perceived viability in the space between Michael Bay and Guy in His Garage. Extremely indie projects don't have the resources to expand on the concepts of those classic games that we don't have modern equivalents for (without going into Dwarf Fortress territory), but a small proper team absolutely can.
The increasing presence of digital distribution should help matters as time goes on. Tripwire, for example, have had great success in that big empty middle area, with smaller budget hardcore FPS games aimed at people annoyed by the CoD-style trends.
I haven't played Heavy Rain, but the only example I can point to where the creator really seemed to be an auteur, who made choices that wouldn't always entertain or please most players seems to be the Metal Gear Solid series. But Kojima's excesses aren't on the same level of auteurship as a film director's.
If I had to respond to Timekiller's statements about the state of the industry, I'd have to say that I think most of the problem is the lack of auteurs really able to do what they feel like doing. The principles probably killing the type of game Timekiller wants are that everyone should be having fun all the time with the least amount of "dead" moments.
Is Blade Runner going to keep people's attention?
Not necessarily, they have to invest the thought to follow it. It's not an easily accessible experience like the Super Bowl or a Hollywood blockbuster. It's the reason pop music is more popular than classical music: it's more accessible.
Is the experience "fun"?
Not always.
The industry doesn't want a Blade Runner. They want the player to be entertained. I believe focus grouping is effecting this too. For figuring out where players get stuck or what's too difficult it works fine. But I think too many games have been compromised because Johnny in focus testing was kind of bored at one part. Maybe the creator intended to imply something, make a statement, or even create a sober moment. But it gets cut out because no one wants to risk something like that, especially at the beginning, when many movies don't have any action and are spending their time on character development.
Yes. This basically kills the potential of medium nowadays to me. The videogame medium is capable of being incredibly immersive and can stimulate peculiar feelings in the player. But no, who cares: fart jokes, super big titties, kidults with purple hair saving their world, somersault kicks with gun-blades, cheesy plots and dialogues, nerd material, closemindedness, neverending-only "fun" and everything else that isn't shooting or teabagging a corpse or feeling the most badass hero in a game is "boring" and the people that criticize it "wear a monocle" .
Fuck.
I mean, you want to kill with stylish combos? Then get a fucking copy of Bayonetta, they made that for you, and some other 30 games for that matter. This game had a premise of a bleak dystopian future, augmentations and a possibility for us of living through that society in the shoes of someone that is harassed by racism and prejudice, and we, that would like to see some depth in this because of the themes that the game is going to elaborate in form of game experience, are being considered people on "high horses" by the people that grew up throwing bread crumbs at their brothers during dinnertime and so developed their tastes in videogames and their need of neverending fun? Get the fuck out of here.
I couldn't even stand the fact that the main character is a fucking cop again.
The game simply touches big things, and makes them smaller for the smaller gamers, that's it. And SEnix does that to make you a favour guys, lucky you.
$50 million projects need mainstream appeal. That's fine. The problem is when EVERY game project wants to fit into that mold. We don't have the diversity and creativity of the PS2 generation with this gen of console games thanks to HD asset creation time and staggering budgets, and almost all the major PC developers have gone multiplatform on top of that to try to cash in on the large potential audience.
I don't need complex games that use System Shock or Torment as a starting point to have a 50 million dollar presentation. Leave that to the Michael Bay equivalents, that's totally fine by me. It's more of a problem that there's no perceived viability in the space between Michael Bay and Guy in His Garage. Extremely indie projects don't have the resources to expand on the concepts of those classic games that we don't have modern equivalents for (without going into Dwarf Fortress territory), but a small proper team absolutely can.
The increasing presence of digital distribution should help matters as time goes on. Tripwire, for example, have had great success in that big empty middle area, with smaller budget hardcore FPS games aimed at people annoyed by the CoD-style trends.
Good points and yes, yes, i totally agree.
------
Back on topic: if a game focuses on badassery and leaves everything out, what i don't get is why almost noone cares at the "presentation of the characterization" stage of the game, done via CG trailers and closed demo sessions and screenshots and press releases, and forgets to care when the game is out and the propaganda of the publisher reaches its peak. i don't get why only which action you perform should matter, and not why and how you are going to perform that action, and the fact that its just that action only.
It's like it doesn't matter what happens, why, what, who, where, as long as i can have my clean hack and slash (hack stands for hacking this time :lol ). But i mean: Ok, i get it, the game needs to be tailored for the ones who enjoy this small world of killing and being badass, and ok, make those mechanics as clean and smooth as possible, but put something meaningful in it, will you?
They spent MONTHS on one single killling animations, but when it comes to programming some meaningful animation too, they don't do it. Interaction at a minimum if it's not killing, and your possibilities to interact with the world and the npcs are just that.
Are you really - to the guys that find the game already fugging amazzing - that stimulated by this?
The main similarity between deus ex series and bladerunner is that they are both cyberpunk. In the two previous deus ex game you're an experimental cyborg that constantly improves up until the climax of the game where you become God-like. To me it makes sense that high level abilities in Deus Ex 3 are ridiculously powerful if the devs are following the road map used in the other games.
I don't know but I kind of agree with the devs saying that Deus Ex lacked "cinematographic" moments like these takedowns for example because the technology wasn't there yet. And I don't know what's so wrong with the fact that the game will have more flashy moments. Anything is better than extending your hand with the prod and watch the soldier just twitching there and then crushing to the floor in 2 animation frames.
Cover system is just a red herring for die-hard PC fans because it came from consoles and consoles are THE ROOT OF EVIL GOD PLEASE HELP US. Meanwhile cover system is a much more realistic approach to stealth than dark/light system. I mean it should be pitch dark for a soldier not be able to see a person 10 feet away (or even 2 feet away). And when you're sitting behind the cover no one sees you indeed, because cover is inpenetrable for human eyes as you know (but eyes can be enhanced with augs). Same with shooting - have you ever seen somebody strafing out of cover and then strafing back? No, people usually lean out to peek (or they fire blindly). Look, even PC-exclusive Red Orchestra 2 has cover system (blind fire included). That means this system is a natural evolution of gameplay, it actually improves it, adds realism and depth.
Considering health regeneration I personally like medpacks, they add strategy to the game, but the first game had regeneration aug. It used some of your energy and it seems to be the same case with this game. The only difference is that you don't need to find this aug, it's with you from the beginning. And if they implement it in a right way with decent energy draining, then you'll have the same depth of strategy but with a slight different angle.
I want to sum it up. I've been PC-exclusive player until this generation (Sega and SNES do not count, I was like 7-8 years old) and I still game mostly on PC. But I just can't understand what's so bad about consoles and what makes PC gamers think that they get inferior product (except for horrible UI sometimes). I mean I can understand when it was PS2/XBOX generation. Consoles were really lagging behind in terms of power and I didn't want console ports because of graphics and dumbed down AI. But now no game uses all available PC power (except for graphics) in terms of gameplay, so you just don't know what you've lost to consoles and all you can do is just try to imagine some super-game that'd be made on PC if not these goddamn consoles. But it's not real, it's just in your imagination. Invisible War microscopic levels were real and it was because of consoles being the primary platform, but shit, you've got GTA4 this gen and Far Cry 2, how bigger do you want the world to be???
It's time to aknowledge that consoles have nothing to do with gameplay changes you don't like. These changes are evolution and they are for better. And don't start with Mass Effect 2 again. Mass Effect 1 wasn't really a classic RPG, most of its role-playing elements were just filler. The game should've been like ME2 from beginning. Don't like it? Go play Dragon Age.
And by the way they're going to focus more on RPG elements in the third entry (according to Christina Norman's presentation).
