# Gameplay styles people said would not work on a platform



## Deleted User (Jun 17, 2018)

A lot of games are defined by the hardware they're produced on, with variables such as control schemes and portability being huge in defining the character of any given game.  Some games transfer better to other control schemes than others; for example, I've noticed that a lot of DS games work really well on smartphones, due to their touchscreen-heavy control interface.  Many games are less graceful in the transition, such as playing some DS games on a PC, or playing many twitch-action-based console games on a smartphone with no controller on-hand.

However, a lot of what makes a good control scheme varies from person to person.  This issue becomes more prominent over time, due mostly to emulation and the expanded number of control schemes available for games made on any given system.  You may find yourself playing a game using a control scheme or controller the original developers could have never even dreamed of, such as playing _Super Mario Galaxy_ on an Xbox 360 controller, or playing _Street Fighter II_ on a touch screen.  The nature of the controller has become a far more personal matter than it ever has been. 

For example, I remember one user on Reddit remarking how they were able to play _Power Stone_ perfectly fine using touch controls.  However, after giving it a go myself, I noticed that the controls where nowhere near as tight as I would have liked, and I decided that a controller would be the better option for me.  Many would agree that playing a fighting game with a controller (or, in most cases, a joystick or keyboard) is the superior option to playing on a touch screen, but that doesn't mean playing on a touchscreen is impossible.  It's a case-by-case basis.  Some control schemes may work really well for a few individuals, even if it won't work out for even the majority.  To reflect this attitude, control schemes should be more flexible, even if there are some out there who couldn't imagine ever playing a game with a given control scheme.

Now, take this notion of control schemes outpacing the original hardware; the same general concept applies to _Super Mario Party_.  The series had its start on the N64, and was really defined by the limitations and strengths of the system.  There was no online support for the N64, but there were 4 controller ports, which lent itself to a local multiplayer, party oriented game.  Fast forward a good 20 years, and the limitations of games and the systems that they're played on have drastically changed.  In a an age where everything including your toaster can connect to the internet, online play with _Mario Party_ games has not only become possible, but outright expected.  Online play is to _Mario Party _what control schemes have become to many emulated video games; it may just not work for some people.  Heck, it may not work for most people, considering the entire series was designed with local multiplayer in-mind.  However, there will be people out there who would appreciate the option to play the game with strangers, and so it feels strange for the devs to deny them that option.  I guess it's like seeing past the bridge of your own nose, from a development perspective.

In this day and age, developers need to be more accommodating of different ways and styles of playing a game, even if some methods are likely to go unused.  The fact that Nintendo is going against this grain doesn't really surprise me, especially considering their failure to keep up with many current trends in the gaming industry.

*tl;dr just because you can't see the appeal in playing a game a certain way doesn't justify denying everyone the option to play it that way.*


----------



## Chary (Jun 17, 2018)

I'm gonna go with MMOs on consoles. Final Fantasy 11 kinda crashed and burned on PS2. And I think for a while, the general idea was that MMOs wouldn't work on weak consoles. Then FF14, Black Desert Online and Elder Scrolls Online all kinda turned that idea around, and now there's a definite market for that genre on consoles.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Jun 17, 2018)

Regarding the Mario Party example, I think in 2018 it's not some kind of outlandish idea to have that particular game (or genre of game, for that matter) feature online multiplayer, and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in 1999 and should probably grow up. My biggest reasoning here is simple: Nobody would play Mario Party with random people on the internet, therefore the supposed "pffft people would just age quit pffffffft gg nintendo pfffft pls eat my ass miyamoto-san!" arguments are all invalid. When I say I want online multiplayer in Mario Party, I mean I want the ability to setup a party with my friends to play a round of Mario Party, not that I want to play with some random kiddies on the internet like people apparently think. 

One of the things those people just don't realize is that, when you're not a kid and you have jobs and responsibilities,  it's hard to get a group of 4 people together to chill out and participate in a few rounds of a great party game these days. My friends and I used to meet once every couple weeks basically since we graduated highschool ~5 years ago, play some couch multiplayer stuff, watch some movies and gaming shit, and just generally chill out and have a decent time...until we all grew up and got busy. We haven't been able to get physically together for at least the last 8-10 months because everyone has just been so busy. They get jobs, have relationships, need time for themselves, can't afford to skip the hours of sleep they'll lose etc etc etc, and getting everyone to be able to pop over to someone's house for a night of fun is just simply impossible to manage these days with everyone's schedules the way they are.

So you know what we do? We play those games online, because every other publisher in the world is aware that online multiplayer is, y'know, a nice feature to have. I've played Mario Party online all the time, thanks to Dolphin's excellent net play feature, and we all have a blast. Nobody rage quits, nobody misses our "totally hilarious reactions when I fuck someone over!", no one gets all bummed that we couldn't throw a controller at the TV with others present in the room, we just had a great time. Literally 0 of the supposed "cons" people list about it have never happened to us a single time. So why is it so outlandish for Nintendo to just, y'know, catch up to 2008 and include a simple online system to their damn console game? 

Oh right, it's not. 


Unrelated to above, one of the things I hear a lot about in some other circles are things like MMOs and more "hardcore" online games on mobile devices. I certainly know I shat on Fortnite and PUBG releasing on mobile phones (and, to be honest, still think it's an awful idea) but apparently I'm wrong and it's actually quite a blast to a lot of people and it's become incredibly popular so far. I can understand why, since it brings the games to a more casual audience and only requires a device basically everyone and their grandma owns these days (whereas "gaming" PCs and consoles aren't as widespread still), but I suppose I just can't see the appeal in gaming on a small device with no tactile buttons and such (for the most part) when I could have nice controller or KB/M setup with a nice big screen to fully enjoy the game.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 17, 2018)

Chary said:


> I'm gonna go with MMOs on consoles. Final Fantasy 11 kinda crashed and burned on PS2. And I think for a while, the general idea was that MMOs wouldn't work on weak consoles. Then FF14, Black Desert Online and Elder Scrolls Online all kinda turned that idea around, and now there's a definite market for that genre on consoles.


While I am not surprised in the slightest about FF11 doing what it did I don't know if I really ever went there as far as hardware being too weak. I did see it a few times back then but don't think it worked for me.
2002 in Japan, 2004 in the US were its release dates. By the time it hit Japan I was probably just about finishing up with GTA 3 (late 2001), for the US then I was done with Vice City and awaiting San Andreas (which would come to be all streamed into a massive world). Similarly however many years before I had done Phantasy Star Online on dial up on my Dreamcast and few would argue it was not a progenitor for this sort of thing.
To that end it was more the absence of modems/network connections out the box that I probably wrote off console world of warcraft style MMOs* with (as well as monthly fees of course).

*this was still the era of the almost turn based browser stuff being mega popular after all.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 17, 2018)

Chary said:


> I'm gonna go with MMOs on consoles. Final Fantasy 11 kinda crashed and burned on PS2. And I think for a while, the general idea was that MMOs wouldn't work on weak consoles. Then FF14, Black Desert Online and Elder Scrolls Online all kinda turned that idea around, and now there's a definite market for that genre on consoles.


I still believe that MMOs would never work on consoles, its just the nature of the beast. Even ignoring going from a keyboard/mouse to controller in an MMORPG there's too much of a gamble for both the developer and consumer. I mean a new console iteration would kill the MMO; if the servers are console specific then they'd die quick as the developers lose the majority of their market, nobody is going to pay for multiple PSN or whatever subs when a newer consoles out, even if both of those boxes are ticked then you've gotta factor the majority of people who are going to keep their older console hooked up just for an MMO. That and I wouldn't think the market isn't that big, I'm sure the majority of people who are willing to blow loads of money on an MMO already own a PC (which is much more suited for that genre).


----------



## Xzi (Jun 17, 2018)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Snip


I agree with you that there's no reason why Mario Party couldn't have (full) online, particularly with friends.  However, it's also not a huge deal to me that Nintendo want to reserve this one singular title mostly to local play, since it seems like it's meant to showcase the Switch's various capabilities as well.  This is all assuming they don't just add in online later due to demand, which is still a possibility.

Besides, Mario Tennis Aces is what it's all about for upcoming online play.




Tom Bombadildo said:


> Unrelated to above, one of the things I hear a lot about in some other circles are things like MMOs and more "hardcore" online games on mobile devices. I certainly know I shat on Fortnite and PUBG releasing on mobile phones (and, to be honest, still think it's an awful idea) but apparently I'm wrong and it's actually quite a blast to a lot of people and it's become incredibly popular so far. I can understand why, since it brings the games to a more casual audience and only requires a device basically everyone and their grandma owns these days (whereas "gaming" PCs and consoles aren't as widespread still), but I suppose I just can't see the appeal in gaming on a small device with no tactile buttons and such (for the most part) when I could have nice controller or KB/M setup with a nice big screen to fully enjoy the game.


Completely disagree here, MMOs are never going to be playable on a phone.  Do you know how many buttons/keys are needed at high levels?  That's assuming they don't dumb them down to the point of being unrecognizable as being the same games, anyway.

TES: Blades is probably the closest you'll get on a phone, we'll see how well that goes over.


----------



## LuigiXHero (Jun 17, 2018)

I mean there was Phantasy Star Online which seemed to have been heavily popular on consoles.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 17, 2018)

It seems like there's really two* different questions being asked:  do controllers make a genre and does online vs local play make a genre.  To both I say yes.  MMOs that change controls end up being different or they choose to be generic and working everywhere.  Similarly online play, even limited to friends, is different than being in the same room and not having to worry about latency issues; the only workaround is fundamentally taking latency out of the equation by either making less-action games, segregating play, or using some sort of referee that will inherently favor some players over others**.

So, the question isn't if there could be online Mario Party.  It's what changes would have to reasonably be made and whether Nintendo wants to push Mario Party into that genre.  Or they could do a lazy port without any consideration of the new genre.

Anyways, that's my IMHO.

* The third one used to involve concerns about the game changing over time, needing updates, etc; ie, one of the PC-ish aspects that used to separate consoles from PCs which now don't exist.  I'd say that's a major reason MMOs on consoles in the past were untenable.

** This may be virtually zero favor in the best circumstance.  In the worst circumstance, it makes a game effectively broken.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 17, 2018)

I'm gonna divide my response into two groups:

1) the sort of games that rely on specific peripherals. You don't see people asking for pokemon go for desktop, wii fit for playstation or VR-games for the 3DS. Nobody in their right mind would even want such a game on another platform, because without the hardware, the experience would fall on its face completely.

2) the "just because you can doesn't mean it's a good idea" group. This (larger) group at least has ways to get around the limitations of the first group. Touch screens that emulate button presses are the main culprit here: it's _possible_ to mimic actual buttons, but that doesn't mean the experience will be the same. In a similar way, old school FPS'es and RTS'es flat out play better with a mouse in one hand. The interesting part - especially about FPS'es - is that this genre gets redesigned to fit controllers. The pace is a bit lower, the amount of weapons is less, or the perspective gets placed behind the character (TPS). This gets a reverse effect, because playing these with a keyboard and mouse can feel overpowered (GTA missions where shooting is involved are a breeze compared to more racing-specific ones). Likewise: wii games with motion controls...IIRC, most of them can be emulated with other means as well, but lightgun games never will have that original charm. Or, for that matter: you CAN emulate that arcade game where you ride an actual car on MAME, but the experience will never be the same.

I haven't followed the controversy around the recent Mario Party, but for now I side with @Tom Bombadildo. Perhaps the experience is less when playing online, but games designed to be played with others really should have the ability to...erm...play with others. Wouldn't it be great that if daddy or mommy is away on a business trip, they can still play with the family at the end of the work day?


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Jun 17, 2018)

Hey, a new episode in Fast’s Philospophy!


----------



## pLaYeR^^ (Jun 17, 2018)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> Nobody would play Mario Party with random people on the internet, therefore the supposed "pffft people would just age quit pffffffft gg nintendo pfffft pls eat my ass miyamoto-san!" arguments are all invalid. When I say I want online multiplayer in Mario Party, I mean I want the ability to setup a party with my friends to play a round of Mario Party, not that I want to play with some random kiddies on the internet like people apparently think.


That's exactly what I want. I want to play Mario Party with random people on the internet. Yeah, I know, it's the most fun to play this type of games with friends and family. But my friends and family don't always have the time to do so. I agree that it would also be great to play with people on your friends list, because it would make a lot easier if you don't have to be at the same place. However, this wouldn't change anything if your friends and family don't have the time to play with you. Therefore, I think that getting connected to random people and playing Mario Party with them would be great. Because an online multiplayer mode that allows you to play full board game matches in Mario Party is missing, I don't play this type of games very often. That's why I hope that they add such a mode in a future Mario Party game.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jun 17, 2018)

so we all agree then we need a MMO Mario party battle royale


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 17, 2018)

SirNapkin1334 said:


> Hey, a new episode in Fast’s Philospophy!


I do truly intend these to be the foundation for a discussion, however as starting such a thing with some kind of wikipedia style neutral tone is not the only way and I would end up making the same comments in the first reply I make I thought might as well combine the two. Occasionally I have had it such I have covered most of the juicy aspects with a position common/agreeable to most and thus stifled discussion a bit there but other times it provides people a position to try to counter argue against without having to first establish it.




Taleweaver said:


> I'm gonna divide my response into two groups:
> 
> 1) the sort of games that rely on specific peripherals. You don't see people asking for pokemon go for desktop, wii fit for playstation or VR-games for the 3DS. Nobody in their right mind would even want such a game on another platform, because without the hardware, the experience would fall on its face completely.
> 
> ...



*Speaking of GTA 3 I always remember that one gun that could put you in first person mode. Running out of ammo for that mid mission in certain missions made them so much harder, one that particularly springs to mind being where you are doing an ambush in an alley from up high.*

On pokemon go for desktop I would possibly have to do a *points at geocaching*. Granted if they actually did it properly and did basically alternate reality pokemon (effectively making the pokemon mmo in the process) then I would concede in that case.

Wii fit for playstation I am not sure about as I was not following things there. Fitness games for the kinect on the other hand... when I was manning the 360 release section at times I ended up having to condense them all into collection posts and secondary things in mainline roundups.

Lightgun games on the wii. I will give that at no point* did I think I would not like a real light gun (heh) but the house of the dead game for it did blaze its own trail 
*actually it might perhaps be every 5 minutes or so it would drag me out of the action for a second or two. Only time that happens in light guns is when I am given a foot pedal in front of me and thus end up with a completely unnatural shooting stance.

VR games for the 3ds... maybe but its cousin in AR was being cried out for all the time at first.

MAME car riding games. Have you seen some of the setups people have for such things? Three monitors, wheel and pedals, seat from a scrap yard... and that is as nothing compared to some of the flight sim peeps.

"the amount of weapons is less"
I don't know if I ever considered the Halo two weapons (maybe expanded to three for SMG, sidearm and long range) thing as a streamlining mechanic for controllers before.




Xzi said:


> Completely disagree here, MMOs are never going to be playable on a phone.  Do you know how many buttons/keys are needed at high levels?



A "no buttons because for some reason we all thought apple was onto something" touchscreen like we see phones doing this last however long might be pushing it. However I don't know if buttons are inherent to high level play or an artefact of lazy/endless expansion game design. For the "functionally just diablo/action adventure/multiplayer RPG" style of game (as opposed to the older browser based things) then two main directions they could go, one actually being some of the things like Final Fantasy was doing and considering the world (there being spells in that which cared what direction you were standing in sort of thing) and two being specialisation being designed for and almost mandated (the tank, healer, dps... sort of thing all but mandated, as indeed it seems to be for some of the DOTA/MOBA style things, though I don't think those are well designed games when I look at the other aspects of them)..




kuwanger said:


> It seems like there's really two* different questions being asked:  do controllers make a genre and does online vs local play make a genre.  To both I say yes.  MMOs that change controls end up being different or they choose to be generic and working everywhere.  Similarly online play, even limited to friends, is different than being in the same room and not having to worry about latency issues; the only workaround is fundamentally taking latency out of the equation by either making less-action games, segregating play, or using some sort of referee that will inherently favor some players over others**.
> 
> So, the question isn't if there could be online Mario Party.  It's what changes would have to reasonably be made and whether Nintendo wants to push Mario Party into that genre.  Or they could do a lazy port without any consideration of the new genre.





The board game aspect is a complete non issue. Minigames wise do any of those strike you as particularly high bandwidth or latency sensitive affairs such that it would take a considered effort and retooling to handle? Were it some kind of modern FPS thing with vehicles, bullets, bullet speeds, destructible terrain... all simultaneously shared by 64 people then that is a hard task. Most of those are 2d or light 3d positional and control data, often with minimal or even no interaction, for between 2 and 8 actors and a max of 4 players/connections if it carries on with the traditional model, the sort of thing you could almost manage on dial up.
To that end the discussion almost necessarily had to go to how do you negate the drop out/AFK issue? Something "sub in AI" handles well enough.



B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> A lot of games are defined by the hardware they're produced on, with variables such as control schemes and portability being huge in defining the character of any given game.  Some games transfer better to other control schemes than others; for example, I've noticed that a lot of DS games work really well on smartphones, due to their touchscreen-heavy control interface.  Many games are less graceful in the transition, such as playing some DS games on a PC, or playing many twitch-action-based console games on a smartphone with no controller on-hand.


Amusingly the DS touch screen broke me for menus. Like right now I am playing Conan Exiles on the PS4 and it was clearly designed for a PC (a fact attested to by one of the item descriptions leaving LMB and RMB still in there) and while it has now all clicked for me there are times when fiddling with the menus that I want even a DS style thing to play with.


----------



## kuwanger (Jun 17, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Minigames wise do any of those strike you as particularly high bandwidth or latency sensitive affairs such that it would take a considered effort and retooling to handle?




At 16:48 is a good example where latency/race conditions would actually be pretty horrible.  Yes, probably 90% of the games are not too latency sensitive either because they're low action or they're one player mini-games which can be ran locally for that person.  The rest are latency sensitive to varying degrees and it's already pretty bad playing Mario Party locally and dealing with concerns about how other players may be cheating but probably are getting palm injuries.  Throw those minigames out or substantially retool them and you're left with a game that's no long really Mario Party.



FAST6191 said:


> Were it some kind of modern FPS thing with vehicles, bullets, bullet speeds, destructible terrain... all simultaneously shared by 64 people then that is a hard task. Most of those are 2d or light 3d positional and control data, often with minimal or even no interaction, for between 2 and 8 actors and a max of 4 players/connections if it carries on with the traditional model, the sort of thing you could almost manage on dial up.



Even non-modern FPSs (circa 2000) were horrible on dial-up vs a decent ping.  I'm actually pretty surprised with the whole Sm4sh online, which I've admittedly not played so I don't know how bad that is latency wise.  I guess if one can tolerate that, one can tolerate Mario Party online.



FAST6191 said:


> To that end the discussion almost necessarily had to go to how do you negate the drop out/AFK issue? Something "sub in AI" handles well enough.



With Mario Party, I think a lot of people would willing "sub in AI" for an advantage.  Ie, I don't think that's a good idea.

In any case, I understand what you're trying to say.  I don't entirely disagree with you.  I just don't entirely agree with you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 17, 2018)

16:48 would be one of the harder ones but essentially still tetris or a jigsaw puzzle game, both of which I happily played on the DS. If we did have to consider it a bit further then maybe pre generate the random sequence, maybe don't do shared piece pool and instead some kind of griefing mechanic (think garbage lines in tetris, or indeed a lot of what you see in eggo mania).

The dial up comment might have been a bit hyperbolic there as far as FPS goes. Still reckon those between those minigames that are essentially competitive solitaire and some kind of quasi VNC approach* (if people are already happy enough to play it over something as weak as a lot of emulator netplay is then I will count that in this), and maybe a slight cull of the harder to handle ones (or if we are being optimistic and assuming new things from scratch then some design constraints) that you have something unarguably Mario Party.

*if they had to do essentially fully debugged online games for every minigame I could see that being untenable, some kind of slot in framework (think warioware DIY) or said almost VNC would obviate that though.

For the AFK stuff I was thinking more people get booted for idling/no meaningful input. I don't imagine it would be too hard to skill match a player either.

The point I was heading towards though was that Mario Party is perfectly primed with essentially no changes to be an online game and I would barely even recognise it as a change of genre/gameplay style, probably not even an evolution. Just a new feature on par with adding said injury causing stick when moving up from 16 bit minigame collections.


----------



## Priestiality (Jun 17, 2018)

2D platformers on anything, at least according to AAA companies. Remember, we lost MegaMan and Castlevania because their respective publishers just didn't think the genre had any legs left outside of portable/mobile. The continued success of the genre speaks to the board-driven philosophies of big studios. On the topic of Mario Party, I don't think there's a detriment to having an online mode, especially if parties are involved. They don't have to be mutually exclusive, because they serve two different purposes. If there's a demand for it companies should look into it. Obviously some requests are too niche or too expensive to be practical, but something like online in Mario Party doesn't seem like a tall order by any measure, especially since they could probably borrow code from Splatoon 2, at least on the back-end, connection side.


----------



## Captain_N (Jun 18, 2018)

LuigiXHero said:


> I mean there was Phantasy Star Online which seemed to have been heavily popular on consoles.



Phantasy Star online is not an MMO. Its multiplayer takes place in different instances of the same world with at most 4 players. Its not different then Diablo/Dungeon siege and Titian Quest. Remember A true mmo does not have instances with a few players per room. MMo's all have large worlds with more then 100 players at once. 

MMO's can work on a cell phone. Ever heard of Ragnarok online? Thats a MMO and works great on a phone as i have played it on pc and phone.


----------



## Narayan (Jun 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Completely disagree here, MMOs are never going to be playable on a phone.  Do you know how many buttons/keys are needed at high levels?  That's assuming they don't dumb them down to the point of being unrecognizable as being the same games, anyway.
> 
> TES: Blades is probably the closest you'll get on a phone, we'll see how well that goes over.



Lineage 2 Revolution is already on mobile. It might fall down to your "dumbed down" category, nevertheless the game still exists and thrives and still is an mmo.
Controls doesn't really define MMO, it's massively multiplayer online game mechanics is a bit different.

There is a problem, or a feature for this specific game where it's automated to some point. It kinda kills a some interaction however for those who work and still want to play on mobile, we can leave it running while working. 

Even PUBG mobile is playable, not to the level of playing it on a pc, no, but still playable. I'm enjoying the game so far as I do not own a PC. It's also getting a first person update soon.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 18, 2018)

I always thought the DS was unsuited towards 3D games, any 3D game released for the system looked like a pixelated mess, whereas keeping the games 2D would have looked much better.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 18, 2018)

The Real Jdbye said:


> I always thought the DS was unsuited towards 3D games, any 3D game released for the system looked like a pixelated mess, whereas keeping the games 2D would have looked much better.


That's probably due to the fact that the DS is essentially trying to run PlayStation-style graphics on the screen with a resolution that's smaller than the SNES's, which results in a lot of games looking dirty.  The fact that the system has no analog stick and has to rely on the touch screen for anything similar doesn't do much to help its case.

Besides, given the casual audience the system was aiming for, on top of the touch screen as a control interface, keeping games 2D would've done wonders to simplify gameplay.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jun 18, 2018)

B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> A lot of games are defined by the hardware they're produced on, with variables such as control schemes and portability being huge in defining the character of any given game.  Some games transfer better to other control schemes than others; for example, I've noticed that a lot of DS games work really well on smartphones, due to their touchscreen-heavy control interface.  Many games are less graceful in the transition, such as playing some DS games on a PC, or playing many twitch-action-based console games on a smartphone with no controller on-hand.
> 
> However, a lot of what makes a good control scheme varies from person to person.  This issue becomes more prominent over time, due mostly to emulation and the expanded number of control schemes available for games made on any given system.  You may find yourself playing a game using a control scheme or controller the original developers could have never even dreamed of, such as playing _Super Mario Galaxy_ on an Xbox 360 controller, or playing _Street Fighter II_ on a touch screen.  The nature of the controller has become a far more personal matter than it ever has been.
> 
> ...


Jfc dude


----------



## DeletedMember411838 (Jun 18, 2018)

Chary said:


> I'm gonna go with MMOs on consoles. Final Fantasy 11 kinda crashed and burned on PS2. And I think for a while, the general idea was that MMOs wouldn't work on weak consoles. Then FF14, Black Desert Online and Elder Scrolls Online all kinda turned that idea around, and now there's a definite market for that genre on consoles.



Yep going to have to disagree with you there, like a few others have. 

I don't really consider either ESO or FF14 MMOs to start with. Granted I have limited experience with FF14, it and ESO are more like there games online. 

I played ESO since beta, still at times you can find me there. It is in essence as it was insulted as, "Skyrim Online". It's not really a true MMO, more like a MMO / Single player RPG hybrid. 

That said, they are still techinically MMOs, the experience on consoles is severly watered down, and has serious disadvantages. In the case of ESO, yes there is limited buttons making it semi playable, most MMOs are not that way however. 

Love or Hate it, WOW is still the number one MMO and really what all other MMOs aspire to be. In wow, I actively use every single button ony Razer orbweaver (that's 20 buttons) I also use the dpad as a modifier for another 20 buttons, however it's actually another 80. I mostly PVP, and during that I use all of those buttons, and also use them with modifiers. A controller simply can never do that, there simply isn't enough buttons.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 18, 2018)

B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> That's probably due to the fact that the DS is essentially trying to run PlayStation-style graphics on the screen with a resolution that's smaller than the SNES's, which results in a lot of games looking dirty.  The fact that the system has no analog stick and has to rely on the touch screen for anything similar doesn't do much to help its case.
> 
> Besides, given the casual audience the system was aiming for, on top of the touch screen as a control interface, keeping games 2D would've done wonders to simplify gameplay.


Not exactly. It's the texture resolution that's the problem, the textures are like minecraft level of quality but they try to put too much detail into them and it just looks bad. 
Some games don't seem to have this problem though, it seems to be mainly an issue when you see objects close up, and there is no filtering so it ends up looking worse than a N64 game.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 18, 2018)

Re DS 3d then between its implementation (it did not really resemble much else out there before or since, not that before was all that much better) and struggled to push enough to do it justice if you wanted a "traditional" 3d game. However there were many devs that used it to create nice effects. The DS form factor with PSP grade hardware would have been spectacular, indeed maybe the 3ds with a better opengl implementation during the DS era would have done really well as opposed to the 3ds being outdated almost from the gate. That is not even that fun an alternate history so I will leave that one.



Cyber_Locc said:


> Yep going to have to disagree with you there, like a few others have.
> 
> I don't really consider either ESO or FF14 MMOs to start with. Granted I have limited experience with FF14, it and ESO are more like there games online.
> 
> ...



I still reckons many buttons is a symptom of a problem rather than anything close to being a requirement or useful delineation. Anyway a choice video at this point


----------



## DeletedMember411838 (Jun 18, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Re DS 3d then between its implementation (it did not really resemble much else out there before or since, not that before was all that much better) and struggled to push enough to do it justice if you wanted a "traditional" 3d game. However there were many devs that used it to create nice effects. The DS form factor with PSP grade hardware would have been spectacular, indeed maybe the 3ds with a better opengl implementation during the DS era would have done really well as opposed to the 3ds being outdated almost from the gate. That is not even that fun an alternate history so I will leave that one.
> 
> 
> 
> I still reckons many buttons is a symptom of a problem rather than anything close to being a requirement or useful delineation. Anyway a choice video at this point




I didn't say alot of buttons we're a requirement, I said that the MMOs that are on Consoles, are not really MMOs. This comes from someone who has played every MMO pretty much released since UO.

Those games are very solely based, story driven, they do not push you to interact with others, in the case of BDO it actually drives you to stay away from others.

All of those games community's have said that since their launch. They were never, and still are not, really MMOs. Sure they are massive, (though sharded) and online, but it doesn't have the social needs that MMOs typically do.

There is also MMOs with limited buttons. Guildwars 2 and Tera are good examples. (Of which I actively still play both, Especially GW2)

Now that said the way I play GW2 is more akin to Arena Simulator than MMO, but that game is more multi faceted. 

As far as too many buttons being a problem. I disagree there too, I don't need my games dumbed down or the skill cap lowered. There is plenty of games already like that, and there is a few MMOs like that. Stating they should all be like that, is like saying all future poke.on games should be like Let's Go.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 18, 2018)

The video was in turn to question what a MMO actually is. Your notions of making things party/community based, story being that the world generates itself and meaningful interaction are interesting ones. I imagine a fine game could be built around that, mainly as many have, but I am not sure it means all that much.

On buttons then if a fighting game can have some kind of crazy complicated game system and a skill cap around "you will need to dedicate your life to mastering this" with four buttons and a dpad then from where I sit that stands in stark contrast to that assertion. It is by no means impossible to have many buttons create a complex and skills requiring system but if the low level/core play play is wasd and a mouse then when I see high level stuff adding more and more buttons I find it speaks to a "we'll just bolt this on" mentality and that rarely lands anywhere good. Maybe some slowly introduce more and more mechanics over the course of however many hundreds of hours it is to get to said high level play but that would be the exception and pretty clearly the case.


----------



## DeletedMember411838 (Jun 18, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> The video was in turn to question what a MMO actually is. Your notions of making things party/community based, story being that the world generates itself and meaningful interaction are interesting ones. I imagine a fine game could be built around that, mainly as many have, but I am not sure it means all that much.
> 
> On buttons then if a fighting game can have some kind of crazy complicated game system and a skill cap around "you will need to dedicate your life to mastering this" with four buttons and a dpad then from where I sit that stands in stark contrast to that assertion. It is by no means impossible to have many buttons create a complex and skills requiring system but if the low level/core play play is wasd and a mouse then when I see high level stuff adding more and more buttons I find it speaks to a "we'll just bolt this on" mentality and that rarely lands anywhere good. Maybe some slowly introduce more and more mechanics over the course of however many hundreds of hours it is to get to said high level play but that would be the exception and pretty clearly the case.



I know that was a question to what an MMO was, but my answer was it's the same thing it's always been. Like you already said it was, when UO coined the term, that was there actual defition. The MMOs to follow followed suit.

The community can also play a large part on that, ESO could have been a great true MMO, a few missteps from the devs those were correctable, however the majority of the community were Skyrim players never stepping foot in an MMO. They brought Skyrim tendencies and anti social playstyles that forced the game out of that genre, IMO.

Some of them adapted to MMO play, the majority did not. The ones that did, actually became to like the genre more in other MMOs in my small sample size of about 100, that were with my MGC, which was over 1k players in ESO.

Of course I'm old school, like I said been MMOing since UO, so my views could be tainted to what I have known for so long. Where as others newer to genere could see things diffrently. 

We see that with BDO, alot went there, most of the older players left (as happens with alot of MMOs) toe the combat system was atrocious, as was the punishment for PVP, as a mostly PvP player. 

They say Tab targeting with a alot of buttons is dated, and to them that may be true. To me it's preferred, as it is what I'm use to.


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Jun 19, 2018)

The Real Jdbye said:


> I always thought the DS was unsuited towards 3D games, any 3D game released for the system looked like a pixelated mess, whereas keeping the games 2D would have looked much better.


Actually, some games did look pretty Good, though there are many games that look like that.


----------



## VitaType (Jun 19, 2018)

I think action RPGs like _Diablo_ feel completely different when played with a controller or with mouse and keyboard. The direct movement of your character indeed works, but it really dosn't feels the same as with mouse, also in _Diablo 3_ for consoles the item dropping was reduced and you can collect money by running over it which are sacrifices to not having proper point&click with controllers. I don't even begin with having place for 10 potion in a belt  All in all it feels the UI suffered from controller-ready design and that already with the PC version 
Complex micromanagement with multiply party members and pause-function for battles like _Divinity: Original Sin_ do work on consoles, but I think the controller gets "in between" you and the game much more then mouse and keyboard. Not a fan.
As for FPS it's clear that mouse aiming is better, but I have to admit that gyro-aiming fixed it to a surpising extend.
As for RTS. Yes, that still is problemetic. Pikmin is a great example, but classical RTS like C&C or Age of Empires with controller? No, thanks.


----------



## tbb043 (Jun 19, 2018)

The Real Jdbye said:


> I always thought the DS was unsuited towards 3D games, any 3D game released for the system looked like a pixelated mess, whereas keeping the games 2D would have looked much better.



But that's true of any (1st gen) 3d system, PSX, n64, look like crap usually far worse than DS in 3D


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 19, 2018)

tbb043 said:


> But that's true of any (1st gen) 3d system, PSX, n64, look like crap usually far worse than DS in 3D


PSX and N64 had filtering and a (at least slightly) higher resolution which helped a lot. Early PSX games may look worse than the DS but I'd be hard pressed to find a single N64 game that does. Even Super Mario 64 looks better on N64.


----------



## DS1 (Jun 20, 2018)

This is a great one, lots of good discussion here. Rather than barrage people with my own anecdotes, I'll bring up something I've been afraid of for a long time:

PC-style simulation games on console. I'm talking about city-builders, management sims, etc. Hell, even some games that are ONLY released on console in America - Koei classics Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Nobunaga's Ambition come to mind.

Despite being 95% console player and 5% PC player*, I love these types of games, but have never tried them out on console. Even though Tropico 5 is routinely on sale for PS4, I've been afraid to try it. The chair at my desk with my laptop is super uncomfortable, yet I'll have a 2 hour Caesar session perched on that thing before I'll try Railway Empire on console.

*my laptop is about 12 years old now, and was a budget purchase at that time

Has anyone played these on a console? Should I even be afraid?


----------



## VitaType (Jun 20, 2018)

DS1 said:


> Should I even be afraid?


Yes. Never do that! If you do, the bogeyman will come and eat you ... in one piece!
No seriously, the control is awful that's all. With your setup it may makes sense to rather play the games on console then never. Just buy one of these games you're interested in next time it has a (very) good discount and try it out (or try the demo if one the games you want has one)


----------

