What is "consolisation" and why does it exist? Or Simulated Skill v Player Skill

SubJeff on 4/2/2011 at 00:01

As some of you will know I've had this theory about what makes a game enjoyable for a while now, and a key component is something that I called the Interface, but which I'm now calling the Translation Interface until I hear something better (Interface is just confusing what with GUIs and whatnot).

Anyways, to c&p myself the Translation Interface (TI) consists of 3 main components that act in concert:
The TI is made up of 3 components:

* Physical Control - mouse & keyboard, motion controls, control pad, etc.
* Agent Control - the way the control system controls your Agent(s) in the game world - m&k in an fps in a way that feels natural (e.g. Thief), the way you move a 3rd person character (e.g. Batman Arkham Asylum) or your units in an RTS (e.g. Company of Heroes). This includes the HUD or GUI.
* Agent-World Interaction - the way your Agent(s) interact with the game world. This includes all the skills/abilities your Agents have and ranges from just walking around to being able to mantle, jump, cast spells, fire weapons, etc.

I think that the Wii became popular with casual gamers because it offered them a Physical Control system that wasn't as alien as a SixAxis, and it's naturally important to get this aspect correct.

Agent Control is usually done pretty well these days. Analogue sticks have made FPSs doable on consoles and for the most part I think that game engines have this component sorted out. Games are crucified in reviews if the Agent Control sucks and is slow or unintuitive.

So back to the original point. Consolisation. Agent-World Interaction consists of those gameplay elements that the player learns to control and become (hopefully!) good at. In Soul Caliber it's learning the moves, the counters, the combos. Learning those things requires Player Skill, but when your onscreen Agent does them it's a Simulated Skill. You can't really wield a bo staff like Kilik but you can make him so all sorts of stuff with it if you have the Player Skill.

RPS has just done a big piece on Deus Ex Human Revolution and one thing they talk about is the cover system and moving from cover to cover. It sounds like it's a single button press, like in GTAIV, and this friends is the problem.

I believe that "consolisation" consists largely of getting the Simulated Skill/Player Skill divide wrong, of setting it too far towards the Simulated Skill end of the spectrum. I get no reward for pressing an "I win" button because it requires no Player Skill and so I get no sense of achievement from it. To give another example; 3rd person corner peeking in Thief DS. It feels like cheating because for a Thief 1 and 2 player, who had developed the Player Skill to deploy lean in the right situation, it was. Unified ammunition (DXIW in case you're wondering) is another example; I don't have to concern myself with ammo management as much and this was a (admittedly more abstract) Player Skill you learned in the first game.

I've got a PS3 so don't get butthurt when I say this console people, but what people call "consolisation" is really just moving the skill divide in favour of the Agent and away from us. It's designing a game more around "I win" buttons and less around Player Skill. It's not true of all console games, far from it (just look at Dead Space!), but it's the cancer that is destroying games because (as in the DXHR example) with cross platform development we'll get this skill leech on PCs.

Anyways, I was just thinking.

tl;dr? Console games are easier because your brains are a bit soft.

Sulphur on 4/2/2011 at 00:33

Mm? Consolitis is, basically, a function of simplified gameworld interaction mechanisms, innit? It's all right to talk about player/simulated skill divides, however the reasons I've found that console games lack verisimilitude are:

a) the input mechanisms (pads) may be lacking in simulating relatively granular levels of physical movement and interaction because there simply aren't enough buttons (imagine playing ArmA 2 or Stalker: SoC on a console), hence you have wonderful issues like the run and use actions being mapped to the same button/key in ME2
b) intellectual concessions like waypoint arrows, bread-crumb trails, and glowing frobbables/mission items/markers
c) heavy focus on QTEs that translate directly into 'doing cool stuff you'd otherwise only see in a non-interactive cinematic' by mashing buttons because the interface doesn't allow for fine manual control to pull off those actions by yourself or, as you call it, the 'I win' button.

DE:HR's cover system is an interesting case in that it automates switching from one cover point to another with a key press (possibly with you being able to choose the cover surface you want to get to by highlighting it in your crosshairs), and it's something the latest Splinter Cell did.

I can't really tell if I like or hate the system, because it works seamlessly and fluidly enough that you can concentrate on tactics instead of lumbering from pillar to post, but it's automated the 'crouch and run/roll/dodge/slide to next piece of cover' bit completely.

Manwe on 4/2/2011 at 01:24

Console games are easier (or rather simpler) because you can't have the same control complexity and precision with a gamepad as with a keyboard and mouse. Gamepads were fine for platformers and action/adventure games but now they're trying to fit complex games like Deus EX, Thief or even fucking Oblivion on them. It's like trying to navigate the operating system of your PC with the remote control of your TV. It's just impossible. So they have to simplify everything for it to work. It's as simple as that. They don't purposefully dumb down their games just to annoy players, they are simply restricted by the controlers. Look at Deus Ex and the number of keys required to play it. Now look at the number of buttons on a gamepad. Without streamlining, you can't have the same depth on a console (unless you want to end up with an unplayable mess of a game, ie, any of the early PC FPS ports). Imagine trying to type keypad numbers with your gamepad in DX1. It would be a fucking nightmare. They have to make it automatic because there's no other way to do it.

Quote:

RPS has just done a big piece on Deus Ex Human Revolution and one thing they talk about is the cover system and moving from cover to cover. It sounds like it's a single button press, like in GTAIV, and this friends is the problem.

The problem would be to have a leaning system like in Deus Ex, with one button assigned to leaning left and another one assigned to leaning right, and having to approach enemies stealthily, stand up, equip the right weapon and aim at their heads to knock them out. That would be totally unplayable on a gamepad. Whether it's a problem when played with a keyboard and mouse doesn't factor in their reasoning. It's an afterthought. It doesn't matter. Just think about those early PC FPS ports on consoles like rainbow six on ps1 or whatever. Nobody gave a shit whether they were playable on a gamepad cause nobody played them. They were just quick shitty ports to grab some money. Nowaydays the trend is simply reversed, the main platform is the console and the PC gets the shitty ports. It's like those old FPSs on dreamcast (Quake 3 arena, Soldier of fortune, etc...). They were straight ports from the PC that were almost unplayable with a gamepad. You had to use the mouse and keyboard to enjoy them fully. Well, again nowadays the trend is reversed, if you want to enjoy a game on PC you have to use a gamepad.

Quote:

but it's the cancer that is destroying games because (as in the DXHR example) with cross platform development we'll get this skill leech on PCs.

Yes, it's the cancer that's been destroying PC gaming for 5 Years. It's not exactly a new trend and it's not about to stop.

Also it's true games in general are becoming easier, but I wouldn't necessarily correlate that with consolisation or whatever. Hard games weren't exclusive to the PC. Console games used to be challenging too. But now it's become this huge industry and I guess it's more profitable to make easier games. Just like books that are easy to read or movies that are easy to understand will sell more.

Edit : Took too long too write this, sulphur already said it all.

Phatose on 4/2/2011 at 01:25

Don't nearly all console FPS's provide considerable amounts of aiming assists, pushing the fundamentals of that mechanic towards simulated skill from player skill?

Fafhrd on 4/2/2011 at 01:31

Quote Posted by Sulphur

DE:HR's cover system is an interesting case in that it automates switching from one cover point to another with a key press (possibly with you being able to choose the cover surface you want to get to by highlighting it in your crosshairs), and it's something the latest Splinter Cell did.

I can't really tell if I like or hate the system, because it works seamlessly and fluidly enough that you can concentrate on tactics instead of lumbering from pillar to post, but it's automated the 'crouch and run/roll/dodge/slide to next piece of cover' bit completely.

I think it's more likely that it's a Enter Cover -> lean out of cover -> tap jump button -> player character springs to next available cover in that direction (provided it falls within a certain range). Without this function it would be Enter Cover -> Exit cover -> run to next bit of cover -> enter cover. The thing that's interesting to me, is that based on one preview I read, entering cover is a press and hold, not a toggle, so the required button presses to exit/move/enter is reduced significantly.

Neb on 4/2/2011 at 02:58

Moving away slightly from the question of consolisation, I think that games can be looked at as a balance between gradient and quantised interaction.

Gradients provide free movement, ranges of values with varying effect, randomisation, and uncertainty in the development or outcome of a scenario.

Quantised mechanics wrap events up into discrete, streamlined stages and can be used as building blocks to simplify details of game play - or as clear feedback, and eventually victory.

It might be kind of obvious, but it has helped me to look at why and how games are enjoyable, and I believe there is an art to mixing the two.

EvaUnit02 on 4/2/2011 at 03:17

One thing that's important is that you do not confuse consolisation with mainstreaming. Consolisation would be having to make compromises for hardware and control limitations of the lesser platforms. Eg you have a mainly first person game, but you implement a cover system that pops out into 3rd person... you're compromising for the lack of keys necessary for leaning above all else. Rainbow Six: Vegas is the epitome of this example. You need leaning in a tactical FPS like R6, but you don't have enough buttons.

Mainstreaming is essentially the "dumbing down" that Angry Internet Men get all huffy about, which they often confuse with the former. Examples of "mainstreaming" include hand-holding, Bioshock's navigation arrows, the "bread crumb trail" featured in Fable 2 and Dead Space, forced tutorials, non-existent difficulty, the platformers with unmissable jumps (which maybe automatic), etc. Prince of Persia 2008 immediately comes to mind.

Volitions Advocate on 4/2/2011 at 04:25

I think the term "consolisation" is a bit of a misnomer anyway.

When i started playing videogames it was on a Sega Master System, then moved to Sega Genesis and NES / SNES. And those games had much simpler controllers than today's gaming machines.
(were also much harder than any games I can think of today that are AAA titles)

I think it's more a question of access to games. I was reading some fantasy role playing wiki earlier today looking for an old adventure book I used to have, and they claimed the demise of their popularity came about the same time that D&D pen-&-paper games stopped being popular, and the reason was the popularity of video games. So is this really a case of consolitis or is it just a continued form of gaming. Try playing a real non dumbed-down pen&paper style rpg and have it be as creative and difficult when you're playing with a gamepad. Not saying there aren't great rpg videogames out there, but very basic fundamentals of what made real life RPGs so great are completely lost when put in digital form. This could easily be called videoitis or something similar.

I have owned many consoles throughout my life and right now I have the gamut under my TV. I've found that the type of game it is, is what makes me determine to buy it on X-platform. I've always played ResiEvil on a console with a gamepad. It feels weird to play it on PC. so I bought RE5 on PS3 because that seemed to make the most sense to me. I guess it seems odd then, that I would want to buy Dead Space, which is basically a clone of RE4/5, on the PC. It's all about implementation. As far as I know Borderlands is identical on PC as it is on the consoles. And they have an inventory system that is easy enough for a gamepad to manage. So I would say that it's all about how the control scheme is implemented. Red Alert for PSone was awful, because it was identical to the PC version and it just didn't work well with a controller. the Halo RTS however was designed for use with a gamepad and the control scheme for that was fluid and worked perfectly. The only compalint I heard was from Halonerds who played it solely for their Waypoint stats and hated RTSs.

Worm rat made a great point about how making something easier in one way doesn't negate the ability to make something more complex in others. Take the first Rainbow Six for example. Even on PC with auto-aim on that game was a pain in the ass to finish. I got my butt handed to me so many times even with that quick snappy auto-aim that gave you headshots every time, if you managed to pull the trigger fast enough.

You could also look at the Janes flight simulators as another anomaly. The longbow/apache one comes to mind.. even with a keyboard and mouse you didn't have enough buttons to run that game. Its difficulty was completely artificial, it was all the controls. Every thing was a macro. Alt-Ctrl-Shift recycling, what a pain in the ass that game was.

I put most blame on the publishers for releasing sub-par games. Its just like the music industry. the masses like what they like because it's what they're told they like. plain and simple. If you dont like it... then why the hell haven't you bought amnesia yet? (maybe you have but my point stands)

When I think consolitis... I think Devil May Cry and Dynasty warriors. Not DX:IW and Fear2.

Besides. Mortal Kombat is a great game. So is Super Metroid. both of those games suck to play on a keyboard.

PS. Console game that got cover systems right: Killzone 2 Player skill vs I-win button .. perfect balance imho.

june gloom on 4/2/2011 at 06:00

Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate

Besides. Mortal Kombat is a great game. So is Super Metroid. both of those games suck to play on a keyboard.

Did it! Quite handily too! The Megaman X series as well!

Then it stopped being easy and started being hurty so I bought a gamepad and haven't looked back.

Koki on 4/2/2011 at 06:53

Quote Posted by Manwe

Console games are easier (or rather simpler) because you can't have the same control complexity and precision with a gamepad as with a keyboard and mouse.

We had this argument over at STALKER Steam forums the other day and, with a bit of clever Metro 2033 trickery, managed to fit the entire CoP control scheme on a 360 pad. The amount of immediately reachable buttons for WSAD and a pad is roughly the same anyway.

And hardware constraints can be overcome. Far Cry 2 was huge and open and it was both on 360 and PS3. Deus Ex was ported to PS2 almost completely unchanged.

The real problem with consoles is the analog stick, the TV and a different gaming culture. Analog stick sucks balls for precise movement forcing developers to use shitty menus and the TV's pitiful resolution forces them to make everything huge. Gaming culture... consoles are the fast food of gaming. Watching TV and friend on XBox live invites you for a quick CoD match? Pick up the pad, play a match or two, go back to watching TV. At least playing on the PC forces you to get off the couch, which in itself is a commitment.