Imagine, if you will, that there are three chains of movie theaters. Starlight Cinemas, Double Super Megaplex, and Bobs Movies (okay, I gave up on naming them but that’s not the important part).
These three chains of theaters, in order to save costs, standardized their equipment.
Starlight Cinemas uses black and white projectors with a 16:9 aspect ratio, and has a cheap, single channel sound system.
Double Super Megaplex uses color, but has a 4:3 aspect ratio. It has a basic, but un-advanced stereophonic sound system.
Bobs Movies is also in black and white, and uses a 4:3 aspect ration, but has a highly advanced surround sound audio system.
While occasionally they make changes to their setup, each of the three chains makes sure to differentiate their particulars to make them appear unique to the consumer. None of them have any particular strong presence in any single market, but most communities only have one or two theaters, and many moviegoers have developed strong attachments for their preferred movie theater, and would sooner not see a film than watch it in a rival theater.
The studios are left in a precarious position because of this. Color, a wide aspect ratio, and surround sound can give the director many new options for story telling. But none of the theaters has all three (or even two of the three) qualities. In order to make sure as many people as possible can enjoy their films, they wind up taking as little advantage of these options as they can. After all, if a scene involves using a wide field of vision to track two characters or other important details, there’s no way for someone watching it in a narrow field of view to be able to view the whole scene.
Occasionally a studio declares that they will release a film that will only be shown at one of the theaters. But they can’t do that very often, because very few people have access to all three, and some will, as we have established, refuse to go to certain theaters out of principle. So, to cater to these people, these films are exhibited at one or both of the other theaters. Thus, two thirds of the films audience are simply not watching the film, as so much of the detail, mood, and all around quality has been lost.
I think you got the picture. Ports, or rather, cross-platform games. They’ve got little advantage and very frequently encourage developers to give the consumer a sub-par product. The PS3, 360, and Wii all have strengths and weaknesses. The Wii in particular is extremely unique, and the disparity of quality of ports between games going to and from the Wii serves as a good example. While the 360 and PS3 are more similar to each other, they still aren’t identical. With the addition of PCs, things are made even worse. PC’s make a ‘fourth theater’, using the prior metaphor, and it is when porting to and from the PC that we get to see the worst that ports do to games.
With the ability to use an Xbox 360 controller on your PC, and with many of the game pads for the PC rather obviously based on the dual shock design, PC’s can certainly handle the control aspects of most console games. But at the same time, playing a PC game is a very different experience from playing a console game. The Metal Gear Solid series, for example, is very much a cinematic narrative. You are supposed to be comfortable, and several of the games even break the fourth wall referencing that you are playing a game. But the Metal Gear Solid series has consistently had PC ports. Imagine, sitting in your crappy office chair, sitting inches away from your monitor as you watch hours of Hideo Kojima’s self indulgent Hollywood fantasies. I’d describe the horror that was the PC release of Resident Evil 4, but I don’t have the stomach for it, and RE4 is more or less Metal Gear Solid: Umbrella Edition.
Worse, though, than games going to the PC (as it is eventually possible to accommodate the game, by purchasing enough hardware), are games leaving the PC. Let us examine two main examples, followed by a rant that you should probably skip. The Deus Ex series and the Elder Scroll series. These are both good because there the first generation of games that received a port, followed by sequels that were intentionally cross-platform,
Deus Ex. One of the most acclaimed titles of all time, and one of the greatest examples of what PC gaming is about. And yet it had a PS2 port. Seriously, Deus Ex had a PS2 port. I didn’t believe it either, until two of my friends told me they were surprised it was a PC game. Okay, that’s not so bad, I mean, ultimately all added was annoying memory card management and made it more annoying to aim or use your inventory. Oh and the computer terminals had to be changed since you don’t have a keyboard. But then let’s look at Deus Ex 2. If this isn’t a shining example of consoles ‘dumbing down’ PC games I don’t know what is. While I know this is baseless conjecture, I have to assume that the success of the original game on the PS2 led to the developer or publisher deciding to go for a cross platform release, on both the PC and Xbox. Sure, we can’t really blame the console, but I am going to have to assume the complete removal of the skill system, the use of only one ammo type, and the removal of the inventory system were all changes to accommodate the console. Really, I consider Deus Ex 2 to be a crappy Xbox game that had a PC release. Also, as I write this, I am told it was a buggy piece of shit, and the windows release was shipped optimized for Xbox hardware.
The Elder Scrolls. Morrowind was a landmark title on the PC. It had a massive open world, diverse gameplay options, a gorgeous and detailed setting, and a dedicated fan community making mods. It had an Xbox port. I couldn’t imagine it played very well, as you couldn’t use any user-made mods, and were limited to the controller, which while not horrible, had to have made navigating menus annoying as shit. It’s followed by Oblivion. Another landmark title, this one more just because it was expected to be. It was originally released on both the 360 and the PC, and later would see a PS3 release. Users of the console versions still couldn’t get any user made content, and I have to assume the gameplay changes from Morrowind were put in just to spite the PC gamers. Like Deus Ex, Oblivion had neutered skill and inventory systems, (many of the skills from Morrowind were consolidated, Enchanting was removed as a skill, and instead something anyone who has magic can do, the use of mastery levels and the lack of chance involved in skill use made all skills really only have as many levels as the skill has mastery perks), a crappy level scaling system that made it easiest to beat the game if you remained level 1, the reintroduction of fast travel despite having a world not appreciably larger than Morrowinds (no doubt so they can get rid of levitation spells, the mage guild teleporters, transportation analogous to the silt striders, and [i'm aware this one has nothing to do with consoles] get away with making a generally uninteresting landscape). Did I mention the horrible inventory?
Finally, we come to my rant. You do not play FPS on consoles. You do not play FPS on consoles. You do not play FPS on consoles. Halo wasn’t horrible. It was pretty alright. But consoles will always be limited by not having a keyboard and mouse, and, thus, we don’t play FPS on consoles.
Alas, I have stayed my hand, and you will be spared my angry, rage filled tirade on Call of Duty 4.
