I played Silent Hill f 2 weeks ago and one thing I didn't think about until recently was how Silent Hill 1-3 have almost no on-screen UI during gameplay by comparison. They didn't need it. Part of that's because they're relatively simpler, but also because they had paper manuals that players can read before or during the game. All the little (press X to ______) messages aren't needed because the manual can absorb all these little, but important facts about the gameplay leaving the gameplay experience cleaner. All the health and weapon information are hidden in the pause menu.
It's a similar thing to how games can get rid of most of the UI, but can still fall back to having a single health gauge or a grip gauge or show which weapon is equipped in the UI somewhere on screen. But if you have a second screen like the Dreamcast VMU, or the second screen on 3/DS or Wii U all those little things that slightly ruin the image can also get shoved onto that second screen and leave the main screen nice and clean. It was cool playing Dino Crisis 1 on Dreamcast where your ammo and health were shown on the VMU screen.
And now paper manuals are extinct and secondary screens seem to have been abandoned. It's too bad. Especially since the modern alternatives are either annoying tutorials that clutter the beginning of a game, a digital manual that may or may not be easily accessed, or having gameplay so homogenized/generic that people have already played it.
Yeah. It's not an SH game, really. It's a AA Japanaese/Chinese horror game with SH name attached. Which is not the worst thing to happen to SH, but I have extremely mixed feelings on it. I'd say it's worth trying out since we barely get horror games like it these days, but it doesn't come close to SH1-4, for example.
I played Silent Hill f 2 weeks ago and one thing I didn't think about until recently was how Silent Hill 1-3 have almost no on-screen UI during gameplay by comparison. They didn't need it. Part of that's because they're relatively simpler, but also because they had paper manuals that players can read before or during the game. All the little (press X to ______) messages aren't needed because the manual can absorb all these little, but important facts about the gameplay leaving the gameplay experience cleaner. All the health and weapon information are hidden in the pause menu.
The reason was how the Alone in the Dark series was a worldwide popularity that this is the series made Japanese people wanna create survival horror games by "developing a game like Alone in the Dark" when they developed Resident Evil and Silent Hill by milking the popularity of the Alone in the Dark. Alone in the Dark series was not just popular because of its genre or how fresh it was, mostly it was "da cinematic video game" as one of the first example that tons of people got to know beyond Another World and lots of point and click games. In that context almost having no HUD most of the game unless HUD is required became part of such genre games later on.
It's a similar thing to how games can get rid of most of the UI, but can still fall back to having a single health gauge or a grip gauge or show which weapon is equipped in the UI somewhere on screen. But if you have a second screen like the Dreamcast VMU, or the second screen on 3/DS or Wii U all those little things that slightly ruin the image can also get shoved onto that second screen and leave the main screen nice and clean. It was cool playing Dino Crisis 1 on Dreamcast where your ammo and health were shown on the VMU screen.
And now paper manuals are extinct and secondary screens seem to have been abandoned. It's too bad. Especially since the modern alternatives are either annoying tutorials that clutter the beginning of a game, a digital manual that may or may not be easily accessed, or having gameplay so homogenized/generic that people have already played it.
They may release manual via PDF files if it means they will stop forcing me to attend "how to play this game 101" university course!!! Often no way to turn it off or skip easily, you just have to read. And what's worst is these forced tutorials sometimes don't cover all the bases. It turns into your stupid mathematic teacher who only teaches simple stuff even a donkey would get but leaves the actual important topic never explained because the teacher doesn't know shit about all these lolol.
It turns into your stupid mathematic teacher who only teaches simple stuff even a donkey would get but leaves the actual important topic never explained because the teacher doesn't know shit about all these lolol.
I played Silent Hill f 2 weeks ago and one thing I didn't think about until recently was how Silent Hill 1-3 have almost no on-screen UI during gameplay by comparison. They didn't need it. Part of that's because they're relatively simpler, but also because they had paper manuals that players can read before or during the game. All the little (press X to ______) messages aren't needed because the manual can absorb all these little, but important facts about the gameplay leaving the gameplay experience cleaner. All the health and weapon information are hidden in the pause menu.
It's a similar thing to how games can get rid of most of the UI, but can still fall back to having a single health gauge or a grip gauge or show which weapon is equipped in the UI somewhere on screen. But if you have a second screen like the Dreamcast VMU, or the second screen on 3/DS or Wii U all those little things that slightly ruin the image can also get shoved onto that second screen and leave the main screen nice and clean. It was cool playing Dino Crisis 1 on Dreamcast where your ammo and health were shown on the VMU screen.
And now paper manuals are extinct and secondary screens seem to have been abandoned. It's too bad. Especially since the modern alternatives are either annoying tutorials that clutter the beginning of a game, a digital manual that may or may not be easily accessed, or having gameplay so homogenized/generic that people have already played it.
This is awesome. It's something I never really considered until reading this. The manual stuff is one thing - I think it's great for keeping it clean. The only real thing I have to say in that regard is that it's not like manuals don't exist anymore, it's just that devs aren't implementing them as avidly. I know a few modern games on steam that have manuals accessible via the library as well as in-game copies. They're really handy, but sadly they're the exception.
The thing about the VMU and the DS though, that really activated my almonds. I'd been thinking about consoles lately, mainly about how inefficient they are in comparison to buying a decent PC setup; the main point I kept coming back to was "consoles don't offer anything that a PC can't do better, except for convenience". However, what you said kinda shakes that - the Dreamcast, being more niche than a PC, can be more specialised and more affordable. As you said, it's becoming increasingly homogenised, and it's to the point I lost sight of the fact that consoles have so much untapped potential.
This might sound redudant but the DS is a system specifically designed to play DS games and that comes with lots of benefits. The stuff you mentioned - dev side they have a lot more opportunites to declutter conventional games, but it also gives them the chance to make unconventional games that can only work on the dual screen setup (like Brain Training or Pokemon Art). The system is a lot more affordable as it only needs to account for running DS games, meaning more people can get it. The more specialised nature of the system demands more specialised dev teams, leading to more job opportunies and a wider variety of talent circulating the industry. I haven't really rounded off my thoughts fully but you've given me a lot to think about in regards to consoles as systems designed to play games (unbound by PC standardisation). The DS and Dreamcast offered a lot in ways the PS5 just doesn't want to
The reason was how the Alone in the Dark series was a worldwide popularity that this is the series made Japanese people wanna create survival horror games by "developing a game like Alone in the Dark" when they developed Resident Evil and Silent Hill by milking the popularity of the Alone in the Dark. Alone in the Dark series was not just popular because of its genre or how fresh it was, mostly it was "da cinematic video game" as one of the first example that tons of people got to know beyond Another World and lots of point and click games. In that context almost having no HUD most of the game unless HUD is required became part of such genre games later on.
Technically this isn't strictly true. Resident Evil was in production long before Alone in the Dark ever released. The idea of a biologically-themed, virus-based haunted mansion was always the idea for Resident Evil, the devs just took a while to find their footing. Originally the game looked like a Doom clone but with 3D environments, but that had to be scrapped because of spec limitations. Here's the only concept work from that stage of development:
Makami Shinji is on record as saying the release of Alone in the Dark revolutionised the development of Resident Evil because it gave them a direction they were sorely lacking. Resident Evil most certainly rips all of it's gameplay from Alone in the Dark, however, I think calling the game an outright rip-off is a little callous. Firstly, Resident Evil has a personality that bleeds through beyond the core gameplay, and that shows even just looking at that one image - it just has a Resident Evil vibe. I love Alone in the Dark and I like Resident Evil, but I don't feel the need to make them compete for a place in my heart. Secondly though, the devs are open about their inspiration - sure it's annoying that the general masses don't appreciate Alone in the Dark for inventing the genre, but that's no reason to discredit their artistic integrity.
Yeah. It's not an SH game, really. It's a AA Japanaese/Chinese horror game with SH name attached. Which is not the worst thing to happen to SH, but I have extremely mixed feelings on it. I'd say it's worth trying out since we barely get horror games like it these days, but it doesn't come close to SH1-4, for example.
The thing about the VMU and the DS though, that really activated my almonds. I'd been thinking about consoles lately, mainly about how inefficient they are in comparison to buying a decent PC setup; the main point I kept coming back to was "consoles don't offer anything that a PC can't do better, except for convenience". However, what you said kinda shakes that - the Dreamcast, being more niche than a PC, can be more specialised and more affordable. As you said, it's becoming increasingly homogenised, and it's to the point I lost sight of the fact that consoles have so much untapped potential.
This might sound redudant but the DS is a system specifically designed to play DS games and that comes with lots of benefits. The stuff you mentioned - dev side they have a lot more opportunites to declutter conventional games, but it also gives them the chance to make unconventional games that can only work on the dual screen setup (like Brain Training or Pokemon Art). The system is a lot more affordable as it only needs to account for running DS games, meaning more people can get it. The more specialised nature of the system demands more specialised dev teams, leading to more job opportunies and a wider variety of talent circulating the industry. I haven't really rounded off my thoughts fully but you've given me a lot to think about in regards to consoles as systems designed to play games (unbound by PC standardisation). The DS and Dreamcast offered a lot in ways the PS5 just doesn't want to
Secondary screens are a nuisance more than a benefit. A gimmick at best, a headache at worst.
The VMU gimmick was a brain fart. Putting your health meter on it, putting plays on it to keep it hidden from multiplayer competition. The idea sounds groundbreaking, but in practice it adds fuck all but headaches and a focus shift away from the main screen.
The DS worked because the screens were close together, but it was still a bit of a problem. The hinge distance wasn't right, so in stuff like Contra 4 the bullet movement was offset. Throwing all the menu information on one screen while gameplay was on the other did nothing major but spare you from pausing and going into a menu in a lot of games. Now we have emulation and new ports of the castlevania games throwing them side by side on a wide screen, and nothing of value was lost.
Lets not forget the total abomination Wii U that doubled down on this nonsense, needing to shift focus between two screens far apart.
Xbox had smart glass features to enhance gameplay, add maps and other bullshit. They killed it because it took up resources to deploy this shit, and people didn't care anyway. Fallout 4 had an app that you could use your phone as a Pip Boy.
If any of this crap had "untapped potential" it would have been tapped as a peripheral experience on PC already. The argument that consoles are better in any way, by being unbound by PC standardization dismisses the fundamental reality that the hardware had little to nothing to do with the implementation of the gimmick. Games are built for middleware that is ported between different platforms. PC is open and cutting edge, where anything is possible without restriction in regards to peripherals.
Seeing "multiple displays" as revolutionary concepts somehow tied to a console gaming benefit, just implies that somebody has no idea what's actually going on in general when it comes to PC gaming.
That's what I like about old survival horror games, they keep all info and UI to the pause menu so the gameplay screen is totally clean, which makes it more real and cinematic. Also I love when games implement health bars in creative ways. Isaac's suit in Dead Space or the boob tattoo in Jurassic Park: Trespasser are nice examples of this. Last Amnesia game did similar thing too. But there are also more subtle things like how characters start limping and holding their stomach when their health is low in Resident Evil games, thats a great way to do it.
Personally I'm not a fan of Silent Hill f, I think it would have been a stronger game without the baggage of Silent Hill fans wants and hopes since it's not related to the town. But if just talking about it as a game alone I understand that UI/Journal bloat. That would be perfectly fine in an RPG and think that it's in a "horror" novel it feels excessive. Health bar and stamina bars isn't new (Evil Within) but it really does ruin the idea of horror and put it further in survival. The horror should be more in that you see your character clutching their arm, dragging their feet, the screen on the side getting darker and blurring vision not red and blaring at you.
Now to the journal, on paper that's not a bad idea of your main character taking notes on what has happen as gave devs think we are forgetful and need summaries and objective notes when we return to a game (which yeah working people problems) it really takes the fun of trying to interrupt the monsters out which was the staple of SH 1-4, instead it's the word of god telling you and no allowance the player trying to figure it out for themselves.
Playing SH1 rn and I felt that, it´s really inmersive and fun.
IIRC the Monster Hunter games on 3DS had an option to display the health bars on the lower screen to make the combat more fluid.
I think you missed the spirit of what I was saying because you've got an axe to grind over the DS and Dreamcast. The point I'm trying to make is that games are an artistic medium, and so having more ways for creators to express their vision is a good thing. I'm not trying to make a case in for the Dreamcast being the peak of console design.
That being said, there are a few things you said that I can't really get behind
Firstly, you mention the headache it puts on devs, however, have you considered the difficulties of designing a game that's supposed to run on a range of slightly different systems? I'm currently working on a PC exclusive game and you wouldn't believe how much time is spent just future proofing in case there's a console release. Like I said, specialised systems create the need for specialised teams. I mean, just look at how differences between consoles led to there being like 20 different Alien 3 games, each having its own qualities and design philosophies - that's something that has been lost by the need for all consoles to just be instant PCs.
Secondly though, you completely disregarded what I said about affordability with your remark about PC peripherals. I don't really have anything to add, other than you should really consider that not all games and gaming systems are being made for you specifically
I think you missed the spirit of what I was saying because you've got an axe to grind over the DS and Dreamcast. The point I'm trying to make is that games are an artistic medium, and so having more ways for creators to express their vision is a good thing. I'm not trying to make a case in for the Dreamcast being the peak of console design.
These gimmicks came and went as core design features, with little to no care for their absence. PC hardware has standardized around x86, and optimized around new features every couple of years, but the platform is open and there are "more ways" available there than on any locked down console spec. It is wide open to new peripherals for I/O.
That being said, there are a few things you said that I can't really get behind
Firstly, you mention the headache it puts on devs, however, have you considered the difficulties of designing a game that's supposed to run on a range of slightly different systems? I'm currently working on a PC exclusive game and you wouldn't believe how much time is spent just future proofing in case there's a console release. Like I said, specialised systems create the need for specialised teams. I mean, just look at how differences between consoles led to there being like 20 different Alien 3 games, each having its own qualities and design philosophies - that's something that has been lost by the need for all consoles to just be instant PCs.
The headache is put on customers, but it seems like you're arguing that the limitations or specs set for consoles leads to easier optimization, even around bad ideas, like the reliance on multiple screens. How it's now some sort of lost benefit.
It's both not lost and it's not a benefit. You can easily throw multiple displays on a PC, go down the rabbit hole of peripherals and gimmicks to make the game immersive. Play Battlefield or whatever and have your secondary display up with the match's telemetry.
Nobody really cares about any of it. If they did, it would be a much bigger part of contemporary gaming.
Losing having to payroll 20 different "specialized" teams is better for the developer and publisher. It's more efficient to target portable middleware and game engines that have the figurative heavy lifting already sorted out. Your point around having to slightly adjust a PC game in case of console release is mind boggling. It's better than building 20 radically different versions.
Secondly though, you completely disregarded what I said about affordability with your remark about PC peripherals. I don't really have anything to add, other than you should really consider that not all games and gaming systems are being made for you specifically
So we don't optimize around the one open platform, with it's already standardized widely accessible reference designs, and instead focus on heavily customized shit where nobody gets down to the metal anyway? So the wishy-washy creative artist's need to be constrained to be creative takes precedence, resources get focused on specialization, and the end result is a higher cost?
Your assumption that these are (a) adjustments, and (b) slight, shows a real lack of understanding for how games are made. Even just accounting for different inputs alone is quite the undertaking.
Your assumption that these are (a) adjustments, and (b) slight, shows a real lack of understanding for how games are made. Even just accounting for different inputs alone is quite the undertaking.
You are implying I don't know how games are made, and also trying to say that cutting things down to focus on one platform with the wide variety of options, freely open to make these sacred gimmicks available to the end user, is somehow worse or a bigger undertaking than dumping resources to maintaining builds for potentially radically different and restricted platforms, because they may provide a design focus on gimmicks, limitations, and require "specialization."
I don't see the issue if they're used well, I never had any issues with the dual screen for Sonic Rush nor having a map for Zelda games on it. Even if they're mostly a secondary display for infos I find that it helped to make the main screen less cluttered with the HUD (aside from important things like HP such as in Superstar Ultra).
These gimmicks came and went as core design features, with little to no care for their absence. PC hardware has standardized around x86, and optimized around new features every couple of years, but the platform is open and there are "more ways" available there than on any locked down console spec. It is wide open to new peripherals for I/O.
So the wishy-washy creative artist's need to be constrained to be creative takes precedence, resources get focused on specialization, and the end result is a higher cost?
And it's thanks to creative things that games didn't become the same standardised things for years up until this era of games appearing to use the same game design or gamepad for everything.
Even if it's gimmicky I like the gyro and accelerometer on gamepads when they allow it.
The VMU was mostly useless but at least Sega tried to do something original.
Why are you getting overly angry over things there?
Can we just keep a good ambience in the topic instead of acting up like that over nothing? I think mods don't want to bother about a topic going towards an unwanted direction.
I'm all for manuals, but I get why they don't do it nowadays. I miss popping open a computer game and having some 80-page thing staring back at me, and I was expected to either read it beforehand or refer to it throughout. Though, back then there was copy protections somehow packed in, like in Sid Meier's Pirates! when they ask when the Silver Train or Treasure Fleet is going to be somewhere.
Second screen I'm less hot on, because not everyone is going to use it effectively. For something like the DS where it's part of the hardware, okay. So long as it's used effectively for a map or a menu to speed things up, that's great. (The issue I have with the DS specifically is a lack of left-handed options, it's still cumbersome when you need to tap with your dominant hand, but that's another issue entirely)
I think a hud can be done well, but it depends on what information is trying to be conveyed and how much. Even Mario 64 showed you more than it needed to, I think it's just a matter of creative direction. The more complex it is, maybe that means more needs to be hidden in a pause menu?
Second screen I'm less hot on, because not everyone is going to use it effectively. For something like the DS where it's part of the hardware, okay. So long as it's used effectively for a map or a menu to speed things up, that's great. (The issue I have with the DS specifically is a lack of left-handed options, it's still cumbersome when you need to tap with your dominant hand, but that's another issue entirely)
Zelda on the DS had a smart way of making you draw on the map by quickly swapping both screens. I wish more games took cues from this one. Etrian Odyssey is the other example.
I think a hud can be done well, but it depends on what information is trying to be conveyed and how much. Even Mario 64 showed you more than it needed to, I think it's just a matter of creative direction. The more complex it is, maybe that means more needs to be hidden in a pause menu?
You are implying I don't know how games are made, and also trying to say that cutting things down to focus on one platform with the wide variety of options, freely open to make these sacred gimmicks available to the end user, is somehow worse or a bigger undertaking than dumping resources to maintaining builds for potentially radically different and restricted platforms, because they may provide a design focus on gimmicks, limitations, and require "specialization."
Once again I feel I need to restate this: games are not solely being made for you. Your argument focuses exclusively on the corporate/investor aspects of videogaming and it's pretty apparent I'm talking about anything but that. You're on a post lamenting the loss of these features, so there's clearly some demand for this sort of stuff - if you want to trivialise a more diverse variety of platforms as "gimmicks" that's fine but it's a bit tone-deaf in this context.
I just gotta say though, you're being like, strangely aggressive about this. If you hate the Dreamcast and the DS or whatever then that's fine, but don't use me as some sort of strawman for your arguments, especially if you intend to entirely disregard a lot of what I'm saying. "Sacred gimmicks" - you're talking to me but you're responding to someone else. I'm not trying to champion these systems, I'm just capable of recognising and reflecting upon their advantages. If you aren't going to follow up on what I'm saying then why follow up at all - just make an argument for whatever points you wanna make rather than undermining them in a half-baked counter-argument
[Edit: I'm going through this chronologically, didn't know someone else had mentioned this, not tryna gang up on you]
Once again I feel I need to restate this: games are not solely being made for you. Your argument focuses exclusively on the corporate/investor aspects of videogaming and it's pretty apparent I'm talking about anything but that. You're on a post lamenting the loss of these features, so there's clearly some demand for this sort of stuff - if you want to trivialise a more diverse variety of platforms as "gimmicks" that's fine but it's a bit tone-deaf in this context.
The only point I may agree with is that it will make some games harder to remaster and port but then again Skyward Sword managed to bypass the Wii Motion Plus mechanics in its HD remaster.
The Wonderful 101 managed to make the secondary screen from the original Wii U version to work on PC.
Sadly gaming has really become too standardised that I actually don't mind the Sixaxis/Wiimote/Kinect that much (well, maybe less for the later).
I just gotta say though, you're being like, strangely aggressive about this. If you hate the Dreamcast and the DS or whatever then that's fine, but don't use me as some sort of strawman for your arguments, especially if you intend to entirely disregard a lot of what I'm saying. "Sacred gimmicks" - you're talking to me but you're responding to someone else. I'm not trying to champion these systems, I'm just capable of recognising and reflecting upon their advantages. If you aren't going to follow up on what I'm saying then why follow up at all - just make an argument for whatever points you wanna make rather than undermining them in a half-baked counter-argument
There's also a ton of DS and DC games that are entirely playable on PC via emulation because those things aren't mandatory thankfully.
Even though the removal of the VMU/GBA Link unit from several Sega games that were on the DC and GC feels like a part of the game is missing from subsequent releases.
"Gimmicky" in the context of games is such a bizarre term. Like "No! You aren't having fun in a meaningful way!"
I've never been one for peripherals like that, even when I was a really little kid. But I know people that love that sorta stuff - who am I to say that their entertainment is less valid than mine. After all, it's not like sitting and using a controller is inherently any more stimulating anyway. Actually I was pretty into lightguns - a mouse doesn't hit the same
Come to think about it, even Mode 7 on the SNES and the trident with 2D and 3D mode depending of your hands placement could be considered as those consoles' main gimmick.
The VMU was used as a way to transport chaos in the Sonic games yet you could play those games while ignoring them.
Even HL² with the Source Engine was called a gimmicky tech demo by some detractors...
Seems like anything creative and trying to break the mold are being disqualified with that term...
I've never been one for peripherals like that, even when I was a really little kid. But I know people that love that sorta stuff - who am I to say that their entertainment is less valid than mine. After all, it's not like sitting and using a controller is inherently any more stimulating anyway. Actually I was pretty into lightguns - a mouse doesn't hit the same.
Idk about the second screen, but I do think we downgraded the manuals for pdfs that are only convenient to the publishers.
Like I have returned to games after a long while and Im just forgetting all these systems, reactions colors, etc. On older games I just grab the manual and be "Ah! so I must press X if the enemy flashes blue" or "Oh! it was 'H' to take the hostage with me... i see, i see"
The only point I may agree with is that it will make some games harder to remaster and port but then again Skyward Sword managed to bypass the Wii Motion Plus mechanics in its HD remaster.
Yeah totally. There are tonnes of issues - the biggest of which probably being hardware and software maintenance. Being on a computer and being standardised is very safe and I'm normally on the other side of this argument and taking a firmly preservation minded stance. As well, although I argued that it creates jobs, you could argue it only creates "specialised" jobs - like sound techs seem to live and die by their console of choice just because there are such wild differences between devices and I guess not everyone can make the switch.
It's the same principle as being hit on - it's all about how you take it. If you like it, it's revolutionary. If you dislike it, it's gimmicky. Idk much about HL2 but I know a bit about HL1. They had "the smell AI". Now, from a modern perspective, you could look at that and say it's a gimmick - a way of framing a couple of intereactions to make it seem more exciting than it actually is, OR you could say it's revolutionary and that it opened the door for developers to start thinking in terms of real-world senses.
The thing is, it's both. Gimmick doesn't have to be a derogtory term - take the incredible SUPERHOT, a game built entirely around a single-sentence gimmick, for example - but in the modern day I guess it's just a lot easier to say "this is a gimmick" and people understand you mean it's bad rather than explaining "this is a feature that has been shoehorned in that doesn't meaningfully contribute to the greater experience"
Been playing Gloomwood recently and in that game there's no HUD so there's lots of fun tricks to work around that. The one I like the most though is that holding R with the revolver breaks the cylinder free so you can see how many bullets are left in the gun. What's funny though is that you can do it with the shotgun but it's a pump action that uses a chamber not a cylinder, so all you can ever see is the one shell loaded in last
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
