Just in case...

As I’m sure everyone will agree, this DEBATE didn’t start here and it darn sure isn’t going to end here. There are however, many points that can be made on both sides as to the superiority of this or that. What we need to establish is exactly what we’re arguing about.

When you talk about “hardcore” and “competitive” gameplay, are you only referring to these extremist individuals who can be found on any given night, huddling in front of their monitors with bloodshot eyes, cervicalgia, carpal tunnel and more Mountain Dew than even I can realistically drink? If that’s what we’re talking about then we are on two different wavelengths. Let’s be honest. For THESE people, FPS games are just an extension of their RPG mindsets. They look at their “rigs” as gear that they can aquire to enhance their capabilities. Video Cards and RAM have become the “Helms of Imperceptible Detail” and the “Boots of Indomitable Framerate.” This leads me to question where the “competition” actually is. Does having better gear make you a better player? No. No it does not. All is does is give you an edge over another player. The competition becomes more between one person’s dedication and/or finances and another’s.

I consider myself a “competitive gamer”, in that I play to win. I don’t know if I would consider myself “hardcore” per se, but I’m probably borderline. However, if I’m in the right mode, or if I’m fired up about a game…I’ll cross that line in a heartbeat. There’s the other side of me that takes these games for what they are…GAMES. That may seen like a cliché’ and generic argument for the subject at hand, but let me get to my point. Games were intended to be many things, and competition is certainly part of that. It’s not however the most important part. There are SOOOO many factors into what makes a great FPS great. The burden of this responsibility rests on the shoulders of the developers, not on the platform in which the games are played on. That being said, the argument can be made that console FPS’s (of which there ARE fewer quality titles), can be, and in some cases ARE more enjoyable, entertaining, innovative and immersive.

I’m gonna try to confine my points to some basic broad topics and not re-hash much of what has already been said.

ORIGINS

The origins of FPS games is NOT found in PC lore. Not at all. FPS games got their start where nearly ALL games did, right in your good ol’ neighborhood arcades. You can try to argue that the playability of arcade shooters inevitably led to home versions of similar themed games, which in turn found a home on the PC. Let’s look at this though. Consider the interfaces of both the PC and your average home gaming console. Which of these more closely resembles that of the original arcade shooters?

These origins, which were loosely implemented on the NES and Sega Master System had one fundamental flaw…Free Roaming (specifically the lack thereof). Light guns and blasters aside, the object of these games was to place the gamer in the shoes of the character they control on-screen. (i.e. a First Person Shooter) Now, because these games were on a rail-system, that is to say that one couldn’t veer off the set path as dictated by the game “engine” and the storyline; their immersion was limited. There needed to be a fundamental change in the way these games are played. How was this achieved? I think this question will lead us all to the same inevitable conclusion…the PC. Why was this? Well, let’s face it. The Consoles of the day simply could not and should not have tried to do what needed to be done to take the FPS genre to the next level. Along comes DOOM (or Wolfenstein 3D if you really want to be picky). Id software clearly redefined shooters into what we now consider to be the modern FPS. So yes, the modern FPS can trace its roots right back to the 386’s of yesteryear. But just as they made the jump from arcade to PC, it would only be a matter of time before the jump was made to the home console.

We can start name dropping for this game and that, and compile a list that will most likely favor that of the PC. That, in and of itself does not negate any argument that a console gamer may have as to the validity of his/her claim that a FPS can be better on an XBOX or a PSX. All we have is a list of titles on various formats. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a suitable analogy in another medium. I can’t say that a movie was more enjoyable on Laserdisc than it was on my Betamax, but I can say that I didn’t have to rewind my laserdisc… See, it just doesn’t work. For every DOOM 2, there’s a Redneck Rampage. Conversely, for every GoldenEye, there’s a South Park FPS(the S is for snowball btw).

Let’s talk about GoldenEye for a bit. I know you said that you had played it, and for good reason. It was great. Undeniably great. It has some intangible qualities to it that I can’t even put words to. Licensing aside, why wasn’t Perfect Dark able to live up to it? It improved on GoldenEye in nearly every conceivable way except one: a story that people played INTO, not just a story that people played through. Aside from that, Perfect Dark was a remarkable achievement in the development of console FPS technology. We’re back to where we started. While Perfect Dark was turning heads in one direction, there was Quake to kick everything in the @$$. Another instant classic that was responsible, DIRECTLY responsible for the development of other good PC FPS games. The quake engine was instrumental in the FPS dominance of the 90’s. Why? Why was it able to do this? Technology. Again, the argument of technological limitations lends itself to your perspective. Again, however… I can argue that GIVEN the technical limitations, great console FPS titles can overcome these boundaries and provide us with a more enjoyable and thus greater gaming experience.

MULTIPLAYER

Here’s where we bring out the big guns. The birth of Multiplayer was on the home console. 2 or 4 player split-screen in your friend’s basement till the sun comes up; we all remember it. You didn’t have your friend come over all the time so you could take turns playing Doom. It simply wasn’t possible. This catered itself to being a more social experience, which in-turn had more of an impact on your run-of-the-mill gamers. It wasn’t just nerds playing single player games on their PCs. I mean, jeez…even Atari was multiplayer! I digress…what we’re really talking about here is Online Multiplayer. Once more, we find that the roots of this fundamental quality of modern FPS are found on the PC. We can go over the advent of this, and the implementation of that… but it won’t settle anything on the grand-scale. For all intents and purposes, we can agree that PC and console multiplayer are dissimilar but comparable entities, each with their own pros and cons. XBOX Live has “Matchmaking” which works extremely well, especially considering the sheer numbers of gamers on-line at any given moment. PC games have independent and privately-hosted servers…which is awesome. This however, opens up avenues for further debate. Modded content is a double-edged sword. It can lead the way to great things(Counter Strike) and very, very bad things(cheating, hacking, unfair modding, aim-bots, etc…). This will be much easier to talk about in person. I don’t think I have it in me to type about all this. Come to think of it, I’m already starting to get irritable and uncomfortable from sitting at this sweet Alienware PC for so long… I sure wish I was on my comfortable couch with a controller in my hands…

Tune in tomorrow folks, where if permitted, I will detail the advantages of the console’s “CONTROLLER” over the PC’s emotionally detached, third-person, non-realistic and alarmingly business-like interface. It should be a doozie, and unless you walk around thinking to yourself “W” “A” “S” “D” to get you from one place to another, I think I’ll win you over…

-UncleHerpie