Why do people get so mad when games become multiplatform?

[phar]

I can understand if a game goes exclusive but why is there so much hate for games that move to be multiplatform. Two good examples are Dark Souls and Diablo 3, most forums I visit are filled with people who seem to take it as an insult that a game is on another platform.

The things to look at is that the developers will make far more money allowing them to continue making their franchise or new games, more people will play the game which is why game developers go into business in the first place and people can play a game on the platform they prefer and with their friends on that platform which is only a plus.

I dont really see any negatives in going multiplatform apart from the multiplayer community getting split up and that really only has an effect on the smaller titles.

imo: games should be put onto any device which they can.

PS. i understand that sony/ms need exclusives to sell their systems and such so they are an exception

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

My only issue with multiplatform games is when you port a PC/Console game to Console/PC. Typically, the platform what got the game ported to gets a horrible version.

 

[Watchmacallit]

The only reason I detest games going multiplatform is because of games like Operation Flash point...The porting for the PC was horrible, I wasted $100 to find that out. If you're gonna put a game across platforms do it properly like I assume BF3 is, otherwise just don't.

 

[burningdragoon]

Well the only potential downside to games going multiplatform is that you may get an overall lesser product. Obviously if something is ported to a different platform it's not a big deal for the originally developed system. But if something is made from the start to be able work on both 360 and PS3, chances are it would have been a better game if it was made just for one of them. Specializing will produce better but more specific results than generalizing.

Some developers do put in the effort to put out a quality product for all platforms that work with each strength and weakness. Seems like id is doing this with Rage from what I gathered from Carmack's keynote.

Edit: Usually I like when some games stick to a single platform for exactly the reason I mentioned. MGS4 for example (supposedly, I didn't make it) took advantage of what the PS3 could do. In the case of Dark Souls, I am glad it's going multiplatform. Demon's Souls was awesome, and more people need to play the next one. Gotta share the awesome.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

My only issue with multiplatform games is when you port a PC/Console game to Console/PC. Typically, the platform what got the game ported to gets a horrible version.

I would love to think that this was the only reason, because it would make the haters seem so much more human...

Personally i think if a sequel is placed across several platforms when the earlier game(s) was on only a single platform it gets the "original players" fired because it means it's not exclusice to their environment anymore.

I can only imagine the rage that's come because his favorite game wasn't exclusive to the elitist gamercrowd anymore. (There's elitist players everywhere so this isn't a jab at PC-gamers specifically)

 

[Inkidu]

My only issue with multiplatform games is when you port a PC/Console game to Console/PC. Typically, the platform what got the game ported to gets a horrible version.

I would love to think that this was the only reason, because it would make the haters seem so much more human...

Personally i think if a sequel is placed across several platforms when the earlier game(s) was on only a single platform it gets the "original players" fired because it means it's not exclusice to their environment anymore.

I can only imagine the rage that's come because his favorite game wasn't exclusive to the elitist gamercrowd anymore. (There's elitist players everywhere so this isn't a jab at PC-gamers specifically)

So you agree, it's pretty freaking dumb. I don't think I lost an ounce of sleep when Mass Effect 2 went to those Godless bastards called PS3 owners [/good-natured ribbing]



Captcha: Tastly's Theory. I wonder what it is?

 

[Archangel768]

For example. Lets say the game was exclusive to a powerful platform. We'll use Final Fantasy XIII. It went from being part of a franchise where the main titles were exclusive to the Playstation brand for years and consistently pushed the limits of the hardware that they were running on.
Then it went to the Xbox 360, a machine that is clearly if you compare the exclusives technically limited. Graphics capabilities are worse, data storage is worse.

It was exclusive to the PS3. A powerful machine that offers a lot of potential for games that want to use its power.

The advantages of being on the PS3

Blu Ray disc. This means more data. A Blu Ray disc holds 50gb of data. DVDs hold about 8.4gb and you would need 6 DVDs to get to the level of one Blu Ray. The largest a game has been on a console that uses DVDs is 4 (that I'm aware of) That means that there is 16.8gb of data that would not be used.

That data could be used for dual audio (people that like Japanese media appreciate this option a lot)
It could be used for more pre rendered movie quality CG which Final Fantasy is known for.
It could be used for more levels.

Basically it could have been used for so much but in the end it wasn't.

Final Fantasy is also known for pushing the graphics very far but, instead of doing that, they focused on getting the graphics to an average level on both consoles. Still turned out better on PS3 because they were focusing on that platform for so long.

Basically, when developers work on an exclusive game and they have the budget etc, they will push said platform to the best of their abilities. They will take advantage of the extra storage space and they will make the graphics as good as possible.

When a game goes multi-platform, every developer I have ever seen makes the game to what is deemed an 'acceptable standard' (even if they have all the money in the world, See - Call of Duty games and how they don't take advantage of the PS3 and in fact are worse on the PS3). They don't work any harder on improving the game and will not allow a console that is clearly more powerful to have extra content or better graphics. The only time one platform will get better content is when a platform holder pays them off for exclusive content.

In short, exclusive games are much better in quality and there is a lot of work that goes into them to make them really good. Multi-platform games just get to an 'acceptable standard' which usually means that the game will have less quality. I'm not saying multi-platform games are less fun, but in the long run they aren't as high quality. As in, they don't have better graphics and they usually have lower quality content.

And if people expect a game (a multi-platform game that are sequels to exclusive franchises or announced as exclusive and then become multi-platform) to be exclusive and try to be the best as it can then the people waiting for said game will be upset that the game won't be as good as it can be because of it.

In terms of quality comparison of exclusives. Compare Uncharted 2 to Halo Reach.

Uncharted 2 not only has better graphics but a longer storyline which has been extremely refined. You don't have to like it more than Reach but, that doesn't mean that Reach is more refined.

 

[kickyourass]

Because people are stupid and will look for literally any excuse to ***** about something on the Internet. However there are two 2 situations where they actually have a point: in cases like the Witcher 2 where they have the sequel be multi-platform but keep the first game as an exclusive (which is really fucking annoying, especially if one of the main bullet points is "Actions from the first game influence this one"). Or when a game gets ported later on and the port is absolute crap, like whenever someone has tried to port an RTS from PC to a console.

 

[phar]

For example. Lets say the game was exclusive to a powerful platform. We'll use Final Fantasy XIII. It went from being part of a franchise where the main titles were exclusive to the Playstation brand for years and consistently pushed the limits of the hardware that they were running on.
Then it went to the Xbox 360, a machine that is clearly if you compare the exclusives technically limited. Graphics capabilities are worse, data storage is worse.

It was exclusive to the PS3. A powerful machine that offers a lot of potential for games that want to use its power.

The advantages of being on the PS3

Blu Ray disc. This means more data. A Blu Ray disc holds 50gb of data. DVDs hold about 8.4gb and you would need 6 DVDs to get to the level of one Blu Ray. The largest a game has been on a console that uses DVDs is 4 (that I'm aware of) That means that there is 16.8gb of data that would not be used.

That data could be used for dual audio (people that like Japanese media appreciate this option a lot)
It could be used for more pre rendered movie quality CG which Final Fantasy is known for.
It could be used for more levels.

Basically it could have been used for so much but in the end it wasn't.

Final Fantasy is also known for pushing the graphics very far but, instead of doing that, they focused on getting the graphics to an average level on both consoles. Still turned out better on PS3 because they were focusing on that platform for so long.

Basically, when developers work on an exclusive game and they have the budget etc, they will push said platform to the best of their abilities. They will take advantage of the extra storage space and they will make the graphics as good as possible.

When a game goes multi-platform, every developer I have ever seen makes the game to what is deemed an 'acceptable standard' (even if they have all the money in the world, See - Call of Duty games and how they don't take advantage of the PS3 and in fact are worse on the PS3). They don't work any harder on improving the game and will not allow a console that is clearly more powerful to have extra content or better graphics. The only time one platform will get better content is when a platform holder pays them off for exclusive content.

In short, exclusive games are much better in quality and there is a lot of work that goes into them to make them really good. Multi-platform games just get to an 'acceptable standard' which usually means that the game will have less quality. I'm not saying multi-platform games are less fun, but in the long run they aren't as high quality. As in, they don't have better graphics and they usually have lower quality content.

And if people expect a game (a multi-platform game that are sequels to exclusive franchises or announced as exclusive and then become multi-platform) to be exclusive and try to be the best as it can then the people waiting for said game will be upset that the game won't be as good as it can be because of it.

In terms of quality comparison of exclusives. Compare Uncharted 2 to Halo Reach.

Uncharted 2 not only has better graphics but a longer storyline which has been extremely refined. You don't have to like it more than Reach but, that doesn't mean that Reach is more refined.

Im sorry but most of your points there were about graphics and having a few extra polygons on screen will not make or break a game with the current average level of graphics.

I can agree with you on the disk storage with the case of FFXIII but I do put the blame on square more for that as they pulled content out of the game so that it was equal.

Plus you cant say that PS3 exclusives have better longer stories such as your uncharted example. Thats really just person preference.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I've honestly never seen anyone get mad about a game going multiplatform.

I've seen PC elitists get mad about a game going to Console, but that was mostly because there was dumbing down that probably took place.

 

[Iron Mal]

Everyone likes to believe that their console of choice is the best and/or most important so having their favourite game be shipped to multiple consoles means they can no longer hold it up as an icon of why their chosen console is vastly superior to the other 'filth' that occupies the market (I personally believe that fanboys are the gaming equivilent of religious fundamentalists).

Look at Final Fantasy XIII, for a long time the Final Fantasy series has been Playstation exclusive so it's no suprise that PS3 fanatics got their undies in a bunch and viewed this 'defilement' of the sanctity of their console based smugness (known to us as the Xbox 360 port) in a very bad light (which is somewhat ironic when you remember that before it came to the Playstation, Final Fantasy was actually a Nintendo exclusive series, of course, that was before the internet as we know it so people couldn't go online to rage about it).

Take any exclusive title from any platform and port it over to a 'rival' console and I guarentee you that you'll see high levels of petty whining and proclaiming that it is now 'ruined forever' across the message boards, forums and Youtube.

 

[mezorin]

For 360/PS3 console cross overs, its just fanboyism plain and simple. Final Fantasy 13 is on both PS3 and 360, Square Enix, God forbid, can make twice as much money doing so, get over it. The only valid argument here is if Game X was promised as a PS3 exclusive only, and is one of the PS3's main selling features, its understandable that someone who bought a PS3 for Game X is a little pissed that now its comming out on 360 and PC. Blame Sony or Microsoft for their third part developer politics then in that case.


That said, to play devil's advocate here, many good PC original franchises and developers have put out games that got 'consolized', which means more simplistic, more actiony for the console crowd experiences. The best example I can think of here is Dragon Age 2, which took a series that was a fantastic Bioware classic RPG fare and turned it 'console', ie more actiony. It may sound like conspiracy talk here, but they didn't turn Dragon Age 2 into Dragon May Cry 2 because of the PC crowd moaning about RPG complexities. Lack of PC gamer aim didn't take prone out of Battlefield Bad Company 2. Finally, companies will often develop their game with the lowest common console in mind graphically and space wise, look at Crysis 2 verses 1 and the way 2 was dumbed down. Yes, I know graphics do not make everything, but one of Crysis' selling points is the insane cutting edge beautiful worlds the games take place in.

That said, its not all gloom and doom. From publisher point of view, 3 systems (PS3, 360, and PC) are better than just one, and they need to make their money. More money means more titles, so we see more games over all on all platforms. AAA titles that AREN'T another WOW clone will be on the Big Three (PC, PS3, 360) so we should just get used to this fact. Also, making control systems more smarter (note I mean smarter systems, not ham fisted console cross over laziness or cutting out functionality) is a good step in the right direction. Opening an inventory, using a lock pick, opening the lock, and pushing the door open should not require six different keys, as one contextual use key is all you need. Anyone remember how pointlessly complicated Rainbow Six was? Developers often had a little too much leeway with control systems in PC, and turned ground FPSes and RPGs into walking flight simulators, but with a two analogue/10 button controller, they have to make their systems smart, which I believe has benefited games in general.

Also, games like Deus Ex Human: Revolution and the recent Fall Out games prove you can have a good PC control scheme, and have a good 360 control scheme and everyone is happy on either system. I dare anyone to say either of those games aren't complicated enough for PC gamer tastes, and yet they have done successfully across multiple platforms. Its the bad ports and lazy design that are the real problems here, and what we should be directing the hate train to.

 

[mysecondlife]

in short, people are generally selfish beings. They don't want others with consoles that they don't have enjoy it.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's because people buy a certain console because of the features that it provides, and the games that it has which the other console doesn't. If that console then gets those same features, or gets the game that was once exclusive people feel like their console is suddenly worth less because of it, since part of the reason that they bought that console is now gone.

Is it at all logical? No. Just because a game is on another console does not devalue your console at all, but then again, when has fanboyism ever been logical to begin with?

 

[Archangel768]

And if people expect a game (a multi-platform game that are sequels to exclusive franchises or announced as exclusive and then become multi-platform) to be exclusive and try to be the best as it can then the people waiting for said game will be upset that the game won't be as good as it can be because of it.

In terms of quality comparison of exclusives. Compare Uncharted 2 to Halo Reach.

Uncharted 2 not only has better graphics but a longer storyline which has been extremely refined. You don't have to like it more than Reach but, that doesn't mean that Reach is more refined.

Im sorry but most of your points there were about graphics and having a few extra polygons on screen will not make or break a game with the current average level of graphics.

I can agree with you on the disk storage with the case of FFXIII but I do put the blame on square more for that as they pulled content out of the game so that it was equal.

Plus you cant say that PS3 exclusives have better longer stories such as your uncharted example. Thats really just person preference.

In terms of graphics. Most people say that only going out with someone that looks good is shallow and a similar view is held on people that prefer better graphics in video games. But it doesn't stop most people from seeking out the best looking person/wanting the best looking game. Graphics aren't as unimportant as a lot of people try to make out. Yes there are plenty of games that have bad graphics and some people like them, myself included but, in the long run, graphics are important. If they weren't movies wouldn't have better special effects now and the same is for games. I don't feel as though my comment on graphics is invalid simply through the view that wanting better graphics is unimportant and just shallow. I disagree that with the level of graphics that we have now it doesn't make that much of a difference. I for one find a lot of the time, the graphics in games these days still fall into the uncanny valley and fail to make me forget that what's happening on screen isn't real. Yes, some games (even ones that heavily stylised graphics have drawn me in a great deal) but in other games depending on the direction that the developer wants to take them, can really benefit from more detailed graphics.

With the content in Final Fantasy XIII. I put the blame on Square and any other developer out there that does the same thing. I wasn't blaming a specific console when commenting on the disappearance of content but, the developers/publishers who do this.

The Uncharted 2 comparison to Halo Reach like I said is just personal preference (I enjoyed both of them a lot). I didn't actually say the story was better but, instead said 'longer storyline which has been extremely refined' what I meant when saying this was how the story was told technically. For example
1. The seamless transition from one level to the next by using the power of the PS3 to load the next part of the game in the background prevented any 'breaks' in the story and kept things flowing.
2. The way the environments were constructed by having different objects change seamlessly as you progress throughout the level. The level of detail in the levels added a lot to the atmosphere of the game. From the train ride transitioning from the jungle setting to a snowy mountain etc as it climbed up (actually the transitioning from any location in the game to another without a visible load time was impressive). The way the building fell apart as it collapsed while fighting off soldiers was impressive. I mean sure, these things could be done in any game but, doing this on another console like the 360 would require a fairly significant decrease in graphical fidelity. When making a game like Uncharted, the impressive graphics with immense detail is fairly crucial when creating a believable world. From the 360 exclusives I've played, I just fail to see how a game on the 360 could be as visually impressive while seamlessly changing environments the way Uncharted 2 did.

Yes graphics sometimes don't matter. I played FF VII after FF XIII and enjoyed VII way more and was much more involved in the story and it's world. But some games benefit from realistic graphics and I don't think they should be tossed aside so easily as just something that's not important at all.

Square was saying how XIII in game graphics were near CGI quality, yet I still saw a huge difference when between the CG videos and the in game graphics and found the animations in them to be fairly poor which hampered my enjoyment. This may seem petty but, I also found the hands were quite blocky which always put me off. When you have more realistic looking characters, I'm going to want the animations to reflect the detail of the character model.

I think better graphics deserve a little more credit than most people make it out to be.

Again, I wasn't saying the story was necessarily 'better' than Reach but, just in the way it was told on the technical side of things.

Hope I cleared somethings up.

Also, you asked why people get mad at games going multi platform and I was just attempting to answer that. Another reason people get mad is that they are just really stuck up and can't stand the idea of a platform which they don't like for some reason getting the game that they want exclusively. But, worse graphics, less content etc are also very real reasons why people get mad at multi platform. I'm not saying it's justified but, some people do. I must admit, I was a mildly annoyed at XIII being multi platform due to above reasons.

 

[Archangel768]

Double post?

 

[krazykidd]

Has anyone played call of duty black ops on the wii? How was it?

OT: well everyone wants to have something to call their own . People like exclusivity , people like to feel special , people like to feel they have an advantage over other people . This is why there are pc elitist , xbox elitists , ps3 elitists . When a game is multi platform they lose those feelings. Sure it's superficial and stupid but people in general stupid and superficial.

 

[Jandau]

Depends on what kind of multiplatform we're talking about. Personally, I'm annoyed when a PC game goes multiplatform because of interface and control concessions I KNOW will be made to accomodate a gamepad.

Developers don't want to make two different interfaces for their games. And while PC can accomodate a console interface, a console often can't cope with a PC-oriented interface. Things such as inventory screens, stat screens, etc. All this can be made better on the PC (usually due to the mouse). It also applies to controls, with games getting simplified control schemes to fit on a gamepad. An example would be The Witcher 2, whose whole inventory was designed to fit on a console, but as a result it's pure poop on the PC and one of the weakest point of the game.

I don't mind that other platforms get to play the same games as I do, but I do mind when MY version of the game is made crappier to accomodate other platforms...