EPTMicrosoft COULD just mandate that Xbox 360 games be programmed with mouse and keyboard controls in addition to standard gamepad controls for the games. It does have working USB ports, and a USB keyboard is already functional for things like typing in certain screens and navigating the dashboard.
Console Gamers Get Killed against PC Gamers - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Valnen
United States2 Posts
Microsoft COULD just mandate that Xbox 360 games be programmed with mouse and keyboard controls in addition to standard gamepad controls for the games. It does have working USB ports, and a USB keyboard is already functional for things like typing in certain screens and navigating the dashboard. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
Give the new generation of players, the ones growing up with the internet some time now that computing is pretty much mainstream now. PC gaming will maybe at some point get to that level but the idea that a mouse and keyboard are better than a controller pad is just absurd if you think that applies too all games and all settings the respective platforms don't exactly have the same user base. *I know this is kind of out of left field but I was trying to give a decent summary response of my thoughts based on reading the entire thread | ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
On July 27 2010 12:24 Ace wrote: For all the arguing and bullshitting that most hardcore PC gamers (and Console gamers) do at the end of the day the console gaming industry is just bigger than the PC gaming industry. A lot of that does have to do with it having a more storied and successful history but it also has to do with accessibility, price, social gaming, and "plug and play" aspects. Remember that most people are not good with computers and struggle with basic installations and dread reading system specs. Consoles are literally just specialized gaming computers with the advantage of innately supporting 4 players with no knowledge of having to configure internet settings and the enjoyment of a couch. This goes a long way into why Console games are a bigger market. I always thought it had more to do with how PC games were easier for people to pirate. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
NIJ
1012 Posts
On July 27 2010 01:02 MightyAtom wrote: STREET FIGHTER 4 TURBO !! So guys, I'll tell ya, a Street Fighter pro fighter, he damn good with his joystick and 6 buttons and would rock you with your keyboard and mouse or whatever the hell you used, but OF COURSE, FPS is better with a mouse and keyboard,l of course Street fighter is better with a joy stick and of course console players really don't even know that PC gamers care this much. You clearly haven't played on GGPO where there are actually good players that sometimes PREFER keyboard. Fighting game is a really bad example these days as gap between pad/stick/kb player is barely existent these days. I still prefer sticks though. | ||
|
Fumble
156 Posts
On July 27 2010 13:58 NIJ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGDt-W3bgw You clearly haven't played on GGPO where there are actually good players that sometimes PREFER keyboard. Fighting game is a really bad example these days as gap between pad/stick/kb player is barely existent these days. I still prefer sticks though. I dont follow the pro scene for SF4 too hard but I do go on many forums and read many guides. Everybody says stick is superior and I agree. Diago, justin wong and every tournament player i have ever seen undoubtedly uses stick. I dont think keyboard or pad is comparable to stick at all in fighting games. | ||
|
cascades
Singapore6122 Posts
| ||
|
DrakanSilva
Chile932 Posts
Why there isn´t an arcade FPS game with buttons and joystick Why every fighting arcade game have buttons and joystick. those guys were smart. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17831 Posts
On July 27 2010 15:29 Drakan wrote: is somebody really defending that keyboard is better than controls for Fighting games ??? rofl... Why there isn´t an arcade FPS game with buttons and joystick Why every fighting arcade game have buttons and joystick. those guys were smart. True, check out VF series, where you have to do QCF/B FCF/B all the time. I recently tried to do some of the moves on keyboard and while some of them are possible to do, it's so hard that it's not fun any more. | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On July 27 2010 12:24 Ace wrote: Give the new generation of players, the ones growing up with the internet some time now that computing is pretty much mainstream now. PC gaming will maybe at some point get to that level but the idea that a mouse and keyboard are better than a controller pad is just absurd if you think that applies too all games and all settings the respective platforms don't exactly have the same user base. *I know this is kind of out of left field but I was trying to give a decent summary response of my thoughts based on reading the entire thread I would disagree. I think that fundamentally consoles have the edge in gaming, and always will because of their social aspect. You cannot invite people over to your house and spontaneously play starcraft. You cannot play starcraft at a large party in which starcraft is not the main focus. You need to physically bring computers, which is an effort. It is simply not convenient! Even with laptops, you have to conciously bring your laptop in advance. Social games are the best games from a popularity standpoint. These are best on consoles, where you can very eaisly get together and play, spontanously, at a party, etc. | ||
|
JrK
United States283 Posts
| ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:34 Runnin wrote: I've posted this like 8 times now but you must not have read the rest of the thread. Sports have all sorts of "artificially imposed difficulties" yet are very successful despite a lot of them having the same premise (get the ball/puck into the goal/zone). Starcraft, as another person mentioned, has the artificially imposed difficulty of 12 unit grouping caps. How can you willfully ignore "artificially imposed difficulty" in games you do enjoy while hating on the same thing in console games? Half of this community posts about how MBS and infinite group sizes in SC2 as reasons the game is worse than BW, yet all it is is the removal of artificial difficulties. BTW there's a professional soccer league where you have to play with a stick and on ice skates and only get 6 players. Some people think it's more skilled than the league without the ice. Hockey is a monumental waste of time. That is a valid response but my point still stands: artificially imposed difficulties do not necessarily improve a game. In the case of SC:BW I actually struggle a lot with small group sizes (D level Zerg... what can I say) and I prefer MBS and infinite group sizes. Why? Because the dexterity requirements are unimportant to high level play anyway since good players have mastered it. All it does is create a high barrier to entry to low level players like me. It does not introduce new strategic depth or significantly alter the game. Your ice hockey analogy is wrong. Here, the 'artificially imposed difficulties' relative to football (what you call soccer) create new skill sets, strategies and game styles. They are no longer comparable. They are different games. When I consider Halo on console vs Halo on PC (notwithstanding the porting issues), the games rules are identical. The same techniques and strategies apply.They can even be made to play on the same server! The only difference is the console version has an inferior control scheme. A more accurate analogy would be a team of footballers playing against a team with their hands tied behind their backs. That is indeed a monumental waste of time. On July 27 2010 05:17 THE_oldy wrote: No, you... but seriously, your the one missing the point. I'm not saying console FPSs are more skillful purely because its harder aim with a thumb stick. It's about the game that can be built around this fact which is my point. Go back and read my post properly: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=138038¤tpage=6#105 Well the part I quoted does indeed say that. Notwithstanding, I do not believe a retarded control scheme allows you to create new, interesting game styles. The grenade and melee tactics still exist with keyboard and mouse. You say that they would 'melt away' by increased accuracy from plain shooting though you don't provide any good reason. Increased accuracy would also affect grenade and melee aiming. If anything, these tactics would become even more developed. (Personally, it feels like the splash damage of these abilities are what make them good on the console because hitting stuff is just so hard. However, as long as closer impacts do more damage, they will still be good if you increase accuracy, see rockets in Quake.) I'm not arguing that console games aren't fun, they are. Nor that they're all uncompetitive. Many are. But competitive level play of keyboard and mouse games on a joypad are pointless. This wouldn't even be debated if I was talking about RTS's. The same principle applies for FPS's. | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
On July 27 2010 14:10 Fumble wrote: I dont follow the pro scene for SF4 too hard but I do go on many forums and read many guides. Everybody says stick is superior and I agree. Diago, justin wong and every tournament player i have ever seen undoubtedly uses stick. I dont think keyboard or pad is comparable to stick at all in fighting games. Snake Eyes just won Evo 2010 SF HDR playing Zangief with a joypad. Quite a feat. He did not beat Daigo but he beat the guy who put out Daigo. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On July 24 2010 04:04 FragKrag wrote: Sometimes the controls may be optimized for console play so much as well. I remember trying to play Dead Space on PC and the game was very awkward and sluggish for some reason :/ This is the reason I only ever played about 15 minutes of Bioshock. There's a two-tier joystick-style acceleration that makes the game unplayable and unenjoyable (literally unenjoyable, as in I can't derive any joy from playing). Maybe if I had just bought an xbox controller like 2K tested the game with... | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 28 2010 01:21 DefMatrixUltra wrote: This is the reason I only ever played about 15 minutes of Bioshock. There's a two-tier joystick-style acceleration that makes the game unplayable and unenjoyable (literally unenjoyable, as in I can't derive any joy from playing). Maybe if I had just bought an xbox controller like 2K tested the game with... To each their own. I don't mind low acceleration and slow movement speed in FPS RPG games like Bioshock or Deus Ex. | ||
|
THE_oldy
Australia97 Posts
On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote: Well the part I quoted does indeed say that. Just to make it clear, my argument in not "It's harder to aim in with a thumb stick therefore console FPS are more skilful." The part you quoted wasn't making this argument, I was just explaining how there is a lot of skill to thumb sticks. The difficulty in using them does not provide any kind of skill cap, or 'limitation' as others were saying, it just more difficult to achieve the same tasks. Purely the existence of this difficulty IS NOT my argument, though its existence IS significant to my argument. It is important you can make a distinction between the two, because were going in circles with this particular point. On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote: Notwithstanding, I do not believe a retarded control scheme allows you to create new, interesting game styles. The grenade and melee tactics still exist with keyboard and mouse. You say that they would 'melt away' by increased accuracy from plain shooting though you don't provide any good reason. Let me explain the role of auto aim in console shooters: Aiming with a thumb stick is so hard you need some kind of aim assist. PC only FPS players might scoff at the idea, thinking somehow it takes away from the skill of aiming. This isn't true of course because even with an appropriate amount of auto aim its harder to aim with a thumbstick than a mouse. I say "appropriate" because auto aim is something that can be adjusted. This is one area where thumbstick shooters have an advantage over mouse shooters. Developers can increase and decrease the influence of the auto aim however they want. You can individually balance how hard it is aim with each gun. This is how a weapon like the halo sniper rile, a 100% accurate one headshot kill gun, can exists in a balanced state amongst pistols, SMGs, grenades, melees ect. The sniper rifle is forced, or at least weighted towards its niche of a long range weapon by an adjustment of the auto aim when using it: When it is scoped it has a low amount of auto aim to assist aiming at targets at long distance, how ever when it is not scoped it has absolutely none. So it still has the potential to insta kill at close range via a no scope headshot, but these are the type of kills that make it into frag videos. The central weapon of the game, the pistol, takes two hits anywhere to take down a players sheild, and one shot to the head to kill them. "Pistol" is a misleading name, as its role is more of an all purpose rifle. It is the only gun that can be considered 'solid' in every situation. So your bread and butter kill is via a pistol headshot, yet a no scope headshot with the sniper is frag vid worthy. On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote: Increased accuracy would also affect grenade and melee aiming. If anything, these tactics would become even more developed. No, because these elements don't gain their strengths from good aiming. Melee's are about positioning, timing and understanding the flow of the fight. Same with grenades, in all their uses, its about knowing where and when to throw them. Actually aiming them is the easy part. Not already knowing this really shows that you don't understand nature of these game elements, their depth, or the dynamic way they interact with each other. The difficulty in shooting each gun is delicately balanced with these elements, and every other gun. Take out that delicate balance and you ruin the game, a la halo PC. I hope this explains what I meant by non shooting game elements 'melting away.' The sniper rifle can insta kill close range, but you can expect that an opponent player won't. This lets you use other game elements against him. With a mouse, you can't expect that, so you have no choice but to use a sniper your self. Technically the sniper rifle is a bad example because you don't spawn with it. It's easier to explain with the numbers involved with sniper, but I'm really thinking of pistol v pistol (or pistol v something) fights which are the bread and butter of halo. Making the opponent miss their shots is just as big a part of the game as aiming your own. This is where other elements of the game come in; making it harder for your opponent to land those shots. No matter how hard you make it, generally it is still is possible to land those shots however. So a pro will be able to kill you under more pressure from those other elements than a noob, and you have to get more creative and better at using those elements. Add a mouse to the equation however and it just doesn't work. As a CS player I know for a fact that aiming with a mouse at a player with the movement speeds of halo is unmissable. This means all the other parts of the game have no effect, because those pistol shots are still guaranteed to hit. This really is a gross simplification of what goes on in halo, but I hope it gets my point across. | ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
| ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
On July 29 2010 16:42 THE_oldy wrote: Just to make it clear, my argument in not "It's harder to aim in with a thumb stick therefore console FPS are more skilful." The part you quoted wasn't making this argument, I was just explaining how there is a lot of skill to thumb sticks. The difficulty in using them does not provide any kind of skill cap, or 'limitation' as others were saying, it just more difficult to achieve the same tasks. Purely the existence of this difficulty IS NOT my argument, though its existence IS significant to my argument. It is important you can make a distinction between the two, because were going in circles with this particular point. Why are you going in circles when clearly I understand what you are saying. I spent one line saying that my quote was accurate and the rest of the paragraph explaining that the control scheme does not create better game play. You even quote it! They are connected by 'notwithstanding'. You are quoting out of context. Notwithstanding: prep. In spite of: The teams played on, notwithstanding the rain. adv. All the same; nevertheless: We proceeded, notwithstanding. conj. In spite of the fact that; although. Let me explain the role of auto aim in console shooters: Aiming with a thumb stick is so hard you need some kind of aim assist. PC only FPS players might scoff at the idea, thinking somehow it takes away from the skill of aiming. This isn't true of course because even with an appropriate amount of auto aim its harder to aim with a thumbstick than a mouse. I say "appropriate" because auto aim is something that can be adjusted. This is one area where thumbstick shooters have an advantage over mouse shooters. Developers can increase and decrease the influence of the auto aim however they want. You can individually balance how hard it is aim with each gun. This is how a weapon like the halo sniper rile, a 100% accurate one headshot kill gun, can exists in a balanced state amongst pistols, SMGs, grenades, melees ect. The sniper rifle is forced, or at least weighted towards its niche of a long range weapon by an adjustment of the auto aim when using it: When it is scoped it has a low amount of auto aim to assist aiming at targets at long distance, how ever when it is not scoped it has absolutely none. So it still has the potential to insta kill at close range via a no scope headshot, but these are the type of kills that make it into frag videos. The central weapon of the game, the pistol, takes two hits anywhere to take down a players sheild, and one shot to the head to kill them. "Pistol" is a misleading name, as its role is more of an all purpose rifle. It is the only gun that can be considered 'solid' in every situation. So your bread and butter kill is via a pistol headshot, yet a no scope headshot with the sniper is frag vid worthy. No, because these elements don't gain their strengths from good aiming. Melee's are about positioning, timing and understanding the flow of the fight. Same with grenades, in all their uses, its about knowing where and when to throw them. Actually aiming them is the easy part. Not already knowing this really shows that you don't understand nature of these game elements, their depth, or the dynamic way they interact with each other. The difficulty in shooting each gun is delicately balanced with these elements, and every other gun. Take out that delicate balance and you ruin the game, a la halo PC. Again you pluck a quote. Where's the rest of the paragraph? (Personally, it feels like the splash damage of these abilities are what make them good on the console because hitting stuff is just so hard. However, as long as closer impacts do more damage, they will still be good if you increase accuracy, see rockets in Quake.) You clearly know a lot more than me about Halo's dynamics. I'm not arguing that. But I play Quake. My intuition is that grenades would be similar to Quake grenades/rockets. When used defensively, it's about spatial control. When used offensively it's about leading and predicting. And the reason why they work is because of splash damage. But look at the possibilities when the aiming scheme is accurate! Check out the air rocket juggling by Voo in that video. Or my favourite one linked below. I'm not saying Halo isn't balanced. Nor am I saying it's not fun. Rock, paper, scissors is balanced and fun but it doesn't make it a deep game. Nor very fun to watch. At the end of the day, I can't be impressed by an 'amazing' kill in Halo because an average player could pull them off in Quake. And I don't see why anybody would bother spending time 'competing' in a baby version of a game. if you want to play, play with the big boys. | ||
|
Purind
Canada3562 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:06 JrK wrote: No not really. With shopping around, and finding some really good deals I could build one that was pretty decent for ~$500. Are you going to want better? Yes! Which is why I love pc gaming. If I want to boost my $500 system I can go get a killer video card. edit: yeah if you add in monitor then it'll be much higher, but then you'd have to add in TV price to the console price. The exaggeration comes from the bolded part in brackets. "assuming you dont know how to build your own, because otherwise a pc would be far cheaper" PC being far cheaper is the exaggeration. You're talking about a $500 PC that's a passable gaming machine. $500 > $400, so not only is "far cheaper" an exaggeration, it's not correct. If you could build me a $300 gaming PC anywhere close in power to a PS3 or XBOX, I'd like to try it out, though the graphics card alone probably bumps the cost over that. | ||
| ||
