EPTWould you play SC2 on PS3 or Xbox? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HollowLord
United States3862 Posts
| ||
|
ace246
Australia360 Posts
| ||
|
Rabbitmaster
1357 Posts
On December 21 2010 19:10 hoby2000 wrote: No, not even close. Consoles are computers. The only difference is that their software is tailored to prevent you from installing stuff they don't want you installing on there. Otherwise, their differences are minimal. That's why Sony allowed people for a while to install other operating systems onto the PS3. It's a computer. I would personally call this a pretty huge difference... in one case i can do whatever i want with my computer pretty much, in the other case i can play a select few games chosen by the company that produces my "computer". Ive never liked consoles except in a few cases where i prefer the hand controller (although, by the same arguments used in this thread i can just hook up a controller to my computer) in games like super smash brothers etc... | ||
|
CuirassEU
Germany24 Posts
I think you have to force Mouse Keyboard to be able to play what would make it a no go for the xbox because Microsoft forces developers to do controller support. youd also see a strong pulldown in visuals for a console because the texture ram on them is terribad. On December 21 2010 19:10 hoby2000 wrote: Again, they just need to make games for maybe just one console, and it would improve not only their sales, but their market size. Consoles ABSOLUTELY do not have lower input standards, and even compared to the average computer, Consoles out do PCs in graphics. I'm not talking about those people who have spent thousands of dollars building their 12gb DDR3 with 450gt video card, and 6 processors computer. I'm talking about the people who bought a computer, and run games like SC2 on medium graphic detail, because they're not going to continue spending more money on their computer. I spend 600 on my Core2Duo E8400/2x3GHZ with 6GB Ram and a ATI 4870 1 GB and it runs consolegames like Resident Evil 5 or Need for Speed shift with over 100 FPS on maxdetails in fullhd with antialiasing and antisotropic filtering. A console does 30 fps at 720p with almost no aa at those games. Buying a console over a pc for power improvment is sorry but yeah its stupid. (Not starting to talk about all the restrictions you have on a console) | ||
|
Mr.Brightside
Australia317 Posts
If I didn't have a good PC (that could run SC2) but my console could run it and it had a keyboard/mouse then hells yeah I would play it, but then it's pretty much the same as playing it on a PC. | ||
|
Sad[Panda]
United States458 Posts
| ||
|
Project Psycho
United Kingdom329 Posts
| ||
|
risk.nuke
Sweden2825 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Last good consoles were the Segas and Nintendos before PsOne and N64. If they released Lost Vikings for like SuperNintendo, now that I might play. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
As Jean Luc Picard would say - "the line must be drawn HIAR". =P | ||
|
Sad[Panda]
United States458 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:24 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Why would I play anything with PS3 or Xbox360, there's not a single good thing about them. Last good consoles were the Segas and Nintendos before PsOne and N64. If they released Lost Vikings for like SuperNintendo, now that I might play. lost vikings is for supernintendo... unless we are thinking of different games cause I actually own it :o Edit: R.I.P Dreamcast you were the best system ever and way to technologically advanced for your own time :< | ||
|
eu.exodus
South Africa1186 Posts
| ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
"It may be easier, but it also limits the game in many different ways. Graphics, mechanics, control, input - there's only so much you can do with a basic console controller and static hardware." These include indie games, specifically, as well as most programs. That's like saying my jet ski is like my car, one just allows me to go on roadsNo, not even close. Consoles are computers. The only difference is that their software is tailored to prevent you from installing stuff they don't want you installing on there. Otherwise, their differences are minimal. That's why Sony allowed people for a while to install other operating systems onto the PS3. It's a computer. "Both platforms can coexist because, to a certain degree, they have different target audiences and support different genres. What developers should do is avoiding bad ports from console to PC or vice versa." The only reason that's true is because people think it's that way. In reality, all gamers could use consoles if they would allow mouse and keyboard control. Instead of having to make ports, they could all make games for the same console system, and accomplish the same task without making it a huge pain in the ass for the consumer. "Regarding Blizzard, they shouldn't expand into the console market. Their games shine through the unique polish (pun not intended) Blizzard gives them, and through their relative complexity that makes them so hard to master and gives them such a high replay value. Splitting attention between multiple platforms or reducing game complexity for compatibility with lower hardware / input standards could reduce game quality." Assuming that the quality of the game itself(not graphically, but general "We'll release it when it's done" polish) wouldn't go down, which I don't buy, and that people would happily switch over, which I also don't buy, there's still the issue of the medium. Again, they just need to make games for maybe just one console, and it would improve not only their sales, but their market size. Consoles ABSOLUTELY do not have lower input standards, and even compared to the average computer, Consoles out do PCs in graphics. I'm not talking about those people who have spent thousands of dollars building their 12gb DDR3 with 450gt video card, and 6 processors computer. I'm talking about the people who bought a computer, and run games like SC2 on medium graphic detail, because they're not going to continue spending more money on their computer. I play my computer at a desk, like most people. I play my consoles from my couch/bed like most people. Don't you see the difference there? | ||
|
Velocity`
United Kingdom343 Posts
| ||
|
ace246
Australia360 Posts
On December 21 2010 19:54 CuirassEU wrote: PSN is no problem you can easy do crossplatform if needed. But Xboxlive is a closed service. I think you have to force Mouse Keyboard to be able to play what would make it a no go for the xbox because Microsoft forces developers to do controller support. youd also see a strong pulldown in visuals for a console because the texture ram on them is terribad. I spend 600 on my Core2Duo E8400/2x3GHZ with 6GB Ram and a ATI 4870 1 GB and it runs consolegames like Resident Evil 5 or Need for Speed shift with over 100 FPS on maxdetails in fullhd with antialiasing and antisotropic filtering. A console does 30 fps at 720p with almost no aa at those games. Buying a console over a pc for power improvment is sorry but yeah its stupid. (Not starting to talk about all the restrictions you have on a console) You probably mean you ran the pc version of need for speed and resident evil 5. I always thought that the public was retarded, but not to this extent. The reason why many people would go to such lengths such as playing Cod and Halo on their PS3 or Xbox live (with a bloody controller that is) is because it provides better visual qualities 10 times better than that of a pc. I might be exaggerating when i say 10 times but the fact of the matter is a pc can't emulate a ps3 or xbox live compatible game which is proof enough that pc is not up to par with the latest consoles. | ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
Mario & co should stick with the consoles (and they will) sc2 on a handheld would be funny tho xD | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On December 21 2010 20:58 ace246 wrote: For me, it's an entirely different, incomparable experience.You probably mean you ran the pc version of need for speed and resident evil 5. I always thought that the public was retarded, but not to this extent. The reason why many people would go to such lengths such as playing Cod and Halo on their PS3 or Xbox live (with a bloody controller that is) is because it provides better visual qualities 10 times better than that of a pc. I might be exaggerating when i say 10 times but the fact of the matter is a pc can't emulate a ps3 or xbox live compatible game which is proof enough that pc is not up to par with the latest consoles. When I sit down to play Counter Strike at my PC, I'm expecting a super fast crazy turn speed hyper accurate twitch based experience right in my face looking for millimeters of my enemy to see where they are. When I sit down to play Halo in front of my TV, I'm expecting a casual, relatively slow shooting experience, with lots of eye candy focused more on strategy than reflexes, and with general slower less precise action. That's why in Halo 3, the maximum sensitivity was still super slow when compared to PC games. They were going for a different experience. | ||
|
Mainland
Canada551 Posts
| ||
|
TehForce
1072 Posts
But i like the idea of installing sc2 on my ps3, using mouse and keyboard. this way i could just carry my ps3 to a lan and not my whole computer. but that is the only benefit i can see in this. | ||
|
Kinslayer
United States129 Posts
Would it work? Yes it would. Would it sell? Yes it would. There are some things that need to be taken into consideration though. First and foremost, it can't be a port. Let's take a look at the Command and Conquer series that was released on the Xbox. They were pretty much a direct port. They sold very little copies because the control scheme was horrid. Mapping a keyboard/mouse to a controller was a bad idea. The idea of requiring a keyboard/mouse to play would not fly yes. The whole promise of a Console is that you will be playing vs others that have the same hardware as you. Giving someone the advantage of keyboard/mouse while you don't have it (since you didn't want to shell out the money for some adapter or whatever) does not mesh. It's not even required, more on that later. Second, which is what TRULY killed the Command and Conquer series on Xbox was the complete lack of updates. You can not have a RTS and not balance it. They released ZERO balance patches for all of their releases. The PC versions got plenty, the console ones were left unbalanced and ridden with exploits. Patching on the Xbox is more work, but it's not hard. They simply didn't want to invest the time to do it and blamed Microsoft's certification service for it instead. It was pretty lame and unprofessional. RTS titles like "Universe at War" released two balance patches on the Xbox as proof that it's doable just fine. Halo, Gears, etc patch a lot as well. So how do you do it? You take a look at Halo Wars. It sold a million copies at launch. Sure, the Halo name had a lot to do with it. But the Halo name can't KEEP you playing a bad game. Halo Wars still enjoys something like 20k players a day until today. That is awesome even in PC RTS standards. How did they do it? Simple. It was designed from the ground up for the console. A lot was dumbed down, agreed, but the essence of a RTS was completely there. It was easy to learn and play and the controller just became transparent very quickly. It is a very fun game and was patched multiple times to improve balance. Is it as good as SC2? no. But it's a really good game for a console. So it can be done, but it must not be a direct port of SC2. A spin off of SC2, yes. Something simpler but still retains the spirit and awesomeness of SC2. Blizzard can do it, and it would sell quite a bit for sure. Don't underestimate the appeal of Xbox Live either. Same applies for PS3 of course but I am not an expert of course  | ||
| ||
