Would you play SC2 on PS3 or Xbox? - Page 3
Forum Index > SC2 General |
SwizzY
United States1549 Posts
| ||
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
| ||
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:40 SwizzY wrote: No. Even though starcraft 64 is what got me into SC in the first place, if I had both the option of computer SC2, and console SC2, I see no reason for the latter. It would be a good thing for newcomers though (my situation). You and HuK, actually. | ||
NKzs
Canada102 Posts
On December 21 2010 17:53 L3g3nd_ wrote: I find the internet is a large part of sc1 and 2 (not just for online gaming, as console would have that too, but sites like TL) so a few questions, could you run a program like sc2gears on console? could you get a web browser on console? Would console alow programs like xfire? MSN? Whats music playing like with a console? as you can prob tell ive never owned a console No, but it's not a needed utility either (not saying it's bad, just that it's not necessary to play). Yes, at least on the Wii and PS3 (still unsure why 360 has yet to have one). MSN is integrated into Xbox Live. As for Xfire, I think it'd be more up to the developers rather than Sony or Microsoft. Music on consoles is great. When I used to play console I'd have my music streaming from my home network straight to my console and was able to enjoy my full library. I played the C&C demo on 360 before and to say the least it had an interesting control scheme, but that definitely doesn't make it unplayable. I'd love to see SC2 on a console. It obviously wouldn't be as fast paced as it is on PC however I think it'd open the doors to more competition. Lets face it, all we really have in NA is MLG apart from some smaller or less frequent LANs. If SC2 was on consoles it would obviously bring more attention to the already massive scene allowing more LANs to take place. Also, it might show people what a great game this is and maybe a few would start playing on PC as well. I think the main reason why the other RTS games flopped on the consoles is because of marketing. Although there were some commercials, and a few ads here and there, it really wasn't an in your face campaign. If SC2 put out ads they could show how competitive it is, show the enormous player base it already has on the PC, etc. | ||
CruelZeratul
Germany4588 Posts
On December 21 2010 19:10 hoby2000 wrote: "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. You could also use the PC for all games and abandon the consoles. You need a PC anyway so I'd prefer it that way. | ||
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
P.S. Eurgh, snooty PC gamers. | ||
Kinslayer
United States129 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:43 MythicalMage wrote: @Kinslayer: Isn't patching for Xbox stupidly hard when compared to PC? I know TF2 for example had almost no patching, and the only patches I can think of were semi-major ones for BIG titles like CoD and DLC stuff. Hard? No. Not at all. I've done it myself on a sample game I wrote. Took me 20 mins to figure it out and do it. It's as simple as running a tool that compares between two versions of the game: the current one and the updated one. It then spits out a patch that brings the current version to the updated one. Simple. It does cost money though. Your patch has to be tested by Microsoft quite extensively and may be rejected for bugs and you have to do it all over again. Takes time for sure, but makes it so that we, the gamers, don't get a buggy patch. I see it as a good thing. | ||
Sad[Panda]
United States458 Posts
On December 21 2010 21:35 Kinslayer wrote: Ok, let me chime in since I actually DO work for Xbox and have a bit more insight. 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 ![]() I know its offtopic but uhh didn't halo wars dedicated forum and stat tracking get revoked... those numbers seem a bit high if for them to revoke those things. | ||
Crono9987
44 Posts
i could potentially see this working if blizzard were to make it so the console versions log into the same battle-net that PC users are on. but then you'd inevitably end up with someone on a PC using a mouse and keyboard playing against a guy on an xbox with a controller, and that would be a sad game to watch haha. | ||
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
Kinslayer
United States129 Posts
On December 21 2010 23:47 Sad[Panda] wrote: I know its offtopic but uhh didn't halo wars dedicated forum and stat tracking get revoked... those numbers seem a bit high if for them to revoke those things. Not revoked, moved. It didn't make sense to have them separate from the halo waypoint ecosystem. The game is still quite vibrant until today. | ||
Endbringer
United States111 Posts
| ||
drooL
United Kingdom2108 Posts
| ||
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On December 21 2010 17:49 arterian wrote: if they released the game with a compatible mouse and keyboard it would sell If they did that I'd just play on my computer anyway | ||
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
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. The idea that you need a high-end computer to run computer games in 2010 is patently ridiculous because most of the games are currently being developed for the X-Box 360 and PlayStation 3, two pieces of hardware released over four years ago. Superior video cards were already on the market before the PlayStation 3 and its highly-touted GPU even hit the market. By 2007, those consoles were straining for processing power so badly that companies had to make conscious decisions to upscale their games (upscale a non-HD game into HD, thus beginning The Fake HD-Era). There's actually a lot of anticipation right now of a PC gaming renaissance because of how far computers will be ahead of consoles by the time this console life cycle is over. | ||
Ulfsark
United States958 Posts
| ||
Batisterio-PiB
![]()
Brazil219 Posts
And in team games the game would lag a lot since there is only 256 ram for the system and 256 for gfx... | ||
ApBuLLet
United States604 Posts
As for getting SC2 "out there" in the gaming community... who cares? Personally I don't. Those who will play and will find SC2 worth their while will get it for PC. Making it more available to the masses won't do anything good for SC2 or the community. | ||
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
PC all the way baby | ||
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
| ||