EPTWould you play SC2 on PS3 or Xbox? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sk`
Japan442 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 22 2010 10:10 Blues wrote: I think this question assumes that you would use a keyboard and mouse. No idea why it's getting rejected so much on the basis that using a controller sucks. It obviously sucks. No one in their right mind would play SC2 with a controller or would want to. A console release would mean that all the people with bad computers who can't afford to get a new one can play it on their much more powerful consoles. Before anyone says if you can afford x you can afford y, not always. Just because slowly over time you get yourself a TV and a game console does not mean your budget justifies getting a whole new computer just to play games when the one you have suits your basic needs just fine. Why would it assume that? Every other RTS released for consoles in the past, which are at least at double digit numbers by now, have used a controller. | ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
However, I think this will have a minimal effect, if any, on the mainstream popularity of SC2, as most people with the disposable income to purchase a console have a computer that can play SC2 available to them. Also, the only way for the game to be fair is if it barred usage of a controller (for similar reasons to the quick extinction of xbox live gaming between pc and 360), because a keyboard simply provides too much of an advantage. If this were to occur, very few people would actually buy the game, giving little incentive for Blizzard to actually follow through on such an idea. | ||
|
Blues
Canada33 Posts
On December 22 2010 10:14 FabledIntegral wrote: Why would it assume that? Every other RTS released for consoles in the past, which are at least at double digit numbers by now, have used a controller. I just think asking the TL community if they'd play SC with a controller makes little sense. It would be like asking Jimmy Page to take up Guitar Hero. | ||
|
Zerum
Sweden348 Posts
On December 22 2010 08:33 Fa1nT wrote: A 300$ PS3 can run SC2 fine, but my 700$ laptop from 2007 barely handles all-low? the this is when you buy a PC you have to be smart about it. I have a 600$ stationary PC from 2007 that runs the game on all highest settings (even if I prefer to play on lower for clearer view). if you put research in to what you want for you pc and look around for good deal on the parts you need you can get away whit a very reasonable prised stationary PC. with laptops its allot harder and as I'm considering buying one at the moment I have looked in to this allot lately. sadly enough I will probably just have to import some generic shit from the US (because electronics is dirt cheep there and the dollar is so low right now) and helpfully be able to do some minor moding on it for better ram and such. to bad it seams like it's impossible to find non-integrated GFX cards for laptops T_T | ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
| ||
|
skftw
Canada54 Posts
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 thats why u get good at ur pc game and win shit. who spends money on comps. i play sc2 on high(cause i like fps over 80) and i havent put a dime on my pc for over 2 years. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
On December 22 2010 10:14 FabledIntegral wrote: Why would it assume that? Every other RTS released for consoles in the past, which are at least at double digit numbers by now, have used a controller. ' Herp? Because no other consoles in the past have had extensive mouse/keyboard compatibility and they only recently (last 10 years) have gotten decent internet capabilities. Every time someone posts out like Starcraft 64, it makes no sense with todays tech. | ||
|
Barnzy
United Kingdom57 Posts
| ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
| ||
|
Creegz
Canada354 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On December 22 2010 14:06 Creegz wrote: I only want Starcraft Ghost...that is all. And maybe Starcraft Dark Templar to follow, along with something Starcraft burrowed baneling! | ||
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
| ||
|
SCdinner
Canada516 Posts
| ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
| ||
|
susySquark
United States1692 Posts
If I didn't have a PC capable of running SC2 well, I'd probably prefer to play it on the PS3, since a $300 console that runs games well is much easier to pay for than a ~$600-700 PC. This might be the case for some people, but I feel that the audience is too small for Bliz to make the commitment to producing a console version. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
 wouldn't play ladder hardcore, but playing with friends would be so so much better. (on 360) | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
| ||
|
Dirt-Spider
United States30 Posts
I glad some of you read my post and saw I said keyboard and mouse. Well the poll turned out about how I expected. Thanks to everyone that put in useful input. | ||
| ||
