|
On December 22 2010 12:46 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 10:14 FabledIntegral wrote: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. ' 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.
Halo Wars, BFME2, CnC3, all came out on the nexgen consoles using controllers. There are a few more I believe as well on the next gen consoles, none of which support keyboard/mouse.
|
Honestly, this isn't an issue at all because I don't think the PS3 or XBOX360 have the processing power to handle SC2.
They might be able to run it on medium at most, and on medium the game doesn't look nearly as good as a lot of other games released nowadays.
|
I shall loosely quote myself in saying that, while technically it MAY be capable to run it, and you do have keyboard and mouse, most people don't play their console at a desk. They play it sitting on a couch or a bed or a chair. They play it a LOT farther away from the screen than their computer monitor. You say PS3 has a keyboard and a mouse? What are you going to put them on? Your lap? That sounds awfully impractical.
|
On December 22 2010 16:48 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 12:46 Fa1nT wrote:On December 22 2010 10:14 FabledIntegral wrote: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. ' 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. Halo Wars, BFME2, CnC3, all came out on the nexgen consoles using controllers. There are a few more I believe as well on the next gen consoles, none of which support keyboard/mouse.
And let us not forget the recently released R.U.S.E or whatever it's called. That's the only one of the lot that looks decent.
|
No way...sc2 will look terrible with the video capabilities of a console
Besides, the console version wont be the same
|
For the PS3 maybe in some far away fantasy future, but not for the 360. Given the limitations to updating your game over xbox live (Microsoft makes sure to charge you and you have a limited amount of updates you can give to your game) Blizz wouldn't put up with it, and it wouldn't work.
|
Look, if you don't like the idea of playing real-time strategy games on a console because the custom content input methods would be clumsy or because the mouse-and-keyboard buy-in would make it impossible to build a large community around a decent console real-time strategy game (Halo Wars doesn't count), whatever. But these "RTS SHULD BE ON PC BECUS THAT'S HOW IT WUS MENT TOO BE PLAYED" comments are fucking ridiculous. Stop. They're blanket statements with zero substance. It makes you sound like a bunch of arcade fanboys claiming Street Fighter should never have gotten a home console release because "Street Fighter is meant to be played in the arcades." There is zero reason a console couldn't do real-time strategy games if you could build a mouse-and-keyboard input for one. None.
|
On December 22 2010 00:41 Kinslayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 23:47 Sad[Panda] wrote: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. 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.
ahh kk thanks for clearing that up looked around on the internet to see thats indeed correct although what I had said before looked to be the original plan
|
On December 22 2010 16:54 MythicalMage wrote:
I shall loosely quote myself in saying that, while technically it MAY be capable to run it, and you do have keyboard and mouse, most people don't play their console at a desk. They play it sitting on a couch or a bed or a chair. They play it a LOT farther away from the screen than their computer monitor. You say PS3 has a keyboard and a mouse? What are you going to put them on? Your lap? That sounds awfully impractical.
But your TV is usually a lot bigger compared to your PC monitor (22" vs 44" for me). So it's not that much of a problem, when I sit farther away.
But I do agree with the "placement" of mouse/keyboard. That could be a problem - maybe use one of those "breakfast in bed tables" ? If it's low enough I suppose it could work.
|
No. Mostly because I don't think it would be beneficial to have a screen bigger than 22" at most for rts gaming.
|
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.
Don't be silly, I built my friend a computer for $500 a few weeks ago that can run starcraft II in ultra settings perfectly fine.
|
World of Warcraft, I can kind of see how it could be played on a console. But SC2's UI is not meant for consoles. You would be fighting the interface the whole time while playing SC2. Could you imagine trying to select your marines and move them back to your base while mutalisks are attacking? It would be incredibly frustrating.
If you could use a mouse, it would defeat the purpose of a console. Consoles are meant to be played on the couch in front of a tv.
I do think that RTS games could be played on consoles. But it would take a specialized interface to do implement, and SC2 isn't it.
|
Simply no. Not because of interface issues or anything but because games that go "console" get the "dumbed down" treatment.
If it were a different game as in servers, community, with no connection to the PC version, then yeah, i would not care lol.
FPS already died a little with "consolization", do not want this to happen to RTS, not to Starcraft. Gameplay first.
|
Poll needs an "I won't buy it for consoles but only because I would prefer a PC version" option.
|
|
|
The computer to console pricing comparisons are illogical (and not just because most people severely overexaggerate the cost of a gaming computer), computers do much more than consoles do and many people already need/want a computer anyways for purposes other than gaming.
OT, a significant reason to not want to play SC on a console other than the interface/pricing concerns is not wanting to play with the console community. I mean, I imagine most people here have already experienced a bit of the "WoW community" on bnet. Can you imagine adding the "CoD community" to that?
|
One interesting thought to add is that Blizz is going to make Diablo 3 for consoles. They have job listings and have hired people to not "port" but make a spin off or a original Diablo console game. I agree that out of all the franchises they have D3 or WoW would be the best sellers or just the easiest to "port" over to consoles.
This is to the people saying Blizz doesn't or shouldn't care about making console games again.
|
Batisterio-PiB
Brazil219 Posts
On December 23 2010 02:34 Dirt-Spider wrote:
One interesting thought to add is that Blizz is going to make Diablo 3 for consoles. They have job listings and have hired people to not "port" but make a spin off or a original Diablo console game. I agree that out of all the franchises they have D3 or WoW would be the best sellers or just the easiest to "port" over to consoles.
This is to the people saying Blizz doesn't or shouldn't care about making console games again.
Really? Source?
I heard that diablo will be PC only! Like The Witcher 2...a lot of people said that they will make for ps3/xbox and in the end will be PC only...consoles are getting old and slow.....
|
For people saying "LUL console community suxz"
Why wouldn't you be able to connect to bnet through a console?
|
I guess it would be alright if they could implement a port of the game to console that was exactly the same. I wouldn't play it (heresy!) but it could definately expand the community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
