|
I have played SC1 on my PS3 with Helios Linux and VisualBox before Sony released the patch that took away "Other OS" booting. It was fun, I used a Keyboard/mouse. With RTS games like Halo Wars, Red Alet 3, and End War on consoles would you guys/gals buy or play SC2 on a console? Would you like to see Kinect or Move implemented (this sounds hilariously stupid)? Would cross MP be fun? Would this help get SC2 and gaming as a sport more main stream in the US?
It would be with a mouse and keyboard not a controller.
Poll: Would you buy SC2 for Consoles? No, I own a console (310) 53% Heresy!!! (147) 25% No, I don't own a console (98) 17% Yes, for PS3 (19) 3% Yes, for Xbox 360 (16) 3% 590 total votes Your vote: Would you buy SC2 for Consoles? (Vote): Yes, for Xbox 360
(Vote): Yes, for PS3
(Vote): No, I don't own a console
(Vote): No, I own a console
(Vote): Heresy!!!
Sorry new didn't know how to make polls yet 
|
99.9% of users on xbox/ps3 dont own a compatible mouse/keyboard
Id fear it would not sell very well at all.
Move support outside of custom made ums would be somewhat pointless considering the amount of multitasking you would need to do.
The systems could handle the game and if they used a keyboard/mouse and so did the pc user there would be no real difference in the game between console/pc.
|
United States4126 Posts
I can't imagine playing any rts on anything besides the standard keyboard/mouse interface. Have you ever seen Starcraft on the N64? That was so difficult to play imo, and by play I mean replicate the PC interface.
|
if they released the game with a compatible mouse and keyboard it would sell
|
So you played sc1 with a keyboard and mouse on your ps3 when you could have played it on your computer? And you're asking if being able to do that for sc2 would make it more main stream? We've had the technology for a long time now to use keyboard/mouse with consoles and no rts game has ever been popular on console just because of that.
I don't understand how you can't see the glaring answer...
|
On December 21 2010 17:49 arterian wrote:
if they released the game with a compatible mouse and keyboard it would sell
But not well
|
If we're talking about playing on a controller, nope. My mind would be moving way faster than my hands could perform (and I have pretty friggin amazing hands).
|
On December 21 2010 17:49 Ack1027 wrote:
So you played sc1 with a keyboard and mouse on your ps3 when you could have played it on your computer? And you're asking if being able to do that for sc2 would make it more main stream? We've had the technology for a long time now to use keyboard/mouse with consoles and no rts game has ever been popular on console just because of that.
I don't understand how you can't see the glaring answer...
Or rather isnt the more glaring point that if you play it with a mouse and a keyboard, whats the difference when playing on a console and pc? Well it would help for people with horrid comps tho.
|
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
|
There would be some casual gamers that played, but unless there were major tournaments for it I doubt it would draw any major following.
|
i'd consider it for the N64
|
I would try it, but I wouldn't take it seriously. Campaign would probably be funner.
|
I browse a lot as I play. I play a game, read TL, watch a stream. Get back to playing..and it's then time for the gsl so, yeah the internet is a huge part of the experience. And even though the ps3 has a browser, it's pretty clunky (from the little I've used) and dont know if it allows streaming etc.
And besides, someone else would want to watch something on tv,like movies etc. So I'd be constantly interrupted. So nope, I prefer playing it on the computer.
|
On December 21 2010 17:38 Oslo wrote:
99.9% of users on xbox/ps3 dont own a compatible mouse/keyboard
Id fear it would not sell very well at all.
Move support outside of custom made ums would be somewhat pointless considering the amount of multitasking you would need to do.
The systems could handle the game and if they used a keyboard/mouse and so did the pc user there would be no real difference in the game between console/pc.
Uhh... what? You can use any USB keyboard at least with the Xbox 360. I have plugged in several different models, most of which were common keyboards (dell, emachines, logitech etc etc) and all worked with the Xbox 360.
|
we don't need SC getting dumbed down more than it already is.
|
On December 21 2010 17:49 arterian wrote:
if they released the game with a compatible mouse and keyboard it would sell
Like Rockband peripheries. I fear, though, that the console and PC users would not be able to intermingle with things like Xbox Live and PSN standing in the way.
|
On December 21 2010 17:53 Digamma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 17:49 Ack1027 wrote:
So you played sc1 with a keyboard and mouse on your ps3 when you could have played it on your computer? And you're asking if being able to do that for sc2 would make it more main stream? We've had the technology for a long time now to use keyboard/mouse with consoles and no rts game has ever been popular on console just because of that.
I don't understand how you can't see the glaring answer... Or rather isnt the more glaring point that if you play it with a mouse and a keyboard, whats the difference when playing on a console and pc? Well it would help for people with horrid comps tho.
Making games for a console is easier because you don't have to worry about people not being able to play this or that game, because of this or that missing requirement. In my opinion, Blizzard should be developing for either the 360 or the PS3. They could harness the powers of both of those consoles, while still being able to have games that use keyboard and mouse control. This would make their games more widespread, because I'm beginning to see a shift in gaming towards the console market. It's just so much easier to have a console that you know will play every game that is made for it.
|
On December 21 2010 18:21 hoby2000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2010 17:53 Digamma wrote:On December 21 2010 17:49 Ack1027 wrote:
So you played sc1 with a keyboard and mouse on your ps3 when you could have played it on your computer? And you're asking if being able to do that for sc2 would make it more main stream? We've had the technology for a long time now to use keyboard/mouse with consoles and no rts game has ever been popular on console just because of that.
I don't understand how you can't see the glaring answer... Or rather isnt the more glaring point that if you play it with a mouse and a keyboard, whats the difference when playing on a console and pc? Well it would help for people with horrid comps tho. Making games for a console is easier because you don't have to worry about people not being able to play this or that game, because of this or that missing requirement. In my opinion, Blizzard should be developing for either the 360 or the PS3. They could harness the powers of both of those consoles, while still being able to have games that use keyboard and mouse control. This would make their games more widespread, because I'm beginning to see a shift in gaming towards the console market. It's just so much easier to have a console that you know will play every game that is made for it.
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.
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.
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.
|
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
|
being a pcgamer, i always thought that console games were a joke compared to things on the pc (well cept for the classics). but yes, i tihnk people would buy it, but never become really passionate about it, in relativity to the ones who have it on pc.
|
I would try it just for the comical value. Starcraft 64 anyone?
|
The idea of playing an rts game on a console is ridiculous, just like the idea of playing FPS on a console (assuming that you want to play your best).
|
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...
|
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.
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)
|
I played Red Alert on Playstation when I was a kid, I didn't have a remotely decent PC so I guess that's why I started off as a console gamer. I loved that game until I foolishly lent it to a friend who lent it to his friend and it was never seen again, man that pissed me off so much, it still pisses me off when I think about it, because I loved that game so goddamn much. Then maybe a few years later I played SC1 on PC and although I was probably just as slow as I was on console back then, I can't really imagine going back to a console without a keyboard and mouse... it's the same as what ace246 said about FPS, using a console controller you just can't get the same precision and speed that you desire and it is frustrating as hell. I played BFBC2 on my friend's PS3 before I played the PC version, it seemed pretty cool, then I tried the PC version and thought the console version was like trying to ride a fat woman ontop of a bronco at a rodeo.
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.
|
In general I really do think they should make more RTS games for consoles but not these dumbed down halo wars/Lotr interfaces keep it like supreme commander was just make the games mouse and keyboard compatible and just make it so you can change the input in the options menu of the game. I would suggest that for FPS games too but I d k if people in general would agree since you can get a HUGE hardware advantage to people who get stuck using the controller because they don't want to buy more addons for their console
|
i would love it if it came out on the consoles, obviously you would still need a mouse and keyboard and it should be mandatory if it did make it to the console, a game like this would never work with a controller.
|
I played sc1 on x-box for fun, I'd do the same with sc2.
|
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.
|
Call me biased and PC-centric all you want, but I really don't want the last major PC publisher / developer "branching out" to the market that destroyed nearly all good things in the game industry.
As Jean Luc Picard would say - "the line must be drawn HIAR". =P
|
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 :<
|
if they made wireless keyboards and mice with the same range and responsiveness as the sixaxis controller i would definately buy it. I like the idea of being able to go to a lan without having to drag my whole pc, screen sound and everything with so i can just play sc2. Most of my friends lan console games only so i think it would be pretty cool to get them playing without having to buy pcs.
|
You guys are all forgetting the BIGGEST difference other than interface between PC and Consoles: Distance from screen. I sit less than a foot away from my computer monitor. My tv? Well, if I'm using a new fangled Kinnect or Wii, up to six feet away. At the closest maybe three feet. I couldn't see my food count, make out small marks on my minimap, or, hell, even units."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."
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. 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 roads
"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.
Assuming you want to wait for say ten years to update your computer. And of course there is the issue of competition. Competition may make it harder for the developer, but it makes it cheaper and BETTER 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."
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.
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.
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?
|
No, it would play terribly. I'm also a graphics whore and considering how good SC2 looks on the PC I just can't imagine the same experience on the console counterpart. Console games look terrible after having played on the PC for so long.
|
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. Show nested quote +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)
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.
|
Blizzard should stick with the pc (and they will)
Mario & co should stick with the consoles (and they will)
sc2 on a handheld would be funny tho xD
|
On December 21 2010 20:58 ace246 wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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) 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. For me, it's an entirely different, incomparable experience.
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.
|
Assuming that it'll be using mouse and keyboard, the biggest issue would be the viewing distance. Has anyone tried playing on their TV from their couch? I wonder what that would be like. I think releasing it for consoles with mouse and keyboard would only be a good idea if it SC2 really took off as an esport outside of Korea. If there were like hundreds of thousands of new fans, then it would make sense port it for all the people who don't have a great computer, but have a PS3/X360. I would guess that the number of people who want to play SC2 that don't have a computer for it is not large enough to be worth a port.
|
The only time when console games looked better than pc games was when the consoles were brand new.
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.
|
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 
|
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).
|
@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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
If I could play against people on the PC and there were no major issues in the port, yes I would play on my Xbox. Mostly because I have limited access to a computer.
P.S. Eurgh, snooty PC gamers.
|
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.
|
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.
|
getting a keyboard/mouse to work on a console is probably not the major barrier here so much as just the complete lack of a competitive online console RTS community.
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.
|
Wouldn't even think of it, you could never get the same feel and experience on a console as you can on a computer. Same with FPS games
|
On December 21 2010 23:47 Sad[Panda] wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
No no and no. The only way this would work is if the console gamers could play against the pc gamers. Even if the console companies aloud this (which they wouldn't) can you imagine how bad you would stomp some poor ten year old with a controller? Its just like when they release fps games for the console. Pc gamers are never aloud to compete against the console players. Even a mediocre computer player would wipe the floor with the best console player in the world. Not because he is better but because pc's actually allow you to aim at a reasonable speed. Since the console companies would never let their gamers compete with the pc gamers all you would do would be to split the game. A split community is a dead community, look at american cs.
|
100% no, this is a pc game.
|
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
|
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.
|
Perhaps some console gamers would like to do the campaign but i highly doubt it would become competitive, though it may convince some players to get it for PC if they liked it enough.
|
Batisterio-PiB
Brazil219 Posts
No! PC only plz!
And in team games the game would lag a lot since there is only 256 ram for the system and 256 for gfx...
|
If you use a mouse and a keyboard I don't really see the point on playing it on anything other then a PC. If you play it on Xbox 360 that means you pay 50 or 60 bucks a year to play online (for Xbox Live) and you have to spend money on the keyboard/controller which most people don't have. It just doesn't make sense.
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.
|
Nope. It would lose all of its feeling.
PC all the way baby
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
If they refined the motion sensor technology enough that you can control everything on the screen with special gloves a la minority report, i would buy it 1000 times over. Well, a nerd can dream....
|
Im not familiar with the complete details of the consoles but, PS3 has released the patch to ban all non company usb items, mouse, controller, ect. Xbox live has a monthly subscription. I would only play sc2 on the consoles if it had something more to offer, but seeing as that is probally not the case. My answer is no.
Sc1 on N64 was a fail, Liquid_Adun
|
No, but I'll play SC1 on N64
|
On December 22 2010 01:12 Liquid_Adun wrote:Im not familiar with the complete details of the consoles but, PS3 has released the patch to ban all non company usb items, mouse, controller, ect. Xbox live has a monthly subscription. I would only play sc2 on the consoles if it had something more to offer, but seeing as that is probally not the case. My answer is no. Sc1 on N64 was a fail, Liquid_Adun
I'm pretty positive the patch that Sony released a while back only blocked counterfit Sony controllers. There are still lots of third-party controllers on the market. FragFX is basically a PS3 mouse that you can use with any game, and since there are youtube videos of people playing Black Ops with the FragFX posted in the last couple days I'm pretty sure it still works 
Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3 also works with any mouse/keyboard.
|
SC2 with kinect could be fun, but you would need a completely different interface and probably would be a different game. Things like micro would be impossible to replicate. I imagine an rts on kinect will focus more unit movement and positioning. Not really good for a game with a ton of melee units. I think kinect has more potential for first person play and an rts would be difficult.
Kinect makes me think of Ender's game where he was controlling the army and occasionally controlling individual units in space. That could be interesting and work for a space battle game. Basically you and your friends (maybe a 3v3 game) control an army and give instructions and are able to control individual ships as well to perform certain techniques.
|
On December 21 2010 19:47 ace246 wrote:
The idea of playing an rts game on a console is ridiculous, just like the idea of playing FPS on a console (assuming that you want to play your best).
You can't look at the massive popularity of Halo and then COD and say playing FPS on a console is a joke. The world has spoken, and while I agree with you cause my FPS experience was UT and CS on PC, I too think FPS are better on computer but what we thinking doesn't mean a damn. The people I know that play FPS in real life all do it on console and all say they would take the controller over mouse/keyboard anyday. So we're not in the position to judge outside our genre which is clearly RTS for PC.
I'd get sc2 for ps3 if I could play on b.net like everyone else. That wouldn't happen though thus making sc2 on a console worthless.
|
On December 22 2010 02:25 PiousMartyr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 01:12 Liquid_Adun wrote:Im not familiar with the complete details of the consoles but, PS3 has released the patch to ban all non company usb items, mouse, controller, ect. Xbox live has a monthly subscription. I would only play sc2 on the consoles if it had something more to offer, but seeing as that is probally not the case. My answer is no. Sc1 on N64 was a fail, Liquid_Adun I'm pretty positive the patch that Sony released a while back only blocked counterfit Sony controllers. There are still lots of third-party controllers on the market. FragFX is basically a PS3 mouse that you can use with any game, and since there are youtube videos of people playing Black Ops with the FragFX posted in the last couple days I'm pretty sure it still works Unreal Tournament 3 on the PS3 also works with any mouse/keyboard.
Ya I use a non-sony ps2 > usb converter for an old hori fightstick I have. Adun is incorrect.
|
I'm concerned about the community aspect if this were to be implemented. Sure there'd be more sales but then SC2 would catch on to the infamously horrible console community.
|
Norway1360 Posts
People saying that the current consoles offer "10x" better (even if just hyperbole) graphics than a mid-range gaming computer don't know what they are talking about. Similarly, it's simply not true that you have to spend a lot of money on a computer that can run most games these days. I just upgraded most of my computer for the first time since 2007, and that computer was capable of running Crysis quite well. I'm not sure I've got a more demanding game than Crysis, and that's 3 years old.
As for the topic itself.. it could work. But I'm not sure how popular it would be. SC2 is a very PC-ish game. I think that the people who would mostly be interested in something like this already have it on PC, or have a PC and aren't really aware that it exists.
|
i would not play it on a console even if i could have the keyboard and mouse id like to play with.
the reasons are simple. i talk with my buddies over teamspeak, listen to music and surfing on the same device i play on.
|
|
|
Even if I could use a keyboard and mouse with my PS3, at that point I might as well just be using my PC. Especially considering my PC is in a comfortable position at my desk, where I also have all of my music, vent, etc., unlike my PS3 which is in my living room where I sit on the couch to use it. It would require me to rearrange things just so I could use a mouse and keyboard, and at that point I don't understand why I'm not using my PC the whole time
|
PC all the way. I don't find Consoles as effective as computers in practically, every single way. They say consoles might be better for "racing, fighting, and rpg" games, but I find computers to be better.
Computer games also look better because they have better hardwares; although graphics shouldn't have much of a difference from computers to consoles.
|
With custom xbox360/ps3 controller, I strongly believe you can. If you can play sc2 with a single razor mouse with ton of keypad on it, you can do it with a controller too.
.............Mouse movement is actually the same as 2 keypad movement from xbox360. how do I know this? because I play FPS moving the game around with controller easier than with the mouse[I used to controller]
.....Console is actually better than most people PC. Xbox 200$ ps3 300$ able to play on big ass TV screen 52 inch. While if you want to build a PC to play SC2, you'll look at way over 300$ price point. If you want to play sc2 on a big ass tv screen 52 inch, you'll need to spend extra $ for the graphic card. Over all Console is really a good investment for gaming. Those PC nerd will quote me for this so stop reading from here please >
|
I'm doubt the posters here at TL are going to be very open to the idea, they already have the game and are very used to how they play it. For casuals, it's probably a great idea.
BTW read the OP people! He said WITH MOUSE KEYBOARD on the console.
All these ppl pointing out the interface problems have their own interface problems because their ability to read and apply logical thinking his severely stunted.
I played a good amount of halo wars and it was fun, and ppl were pretty competitive. Why wouldn't bringing more ppl into starcraft be a good thing? Isn't that what every big caster in sc2 is trying to do? They are constantly explaining things for noobs on the gsl, arn't they? I think for many ppl who simply can't or won't invest in a beefy up to date cpu to run sc2, a console kit w/ keyboard mouse included (or an (xbox or ps adapter to allow you to use your own gaming hardware) would be a great idea. Be open minded people. They had shadowrun cross play on vista and xbox, worked out pretty good imo.
|
FYI, Universe at War was a cross platform rts. Xbox vs PC. Was a pretty cool rts design wise, but horrible performance on both platforms.
|
On December 21 2010 20:58 ace246 wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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) 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.
You actualy do know almost nothing about actual PCs and Consoles do you?
Most consolegames would run easy on a pc. Go "Emulate" a System somewhere. Try to emulate windows on a console. Actual Console do have almost the same architecture as a PC has but with very low ram slow processors and slow graficscards.
....this is not the place to discuss this but seriously you live under a rock your informations are like 5 years old....PCs evolved Consoles didnt.
I have my Xbox hooked up to my PC monitor and i played those named games on my PC and Console and i can tell you the pc version looks far far better but only because of resolution antialiasing and filtering.
|
RTS's are for PC. Call me old school if you want but that's the way it is. Let the fighting/racing/platform games on the consoles.
Enough said.
|
ITT : Consoles are not computers.
They also do not have usb ports for both a keyboard and a mouse.
Wait.... they are computers and they do have those ports!
hum.....
|
Given that my current computer sucks, yes. As long as it has keyboard and mouse support, there would be zero difference to me if I ran it on a PS3/360 aside from it looking a lot prettier while running smoothly.
Not to mention that most people have tv's larger than their computer monitors.
|
|
|
Quite simply, no.
And I played Starcraft 64 a few times back in the days..
|
If it's with a gamepad / controller, then hell no. If it's with a keyboard and mouse on a console, what's the point? Just hook up your computer to your TV.
|
On December 22 2010 08:17 synapse wrote:
If it's with a gamepad / controller, then hell no. If it's with a keyboard and mouse on a console, what's the point? Just hook up your computer to your TV.
A 300$ PS3 can run SC2 fine, but my 700$ laptop from 2007 barely handles all-low?
|
Simply not enough buttons thats ONE of the major downsides, second being how are you going to click the map...
|
Good luck trying to micro against a 6 pool.
|
I would because I have to play on a laptop which isn't very powerful and it sucks balls :/
|
If i didnt have a good comp and had a ps3 and sc2 was released on ps3, and i could play with keyboard and mouse, then yeah i'd buy it. For ppl without good gaming comps this would be a good way to play sc2. Would it sell? i think so.
|
If I could plug my MX518 and Filco into my 360, then yes I definitely would play it. It would be nice to play SC2 with my old Xbox Live buddies who haven't took up PC gaming.
|
Well, definitely no and I own a PS3.
|
I will definitely not play it since it will be way more boring. I play on my PS3 more than my PC since the only game I play on my PC is SC2. Genres such as FPS and strategy, I would never buy on my PS3 since the game feels more "dumbed" down compared to their PC counterpart.
|
It would be fine if you could use keyboard and mouse on the consoles. I think PS3 can do that; I don't think the xbox can.
Trying to use a controller thing for an RTS is horrible.
|
I don't get why this is even a question. The obvious answer is that it would be a terrible idea. Lets look at halo reach and cnc3, neither was all that successful on a console. Playing an RTS without a keyboard is usually not worth the trouble.
|
I would not play SC2 on any console. That is all.
|
nope
there's nobody on playstation network, and I don't want to pay an xbox live subscription to play sc2.
plus the people you'd get on playstation/xbox servers would be absolutely terrible. xbox's top diamond would be about equivalent to pc's gold league.
so, less people to play with or having to pay to play, and a lower skilled player base? i think not.
|
Why would I play SC2 on an inferior platform, with inferior controls, an inferior interface and significantly worse graphics? Not to mention a lot of other things like Microsoft haggling my money for subscrption/fees for downloading maps.
No, just no.
|
Remember SC on N64? Yeah, no.
|
i think its a pretty awful idea
unless ur playing with keyboard and mouse...
but then why not just play on a pc?
|
Played SC64 for 4ish years because I didn't have a PC. Yeah, played that thing a fucking LOT. But now playing RTS on a more competitive level, couldn't possibly go back.
|
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.
|
No thanks. I don't want to buy a 300$ "computer" for gaming only.
|
RTS only works on the PC; however, the PS3 can support USB keyboard and mice, so it could play SC2 as it was meant to be played.
|
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.
|
Most people who are replying to this don't realize that the purpose of the OP is not to suggest playing SC2 on a console with a controller but only for people to use the console like a computer to play SC2 with a keyboard and mice simply because their computer is not powerful enough.
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.
|
On December 22 2010 10:14 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 22 2010 08:33 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2010 08:17 synapse wrote:
If it's with a gamepad / controller, then hell no. If it's with a keyboard and mouse on a console, what's the point? Just hook up your computer to your TV. 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
|
after starcraft 64 and halo wars - no
|
6% of people are saying yes. I think the point is proven.
|
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.
|
On December 22 2010 10:14 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
|
|
No, can you imagine how hard it would be to control all the units and stuff? My apm would go down from 120 to 20, because I have to use a joystick and not a mouse. The only thing this would help is to get console-only gamers to get into starcraft, but I would never buy this, it would be just too wierd to control units and stuff
|
I only want Starcraft Ghost...that is all. And maybe Starcraft Dark Templar to follow, along with something
|
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!
|
ps3, usb mouse & keyboard support baby.
|
The problem is that almost everyone reading this already has SC2 so why would they buy it. The only way I'd want it for consoles is if it had some added functionality to make up for the inferior play control.
|
If it was done with a mouse and keyboard why not, but that would be pretty stupid. Competitive RTS's aren't possible on a controller like FPS's are.
|
I cant see why not, since I can just plug in my mouse and keyboard into my PS3. Thing is, I spend far more time in front of my computer than in front of my PS3 and TV, that I'd just end up playing it on the PC anyways.
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.
|
OMG i would play the shit out of that. Actually having a good online system wouldn't play ladder hardcore, but playing with friends would be so so much better. (on 360)
|
I like this idea. It's a lot easier to get people to plug a keyboard and a mouse to play with you than for them to buy a gaming pc.
|
To everyone saying console gamers don't own a keyboard and mouse I'm wondering what you mean? Do you mean they are not wireless, because everyone has at least a wired keyboard and mouse?
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.
|
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.
|
I played Halo Wars for XBOX. Waste of time.
I used to love BW on N64, though. I was a child in those days.
|
My roommate has his second HDMI port hooked up to our TV, so one of us can watch the other play, and as most people here know, SC2 makes an excellent spectator sport, even when viewed first person. I think putting SC2 on a console would probably get the general public clued in to how much fun this game is to just watch, which could help the progaming scene outside Korea dramatically. Not saying it would happen, but putting it on consoles couldn't hurt (you'd look pretty goofy sitting on your couch with a lapboard, though)
|
Where is the "I owned Starcraft 64" option?
|
I think it would be cool if you could stream the GSL or other big starcraft events with HD on your PS3 or Xbox. But I think that's the most I could take out of starcraft on a console (...besides starcraft 64...)
|
On December 21 2010 17:44 Kinky wrote:
I can't imagine playing any rts on anything besides the standard keyboard/mouse interface. Have you ever seen Starcraft on the N64? That was so difficult to play imo, and by play I mean replicate the PC interface.
Yeah, a friend of mine got it and it was a waste of money, really terrible gameplay, you cant freaking play SC with a PS or N64 control pad
|
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.....
Here is one source: http://starcraft2.ign.com/articles/news/6707/Blizzard-Exploring-Console-Options
But I have read it on a couple other places to, seems legit because they have job listings on gamasutra for it a while back, might still be up. I hear Dungeon siege 3 will be on consoles as well in a similar fashion.
I like how they mention that it will not slow down production of the PC/Mac version if it happens, because people would probably have a fit lol. I did not see any mention of it in the leaked schedule that got put out over the internet a couple days back.
|
it amazing 7 pages later and half the people still dont get what the OP is saying what is this the battlenet forums? he never said to play with a joystick he was saying to play with the mouse and keyboard on a console. and its a great idea.
zomg my APM which is 60% spam will go downnn noooooo ur ugggg i hate console dahhhh burrr
|
Why bother since it is already out for computer? Even if you could play with your mouse and keyboard it doesn't make sense unless you already have a PS3/Xbox and your computer can't handle SC2. Even then I don't think this will ever happen.
|
There is no way that I would ever play a starcraft (or any RTS) game on a console.
|
I don't know if anyone said it in this forum, but on PS3 you can use any USB Mouse or Keyboard..
furthermore you can run a complete OS (linux ) on your PS 3 system.
There is no problem with supporting a mouse for a RTS on PS3 if the developer implements it.
So YES, i would play it on PS3 when they would give mouse/keyboards support for the game.
|
Halo Wars is alright, but I would definitely need a mouse to play starcraft, it's too complicated for a console, and a console mind.
![[image loading]](http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu61/Genzou_Fotos/PC_Gaming_Master_Race.jpg)
Sorry the pic's so big, it always looks smaller on google. Also, Diablo would be cool though.
|
Yea it should be made for a console. Just look at Starcraft 64's success.
|
Starcraft 2, no, i would play Diablo 3 if it was optimised for use with a controller and played well.
Same reason i would never play a racing or fighting game on a keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
