PDA

View Full Version : PC Gamers VS Console Gamers



Erloas
2010-07-23, 09:31 AM
Well this is an argument I've seen before, but not one with any real data to back it up.

The fact that for most things the controls on a PC are far superior to a console and because of that multiplayer wouldn't work between systems.

Well apparently Microsoft did test some games with multiplayer between console and PC and did in fact find that it simply wouldn't work from a competitive standpoint.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox-360-windows-live-gaming-voodoopc-rahul-sood,10924.html


"I've heard from reliable sources that during the development they brought together the best console gamers to play mediocre PC gamers at the same game... and guess what happened? They pitted console gamers with their 'console' controller, against PC gamers with their keyboard and mouse."
...
"The console players got destroyed every time," Sood added. "So much so that it would be embarrassing to the XBOX team in general had Microsoft launched this initiative. Is this why the project was killed Who knows, but I'd love to hear from anyone involved --- what happened?"

Volatar
2010-07-23, 09:33 AM
YES! Finally some good hard evidence on the superiority of PC controls!

Dogmantra
2010-07-23, 09:34 AM
It just depends what the game is designed around. I can imagine that if the game was built from the ground up for the XBox, with the controls being assigned for what makes sense on that controller, then ported to PC, it might be the other way around. Chances are these were FPSs, which are generally agreed on to work best with a mouse. However, most games that are built from the ground up for a console with controls designed to be intuitive for the controller are going to be platform exclusive.

SparkMandriller
2010-07-23, 09:51 AM
This isn't really PC gamers vs console games, it's more KB+M vs controller. It's not like you can't use a controller with a computer, is it? I was playing Gradius Gaiden just earlier, and I sure wouldn't want to play that with a keyboard. Or a fighting game, oh man.

But yeah it's harder to aim with a controller than it is with a mouse. Is this news? I thought it was obvious to anyone who had experience with both of them. It should be obvious to people who haven't used either, even, what with the way a lot of console FPS feature aim assist, while PC games don't. Seems pretty obvious to me.

banjo1985
2010-07-23, 09:54 AM
It just depends what the game is designed around. I can imagine that if the game was built from the ground up for the XBox, with the controls being assigned for what makes sense on that controller, then ported to PC, it might be the other way around. Chances are these were FPSs, which are generally agreed on to work best with a mouse. However, most games that are built from the ground up for a console with controls designed to be intuitive for the controller are going to be platform exclusive.

This.
Some games do work better on a PC with keyboard and mouse, if you can get used to all the button combinations and options that make casual console-gamers like myself cry in a corner. But I would guess that if, Forza 3 for example, were tested between PC and Xbox gamers, the results may have been a bit different.

For me, you can keep those fiddly controls, give me a controlpad with some vibration feedback and a geeky headset and I'll go play Blur. With some 10 year olds from who-knows-where that'll own me every race no doubt. :smalltongue:

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 09:58 AM
This.
Some games do work better on a PC with keyboard and mouse, if you can get used to all the button combinations and options that make casual console-gamers like myself cry in a corner. But I would guess that if, Forza 3 for example, were tested between PC and Xbox gamers, the results may have been a bit different.


But bad porting is not proof of the console's superiority for these games.

Seriously, if just a tiny amount of ressource was dedicated to port a game to PC, I don't think we can use it as a claim that console is superior for that game.

Gimme a game that was designed for a console, but was well ported into a PC to have good comparison.

warty goblin
2010-07-23, 09:59 AM
It just depends what the game is designed around. I can imagine that if the game was built from the ground up for the XBox, with the controls being assigned for what makes sense on that controller, then ported to PC, it might be the other way around. Chances are these were FPSs, which are generally agreed on to work best with a mouse. However, most games that are built from the ground up for a console with controls designed to be intuitive for the controller are going to be platform exclusive.

With the exception of fighting games, I doubt this would be true of most titles. I'm playing Lost Planet right now, which was originally designed for consoles, and am finding Normal difficulty to be trivially easy in no small part because it's a game designed around shooting targets in weak spots, and said targets have a habit of standing still for long periods of time. With a controller that'd make the game much more playable, with even a decent mouse it makes it a cakewalk.

More generally, I'd note that many, many console titles use some degree of auto-aim or other. It's a rare - and scorned - PC game to do that.


I suspect some of this may have to do with the quality of hardware used in the controls. Controllers cost what, $30, $40 or so? I actually have no idea. I paid $80 for my gaming mouse and it's worth every penny due to the ergonomic design and terrifyingly high resolution. I suspect that spending that sort of money on dedicated control devices isn't that uncommon for PC gamers.

potatocubed
2010-07-23, 10:03 AM
Gimme a game that was designed for a console, but was well ported into a PC to have good comparison.

Would you accept Batman: Arkham Asylum? Because after playing the PC demo of that, I knew I was going to get it on the Xbox. The controls were just nightmarish.

Although for FPSes, M+KB has long been established as a superior control method. Anyone remember the appalling Shadowrun PvP FPS? Where the PC controls were deliberately made less responsive than the console ones to prevent an 'unfair advantage'?

banjo1985
2010-07-23, 10:06 AM
That settles it, a mouse peripheral for the 360 and PS3 then? Bring balance to the gaming community!

To be fair, I think there could well be a difference in the average skill level of a PC gamer to a console gamer, due to the more casual nature of console gaming. Consoles are a lot cheaper than a high end gaming PC, and don't need continual updates to remain usable. By definition a dedicated PC gamer has to be willing to put more money and work into their hobby, meaning that they will probably be more serious about their games too.

I myself will stick to playing Blur on XboxLive with the other mudblood commoners. :smalltongue:

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 10:12 AM
Would you accept Batman: Arkham Asylum? Because after playing the PC demo of that, I knew I was going to get it on the Xbox. The controls were just nightmarish.


Obviously not, since, as you say, the controls are nightmarish. Meaning that the porting was badly executed, duh.

Cespenar
2010-07-23, 10:14 AM
Would you accept Batman: Arkham Asylum? Because after playing the PC demo of that, I knew I was going to get it on the Xbox. The controls were just nightmarish.

I played through the whole game in PC, and it never felt that way for me.

And yes, I think that the mouse-keyboard combo is much more precise too, but that may not always lead to somewhere. I also fail to see what's the main argument in this thread.

Draconi Redfir
2010-07-23, 10:16 AM
i know for a fact that the game "Shadowrun" hosts both PC and Xbox players. though for one reasion or another the majority of its player base are on xboxes. (meaning i, on the computer, got sevral achivements many others havent gotten dispite playing longer then i have. like the "mine is the superior platform!" achivement, wich is for killing X# of players on the oposing platform.)

SparkMandriller
2010-07-23, 10:22 AM
To be fair, I think there could well be a difference in the average skill level of a PC gamer to a console gamer, due to the more casual nature of console gaming.

Judging from my experience playing various games online, the average PC gamer is about as low as you can go. I don't it's possible for console gamers to be worse, unless they somehow have negative skill.

banjo1985
2010-07-23, 10:26 AM
Judging from my experience playing various games online, the average PC gamer is about as low as you can go. I don't it's possible for console gamers to be worse, unless they somehow have negative skill.

You have clearly never seen me and my friend playing Blur then. We paint our cars bright pink, enter any race that's going, and proceed to duke it out for last place every time. There's no race Team Pink can't lose! :smallbiggrin: I over-exaggerate of course, we're not quite that bad, but there are some incredibly poor console players out there.

I have to admit that I have almost no experience of PC gaming, and only fairly recently have I taken my console online. It just seemed a fair assumption that if you're going to pump a grand or so into your gaming system you're probably going to make sure you're good at what you play after that kind of investment.

Airk
2010-07-23, 10:35 AM
Obviously not, since, as you say, the controls are nightmarish. Meaning that the porting was badly executed, duh.

I think you're playing dirty here. You've basically said:

"Show me a game that was a good port from a console to a PC that still controls better on the console"

and then you reject all examples because if the game controls badly on the PC it "must" be a bad port. That's gotta be some sort of logical fallacy. Or at the very least, dirty arguing.

Anyway: Street Fighter 4. No one will argue that this game plays like arse on a keyboard, and that a mouse is a completely inappropriate interface device. A gamepad is better, a fighting pad better still, and many people will tell you that the 'right' way to play it is with an arcade stick.

Can you buy an Arcade stick for your PC? Sure. But the default control mechanism - keyboard and mouse - is completely inferior.

I would argue that this is, essentially, the case for any platform game too - all you need to do is drop over to the Super Mario Crossover (http://supermariobroscrossover.com/) page and spend a couple of minutes playing it (To say nothing of the part where the author actually SAYS "play with a gamepad if you have one") before you realize that the gameplay experience would be much improved playing with a gamepad. Keyboard just feels awkward.

In fact, when you get right down to it, keyboards are pretty bad game interface devices. They were designed for typing. Yes, they have LOTS of buttons, but a lot of the time, the hardware can't even cope with you needing to hold down certain buttons at the same time and register both of them. I was playing Hydorah (http://www.locomalito.com/juegos_hydorah.php) the other day and getting slaughtered until I discovered that I couldn't shoot and move DOWN at the same time because my keyboard just didn't buy it. It wouldn't process those two buttons at once. Whichever one I hit first was the one that took effect. Yeah, you can shell out money for a "gaming keyboard" or something that doesn't have this issue, but most people don't. They just have keyboards and use them, because, hey, they need them to type, anyway.

So yeah. It depends on the game. I would -shudder- at the idea of playing, say, Bayonetta with a keyboard and mouse. In fact, truthfully, the mouse is a pretty much useless interface device unless you are A) Playing a game that uses a pointer (i.e. specifically designed for a mouse) or B) Playing a first person game that requires precise targeting.

So great. PCs are better for FPS games because FPS games were DESIGNED with the PC in mind. So what? FPS games do not, in fact, represent all of gaming. Many other games were not designed with the PC in mind, and in fact, benefit from being played using the default input scheme of the average console instead.

And you know, fundamentally, this discussion has nothing to do with PC vs console. Just Keyboard and Mouse vs Gamepad. Big deal.

factotum
2010-07-23, 10:38 AM
Point and click is easier than a mini-joystick? In other shock news, we understand the sky is blue, water is wet, and ursine mammals defecate in heavily wooded areas... :smallwink:

I'm a PC gamer, but I also have an XBox controller attached to my rig. Some game actions (such as driving in GTA4 and Just Cause 2) are so much better with the controller (thanks to analogue control of accelerator and brake) that I play those games with it, despite the fact it would no doubt be easier to use KB+M for the shooty bits. Given that, I really think they should run this sort of comparison with different types of games--I bet the console gamers would destroy the PC gamers in a driving game, for example.

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 10:46 AM
I think you're playing dirty here. You've basically said:

"Show me a game that was a good port from a console to a PC that still controls better on the console"

and then you reject all examples because if the game controls badly on the PC it "must" be a bad port. That's gotta be some sort of logical fallacy. Or at the very least, dirty arguing.

Well no. Not at all. If the controls from a game are nightmarish on a keyboard, it's because they have been badly ported, as the creators of the game never actually tried to find a way to make the game keyboard/mouse-friendly.

Insisting that a game has been well ported even if the control are nightmarish is.. puzzling, at best. Idiotic, at worst. Seriously, how do you evaluate the porting except for the gaming interface? I want a game that plays well in both game media, so we can properly try to find a game that fits best one over the other. Which leads to...


Anyway: Street Fighter 4. No one will argue that this game plays like arse on a keyboard, and that a mouse is a completely inappropriate interface device. A gamepad is better, a fighting pad better still, and many people will tell you that the 'right' way to play it is with an arcade stick.


I would agree about that, roughly. Old-style classic 2d-Fighting games would usually be better suited for the console, as you have no need to precise coordination the mouse gives you, you have no need for multiple player inputs. On the opposite, the focus would be more on careful coordination of the simple inputs you are going to give the game to achieve combos and special moves, which is easilier achieved on an control manipulator that has all the key buttons near you.

But I'd wonder if there could be cool non-old-style classic 2-d fighting games around. I'm thinking of something like Jedi Outcast, where precision and execution is important, but rather more complex than a simple 2-d fighting game. Would the console still stand up?

SparkMandriller
2010-07-23, 11:09 AM
It just seemed a fair assumption that if you're going to pump a grand or so into your gaming system you're probably going to make sure you're good at what you play after that kind of investment.

Response spoilered because it's not really all that relevant to the thread and it's not too interesting anyway. Short answer, nooooooooo.

I wish, man. People are absolutely awful at most games, and they're not willing to get better. Take a look at Battlefield 2, and the constant nerfs to movement that game's had. Originally people could shoot while jumping, but that get removed, because people had too much trouble hitting a target in the air. Later, they added a delay to standing up, so people couldn't dive around to dodge anymore in between shooting. Most recently, they added a penalty to firing accuracy for players going prone, because apparently hitting a guy diving to the ground is too difficulty for people too. These are all changes that the community literally asked for. They really are that bad at shooting that they're against targets being able to move at all, because it makes hitting them too difficult. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've been called a hacker because I'm capable of hitting someone who's NOT EVEN MOVING, either.
That's just accuracy, of course, but the majority of players are awful at everything else, and more importantly, they're not willing to learn. You'd think that after the fifth time someone's been killed by the incredibly slow moving rocket, they'd learn to keep moving to avoid them, but nope, nearly every player will just sit still and get killed again, and then complain that using rockets is unfair. You'd think people would realise (L4D now) that if they decide to run back 50m away from their team to get ammo that they won't even need, that they're going to get caught alone and will get severely injured, but nope, they still do it, every game they play. The vast majority of people who play games are awful awful awful and they'll always stay that way.

Also, that whole deciding to learn how to fly helicopters online when I'm in the gunner seat, and inevitably crashing into the ground and killing us both because you don't know how to fly? Really sick of that too. It doesn't make it any better when I'm not in the gunner seat because you teamkilled me to make sure there was no competition for your important role of flying into the ground, either.

Man, feels good to get that outta my system.

Airk
2010-07-23, 11:41 AM
But I'd wonder if there could be cool non-old-style classic 2-d fighting games around. I'm thinking of something like Jedi Outcast, where precision and execution is important, but rather more complex than a simple 2-d fighting game. Would the console still stand up?

Uhm, Street Fighter 4 wishes to take issue with your assertion that 2-d fighting games are in any way "simple"; The degree of complexity involved, quite frankly, staggers me. Execution is only the very first step to being able to play effectively. PC controls don't lend themselves to "complexity" any more than console controls unless by "complexity" you mean "lots of buttons that do different things".

If you prefer, you can look at the like of Soul Calibur 4 - a game that no one in their right mind would argue is 'simple'. Again. I -shudder- at the idea of trying to do this with a keyboard. In fact, I will again assert that in any environment where rapid precise MOVEMENT is required, the keyboard is an inferior choice, and the mouse is irrelevant, as it can, at best, control facing, a concept that may not even be present in the game. Unless you design the entire game around the mouse, at any rate.

The PC interface excels in games where the key is AIMING. It falls down in areas where the key is MOVING. The keyboard just isn't a good tool for it.

Triaxx
2010-07-23, 12:19 PM
I have to think that the only way to level the field is to give each player the same controller. I know the X360 controllers are PC compatible, so...

Then you can have a fair competition, because we all know that it goes:

Convention Controller>Wiimote>Keyboard+Mouse

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 12:27 PM
{Scrubbed}

Erloas
2010-07-23, 12:43 PM
I've actually had a number of people try to tell me controllers are better for shooters... inevitably by people who never play those games on a computer (or in a few cases really need the help from auto-aim used in most console games).

I would say for movement in general I think an analog stick is a bit better then a keyboard. But the difference is significantly less then the advantage of turning and aiming using a mouse vs an analog stick.
I wonder... has anyone seen a keyboard with an analog stick built into a cluster of keys to give the advantages of both?


I think its probably a pretty good chance that they were mostly testing FPSs, mostly because its by far the most common type of game for heavy mutliplayer. A lot of the platformer games aren't really multiplayer, and while there are fighter games (which are few and far between any more it seems) its pretty much just 1v1. As for racing games, I don't play them much, but I haven't found controllers that great for them, and really they are best with their own dedicated controller type... that both systems can use equally well but it isn't default for either.

As for skill... I've also been surprised by how bad some people are at games. It does actually seem to be mostly younger kids though. And one big problem with computer games and skill is there really are a lot of people that try to play games on computers that were simply never designed to play games. They run at low resolution and low frame rates and never seem to realize that is why they are loosing all the time and why they can never hit anything.


I've been trying to think of games I've played from multiple systems... and Assassin's Creed is the only one that doesn't involve a lot of shooting. The controls took a little bit to get used to, but it felt just fine after that, and I couldn't really see them being any better on a console, though I didn't get a console to compare it on either. Even the console first developed shooters were a lot better on the PC.

Volatar
2010-07-23, 01:09 PM
I've been trying to think of games I've played from multiple systems... and Assassin's Creed is the only one that doesn't involve a lot of shooting. The controls took a little bit to get used to, but it felt just fine after that, and I couldn't really see them being any better on a console, though I didn't get a console to compare it on either. Even the console first developed shooters were a lot better on the PC.

Having played it on both systems I would say that Assassin's Creed is better with a controller than with a keyboard.

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 01:21 PM
{Scrubbed}


But I'd wonder if there could be cool non-old-style classic 2-d fighting games around. I'm thinking of something like Jedi Outcast, where precision and execution is important, but rather more complex than a simple 2-d fighting game. Would the console still stand up?

Now, see, I think there's no call to belittle him for not 'paying attention' to you when he's just quoting you verbatim.

Anyway, I think that a stick, as opposed to on/off button pressing wins out even in, say, an FPS game. Though the mouse is no doubt easier to aim with, it is on the other hand easier to go from flat out sprint to radar avoiding sneaky. Throw on the click down feature of the joystick plus the 360 directions instead of 8 (Up down left right up+right, up +left, down+right, down+left), and I've got a whole lot of new option for just one little sticky thing. Plus the compact simplicity of the controller button layout make using utility skills easier, with much less chance of miss-clicks. The mouse might win on precision, but the controller was designed for games, so I don't have to play freaking finger Twister on my keyboard.

Still, RTS? TBS? Why in God's name would you even try that on a console. FPS? The first FPS I played was Halo (le gasp!) Shockingly, the most played game evar (well, not anymore, but it was) is, in fact, playable, nay, fun in the format it was released in, provided one is willing to take the time to pull their console superiority complex out of their ass and practice.

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 01:28 PM
Now, see, I think there's no call to belittle him for not 'paying attention' to you when he's just quoting you verbatim.

Well.. it IS simple. You have a single 2-d arena with two people hitting each other in various ways. I mean, you cannot simplify the formula much more than that.

People who so-say "quote me verbatim" invent a meaning in my words that wasn't there originally. Street Fighter 4 in a simple game, with simply imputs, but complex strategy. I never stated otherwise. The thing is, while the simplified input makes it superior to be a console game, the fact that the gameplay itself is simple should not restrict it to be a console game. I don't see why complex console games with simply inputs (and thus, fitter for the console) can't exist.

The classic simple 2-d fighting game has existed for what..? 15 years? longer? I think we went everywhere we could very well go with that genre, and there isn't much advantage in claiming superiority over that style of entertaining, yet old gameplay.

Elder Tsofu
2010-07-23, 01:32 PM
The first FPS I played was Halo (le gasp!) Shockingly, the most played game evar (well, not anymore, but it was) is, in fact, playable, nay, fun in the format it was released in, provided one is willing to take the time to pull their console superiority complex out of their ass and practice.

Fun it might be, but that might be because you don't have enemies using keyboard and mouse - you're all on the same level as to say.

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 01:36 PM
Well.. it IS simple. You have a single 2-d arena with two people hitting each other in various ways. I mean, you cannot simplify the formula much more than that.

People who so-say "quote me verbatim" invent a meaning in my words that wasn't there originally. Street Fighter 4 in a simple game, with simply imputs, but complex strategy. I never stated otherwise. The thing is, while the simplified input makes it superior to be a console game, the fact that the gameplay itself is simple should not restrict it to be a console game. I don't see why complex console games with simply inputs (and thus, fitter for the console) can't exist.

The classic simple 2-d fighting game has existed for what..? 15 years? longer? I think we went everywhere we could very well go with that genre, and there isn't much advantage in claiming superiority over that style of entertaining, yet old gameplay.

He challenged you on the use of the word 'simple,' and you accused him of not paying attention. I felt, given everything I have bolded in this post and the one above, that at the very least some confusion would be justified.

And as for inventing meaning an 'so-say' quoting you verbatim... well, I did quote you verbatim. And as for putting words in your mouth, go check out those bolded bits. Unless there are some alternate definitions I'm missing, I ain't done much to invent meaning.


Fun it might be, but that might be because you don't have enemies using keyboard and mouse - you're all on the same level as to say.

Possible. I can't say I've tested it. But I did list a few advantages to the controller set up, and this leads to another point.

Which is 'superior?' Fun, or the ability to win?

(Now we just wait for the Stormwind/Formwind folks to show up and we can have a real party.)

fknm
2010-07-23, 01:37 PM
Anyway, I think that a stick, as opposed to on/off button pressing wins out even in, say, an FPS game. Though the mouse is no doubt easier to aim with, it is on the other hand easier to go from flat out sprint to radar avoiding sneaky.
No. It's far easier to hold down shift when you want to go slow than it is to hope you don't cross the invisible line on your analog stick.

Plus the compact simplicity of the controller button layout make using utility skills easier, with much less chance of miss-clicks.
Why are you clicking in an FPS interface for any reason other than shooting?

The mouse might win on precision, but the controller was designed for games, so I don't have to play freaking finger Twister on my keyboard
Use WSAD for movement. Then you've got a huge bounty of keys that are just as easy to access as the buttons on your controller (and I would argue easier, since you don't need a new set of muscle memory for every console's controls)


The first FPS I played was Halo (le gasp!) Shockingly, the most played game evar (well, not anymore, but it was) is, in fact, playable, nay, fun in the format it was released in, provided one is willing to take the time to pull their console superiority complex out of their ass and practice.
Playable? Sure, although without the built-in always-on auto-aim, it almost certainly wouldn't be. However, if Halo had PC vs. Console multiplayer, you wouldn't stand a chance against any mouse + keyboard player.

More evidence for this- the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3 actually allows for a mouse and keyboard to be used in the USB slot. It actively knows which control scheme you are using (and frequently servers are set up for k+m only or controller only). In "mixed" games, guess who invariably gets trashed? That's right- the controller users.

valadil
2010-07-23, 01:52 PM
It just depends what the game is designed around. I can imagine that if the game was built from the ground up for the XBox, with the controls being assigned for what makes sense on that controller, then ported to PC, it might be the other way around. Chances are these were FPSs, which are generally agreed on to work best with a mouse. However, most games that are built from the ground up for a console with controls designed to be intuitive for the controller are going to be platform exclusive.

The mouse is a very different device than a controller.

Try this. Pick your favorite console game. FPS or something with a mouse like cursor would probably work best here. Hold the joystick in a direction as far as it'll go.

Notice how fast the view/cursor moves? That limits how quickly you can turn and spin in a game.

With a mouse, all it takes is a flick of the wrist and you can turn at any angle you like. No waiting for the controller to spin you. When I played CS regularly I could flick the controller in either direction, spin up to 360 degrees, and face whatever way I chose. It took no extra time to turn.

The point is, in FPS games one easy way to kill people is to sneak up behind them. If a player is getting shot from behind, they can either turn around instantly on a mouse, or slowly on a controller. I don't care how optimized the game is for controller, the mouse will still be faster.

And no, this does not depend on having a large space for mousing. Computer mice take into account acceleration as well as position. Try this: move your mouse an inch to the left. Do it slowly over the course of 5 seconds. Then jerk it back to its starting point as quickly as you can. You moved the mouse an inch left and then an inch right. But the on screen cursor moved a bit to the left and then a whole lot to the right. That's because it took into account how quickly you sped up. Games do this too, and that's why the mouse is advantageous.

No PC gamer is going to give up their glorious mouse and keyboard just to make some kid on an XBox happy. The only way I can ever see console/PC multiplayer working is if the consoles are given mice and keyboards too. You'd think console manufacturers would be drooling over the option to sell more peripherals. I don't know why this hasn't caught on yet.

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 01:54 PM
No. It's far easier to hold down shift when you want to go slow than it is to hope you don't cross the invisible line on your analog stick.

Opinion. Say, if I'm set to WASD, I try that. But I want to shuffle to the left and switch guns and... finger Twister. The click/light push->full throttle reduces the crazy. Just one little sticky does so many things.


Why are you clicking in an FPS interface for any reason other than shooting?

My bad. Miss-stroke. It's hard to mix up trigger this and trigger that and the four buttons are nicely laid out. Slip your hand one key length to the left and suddenly you reload when you want to move forward, duck when you want to go left, chuck a grenade when you go right, etc. etc.


Use WSAD for movement. Then you've got a huge bounty of keys that are just as easy to access as the buttons on your controller (and I would argue easier, since you don't need a new set of muscle memory for every console's controls)

On the one hand, there are a wealth of keys. On the other, there are a wealth of keys. The console controller has fewer, well arranged to be right at your fingertips, and are sometimes keyed with some semblance of logic (the trigger is the trigger!) Easy to access isn't necessarily the same as easy to use. And I'd take the muscle memory of learning a console layout over a keyboard madhouse any day.

Have I mentioned finger Twister?


Playable? Sure, although without the built-in always-on auto-aim, it almost certainly wouldn't be. However, if Halo had PC vs. Console multiplayer, you wouldn't stand a chance against any mouse + keyboard player.

And if I pulled the batteries out of your mouse it would be unplayable too. :smallcool: Okay, so that's not quite fair, but the point stands. Argue about how things are, not how they might be.


More evidence for this- the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3 actually allows for a mouse and keyboard to be used in the USB slot. It actively knows which control scheme you are using (and frequently servers are set up for k+m only or controller only). In "mixed" games, guess who invariably gets trashed? That's right- the controller users.

Not denying. As I said earlier, mouse beats stickything aiming.

I will instead now direct your attention to the bottom my post above this. Discuss.


Really, I'm just trying to say that one doesn't have to be better than the other. Or even that that might, die Gaspen, inherently be impossible. People like what they like for the reasons they like 'em. No need to fight about it...

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 01:54 PM
{Scrubbed}

Erloas
2010-07-23, 01:57 PM
Anyway, I think that a stick, as opposed to on/off button pressing wins out even in, say, an FPS game. Though the mouse is no doubt easier to aim with, it is on the other hand easier to go from flat out sprint to radar avoiding sneaky. Throw on the click down feature of the joystick plus the 360 directions instead of 8 (Up down left right up+right, up +left, down+right, down+left), and I've got a whole lot of new option for just one little sticky thing. Plus the compact simplicity of the controller button layout make using utility skills easier, with much less chance of miss-clicks. The mouse might win on precision, but the controller was designed for games, so I don't have to play freaking finger Twister on my keyboard.

The chance of a miss-click has more to do with the familiarity with the control type then it does with the control type itself. Hand someone a controller that isn't used to having it all the time and they will hit the wrong buttons a lot, especially the trigger types, pretty much any beyond the basic 4 thumb buttons.
Same with a keyboard, and chances are any of the more awkwardly placed keys on a keyboard are going to be non-critical functions that aren't used much or not used in combat. All of the core functions are located in easy to reach locations. Of course with key-rebinding in virtually every computer game and everyone having their own preferences, you might find a few games with a few functions where you might not expect them. If you are twisting your hands up then you just need to remap a few keys. Of course I've found the same thing with controllers on consoles too, but they tend to not offer a lot of rebinding options.

Also with facing direction being directly tied to the mouse (on every first person based game) you also have a full 360 degree of movement too. Even in consoles... I can't think of any first person based game that has ground movement not directly tied to the direction you are looking, and the only one I can think of on the PC is Mechwarrior, but that is a very unique aspect of the game too (possibly some other mech based games, a hand full of space games allow for it too).

Zevox
2010-07-23, 02:00 PM
Still, RTS? TBS? Why in God's name would you even try that on a console.
Er, turn-based strategy works just fine on consoles and handhelds. It's turn-based - you select options from a menu or the like, having all the time in the world to make your selection. See games like Advance Wars, for instance. Or tactical RPGs. Heck, just to name one TBS computer game I've played, I can see no reason why Heroes of Might and Magic 3 wouldn't work just as well on a console or handheld as it does on the PC.

Zevox

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 02:05 PM
Er, turn-based strategy works just fine on consoles and handhelds. It's turn-based - you select options from a menu or the like, having all the time in the world to make your selection. See games like Advance Wars, for instance. Or tactical RPGs. Heck, just to name one TBS computer game I've played, I can see no reason why Heroes of Might and Magic 3 wouldn't work just as well on a console or handheld as it does on the PC.

Zevox

Hmm.. I wonder if piloting games would fit better in a console or in a PC... :smallconfused:

fknm
2010-07-23, 02:13 PM
Opinion. Say, if I'm set to WASD, I try that. But I want to shuffle to the left and switch guns and... finger Twister. The click/light push->full throttle reduces the crazy. Just one little sticky does so many things.
Switch Guns has long been bound to mouse-wheel in most games. Holding down shift with your pinky (which is exactly how you do it when you type, so the muscle memory is already there) is hardly finger-twister. On the flip-side, it's a lot easier to shuffle quickly with index finger and ring finger on A and D than it is to wiggle a stick back and forth.


My bad. Miss-stroke. It's hard to mix up trigger this and trigger that and the four buttons are nicely laid out. Slip your hand one key length to the left and suddenly you reload when you want to move forward, duck when you want to go left, chuck a grenade when you go right, etc. etc.
Actually, those are all much larger gaps than 1 key length if you have a sane key-binding. Plus, how often do you have this problem when you're typing? Not often. When you're playing a game, which means that intrinsically those movement keys will be held down more than rapidly stroked like on a keyboard, it's even less of a problem.



And if I pulled the batteries out of your mouse it would be unplayable too.
My mouse doesn't have batteries- it pulls its power from the cable that attaches it to my computer. I win?


:smallcool: Okay, so that's not quite fair, but the point stands. Argue about how things are, not how they might be.
Read the article. Or read what I said about UT3.


I will instead now direct your attention to the bottom my post above this. Discuss.
Ability to win and fun aren't things that float seperately in a vacuum. Imagine, for instance, three people playing Q3A. For the sake of argument, let's assume that they're both on keyboard and mouse. One of these players isn't used to the control scheme at all. He can't move and turn at the same time well, he can't circle-strafe or even move while aiming, etc. A second player is decent at the basic movements, but isn't terribly familiar with Q3A's mechanics- which weapons to use in which situations, when the power-ups respawn, etc- and he's not familiar with the map, and doesn't know where the weapons and power-ups are. The third player is good with the controls, knows how to use all of the weapons, knows when items respawn, and knows the map- in other words, he's competent in every area of the game.

Who do you think is having the most fun? The one who can barely play the game, the one who can make moves but without understanding the strategy, ore the one who actually understands the game's strategies and tactics?

I'd argue the one who knows what he's doing.


Really, I'm just trying to say that one doesn't have to be better than the other. Or even that that might, die Gaspen, inherently be impossible. People like what they like for the reasons they like 'em. No need to fight about it...
Saying "but it's all opinion!" is always a poor argument unless you believe in solipsism.

Airk
2010-07-23, 02:18 PM
Well.. it IS simple. You have a single 2-d arena with two people hitting each other in various ways. I mean, you cannot simplify the formula much more than that.

People who so-say "quote me verbatim" invent a meaning in my words that wasn't there originally. Street Fighter 4 in a simple game, with simply imputs, but complex strategy. I never stated otherwise. The thing is, while the simplified input makes it superior to be a console game, the fact that the gameplay itself is simple should not restrict it to be a console game. I don't see why complex console games with simply inputs (and thus, fitter for the console) can't exist.

The only references to the word "input" in your original post were in a different paragraph from the one where you use the word "simple"; This isn't interpretation here. This is you not saying what you meant. If you want to say that a game has simple inputs, say that it has simple inputs, don't rely on the fact that a paragraph ago, you made some references to input. That or don't break your thoughts up into paragraphs. We can't be held responsible for your writing. :P

Also, I'm going to come right out and say that now that you've elaborated, I have -no- idea what you're trying to say at all. It seems like on the one hand you are saying it is a "simple game" with "simply imputs" [sic] but then you go on to say it's got complex strategy. How do you define "simple game"? Because I don't define the complexity of a game by its inputs.

Anyway. Fine. It's simple. Why is the PC's control scheme so bad at handling its simplicity if the PC control scheme is superior?

The fact is that the input for SF4 is...doing complex things with a "simple" set of inputs. And those complex things are not easy to do with a keyboard. It's just like aiming. Aiming is a (relatively) complex task that is done with a simple control (a mouse). It's how effectively you can perform that task that matters. I would argue that, overall, games with overly complex input schemes tend to collapse under the weight of such. I would also argue that most people find the input scheme of games such as SF4 too -difficult-.



The classic simple 2-d fighting game has existed for what..? 15 years? longer? I think we went everywhere we could very well go with that genre, and there isn't much advantage in claiming superiority over that style of entertaining, yet old gameplay.

Obviously, the renewed popularity of the genre indicates that there are still places to go with it. Where has the FPS genre gone lately? Tiny little incremental improvements. So clearly we can't judge a genre's relevance to this discussion by how much innovation they've had lately.

On an unrelated note:

TBS games: These play fine on a controller, because A) Speed is not an issue and B) They usually divide the map up into squares or hexes or something, so precision isn't much of an issue either. Sure, for the extremely impatient members of the audience, it might be more pleasant to rapidly whip the mouse across the screen, but the game is equally playable and winnable and gamers using either input type stand an equal chance.

Airk
2010-07-23, 02:24 PM
Hmm.. I wonder if piloting games would fit better in a console or in a PC... :smallconfused:

Depends on whether it's a simulationist piloting game or not. Traditionally, games that really try to SIMULATE an actual aircraft work better on the PC because they need to have buttons to correspond to the 768 levers, switches, and whatnot that appear in an actual cockpit.

Games with a more simplified control scheme, well, it comes down to what's important. Usually the mouse is irrelevant because the speed of your turns is limited by the "aircraft" you are flying rather than by how fast you can whip the controller around, and there isn't generally the need for differentiating "Move left" from "turn left" because most vehicles can't do both.

So mostly it comes down to the fact that, again, an analogue stick is a more comfortable and sensitive mechanism than the WASD keys for that sort of thing.

Also, on the subject of misquoting, _I_ said that "Execution is only the very first step to being able to play effectively. " - meaning, execution is only the first layer of complexity in the game. Execution is not what makes SF4 complex, any more than knowing how to run and aim at the same time makes an FPS complex.

Perhaps you'd like to drop the "you're not paying attention" attacks now?

Avilan the Grey
2010-07-23, 02:25 PM
i know for a fact that the game "Shadowrun" hosts both PC and Xbox players. though for one reasion or another the majority of its player base are on xboxes.

The reason that much more people got it on the XBOX was because the XBOX crowd in general wasn't pissed off that they raped a great gaming license and made a multiplayer FPS instead of an amazing CRPG...

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 02:27 PM
*sigh*

I was not saying you were wrong: I was pointing out that maybe you don't need to snap at him for 'not paying attention' when, with regard to the bits that I bolded, the bits where you do, indeed call the game itself simple, without caveats. There's a period there. That means the thought has ended. You said the game is simple, not the inputs.

Hell, the opening paragraph of one post was:

"Well.. it IS simple. You have a single 2-d arena with two people hitting each other in various ways. I mean, you cannot simplify the formula much more than that."

No caveats, no extra's. I think he might be forgiven some confusion.

Also, he object to the game being called, 'in any way' simple.

Then you say, 'Well... it IS simple.'

Perhaps, rather then CAPS YELLING, try clarifying your own posts.

Also, re: words in your mouth. All I did was point out to you bits where you were being... unclear at best in your post. Directly contradictory in others. You took it as me taking it as you saying it was all simple, not me.* Hypocrisy's a bitch ain't it.

*"Look over there!" *switches glasses*

Re Erloas: My points about square keys surrounded by square keys being square keys surrounded by square keys and finger Twister stand, though you're quite right.

As for mouse=360 degrees, yes, but that's tied to facing.

Re Zevox: Eh, I hate paging through square after square, though I do have fond memories of... an Advanced Wars game on the GBA. All I would ever do was wall off a choke and then set up as much arty or rockets as I could around it.

Re Piloting games: I've been told it was the wrong way to play but Freespace is one of my all time favorite games, and I did it on the keyboard. Oddly enough, not a mouse aimer.

SparkMandriller
2010-07-23, 02:31 PM
{Scrubbed}

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 02:32 PM
I'd argue the one who knows what he's doing.


Saying "but it's all opinion!" is always a poor argument unless you believe in solipsism.

I'd argue probably whoever's having the most fun. Winning isn't everything.

And we're debating the relative merits of video game platforms. There doesn't have to be a universal absolute truth applicable to all people through all times for all games!

Zevox
2010-07-23, 02:32 PM
Hmm.. I wonder if piloting games would fit better in a console or in a PC... :smallconfused:
Setting aside the fact that I have no clue how that is related to my post that you quoted, what kind of piloting games do you mean? I know of several types, but the only ones I've ever played are a few space-combat simulators: TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, and Tachyon: The Fringe. All PC, all used joysticks + keyboard, and I can't imagine them working any other way.

Zevox

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 02:34 PM
{Scrubbed}

SparkMandriller
2010-07-23, 02:37 PM
Wait, you've actually played with a keyboard and you still have difficulty hitting the right keys? Like seriously?

Man, it must be hard as hell for you to type!

Dogmantra
2010-07-23, 02:44 PM
Stuff

I'm not sure from the tone of your post whether you're disagreeing or simply adding more information but I absolutely agree with you. When I said "game optimised for a console controller" I did not mean an FPS. The entire genre is optimised for a M+KB, even if a particular game in the genre has more of a focus on consoles.

Volatar
2010-07-23, 02:45 PM
{Scrubbed}

fknm
2010-07-23, 02:52 PM
I'd argue probably whoever's having the most fun. Winning isn't everything.
That doesn't change the fact that a player who is able to interact more meaningfully with the game's mechanics- win or lose- is probably having more fun than someone who is essentially pulling their moves from a random number generator.

valadil
2010-07-23, 02:52 PM
I'm not sure from the tone of your post whether you're disagreeing or simply adding more information but I absolutely agree with you. When I said "game optimised for a console controller" I did not mean an FPS. The entire genre is optimised for a M+KB, even if a particular game in the genre has more of a focus on consoles.

I think by optimized, I thought you meant a game designed around a controller and then ported to PC. That's not the important part though - how mice differ from joysticks was the important part of the post.

My goal was to add more information about why the two pointing devices are inherently different and to actually show what advantage that gives a mouse. That advantage is not a matter of opinion and I'd like to see how console folks address it. The best counter I've heard for it is that joysticks are more intuitive. While I don't disagree, intuitive does not equal powerful.

SolkaTruesilver
2010-07-23, 02:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

Zevox
2010-07-23, 03:01 PM
I didn't meant it as a derailment. :smallredface: I was simply trying to think about a gamestyle that might fit good on the console.
Not a problem, I was just really confused as to why you posted it after quoting my post, as though it were a reply to what I had said about turn-based strategy games.

Zevox

Erloas
2010-07-23, 03:02 PM
Well the relevant part of comparing controls isn't to find which is superior, it was to demonstrate the viability of cross-platform multiplayer.

With that in mind, how well a control system works for a platformer or puzzle game is mostly irrelevant because those games are (virtually) never multiplayer.
As it is, the most common multiplayer game is a shooter type game, of which the K&M offers a very significant advantage compared to a controller.
For piloting games... I'm not aware of any multiplayer ones so it seems mostly irrelevant, though I think both options have their advantage, but I don't know if either advantage is big enough to ruin competition between platforms.
RTSs... well I think the fact that almost no RTSs even release on consoles probably means controllers aren't even close to being a good fit for them.
TBS should work fine on either, but there are very few games from this genre at all.
Fighting games the controller probably has a significant advantage, but I'm not aware of any that do non-local multiplayer.
MMOs... I think there has been all of... one for consoles. I don't think there is anything about the movement controls that would be a disadvantage to either system. Targeting might not be too bad with cycling, but click-based targeting wouldn't work well on a console. And most MMOs require a lot of different abilities and use a huge number of keys, not even counting the need to talk to other people which could be handled by a push-to-talk system. Though I don't know how secondary aspects of the interface could even kind of be done with a console, without huge nested menu screens.
Racing games, I really don't play them so I don't know how well they even work with a mouse. I would say the advantage goes to consoles.
Last genre I can think of is sports games, though I don't know if any of them are doing non-local multiplayer. Very few come out on the PC, so chances are they probably don't have any great K&M schemes.

Of course its a lot easier (and cheaper) to get secondary control types for the PC. At least the Xbox and PS have cloned controllers for the PC and the PC has joysticks (not that anyone ever uses them any more) and both have wheels, though they seem a lot more common for the PC compared to consoles.

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 03:04 PM
{scrubbed}

valadil
2010-07-23, 03:08 PM
Does powerful equal better?


I hadn't decided. Better might work.

Zevox
2010-07-23, 03:14 PM
Fighting games the controller probably has a significant advantage, but I'm not aware of any that do non-local multiplayer.
All console fighting games nowadays have online modes. Just to name ones I have played online, there's Super Smash Brothers Brawl (not exactly great online support sadly, but it is there), Soul Calibur 4, Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe, and BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger. I'd wager Street Fighter does as well, to name what is probably the most popular other than maybe Smash Brothers.

Zevox

SparkMandriller
2010-07-23, 03:24 PM
When I'm typing I'm not getting shot at. :smalltongue: More seriously, most of it tends to happen when reapplying my hand to the keyboard because of whatever, though sometimes it just slips. Slamming the spacebar can throw me off as well. I also don't play a lot of keyboard shooters*, so whatever. I neither practice nor really care about my 'hands on keyboard' skills.

*Not my genre, it's no fun with out friends to taunt/accuse of rocketwhoring.

Well, y'know, if you were to play a bit more, you'd probably get a lot better at remembering where your fingers were. I played MGS4 once and I screwed up every two minutes because I kept forgetting what button did what, but that doesn't mean the controller is bad, it just means I'm no good with it, right?


I'd wager Street Fighter does as well, to name what is probably the most popular other than maybe Smash Brothers.

It does. Eeeeeexcellent source of rage mail.

factotum
2010-07-23, 03:26 PM
Heck, just to name one TBS computer game I've played, I can see no reason why Heroes of Might and Magic 3 wouldn't work just as well on a console or handheld as it does on the PC.


I can see it being a bit of an issue, actually. I was trying to play Heroes 3 on my laptop using only the trackpad, because I forgot to take the mouse with me, and it was actually quite tricky--everything took a lot longer than it should have done and I eventually gave up. A trackpad is better for pointing and clicking than a console controller, so I can imagine H3 being extremely awkward to play using just one of those.

Oregano
2010-07-23, 03:34 PM
The problem now is that Console=!Dual Analog control scheme. Pointer controls are nipping at the mouse's heels and the nunchuk is much better than WASD because well...analog control>digital control for movement.

Red Steel 2 has the best controls for an FPS on a console(Conduit 2 will have the same general scheme for a more traditional FPS) and incredibly precise shots can be pulled off at high speeds. That's without mentioning the fact that neither Dual Analogs or KB+M could replicate the visceral melee combat.

EDIT: In fact doesn't Left 4 Dead have an option for a nunchuk + pointer combo? How do those players do in comparison to the KB+M peeps.

The_JJ
2010-07-23, 03:42 PM
Well, y'know, if you were to play a bit more, you'd probably get a lot better at remembering where your fingers were. I played MGS4 once and I screwed up every two minutes because I kept forgetting what button did what, but that doesn't mean the controller is bad, it just means I'm no good with it, right?

Soooort of. The problem isn't muscle memory, it's controller layout. My hands are in the right shape, they're just off relative to the keys. a to s, w to e, d to f and so on.

So yes, it's an inherent flaw in the design layout that causes my particular affliction, not a matter of me not being good.

mightymonarch
2010-07-23, 03:59 PM
It just depends what the game is designed around. I can imagine that if the game was built from the ground up for the XBox, with the controls being assigned for what makes sense on that controller, then ported to PC, it might be the other way around.

I'm looking at you, Mass Effect 2. It definitely felt like it was made for the 360 then ported over for the PC. Why do I need to pause to open my journal or inventory or look at the map? Was J not good enough?

NeoVid
2010-07-23, 04:30 PM
{Scrubbed}

I agree with The_JJ.

Also, I've been playing PC games for 5 years and console games for even longer.

fknm
2010-07-23, 08:22 PM
{Scrubbed}

Worira
2010-07-23, 08:50 PM
I'd say it's the one who has more fun. And no, that's not necessarily the one with more skill or a better grasp of the game mechanics.

fknm
2010-07-23, 08:55 PM
I'd say it's the one who has more fun. And no, that's not necessarily the one with more skill or a better grasp of the game mechanics.
That's completely tautological.

Saying that "someone who has more fun has more fun" isn't an argument, nor is it relevant to this discussion in any way. If you wish to argue that having a clue what you're doing with a game has nothing to do with whether you derive any entertainment from it, fine, but that's going to be very difficult to argue...

Erloas
2010-07-23, 09:03 PM
Its actually fairly true though.

Give a little kid a controller and they'll have fun with a game even if they die to the first couple enemies every single time.

My step-brother played WoW for probably a year without really having any idea of what he was doing. He simply ground his way for all of his levels not figuring out how to do quests and with only a basic grasp of the game. I know he had a lot more fun playing WoW then I ever did.
Although now that he has finally learned the game, he is having more fun then he did before too.

It really depends on the mentality of the player, on how skill relates to enjoyment from a game.

fknm
2010-07-23, 09:06 PM
That the players in your anecdotes had fun doesn't demonstrate anything, because we do not know what their level of enjoyment would be if they did gain skill in the game.

Zevox
2010-07-23, 10:03 PM
That's completely tautological.

Saying that "someone who has more fun has more fun" isn't an argument, nor is it relevant to this discussion in any way. If you wish to argue that having a clue what you're doing with a game has nothing to do with whether you derive any entertainment from it, fine, but that's going to be very difficult to argue...
Considering that it's completely impossible to define how anyone has fun, given it is a completely subjective matter that varies from person to person, that tautology is all that can actually be said on the matter.

Zevox

Milskidasith
2010-07-23, 10:23 PM
FKNM, your levels seem off to me; "advanced movement techs" doesn't seem like the kind of thing that you would naturally learn, or need, before you got basic map awareness and knowledge of how the weapons work.

You seem to be in the same camp of the people who go on about how wavedashing was great in SSBM, and would spend a ton of time practicing it without having any kind of knowledge of why it's useful, or with the fundamentals beneath it. It's not about the destination, where you say "OK, I'm going to learn X, Y, and Z so I can be competitive," but just playing and improving each match, and, in general, advanced movement techs that aren't obvious are not what you are going to figure out before map awareness, weapon awareness, and generally better skills.

Erloas
2010-07-23, 11:00 PM
That the players in your anecdotes had fun doesn't demonstrate anything, because we do not know what their level of enjoyment would be if they did gain skill in the game.

When you are talking about fun and enjoyment all you have is anecdotal evidence. You can't have hard facts on such a personal thing as enjoyment. Although I would agree that for most people, after a certain age, and once they've been playing games long enough, their ability at a game becomes much more of a factor in how much enjoyment they can get out of a game. But at the same time you can get adults that have more fun with a game by griefing other players and screwing stuff up for them then they do playing the game for their own advancement.

edit:
And with a lot of things in life, its probably also true here that the less you know the happier you are.
A little kid never worries about running out of lives, or playing the same level over and over again, they have fun with a game no matter what is going on. But with older people, generally the more you know about something the harder it is to accept that someone else is better at it then you are. If you think you know a game very well and you think you are good at it and you get beat its generally a lot harder to get any enjoyment out of it then it is if you are new at the game and just learning everything and not expecting to win most of the time anyway.
When you are good at a game the wins are expected and you usually remember the defeats more. But when you are new at a game you forget your losses and remember your wins, even if they were just random luck.

It also seems like most people have the most fun with a game when they first get it, when they are first learning the game and finding out how it works. Once the nuances of the game are known its more likely to get boring then it is to get more fun.

fknm
2010-07-23, 11:26 PM
FKNM, your levels seem off to me; "advanced movement techs" doesn't seem like the kind of thing that you would naturally learn, or need, before you got basic map awareness and knowledge of how the weapons work.

You seem to be in the same camp of the people who go on about how wavedashing was great in SSBM, and would spend a ton of time practicing it without having any kind of knowledge of why it's useful, or with the fundamentals beneath it. It's not about the destination, where you say "OK, I'm going to learn X, Y, and Z so I can be competitive," but just playing and improving each match, and, in general, advanced movement techs that aren't obvious are not what you are going to figure out before map awareness, weapon awareness, and generally better skills.
How nicely condescending of you.

But, you'd be wrong. The reason I put the techniques at a "lower level" than map awareness is because you need to be able to use the movement tricks for map awareness to do you much good.

An example from a UT2K4 map- DM-Albatross' 100 Armor. It's in a low tunnel that spirals upwards, with the top of it at the top of a wall edge that's about 2x the player's height. You need to know the shield-jump in order to know how to react if you see someone enter the tunnel before you- that is, you shield-jump to the armor and do a quick-dodge off the ledge, preferably putting a rocket, shock-combo, or flak-shell behind you as you leave in case you opponent follows you. Another more direct example is the double damage in the same map- without knowing how to lift jump or shield jump, you can't get to it (well, you theoretically can, but it's not something that you're likely to pull off alive while someone is shooting at you). UT2K4's maps abound with such possibilities, whether it's the central platform in Idoma, the shield-jump escape route from the buried armor in Roughinery, or the slope-jumps to the upper level in Rankin.

I rank it above knowing which weapon to use when and when it's worth it to switch mid-engagement because knowing when to walk around with a prediction weapon out for combos/rockets around a corner vs. when to walk around with the lightning gun out for a close-range shot before switching to flak while you flee is a more subtle, less concrete, skill.

warty goblin
2010-07-24, 12:47 AM
The problem now is that Console=!Dual Analog control scheme. Pointer controls are nipping at the mouse's heels and the nunchuk is much better than WASD because well...analog control>digital control for movement.

I'd actually argue the opposite. WASD is pretty much the ideal control scheme for movement because it consists of clearly binary variables. Either I'm pressing forward or I'm not. I don't have to know how much to move anything before the game considers me to be moving, I just press W and I'm moving. It's fast, precise, universal across games, and very, very easy to commit to muscle memory.


Red Steel 2 has the best controls for an FPS on a console(Conduit 2 will have the same general scheme for a more traditional FPS) and incredibly precise shots can be pulled off at high speeds. That's without mentioning the fact that neither Dual Analogs or KB+M could replicate the visceral melee combat.

I'll believe that motion controls can match keyboard and mouse when people are making 300 meter shots without auto-aim or optics reliably using them. For a Call of Duty esque game where most of the targets are really close, there's lots of friendly magnification, and the game helpfully redirects your bullets sure, but until the milsims start migrating to the Wii I'm not buying it.

As for visceral melee combat, I've really never understood why waving a flimsy plastic controller around makes anything more engaging - if I want to swing a sword around I'll spend the money I could have spent on the game on a decent waster* or save up a bit for the real deal and do it right. If I want to play a game I'll stick with the method that gives me the most instinctive precision.

*Or more likely and even more fun, make one myself.

Milskidasith
2010-07-24, 01:48 AM
Fknm, to say that I am being condescending when you act as if I do not know how to play UT3 is rather hypocritical.

I do not want to get into a personal argument, but I will simply say that knowing where everything is on the map is a *far* more important skill than knowing how to use tricks to move around certain parts of the map. Knowing basic map awareness, which includes "the enemies are probably here" and "X weapon spawns there", is a lot more important than knowing how to do Y advanced technique if the opponent comes from point Z on map W. You cannot even use advanced techniques to go to whatever location if you don't know the location exists, and that fact alone makes map awareness more important.

All I'm saying is that I feel like you're putting the cart before the horse, or the wavedash before the "how the hell do I use this character", or the "How do I cancel my fireball into my ultra" before the "what do I do if the opponent is jumping in", or the "How do I doubleshot" before "where the hell are the guns anyway?" Trying to learn how to use advanced techniques before you even know the basics of the games maps or how to use the weapons is not a good way to learn either; you're more likely to understand why you need to rocket jump when you understand how it helps you jump and how rockets work, after all (granted, that's more of a Quake example, but still).

EDIT: Warty, WASD is worse, in my opinion, *because* it is binary. You can't advance at a slower rate if that is necessary, or need an awkward extra button in order to do so. It also makes strafing at any non 45 degree angle impossible without extra buttons, which is admittedly not a huge deal, but an analogue stick for movement plus a mouse for aiming would probably be superior in an FPS environment, let alone in other types of games.

Oregano
2010-07-24, 04:28 AM
@Warty: It depends on the deadzone but with analog you generally don't stay still until a certain point, you begin moving straight away at a slow speed and speed up the further the analog is pushed. WASD is incapable of that all together.

Sniper Elite has been ported(not tried it though) but the milsims won't be ported and it has nothing to do with controls, it's about the graphics. They could start including motion control support like Left 4 Dead.

The hard to thing to tell would be that the only shooter using the Wii's optimal controls is a brawler hybrid and is thus in confined spaces but I don't believe it has any aim assist... but due to the nature you can lock on the camera on to the enemy... however there's plenty of things to shoot that can't be locked on to. But5 you may be correct that it can't match the pinpoint precision but it'd be because of resolution rather than anything, even the PS3 with Move can only go to 1080p.

...and that is a bit of a cop out argument with the melee thing, you could also go out and do some degree of real shooting and the actual gameplay would need a whole of buttons and be a bit slower on KB+M to accomodate the fact that you can slash 8 different ways and block 8 different ways, stab and shoot and you can slash at different power levels but that can't be represented with digital keys so then you need to add another 8 and that's without considering how the special attacks will work. Also, I think using the motion controls is more instinctive.... but this might be a whole separate issue so I guess I went off a tangent there.

I am very interested in seeing how the Left 4 Dead motion controls compare to KB+M. Do you have any idea?

Keyboards do have the advantage of all those buttons for stuff like flight sims though... which neither wand or dual analog can hope to replicate.

Arbitrarity
2010-07-24, 10:17 AM
Warty, WASD is worse, in my opinion, *because* it is binary. You can't advance at a slower rate if that is necessary, or need an awkward extra button in order to do so. It also makes strafing at any non 45 degree angle impossible without extra buttons, which is admittedly not a huge deal, but an analogue stick for movement plus a mouse for aiming would probably be superior in an FPS environment, let alone in other types of games.

I... don't think so, because touching the stick would be awkward, and probably limit your other fingers. Unless you had a controller like the wiimote nunchuk, possibly with 4 buttons, which could be bound to similar functions (Jump, Crouch, Reload, Switch Weapons)
Even then, it totally removes the input complexity available in most PC games. You can walk without holding shift. I can lean, use voice commands without thinking, switch weapons in three different ways, depending on what I'm doing (last weapon > scroll wheel > number keys, most of the time), use PTT voicechat, activate flashlight, and switch directions more quickly.
In short: I have played far too many hours of Team Fortress 2. The commands are simple, slower movement is mostly unnecessary, and can be accomplished by crouching (though it really just makes you an easier target), and non-45 degree movement is accomplished by turning, since tracking isn't as important, the game mostly consisting of non-automatic weapons.
I have also played far too many hours of Crysis. I find that the lack of non-45 degree movement still impairs me in no way, that moving slower is intuitive and remains unhelpful in firefights, and that using the Nanosuit to change modes during combat isn't very difficult.

I suspect L4D motion controls will be about the same as all motion controls. That is, less accurate, harder to use correctly, and generally impairing.

warty goblin
2010-07-24, 10:35 AM
@Warty: It depends on the deadzone but with analog you generally don't stay still until a certain point, you begin moving straight away at a slow speed and speed up the further the analog is pushed. WASD is incapable of that all together.
That depends on the game. Mount and Blade for example has inertial walking where you don't start out moving at full speed, and it's hardly an uncommon feature.

And I'm really confused how making the controls less responsive in general is a good thing.


Sniper Elite has been ported(not tried it though) but the milsims won't be ported and it has nothing to do with controls, it's about the graphics. They could start including motion control support like Left 4 Dead.
Most milsims support TrackIR - the one motion controller I can actually see the point of, because you don't have to fly very many virtual airplanes to realize the advantage of being able to look left and right easily.


The hard to thing to tell would be that the only shooter using the Wii's optimal controls is a brawler hybrid and is thus in confined spaces but I don't believe it has any aim assist... but due to the nature you can lock on the camera on to the enemy... however there's plenty of things to shoot that can't be locked on to. But5 you may be correct that it can't match the pinpoint precision but it'd be because of resolution rather than anything, even the PS3 with Move can only go to 1080p.


[QUOTE]...and that is a bit of a cop out argument with the melee thing, you could also go out and do some degree of real shooting and the actual gameplay would need a whole of buttons and be a bit slower on KB+M to accomodate the fact that you can slash 8 different ways and block 8 different ways, stab and shoot and you can slash at different power levels but that can't be represented with digital keys so then you need to add another 8 and that's without considering how the special attacks will work. Also, I think using the motion controls is more instinctive.... but this might be a whole separate issue so I guess I went off a tangent there.

Actually I d go out and do a bit of real shooting every now and again, and it honestly makes me apprciate the games that get it right more, because there are titles that capture a lot of the challenge and feel of firing an actual rifle. They don't do this by clever control gimmicks either, but rather by detailed modeling, realistic ballistics, a removal of most gamy features and really, really responsive controls.

I've also done some light melee sparring, and there are again some titlesthat capture some important things about the feel of that as well, by which I mean Mount and Blade which actually gets tempo and measure right.

Dogmantra
2010-07-24, 10:39 AM
I... don't think so, because touching the stick would be awkward, and probably limit your other fingers. Unless you had a controller like the wiimote nunchuk, possibly with 4 buttons, which could be bound to similar functions (Jump, Crouch, Reload, Switch Weapons)

A very long time ago, I used to play Unreal Tournament (the original one, I believe) with a 2 button Joystick + Mouse, Joystick was move, fire and secondary fire, mouse was aiming and utility functions like jumping, crouching and switching weapons. I got quite good like this and wondered why anyone would possibly want to use keyboard + mouse.

Then I started playing online.
While I could easily take down bots on Godlike difficulty, the fact that my online opponents were using a keyboard rather than a joystick made incredible amounts of difference.

Going back to it a few years later, I'd lost practically all my skill with Joystick+Mouse, and it felt unintuitive and a bit weird. Switching to keyboard let me play on Godlike again.


In short: I have played far too many hours of Team Fortress 2.
You really have, Arb. Stop killing me.

Actually, I think I might try an experiment. I really like the Gamecube controller. It's my second favourite console controller (the first being the Dreamcast, but that's not suitable for this experiment). I also have a Gamecube to USB adaptor. I know of a program that allows you to map joystick/pad input to keys, if the game doesn't support joystick/pad.

I will play TF2 with a Gamecube controller. I will see how well I do.

Erloas
2010-07-24, 10:47 AM
I think one of the primary reasons the binary system of movement works well in FPSs is because its not about movement so much as facing. If facing were done in a binary manner that would cause all sorts of problems, but facing is done in a very full range analog manner and movement is a secondary part to that.

Strafing at 37deg compared to 45 is a non issue because strafing is directly tied to facing, and with a mousing the change in facing is done almost continuously so you won't really notice any small changes in movement direction.

It is fairly similar with speed as well, for the most part you want to be moving as quickly as possible to be harder to hit, and you get used to aiming with whatever speed you are moving at. With more games using the movement based loss of accuracy the most common action for long range precision shots is to stop completely just long enough to make the shot and start moving again. Or potentially just using the walk key for that time. Those long range shots are mostly a matter of quick aim and shot before the opponent, unlike up close where the accuracy is less of an issue but you have to keep moving at all times to keep from being hit yourself. And with those accuracy systems in place, even with an analog method of speed control the corresponding changes in accuracy aren't going to be full range, more likely 2-3 speed ranges for each accuracy change.
And with the relatively slow movement speed of a human, the difference in difficulty of hitting someone walking or running isn't that great, so from a defensive standpoint, if we call walking .5 speed and running 1, I don't think you gain much walking at .25 or jogging at .8 instead of walking or running. And from an offensive perspective, I don't think the difficulty of tracking and hitting an opponent changes enough either to make it a noticeable improvement to move at a wide range of speeds.

Now when you switch genres and get in something fast like a airplane, spaceship, or car, well then the gradient movement is much more important there.

fknm
2010-07-24, 10:59 AM
Fknm, to say that I am being condescending when you act as if I do not know how to play UT3 is rather hypocritical.
Please tell me where I insinuated that you don't know how to play UT3. It would be especially surprising given that most of my posts have been about UT2K4.


I do not want to get into a personal argument, but I will simply say that knowing where everything is on the map is a *far* more important skill than knowing how to use tricks to move around certain parts of the map. Knowing basic map awareness, which includes "the enemies are probably here" and "X weapon spawns there", is a lot more important than knowing how to do Y advanced technique if the opponent comes from point Z on map W. You cannot even use advanced techniques to go to whatever location if you don't know the location exists, and that fact alone makes map awareness more important.
The problem is that knowing where things are doesn't necessarily do you any good if you can't get to them. See the double-damage in Albatross. Plus, not knowing how to slope-dodge is going to give you a completely skewed version of how Rankin flows.


All I'm saying is that I feel like you're putting the cart before the horse, or the wavedash before the "how the hell do I use this character", or the "How do I cancel my fireball into my ultra" before the "what do I do if the opponent is jumping in", or the "How do I doubleshot" before "where the hell are the guns anyway?" Trying to learn how to use advanced techniques before you even know the basics of the games maps or how to use the weapons is not a good way to learn either; you're more likely to understand why you need to rocket jump when you understand how it helps you jump and how rockets work, after all (granted, that's more of a Quake example, but still).
I've never played much Super Smash Brothers (that's where the wavedash comes from, right?), but I'd imagine that knowing a standard movement technique is a pretty basic part of "how the hell do I use this character?"

You'll have to re-learn "where the hell are the guns anyway" every time you ever play a new map. Are you going to wait until every map ever has been made and you've memorized all of them before you start learning how to slope-dodge?

shadow_archmagi
2010-07-24, 10:59 AM
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/9/2010/07/6ba3beee5aeede46389776f99d44c241/original.png

Came across this this morning, thought it was relevant.

Oregano
2010-07-24, 11:09 AM
That depends on the game. Mount and Blade for example has inertial walking where you don't start out moving at full speed, and it's hardly an uncommon feature.

And I'm really confused how making the controls less responsive in general is a good thing.

Inertial walking wouldn't be the same thing though, isn't that what Okami does and it has analog control? Digital input also makes it harder to travel diagonally as with digital controls you can only move eight different ways.



Most milsims support TrackIR - the one motion controller I can actually see the point of, because you don't have to fly very many virtual airplanes to realize the advantage of being able to look left and right easily.

What's TrackIR? and with Motion Plus(And Move and I think the new PC motion controllers) in Red Steel 2 you can turn pretty much as fast as you need to, even changing how fast you turn.



Actually I d go out and do a bit of real shooting every now and again, and it honestly makes me apprciate the games that get it right more, because there are titles that capture a lot of the challenge and feel of firing an actual rifle. They don't do this by clever control gimmicks either, but rather by detailed modeling, realistic ballistics, a removal of most gamy features and really, really responsive controls.

I've also done some light melee sparring, and there are again some titlesthat capture some important things about the feel of that as well, by which I mean Mount and Blade which actually gets tempo and measure right.

That's a whole different argument though, that's just a preference for Sims and although Mount and Blade may get tempo and measure right it doesn't mean it controls better or more accurately than Red Steel 2 which gives full control over a sword which is pretty much the peak of responsive. Red Steel 2 doesn't aim for realism though, which is a whole separate issue.

Dogmantra
2010-07-24, 12:15 PM
I played TF2 for about half an hour against bots, then went on the friendly neighbourhood GitP server. My findings are below:

I played a few classes briefly. Mostly played Soldier. A bit of Demoman, some Heavy, some Medic and some Scout. First impressions: this is a lot clunkier. I was dying to bots that I shouldn't have died against. Turning around was a huge problem. I could easily be killed by someone circling me. Classes where aiming quickly is hugely important (Medic, and I assume Sniper) become prohibitively difficult. Conversely, a class where movement is used to aim (Scout) was about the same. Again, meta classes such as Spy and Heavy weren't affected as much, but with the slow turning speed, situational awareness was a lot harder.

I think I'm sticking with Mouse and Keyboard.

warty goblin
2010-07-24, 12:34 PM
Inertial walking wouldn't be the same thing though, isn't that what Okami does and it has analog control? Digital input also makes it harder to travel diagonally as with digital controls you can only move eight different ways.

And with a mouse and keyboard one can move in an essentially arbitrary number of directions.




What's TrackIR? and with Motion Plus(And Move and I think the new PC motion controllers) in Red Steel 2 you can turn pretty much as fast as you need to, even changing how fast you turn.
TrackIR is a special digital camera that tracks an IR beacon you wear on your head, and uses this as an imput channel - so you can turn your head left and the camera rotates left. Very nice for flying airplanes in the first person or leaning around corners in shooters- or at least so I'm told, I've never had the cash to cough up for a system. It's a purely supplemental system that makes certain games easier to play.



That's a whole different argument though, that's just a preference for Sims and although Mount and Blade may get tempo and measure right it doesn't mean it controls better or more accurately than Red Steel 2 which gives full control over a sword which is pretty much the peak of responsive. Red Steel 2 doesn't aim for realism though, which is a whole separate issue.
I would hardly call Mount and Blade a Sim,it's more the conceptual heir of games like Sid Meier's Pirate! or Space Rangers 2, but with a very deep combat system in place of minigames and main story.

And if realism and capturing something of the esscence of an activity isn't the advantage and point of motion controls, what is? My mouse is per pixel accurate, on a fast system it has exceedingly low latency- far lower than is possible on a console simply because of framerate issues.

Oslecamo
2010-07-24, 01:00 PM
It also seems like most people have the most fun with a game when they first get it, when they are first learning the game and finding out how it works. Once the nuances of the game are known its more likely to get boring then it is to get more fun.

This has more to do with the quality of the game. Good games keep you untill you get the nuances. The best games keep you coming bac for more.

shadow_archmagi
2010-07-24, 01:34 PM
I'd like to comment that I have a piece of crap optical mouse on a crumb-encrusted old mousepad and it periodically does this thing where it suddenly flips out.

Literally, my view immediately goes as far up or down as possible. Then it takes me a second to re-orient.

I *still* prefer it to a console.

EleventhHour
2010-07-24, 01:59 PM
*looks around* *munches popcorn*

Okay, well. I've played both quite a bit, and while I probably don't have the PRO GAMER Status that you lot love, I'm going to try and sum up my opinion and see how everyone feels about it.

K&M : Aiming is faster, easier, turning is quick and there's often a hellton more buttons to use for different things. People say that it's really convient, but I don't see it ; WASD is four keys, covered by the index, middle and ring fingers, pinky can tap shift, and the thumb kinda floats as a useless attachment, though you could hit Space somewhat awkwardly. You cannot move your other hand from the mouse. This means from the 5TGV line over, you have to either stretch your hand, or move it to get the buttons. That can be a bother, even though it takes hardly more than a second. (In slower games it's neglible, seeing as you don't need the speed tapping.)

Controller : I play a 360 so the following is based on that ; It fits nicely in your hands, and the triggers feel intuitive. The scrolling speed is slower, (unless you turn up the sensitivity to insane points in which case it's harder to control), which means targetting is often managed by an Aim Assist (CoD's "Down the Sights" often moves your aim if it's nearby what you want), and complimented by moving. The A-B-X-Y, though many people like to try and proclaim them to be horribly awkward, are actually easier to tap in the split second your thumb comes off the right-control stick than bringing your fingers past the 5TGV line. Varying your speed is a lot easier with the controller, (It's not unresponsive, if you push it all the way forward, which is natural and easy ; not a challenge to keep it there in any sense of the word, you run and as you let it slide back, the movement pace slows.), and circle strafing is about equivalent.

Conclusion : K&M is better for shooters and whatnot, but a controller feels better in the hands and is great for games with a lot of involved movement. There really shouldn't be an arguement about it at all, the mouse can pan so much faster than the control stick. Simulationist games belong on the computer. Shooters go on both.

Amended Conclusion : Have fun.

Oregano
2010-07-24, 02:54 PM
And with a mouse and keyboard one can move in an essentially arbitrary number of directions.

By changing orientation, without changing orientation(using the WASD) you can only move in 8 directions, using an analog stick you can move in much more(not sure if there's a limit) and you can change orientation. It's a subtle difference but surely it's a noticeable one if per pixel accuracy is important. If you want an example of a console game showing the handicap of Digital then look at the upcoming Metroid: Other M.



TrackIR is a special digital camera that tracks an IR beacon you wear on your head, and uses this as an imput channel - so you can turn your head left and the camera rotates left. Very nice for flying airplanes in the first person or leaning around corners in shooters- or at least so I'm told, I've never had the cash to cough up for a system. It's a purely supplemental system that makes certain games easier to play.

Ahh headtracking.... cool.



I would hardly call Mount and Blade a Sim,it's more the conceptual heir of games like Sid Meier's Pirate! or Space Rangers 2, but with a very deep combat system in place of minigames and main story.

And if realism and capturing something of the esscence of an activity isn't the advantage and point of motion controls, what is? My mouse is per pixel accurate, on a fast system it has exceedingly low latency- far lower than is possible on a console simply because of framerate issues.

It may seem like splitting hairs but there;s a difference to be between realism and accuracy(usability may be a better word) and Red Steel 2 showcases that, whilst the motion control does have a verisimilitude factor to it, it is anything but realistic. For one you can deflect bullets with the sword(and that's just the tip of the iceberg) which isn't realistic but the controls for it are accurate.

shadow_archmagi
2010-07-24, 03:45 PM
Ahh headtracking.... cool.
.

But, if I turn my head to the left, then doesn't that mean I'm looking away from the monitor!?

Ihouji
2010-07-24, 04:02 PM
This is what console gamers don't seem to get, the argument isn't KB+M vs game pad. It is in fact PC > Console.

The fact of the matter is any game pad you have for your console can be used on PC as well. I can go out and buy a game pad for my PC that mirrors any existing controller for the past 3 generations of console (maybe not N64). I personally own a controller that looks exactly like the PS3 controller that I use for platforming. I also have a stick for flight simulators and if I wanted I could have a wheel and pedals. So after 5 minutes of assigning buttons on a PC I can play any game I want with any game pad layout and any game pad design I want.

I think more or less PC gamers just don't understand why consoles are even around anymore. It really doesn't make any sense considering the wealth of PC peripherals and the ability to run your PC on any modern television.

Consoles had there time, but the reality is at this point its a dated concept. Why should I buy a second computer to hook up to my television to play games on when I could just hook my computer up to my television and play games on it.

Anything your console can do my PC can do just as well or better, and it can do things your console can't do at all.

The_JJ
2010-07-24, 04:50 PM
Well now, one of the very first posts in this board was 'yy, finally vidication on the superiority of PC controls.'

So everyone is 'missing the point,' not just your ideological foes.

That said, I have two things to say.

First: daw, isn't that cute. He still thinks the market system works along rational lines! :smallwink:

More seriously, people buy stuff because of ads, because it's what the cool kids do, and because they can. Logic is immaterial. See also: tobacco industry.

Second: consoles have other things going for them. A modest price tag compared to OMGWHAT levels for high end PC's, plus your fancy extras.

Throw on split screen, and I don't think you'll ever kick them out of the living room. Yes, you can lug your tower in there, but most consumers will not.

fknm
2010-07-24, 04:53 PM
The "modest price tag" becomes somewhat less so when you consider that you already have a PC. Turning a reasonable "work" PC (that is, not some worthless $200 e-machines piece of crap) into a gaming PC doesn't cost much if any more than the cost of a console.

EDIT- Also, if you don't have a TV (I don't), that's more cost that has to be factored against a console.

Roland St. Jude
2010-07-24, 04:58 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread seems needlessly hostile and on the brink of becoming a flamewar. Tone it down in here and assume a little more good faith on the part of those you're talking with here.

shadow_archmagi
2010-07-24, 05:19 PM
The "modest price tag" becomes somewhat less so when you consider that you already have a PC. Turning a reasonable "work" PC (that is, not some worthless $200 e-machines piece of crap) into a gaming PC doesn't cost much if any more than the cost of a console.

EDIT- Also, if you don't have a TV (I don't), that's more cost that has to be factored against a console.

Truely, my fancy-pants gaming computer cost 1600, but this thing is really overkill.

My other computer lasted 10 years and cost 700 dollars to begin with, followed by 100 to upgrade the graphics card. That's all I spent, and it worked fine for all my gaming needs up until it died.

Volatar
2010-07-24, 06:20 PM
I would like to apologize publicly for my actions in this thread. My comments were uncalled for and over the line.

Pie Guy
2010-07-24, 07:06 PM
Eh, both are good.

I prefer computer for online games because the community (read: the guys on this board) is better than xbox live.

I prefer consoles for singleplayer (and platforming) because I have a huge-ass telivision that is amazing in every possible way.

Eliirae
2010-07-24, 07:55 PM
For platformers (like Psychonauts) and other games where you need to do wacky mid-air stunts (like the ratchet and clank games) a controller feels a lot more natural. For shooters keyboard and mouse win, hands down.

There really is no "best" between consoles and PC. After all, consoles are technically PCs. And then you have to factor in people's likes/dislikes, because you're always going to run into people who absolutely insist that a controller is better for everything because they just like it better.

Zevox
2010-07-24, 10:08 PM
Anything your console can do my PC can do just as well or better
It can't play most games made in Japan without the use of emulators of questionable-at-best legality.

Zevox

warty goblin
2010-07-24, 10:43 PM
It can't play most games made in Japan without the use of emulators of questionable-at-best legality.

Zevox

The PC can however play pretty much all of the unceasing tide of awesomeness that Eastern Europe and Russia have been bestowing on the gaming world these last few years. While there are some Japanese games that interest me, they don't begin to compete with titles like STALKER, the Witcher,Men of War, the Void or all the other dementedly weird stuff they keep releasing.

Really, it's gotten to the point where I find it rather hard to take most North American developers seriously, simply because the Eastern Europeans just make more interesting stuff. The way I'd phrase it is that western developers make games that people will probably like because they are essentially identical to the last game they made, while the afformentioned region makes the sort of crazy game you always imagined you would be playing ten years later when you were a kid.

Zevox
2010-07-24, 11:26 PM
The PC can however play pretty much all of the unceasing tide of awesomeness that Eastern Europe and Russia have been bestowing on the gaming world these last few years. While there are some Japanese games that interest me, they don't begin to compete with titles like STALKER, the Witcher,Men of War, the Void or all the other dementedly weird stuff they keep releasing.
That's just you though. Me, the vast majority of the games I play were made in Japan. Just looking at the CD case sitting in my room containing my PS2 and X-Box 360 games: I have 22 PS2 games, including two of my favorite games of all time, Persona 3 FES and Persona 4. Only three of them are not Japanese, and only one of those is available on the PC - and it's one I wasn't particularly impressed by, Beyond Good & Evil. I have 12 XB360 games, 8 of which are western, but only 5 of which are available on the PC (with one more receiving a PC port soon - a rare Japanese game actually getting one, BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger, although by the time that hits PCs the sequel will already be out on consoles), but most of which my PC couldn't handle, and my favorite from among them, Tales of Vesperia, is not available on the PC.

Also in easy sight is my collection of Nintendo DS games - another 22 games, only two of them not from Japan (and one of those is sort-of Japanese - Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood, made by Bioware but from a Japanese franchise), quite a number of which I hold in high regard - to the point where I consider the DS my favorite gaming system of this generation thus far. In any event, as is the case for basically all handheld games, not a single one would be available on the PC without an emulator.

And those are just the games in easy eyesight from my computer. I have many more for my other systems - plenty of GBA, N64, and Gamecube games, plus some Wii games and even a few Gameboy Color games, the vast majority of which are almost certainly Japan-made. The only system in my house with a majority of games that aren't Japanese and would be available on the PC is the original X-Box, and that's my brother's, not mine.

Zevox

nosignal
2010-07-25, 12:17 AM
But, if I turn my head to the left, then doesn't that mean I'm looking away from the monitor!?

I thought the same thing, but this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AO0F5sLdVM) shows that motion sensitivity can be calibrated like a mouse or joystick. Now I'm left wondering if your character model would correctly reflect (http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/qq106/Bahamut_Shin/roxbury.gif) these movements in game.

On topic: Uhh... I like some types of games/controls/genres/developers. You like others. [Insert "proof" that shows I am right and you are wrong here]

fknm
2010-07-25, 12:19 AM
It can't play most games made in Japan without the use of emulators of questionable-at-best legality.

Zevox
Emulators themselves are perfectly legal. It's the downloading of BIOSs/ROMs that isn't.

Zevox
2010-07-25, 12:28 AM
Emulators themselves are perfectly legal. It's the downloading of BIOSs/ROMs that isn't.
Same difference in the end effect.

Zevox

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-25, 12:53 AM
These threads...

People tellin' people how to play their video games.

Ihouji
2010-07-25, 12:54 AM
It can't play most games made in Japan without the use of emulators of questionable-at-best legality.
Zevox

You've kind of missed the point, I'm saying I don't understand why consoles even exist much less why anyone develops games for them.

The same games could easily have been developed for PC and would have been better for it as you would have had your choice of any number of controllers and button layouts you could have played them with.

Personally I hate the Xbox controller, it just doesn't feel right in my hands. On PC that is never an issue you can just find the controller that fits your hands the best and use it.

You say you have a play station 2 and an xbox, I'm sure you like one controller better than the other. So wouldn't it be nice to be able to play every game on that controller? You could do that on a PC.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-25, 01:01 AM
You've kind of missed the point, I'm saying I don't understand why consoles even exist much less why anyone develops games for them.


Consoles exist because some people don't want to deal with the ****-storm that comes with a PC.

Maybe I just haven't delved into the magical realm of happy fun time you have, but PC games don't always run on your system. Sometimes they look like crap. Sometimes they get terrible frame rate. Sometimes you cant get audio. Sometimes it crashes every five minutes.

With a console? Sometimes.... your controller needs new batteries.

Not everyone is willing to spend the time it takes to play games on the PC, some people want the ease of use consoles give. And people should respect that.

fknm
2010-07-25, 01:06 AM
If you have stability problems when gaming on a PC, it means one of two things:

1. You've got a crappy machine. Even if the individual parts are good, airflow problems and PSU problems in particular are a killer. This is easily rectified with a little bit of knowledge.

2. You've been malware infected. Sadly, most malware nowadays comes with a rootkit, which means wiping the disk. Run a browser that blocks scripts (Firefox with Adblock and Noscript is reccomended), and don't run EXE's from untrustworthy sources.

chiasaur11
2010-07-25, 01:06 AM
Same difference in the end effect.

Zevox

Maybe, but internet legality is complicated as these things come. That kind of tiny difference can mean a lot.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-25, 01:22 AM
If you have stability problems when gaming on a PC, it means one of two things:

1. You've got a crappy machine. Even if the individual parts are good, airflow problems and PSU problems in particular are a killer. This is easily rectified with a little bit of knowledge.

2. You've been malware infected. Sadly, most malware nowadays comes with a rootkit, which means wiping the disk. Run a browser that blocks scripts (Firefox with Adblock and Noscript is reccomended), and don't run EXE's from untrustworthy sources.

It can mean any number of things, really.

I can run crisis but I can't run Dark Messiah. I can run CoD4 at a solid fps but BBC2 runs like crap. I can't even play Max Payne without the sound glitching out.

Some of these problems can be solved with some cash out of pocket or an hour or two looking for fixes, but the ease of use is nowhere near a console, in which it is very rare for games to be released which isn't going to perform well in every technical category. Out of box.

Ihouji
2010-07-25, 01:25 AM
Consoles exist because some people don't want to deal with the ****-storm that comes with a PC.

Maybe I just haven't delved into the magical realm of happy fun time you have, but PC games don't always run on your system. Sometimes they look like crap. Sometimes they get terrible frame rate. Sometimes you cant get audio. Sometimes it crashes every five minutes.

Not everyone is willing to spend the time it takes to play games on the PC, some people want the ease of use consoles give. And people should respect that.

In my experience most problems can be fixed with 5-10 minutes on google (patches, new drivers, or updating direct x). If that doesn't do it, its probably from some other source be it out dated hardware or malware/viruses eating up all your memory.

In any case a ****-storm is a bit extreme, and the benefits vastly out weigh the few minutes spent to get things set right.

Zevox
2010-07-25, 02:04 AM
You say you have a play station 2 and an xbox, I'm sure you like one controller better than the other. So wouldn't it be nice to be able to play every game on that controller? You could do that on a PC.
No, actually, I'm quite happy with both. Though the original X-Box (non-360) controller was a bit bulky, that's about the extent of my complaints with console controllers. I've found them to be quite comfortable ever since... sheesh, the original NES is the last one I can remember having any complaints about, and that just because it was designed like a rectangle, so the corners could be annoying and uncomfortable.

And personally, I see a variety of advantages to consoles over gaming PCs. Price and simple usability for one. Anyone can spend a few hundred dollars on a console and play any game for it just by popping it in. With PCs you need more costly equipment, and often also would have to upgrade the PC yourself from whatever you start with, necessitating that you know how to do that, which not everyone does (I know I sure don't - my computer knowledge doesn't extend too far beyond basic use of internet browsers and Microsoft Office stuff, I wouldn't have the first clue what to do with the inside of the darn thing). Plus you then get to install the game and get it working, which may not always go smoothly depending on a variety of things - we often get people in these very forums asking how to get older games working on new operating systems, just to name one, and I remember I had some trouble getting Neverwinter Nights 2 to work on my computer, though what the issue was and how I fixed it I no longer recall. The convenience of not having to deal with all those sorts of potential issues is appealing to a lot of people. I know that accounts for a large part of the reason I have no interest in switching from consoles to a gaming-quality PC (the kinds of games available on each being the other large part).

Plus all those controller peripherals you talk about cost extra too, whereas with consoles you'll get one packaged with the console itself, and only need more if you want to play local multiplayer, which except for with the Wii is becoming less prominent now that consoles are online.

To my knowledge bugs are also more common on PC games than console ones - certainly whenever I look over things like the Dragon Age wiki I see notices about bugs with various things that are on the PC version only.

Zevox

Gralamin
2010-07-25, 04:25 AM
I play both Console and PC games - I see no reason to choose. Despite that, I vastly prefer the PC in most cases (Mass Effect is an example of an exception), for the following reasons:

1) The Keyboard and mouse feel more natural for all game types. This probably isn't universal, and more of the fact I've been using them forever - I only got into consoles recently - but I have failed to find anything that the console controller is demonstrably better for, that isn't just a port where they didn't really bother to reprogram the input controls.

2) I like Real Time Strategy games, and they simply do not work well on Consoles. I also like pretty much every other genre, and I can think of none of them that actually have a benefit to using the console, except for split-screen multiplayer, which is more having the TV anyway.)

3) Versatility - as a Computing Scientist, I can use a powerful computer for a number of other tasks (such as Folding@Home). I cannot do the same with consoles without going through a lot of hassle.

4) Content - Games designed for PC only are able to deliver a lot more content, especially if they are digital download. There is a large cost associated with having extra disks, and each extra disk is another thing that could get wrecked, making it unplayable. But, you can compress data a lot more on a PC Game disks (or just Digital download), since the installation process pre-extracts the data, that you couldn't on consoles for performance reasons.

5) Power - Lets be honest, most Console hardware isn't all that good. The Xbox 360 has a mere 512 MB of RAM (Which also acts as its Graphics memory). The Playstation 3 has 256 MB of Video Ram, and 256 MB of XDR Ram. Their graphic cards aren't much better. Their main asset is their processor (The Xbox 360 uses a 3.2 GHz tri-core. The PS3 has a very good cell processor). I personally am willing to pay the extra cost to get better hardware (My current computer has 6 GB of RAM, 2 GB of GDDR3 RAM on the GPU, and can share 2 GB of my RAM with it, an i7-920 @ 2.66 GHz, and an ATI Radeon HD 4870x2.) This comes out to about $1010 (~$260 for i7-920 though Its currently listed as unavailable, Grab the $300 8 GB of RAM for a slightly better deal, $450 for the Graphics card) for the actual power of the system.

6) Relevance - My PC, which I gave some details of above, will stay a relevant and good gaming system for at least 10 years, unless new technologies are rapidly adapted. Even then, I can probably extend its life if I'm careful to around 15 years (Upgrading the Graphics card when necessary, and some CPU increases. Get more RAM if needed, etc.). While this will have some cost, its still better then no longer having any games being released on a console. Sure, some parts may bust, but I've taken enough precautions that anything non-catastrophic is recoverable.

7) CPU Instructions - All console CPUs use a reduced Instruction Set. This means they cannot do some things as efficiently as computer CPUs. Granted, the performance increase from here is minuscule, but it is worth noting.

Whoracle
2010-07-25, 08:16 AM
With a console? Sometimes.... your controller needs new batteries.

While PC games have their issues, THIS is simply not true.
Tell that to the people who had wireframe graphics in their tutorial level of TES4: Oblivion. On the PC you can at least patch it...

Or to the 3 FMVs in Final Fantasy 9 that won't work when I play it on my PS2, which _should_ be fully compatible.

Games not running are most of the times the fault of the game designers, not the platform, really. If Devs developed as crappy for the consoles, you'd have the same problems.

Thrawn183
2010-07-25, 08:49 AM
I wanted to bring up something for general discussion (not coming down on either side of the issue right now, myself). Namely, using all the fiddly little buttons. When I'm playing KB+M, I'm usually using fingers that I would normally use for movement (WASD) to use all those controls; whereas, while playing a console shooter I usually use the thumb that is in control of where I am looking. Can anyone make a convincing argument as to whether or not it is more useful to be able to keep moving while using buttons set for grenade/reload/melee or to keep aiming?

Also, I much prefer consoles FPS's without the auto-aim feature. When I was doing a solo, legendary run of Halo I used to occasionally play on easy to just blow off some steam. My style was usually to see how many enemies I could kill only using melee attacks. The problem? If you tried to melee an enemy and run past them at the same time (ie. not melee them by running and looking directly at them) the auto-aim would correct so much that I'd end up turning over ninety degrees without even touching that part of the controller. I had times I actually got lost because I started going backwards against my will. Note, this is a specific complaint against a specific game, and purely anecdotal.

Arbitrarity
2010-07-25, 08:59 AM
I wanted to bring up something for general discussion (not coming down on either side of the issue right now, myself). Namely, using all the fiddly little buttons. When I'm playing KB+M, I'm usually using fingers that I would normally use for movement (WASD) to use all those controls; whereas, while playing a console shooter I usually use the thumb that is in control of where I am looking. Can anyone make a convincing argument as to whether or not it is more useful to be able to keep moving while using buttons set for grenade/reload/melee or to keep aiming?


Eh. I would disagree. You lose a moment of movement in one axis, compared to losing tracking. On a PC, you can just turn to accomodate for the movement loss, or ignore it, because it's for a really short period of time.
Comparatively, if I want to use melee, I need to be able to track my target. so KB+M wins there. If I want to use a grenade? Same. Switch weapons? I want to keep tracking my targets, otherwise I can't follow up. (TF2: As The Shell Tolls achievement: Knock someone into the air with rocket launcher and finish with shotgun).

Dogmantra
2010-07-25, 09:02 AM
(TF2: As The Shell Tolls achievement: Knock someone into the air with rocket launcher and finish with shotgun).

Sheesh, Arb, it's called For Whom the Shell Trolls.

Also I just thought of one major reason I prefer PC to consoles: remapping keys. Practically every game on PC has the ability to remap controls to different keys, but on consoles it's rare, and they often just give you a couple of layouts.

Arbitrarity
2010-07-25, 09:17 AM
Sheesh, Arb, it's called For Whom the Shell Trolls.

Also I just thought of one major reason I prefer PC to consoles: remapping keys. Practically every game on PC has the ability to remap controls to different keys, but on consoles it's rare, and they often just give you a couple of layouts.
FFFUUU-
I got that achievement the day the update came out. That I remembered it at all is miraculous.

Also, mods, and faster patches. Minerva, R&D, and hopefully BM:S are all excellent examples of free stuff released on PC.

warty goblin
2010-07-25, 09:23 AM
I wanted to bring up something for general discussion (not coming down on either side of the issue right now, myself). Namely, using all the fiddly little buttons. When I'm playing KB+M, I'm usually using fingers that I would normally use for movement (WASD) to use all those controls; whereas, while playing a console shooter I usually use the thumb that is in control of where I am looking. Can anyone make a convincing argument as to whether or not it is more useful to be able to keep moving while using buttons set for grenade/reload/melee or to keep aiming?


I never really have that problem, simply because if I need to do something like reload while moving right (so I need to hit R and D simultaneously) I hit R with another finger. But then I don't maintain a fixed position on the keyboard with my left hand anyway, but instead move it to the left or right as I need to. If I'm doing a lot of reloading, leaning and interacting my pointer finger usually sits on F, my middle on D, and so on. This position is my default, but it works less well for sections where I'm doing a lot of sprinting (shift key) or driving a vehicle. If I'm doing those, I roll my hand one key to the left.

About the only times I have to stop moving are if I'm trying to get some fussy context sensitive action lined up right, or I'm taking a precision shot or something like that. It is very, very seldom that it's because I need to hit too many keys at once.

Elder Tsofu
2010-07-25, 10:15 AM
I find it interesting that people apparently only use 2 buttons and the wheel on the mouse - I usually program the 3-4 extra (easy to reach) buttons with some of the keyboard commands...

fknm
2010-07-25, 10:17 AM
I find it interesting that people apparently only use 2 buttons and the wheel on the mouse - I usually program the 3-4 extra (easy to reach) buttons with some of the keyboard commands...
Many people still have 2 button + wheel mice. I only recently switched to a 4 button + wheel mouse.

Dogmantra
2010-07-25, 10:24 AM
I usually program the 3-4 extra (easy to reach) buttons with some of the keyboard commands...

This is the sole reason I can play an interrupt Mesmer on Guild Wars. Half the buttons on my mouse are just shortcuts to using skills.

Zevox
2010-07-25, 10:27 AM
Many people still have 2 button + wheel mice. I only recently switched to a 4 button + wheel mouse.
True. I have a 2 button + wheel mouse, and wasn't aware there was such a thing as a mouse with more than 3 buttons + wheel until fairly recently when it was pointed out to me on another thread on these forums.

Zevox

Elder Tsofu
2010-07-25, 10:38 AM
Huh, I thought they were more widespread than that - even my net-book mouse came with 7 programmable buttons.

Airk
2010-07-25, 03:04 PM
Huh, I thought they were more widespread than that - even my net-book mouse came with 7 programmable buttons.

Mice with more than 2+ scrollwheel are still specialty equipment and are likely to remain so pretty much forever. Because they are ONLY USEFUL to people like you: People who play a lot of games AND are not satisfied with the restrictions of a 2 button mouse.

3+ button mice are useless for what most of the universe still uses computers for. You know, the reason that people can make the technically correct but functionally useless claim that "you already have a PC and can play games on it for just like $200". Surf the net? Yeah, people need lots more buttons for that! MSOffice? Heh. Most people just don't have a use for more than two buttons. Hell, a lot people still aren't entirely clear on what the right button is FOR. The last thing ye-olde computer user needs is more buttons.

There's a WHOLE LOT of "giving people too much credit" going on on the PC side of this thread. Problems solved in ten minutes with google and updating drivers? Many people don't even know what video drivers are, let alone that they need to upgrade them or how. Game doesn't work? Game looks like ass? They have -no- -idea- how to fix it. PCs are not, in fact, all that much easier to use than they were 15 years ago. While certain basic operations have become easier, troubleshooting the underlying setup hasn't gotten any easier. We've done away with pain in the arse memory management and substituted it for a heapton of drivers, some of which work, some of which don't, sometimes you need the latest version, sometimes only using an OLDER version will get you what you need. And if your PC bluescreens for no readily good identifiable reason? It probably doesn't even tell you what driver caused it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I had to download a very specific magic redistributable library from Microsoft a couple of months ago to get a game to work at all. It's fortunate to me that I'm forum literate and found the post about it on page 4, because otherwise my game wouldn't have run at all.

The idea that people can wonder why anyone still uses consoles, to me, shows a fundamental lack of thinking about the question from anyone's perspective other than their own.

Also, it's still about the games. In spite of what the PC evangelists would have you believe, the overlap between consoles and PCs is nowhere near 100%. It's just that all the PC gamers who are getting their FPS fixes (And who, coincidentally, make up a large portion of the unusually computer literate people who then go out on the internet and post on topics like this) on games that release on multiple platforms look at their narrow spectrum of titles and think "Well heck, I can get everything -I- want on the PC, so why do people have those console things?" Again. Inability or unwillingness to think about the question from outside their own narrow perspective.

Zovc
2010-07-25, 03:19 PM
It's not like you can't use a controller with a computer, is it?

Tell that to my Xbox 360 controllers. I don't even own a 360.

Elder Tsofu
2010-07-25, 04:20 PM
Mice with more than 2+ scrollwheel are still specialty equipment and are likely to remain so pretty much forever. Because they are ONLY USEFUL to people like you: People who play a lot of games AND are not satisfied with the restrictions of a 2 button mouse.

3+ button mice are useless for what most of the universe still uses computers for. You know, the reason that people can make the technically correct but functionally useless claim that "you already have a PC and can play games on it for just like $200". Surf the net? Yeah, people need lots more buttons for that! MSOffice? Heh. Most people just don't have a use for more than two buttons. Hell, a lot people still aren't entirely clear on what the right button is FOR. The last thing ye-olde computer user needs is more buttons.

The man/woman who can't figure out what to use the right button for will also be lost with a game-pad. (just for your info - it comes with even more buttons)
Sure it is speciality equipment with more buttons, but so is a pc which can do more than surf the net and handle office (you can do that with pretty much anything - so why throw away more money on it if you aren't going to use it?).
I use my mouse much more outside games than in as I've linked commands in the browser and other programs I use to the buttons - so its not even pure gaming-equipment. :smallwink:


There's a WHOLE LOT of "giving people too much credit" going on on the PC side of this thread. Problems solved in ten minutes with google and updating drivers? Many people don't even know what video drivers are, let alone that they need to upgrade them or how. Game doesn't work? Game looks like ass? They have -no- -idea- how to fix it. PCs are not, in fact, all that much easier to use than they were 15 years ago. While certain basic operations have become easier, troubleshooting the underlying setup hasn't gotten any easier. We've done away with pain in the arse memory management and substituted it for a heapton of drivers, some of which work, some of which don't, sometimes you need the latest version, sometimes only using an OLDER version will get you what you need. And if your PC bluescreens for no readily good identifiable reason? It probably doesn't even tell you what driver caused it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I had to download a very specific magic redistributable library from Microsoft a couple of months ago to get a game to work at all. It's fortunate to me that I'm forum literate and found the post about it on page 4, because otherwise my game wouldn't have run at all.

Well, you can fix a pc (as you've apaprently figured out) - can you fix your console when it gives you the red ring of death? :smalltongue:

Dogmantra
2010-07-25, 04:28 PM
Well, you can fix a pc (as you've apaprently figured out) - can you fix your console when it gives you the red ring of death? :smalltongue:

Then again, the majority of consoles never have a problem, especially the older ones with fewer moving parts. My Mega Drive (Genesis) still works perfectly.

Volatar
2010-07-25, 04:45 PM
I do think that thumbstick control is superior to KB+M for racing games. Using WASD or the arrow keys is not precise enough, and the mouse is awkward to use in such a way.

I have a 4 button mouse but I generally don't use the other two. Only recently have I bound both of the extra two to middle click and use that as the key to activate my non-game voice chat (Mumble, Ventrillo, Teamspeak, etc) and still have c set to in-game voice chat. Its also useful for those few games that actually use middle click (my mousewheel is hard to use for middle click) like The Movies or The Sims.

Airk
2010-07-25, 08:52 PM
The man/woman who can't figure out what to use the right button for will also be lost with a game-pad. (just for your info - it comes with even more buttons)

Not exactly. Remember that the mouse is NEVER used without the keyboard. So there are, in essence, 100 or so extra buttons they need to keep track of. A controller is used by itself.



Sure it is speciality equipment with more buttons, but so is a pc which can do more than surf the net and handle office (you can do that with pretty much anything - so why throw away more money on it if you aren't going to use it?).
I use my mouse much more outside games than in as I've linked commands in the browser and other programs I use to the buttons - so its not even pure gaming-equipment. :smallwink:

Correct. But would you have bought it to not play games with?



Well, you can fix a pc (as you've apaprently figured out) - can you fix your console when it gives you the red ring of death? :smalltongue:

I have fixed every PC problem I have ever had, sometimes at the expense of countless hours and hundreds of dollars.

I have never experienced a problem with a console that couldn't be solved by turning it off and back on, and I have had probably a dozen of those 'problems' in two decades of console ownership.

Statistically, the odds are not in favor of your argument.

Additionally, I find your comparison inappropriate - the RROD is a hardware failure (incidentally covered by a far more generous replacement warranty than you are ever likely to see from a PC manufacturer). I've never heard of anyone having a problem with a console where it just refused to run a new game until a series of non-intuitive updates were applied... but this is commonplace on the PC.

Ihouji
2010-07-25, 09:38 PM
Mice with more than 2+ scrollwheel are still specialty equipment and are likely to remain so pretty much forever. Because they are ONLY USEFUL to people like you: People who play a lot of games AND are not satisfied with the restrictions of a 2 button mouse.

3+ button mice are useless for what most of the universe still uses computers for. You know, the reason that people can make the technically correct but functionally useless claim that "you already have a PC and can play games on it for just like $200". Surf the net? Yeah, people need lots more buttons for that! MSOffice? Heh. Most people just don't have a use for more than two buttons. Hell, a lot people still aren't entirely clear on what the right button is FOR. The last thing ye-olde computer user needs is more buttons.


I'm going to have to agree if you cant figure out how to use your basic 5-7 button mouse your going to have problems with any kind of console controller.

I won't even consider a mouse with anything less than 7 buttons any more. The computer I am on came with a 5 button and I still use 5 buttons for everything not just games. The side buttons are used for a number of things (page jumping in PDFs, fast scrolling, jumping back and forward pages in your web browser, the list goes on). Just because someone doesn't know how to use them doesn't make them useless. That would be like saying I don't know how to fly, air planes and helicopters are useless.

Personally I consider basic computer knowledge a life skill considering having someone else do it for you will most likely cost $50-$100 + parts. Its just like knowing how to change the brake pads on your car; the cost is parts if you do it yourself tack on another $80-$100 if you get someone to do it for you.

As for not being able to update video drivers, if someone can't do something as simple as say change there own wiper blades they really don't have any business owning a car IMO, same concept applies to computers and everything else for that matter the way I see it.

fknm
2010-07-25, 09:41 PM
Mice with more than 2+ scrollwheel are still specialty equipment and are likely to remain so pretty much forever. Because they are ONLY USEFUL to people like you: People who play a lot of games AND are not satisfied with the restrictions of a 2 button mouse.

3+ button mice are useless for what most of the universe still uses computers for. You know, the reason that people can make the technically correct but functionally useless claim that "you already have a PC and can play games on it for just like $200". Surf the net? Yeah, people need lots more buttons for that! MSOffice? Heh. Most people just don't have a use for more than two buttons. Hell, a lot people still aren't entirely clear on what the right button is FOR. The last thing ye-olde computer user needs is more buttons.
Actually, nowadays 4 button mice are what comes with most computers from companies like Gateway or Dell. And they're VERY nice for web-browsing- having back and forward with the press of one button of your mouse is unbelievably convenient.

Elder Tsofu
2010-07-26, 02:56 AM
Not exactly. Remember that the mouse is NEVER used without the keyboard. So there are, in essence, 100 or so extra buttons they need to keep track of. A controller is used by itself.

... are you seriously considering the buttons marked with the alphabet, 0-9 and other well-known easy to understand signs which you shouldn't be able to go through school without coming across (if they do, lets go burn the responsible teacher to save the future generations) as extra buttons needed to keep track on?
If you do I'll not argue with you further as I prefer to give humanity a little credit.


Correct. But would you have bought it to not play games with?

I would have.

Airk
2010-07-26, 09:09 AM
... are you seriously considering the buttons marked with the alphabet, 0-9 and other well-known easy to understand signs which you shouldn't be able to go through school without coming across (if they do, lets go burn the responsible teacher to save the future generations) as extra buttons needed to keep track on?
If you do I'll not argue with you further as I prefer to give humanity a little credit.

Yes, because clearly the buttons marked "W" "A" "S" and "D" correspond directly to "move forward", "move left" "move back" and "move right" and the keys with the arrows that point forward, left, back and right... do not.

Also, I'd like a show of hands here of people who know how to replace their own brake pads. :P

Like it or not, PCs are, like cars, part of the modern experience, and people are not, in fact, required to be able to fix them in order to be able to use them. Replacing brake pads isn't on the driver's test. Updating video drivers is an irrelevant operation for someone who doesn't want to play games. People keep claiming that the PC is an "appliance". It's not. When was the last time you did any maintenance on your refrigerator? Maybe you replaced a water filter. What about your TV? Done any repairs there lately? Don't know how to fix it? Well, I'm certainly not going to suggest that you should be denied the right to own one. And odds are, you've probably never HAD a problem with your TV. Or if you did, you decided it was time to replace the old clunker anyway. Consoles are like that. People like appliances that just work. PCs do not fall into that category. You can argue the computer literacy "should" be a life skill by now, but clearly, the sheer number of people choosing to play on consoles proves that it's not.

Look folks: You asked why people still play on consoles. I have explained it. You can try to refute my "argument" until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with an equivalent explanation for a very real phenomenon - namely, millions and millions of people playing games on consoles - instead of just going "OMG! I don't understand why people still buy those things!" then clearly, my hypothesis continues to stand.

Elder Tsofu
2010-07-26, 11:42 AM
Yes, because clearly the buttons marked "W" "A" "S" and "D" correspond directly to "move forward", "move left" "move back" and "move right" and the keys with the arrows that point forward, left, back and right... do not.

My response was to your response on my response on people not knowing what the right button did. I meant an ordinary computer problem - which is not a situation where you use W for moving forward.
...
And its a very niche game where you use 100 buttons on the keyboard - W, A, S and D are standard keys for these commands used in practically all games where they are relevant. Think of it as the joystick or the steering cross - after one try you know how to use it.
I would say that generally a maximum of 8-10 keys (not counting movement) might be important enough for you to have them close and remember them. That's no harder than to remember if it was pushing L2 or R1 which resulted in action X. (Yes I do read manuals, I think they're there for a reason)


Like it or not, PCs are, like cars, part of the modern experience, and people are not, in fact, required to be able to fix them in order to be able to use them. Replacing brake pads isn't on the driver's test. Updating video drivers is an irrelevant operation for someone who doesn't want to play games. People keep claiming that the PC is an "appliance". It's not. When was the last time you did any maintenance on your refrigerator? Maybe you replaced a water filter. What about your TV? Done any repairs there lately? Don't know how to fix it? Well, I'm certainly not going to suggest that you should be denied the right to own one. And odds are, you've probably never HAD a problem with your TV. Or if you did, you decided it was time to replace the old clunker anyway. Consoles are like that. People like appliances that just work. PCs do not fall into that category. You can argue the computer literacy "should" be a life skill by now, but clearly, the sheer number of people choosing to play on consoles proves that it's not.

Look folks: You asked why people still play on consoles. I have explained it. You can try to refute my "argument" until you are blue in the face, but until you come up with an equivalent explanation for a very real phenomenon - namely, millions and millions of people playing games on consoles - instead of just going "OMG! I don't understand why people still buy those things!" then clearly, my hypothesis continues to stand.

People buy things for different reasons, and that they can't care for computers (or computer illiteracy) are probably quite low on the list.
As I said I prefer to give humanity a little credit on their computer literacy.

Games developed for the consoles which do not reach the pc and (up until now) good multiplayer support (couch-wise) are probably better reasons for people choosing them.
I think consoles have a place in the world as they're a more social machine where you can sit down with a gang of buddies for some friendly gaming. And some genres, although the controls could be plugged into a more powerful pc, works very well.

(veering of to general)
What the debate was about was gamepads vs. keyboard and mouse in ability to compete on first person shooters, and the alleged reason for it not happening.
If you try to drag in numbers and arguments depending amount of users to decide the superiority of a control method then you're out on thin ice (as people chose console or pc on other grounds than the controller).

SparkMandriller
2010-07-26, 11:57 AM
Tell that to my Xbox 360 controllers. I don't even own a 360.

You misunderstanding me? I'm saying that controllers can be used with computers. Because they can.
I've got a 360 controller for my PC too, though I don't use it much, 'cause they do kinda suck. It comes in handy when friends come over and want a wireless controller though, since they don't seem to mind the awful d-pad/sticks too much.

Ihouji
2010-07-26, 01:51 PM
{scrubbed}

Volatar
2010-07-27, 10:03 AM
Having 360 controllers for your PC is very useful when you want to play one of those few splitscreen PC games (like Cortex Command). Its hard to fit 8 hands onto one keyboard.

Myatar_Panwar
2010-07-27, 10:22 AM
Well, you can fix a pc (as you've apaprently figured out) - can you fix your console when it gives you the red ring of death? :smalltongue:

Common problems like this are for the companies who make the consoles to figure out.

As it stands there are many home-made solutions to the red rings but why do that when microsoft will send you a new/fixed console for free.

deuxhero
2010-07-27, 11:25 AM
Surf the net? Yeah, people need lots more buttons for that!



Uh, I once had a 4 button plus wheel map (broke sadly). The other 2 buttons made firefox go "back" and "forward" in history, it was useful.

Volatar
2010-07-27, 02:25 PM
I wish I could bind a mouse button to "open in new tab" instead of having to click twice. I would use it hundreds of times a day.

Dogmantra
2010-07-27, 02:28 PM
I wish I could bind a mouse button to "open in new tab" instead of having to click twice. I would use it hundreds of times a day.

If you can bind a mouse button to work as middle mouse in most browsers, it'll open in new tabs.

Lord Herman
2010-07-27, 02:28 PM
I wish I could bind a mouse button to "open in new tab" instead of having to click twice. I would use it hundreds of times a day.

Don't know about other browsers, but in Firefox, the middle mouse button does that.

Edit: Ninja'd!

toasty
2010-07-27, 03:23 PM
Here is the bottom line: In theory, computers are technically better machines because they have, technically, better hardware. Also, a computer can use a Controller AND a mouse+keyboard combination. Having said that, computers have all sorts of problems. My last computer litterally overheated itself to death. My current computer, though brand new, already shows signs of issues with the Display Driver and some other issues. Computers have problems.

Consoles are simpler. Yes, you can't mod games, yes, you can't surf the web, yes WASD+Mouse is probably better for FPS games than a controller, but you don't have the problems that computers have, most of the time. Consoles are also simpler because you don't always have to check system specs and it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to make a $500 dollar computer the best machine in the world.

Both systems have their problems. I'd love to have an Xbox360, but at this point I'm not gonna cuz they cost money and I have a computer and my favorite games are on the computer. I'd love to play a few console only games, but the fact that I don't and can't doesn't bother me.

And, to be completely honest, if the next generation of video game consoles allowed mice and keyboards to be hooked up to them, I'd switch in an instant and just buy a cheap laptop for school.

NeoVid
2010-07-27, 05:08 PM
The "modest price tag" becomes somewhat less so when you consider that you already have a PC.

I have owned one console or another since the Atari 400, and I have never even had a realistic prospect of being able to afford a PC.




Consoles are simpler. Yes, you can't mod games, yes, you can't surf the web,

You can mod games on the 360, and you can surf the web on the PS3.

Volatar
2010-07-27, 05:54 PM
If you can bind a mouse button to work as middle mouse in most browsers, it'll open in new tabs.

Don't know about other browsers, but in Firefox, the middle mouse button does that.


Awesome! I use Chrome, but it does that in Chrome too. I already had middle mouse bound to one of my thumb keys, so I am very happy now. Thanks guys!


You can mod games on the 360

Except for those few mods developers allow (which they usually charge for too), not legally.

deuxhero
2010-07-27, 07:18 PM
I have owned one console or another since the Atari 400, and I have never even had a realistic prospect of being able to afford a PC.


Oh please, it's not THAT expensive. By now I wouldn't be surprised if someone could build one for ~$400 after "normal" parts (OS, case, HDD and disc drives ect) that you likely have by your foot now.

NeoVid
2010-07-27, 07:37 PM
Oh please, it's not THAT expensive. By now I wouldn't be surprised if someone could build one for ~$400

I have been trying for the last several months to save up $300 to replace my busted TV. Haven't been able to come close.

Also, I'm able to post this since I'm at a friend's place, I can't afford internet at home either.

deuxhero
2010-07-27, 08:43 PM
Oh. Generally assume that people are posting from their home. Sorry.

NeoVid
2010-07-27, 08:55 PM
Yeah, it's logical enough to assume that someone posting on a forum has a computer. In my case, if I'm extremely lucky, I might be able to get a gaming rig set up by the end of the year.

WitchSlayer
2010-07-27, 09:27 PM
This makes me think it might be interesting to have a fencing game for the PC, where the mouse controls the sword, it might be hard to do on a 2d plane but it would be interesting to try.

chiasaur11
2010-07-27, 09:32 PM
You can mod games on the 360, and you can surf the web on the PS3.

Wii also has web surfing.

Lines, they are a blurring.

ryzouken
2010-07-27, 10:53 PM
Yeah, but Wii's aren't consoles. They're evil, blood-drenched torture machines sent from the 3rd circle of Hades to torment mankind as some form of daemonic entertainment.

Don't get me started on the Kinect and Move. Blasphemous offspring of the plumber's tentacled masters.

toasty
2010-07-27, 11:41 PM
Yeah, but Wii's aren't consoles. They're evil, blood-drenched torture machines sent from the 3rd circle of Hades to torment mankind as some form of daemonic entertainment.

Don't get me started on the Kinect and Move. Blasphemous offspring of the plumber's tentacled masters.

Wiis are consoles in as much as the 3ds will be one. Its just a different kind of console. Sure, you might hate a lot about them, but that doesn't make them any less cool or awesome. A lot of the games are crap, but the machine has some cool ones (like... Fire Emblem... which doesn't even use the console features).

I don't think the Wii is the complete way of the future, but it has a lot of cool features I really like. Kinect, I'm not so sure about, just yet.

chiasaur11
2010-07-27, 11:52 PM
Yeah, but Wii's aren't consoles. They're evil, blood-drenched torture machines sent from the 3rd circle of Hades to torment mankind as some form of daemonic entertainment.

Don't get me started on the Kinect and Move. Blasphemous offspring of the plumber's tentacled masters.

So, is this "I hate things that are popular" or...?

Because Metroid Prime Trilogy entirely justifies the Wii's existence.

ryzouken
2010-07-28, 12:38 AM
Nah, it's more a "I hate motion control in all its forms as it represents a divergence from my preferred gaming experience." I don't want to flail hopelessly at the screen in the hopes that it understands my will through some arcane power, I want a control interface that responds immediately and proportionately to my demands, such as the standard thumbstick gaming controller.

The Wii would be a perfect system... if it used a traditional controller instead of a plastic brick that threatens to fly from my grip in standard use. And don't give me the whole "You don't have to swing it THAT hard" tripe. YOU try playing a game and not get enthusiastic about doing so. Hell, some of the games I play threaten to make me throw the controller across the room WITHOUT motion control. With motion control? Well, they had some websites back when the Wii first came out that documented the damage done...

factotum
2010-07-28, 01:38 AM
I agree with ryzouken, actually--I do not see the point of motion controls. The number of games for which they supposedly make the actions more "realistic" are extremely small, and for everything else they actually make things harder because instead of twitching your thumb to perform a move you have to move your entire wrist and/or arm!

ryzouken
2010-07-28, 02:51 AM
Thank you, man/woman whose screenname is a class I am currently enjoying the crap out of in a Red Hand of Doom campaign whose next session is Saturday! I appreciate your endorsement of my ideas, and would ask to subscribe to my newsletter, if in fact I possessed one! Also, the class your screenname references is an amazing construct, capable of kicking copious amounts of rear in a way that has only shown to be significantly bent, not out and out borked (though dropping d10+13d6+9 damage at level 6 did prove difficult to explain.)

:smallbiggrin:

factotum
2010-07-28, 06:50 AM
Not to disappoint you, but I've been using this screen-name for long years before it got introduced as a class; I just took it from the English word meaning approximately "jack of all trades". :smallwink:

mightymonarch
2010-07-28, 05:08 PM
Nah, it's more a "I hate motion control in all its forms as it represents a divergence from my preferred gaming experience." I don't want to flail hopelessly at the screen in the hopes that it understands my will through some arcane power, I want a control interface that responds immediately and proportionately to my demands, such as the standard thumbstick gaming controller.

The Wii would be a perfect system... if it used a traditional controller instead of a plastic brick that threatens to fly from my grip in standard use. And don't give me the whole "You don't have to swing it THAT hard" tripe. YOU try playing a game and not get enthusiastic about doing so. Hell, some of the games I play threaten to make me throw the controller across the room WITHOUT motion control. With motion control? Well, they had some websites back when the Wii first came out that documented the damage done...

I think for motion controls, Nintendo got it right with Super Mario Galaxy. Move with a stick, jump with a button and use a little waggle for like, one move. The controls aren't entirely dependent on waggle. And a lot of the games I play on the Wii take either the classic controller or the Gamecube controller, in addition to the Wiimote. But I do agree with you an the super duper realism of some motion control.

Zevox
2010-07-28, 05:15 PM
I think for motion controls, Nintendo got it right with Super Mario Galaxy. Move with a stick, jump with a button and use a little waggle for like, one move.
Actually, I'd say that's the most pointless use of motion control - you get nothing from it different than you would pressing a button. Better examples would include Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, where, just as a couple of examples, you thrust the nunchuk forward to do a force push, turned the nunchuk upside-down while using force grip to do a force choke, and thrust both the nunchuk and wiimote down after charging with a couple of buttons to unleash a powerful force shock wave all around you. That one still used shake wiimote = swing lightsaber, which was just as pointless as in Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess, but its other uses of motion controls were much better (except for the nearly non-responsive force slam, which was supposed to work when you thrust the nunchuk down while using force grip, but seemed to just fail 9 times out of 10).

See also MadWorld, where shaking the nunchuk executed a backwards evasive flip and shaking the wiimote in different ways actually worked well doing attacks - particularly with the spiked club weapon you could use like a baseball bat to lob enemies around.

And, of course, Metroid Prime 3/Trilogy. That ought to go without saying at this point.

Zevox

SparkMandriller
2010-07-28, 05:48 PM
The only Metroid Prime game to use waggle was the third one, and it's not like it was implemented very well. All those extend arm turn hand retract arm parts sucked.
I don't know why anyone would use Metroid as an example of waggle done right, because it's not done right there. Pointing yes, waggling no.

Lord Seth
2010-07-28, 06:20 PM
I thought Super Paper Mario and No More Heroes used the motion controls really well, as did The House of the Dead games and Trauma Center.

Don't see what the problem is anyway though. Don't like motion controls? Don't buy games that rely heavily on them. Despite the stereotype, such games do exist on the Wii.

ryzouken
2010-07-28, 06:29 PM
House of the Dead is a light-gun game...

And if I'm going to drop 200+ bucks on a gaming console, I'd like to play more than 2% of the titles available. Thus, the Wii exists beyond my frame of reasonable RoI. Sadly, the "innovation" of motion control is something that both Sony and Microsoft are also embracing in the hopes of getting a slice of the Wii's corner market.

If, in the future, the 360 and PS3 libraries emulate the Wii's library, I will be a sad monkey indeed.

Zevox
2010-07-28, 06:32 PM
The only Metroid Prime game to use waggle was the third one,
Metroid Prime Trilogy was a compilation game that brought all three games to the Wii, using the third game's motion controls.


and it's not like it was implemented very well. All those extend arm turn hand retract arm parts sucked.
I don't know why anyone would use Metroid as an example of waggle done right, because it's not done right there. Pointing yes, waggling no.
Metroid Prime didn't do "waggle" at all - just pointing with the wiimote and some simple throw/pull motions with the nunchuk for the grapple.


I thought Super Paper Mario and No More Heroes used the motion controls really well, as did The House of the Dead games and Trauma Center.
Hm, I don't remember how Super Paper Mario did it - I only rented that one once. Haven't played the others, so I can't speak for them.


Don't see what the problem is anyway though. Don't like motion controls? Don't buy games that rely heavily on them. Despite the stereotype, such games do exist on the Wii.
Indeed, some of the system's best games fall under that category. Like Brawl, Fire Emblem, or Monster Hunter (which does use motion controls with the wiimote + nunchuk, but can be played on a classic controller, and is much easier to play that way). Or, heck, the aforementioned Mario Galaxy games that just use the one motion detection for the spin move.

Zevox

Treayn
2010-07-28, 06:54 PM
In terms of the Wii...

The goal of motion controls are to make games more accessible. That's all.

They are not necessarily meant to make games more immersive or enjoyable, that usually depends on the game itself.

Many of us here have no problem playing games with a standard controller or keyboard interface. Motion controls cater primarily to old folks, very young kids, and people that are just bad with controllers.

SparkMandriller
2010-07-28, 07:30 PM
Metroid Prime Trilogy was a compilation game that brought all three games to the Wii, using the third game's motion controls.

Oh, right, they did make it so you could jump as a ball if you waved your arm. That wasn't really very good, it didn't do anything a button couldn't have done better. Aside from that, nothing involving movement at all. Except pointing, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that.


Metroid Prime didn't do "waggle" at all - just pointing with the wiimote and some simple throw/pull motions with the nunchuk for the grapple.

There were those ridiculous parts where you had to open doors by moving your remote around. Those were pretty bad. Half the time they didn't work properly, and even when they did, they added absolutely nothing to the game. The grappling went kinda funny a lot of the time too, though at least it was enjoyable when it worked, even if it would have been simpler and more reliable if they just used a button for it.

But yeah, MP3 doesn't really use motion control much. I'd say that means it can't be much of an argument for motion control in games, myself. Kinda confused by you seemingly thinking otherwise.


In terms of the Wii...

The goal of motion controls are to make games more accessible. That's all.

They are not necessarily meant to make games more immersive or enjoyable, that usually depends on the game itself.

Many of us here have no problem playing games with a standard controller or keyboard interface. Motion controls cater primarily to old folks, very young kids, and people that are just bad with controllers.

I don't see how waving a controller around is any easier than pressing a button.

Zevox
2010-07-28, 09:10 PM
Oh, right, they did make it so you could jump as a ball if you waved your arm. That wasn't really very good, it didn't do anything a button couldn't have done better. Aside from that, nothing involving movement at all. Except pointing, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
I was under the impression they had used 3's motion controls completely, i.e. with the grapple beam as well, but admittedly I have not played Trilogy, so I may have heard wrong.


There were those ridiculous parts where you had to open doors by moving your remote around. Those were pretty bad. Half the time they didn't work properly, and even when they did, they added absolutely nothing to the game.
Bad? They were short, simple, I cannot recall them ever not working. I'll agree they were pointless, but nor did they detract from the game - they were just sort of there.


The grappling went kinda funny a lot of the time too, though at least it was enjoyable when it worked, even if it would have been simpler and more reliable if they just used a button for it.
Always worked great for me, and was one of the things I thought was best about the motion controls there - especially when they added the ability to drain or infuse energy into things with it, which worked on certain enemies. Grapple 'em, pull back on the nunchuk to hold onto 'em, and push the stick forward or back to drain or zap 'em. The feel of that was very fun.


But yeah, MP3 doesn't really use motion control much. I'd say that means it can't be much of an argument for motion control in games, myself. Kinda confused by you seemingly thinking otherwise.
The easy use of the wiimote for pointing your weapons and the grapple beam's functionality are what I find to be Prime 3's excellent uses of motion controls.

Zevox

Lord Seth
2010-07-28, 11:11 PM
House of the Dead is a light-gun game...And as a result it involves motion. What's your point?


Hm, I don't remember how Super Paper Mario did it - I only rented that one once. Haven't played the others, so I can't speak for them.There are some points that require you to point the Wiimote towards the screen, some items or attacks require you to do things with the Wiimote like hold it in a certain way or shake it or various other things, and also each time you defeat (or was it just jump on?) on an enemy you can shake the Wiimote for a small amount of bonus points. There's also some minigames that involve using the Wiimote, but they're optional.

SparkMandriller
2010-07-28, 11:14 PM
I was under the impression they had used 3's motion controls completely, i.e. with the grapple beam as well, but admittedly I have not played Trilogy, so I may have heard wrong.

Nope, it still autograpples just from targeting things. The only change is the bouncy ball. Not that that's a great change, it breaks a lot of the puzzles. Spider Ball Guardian gets crazy easy when you don't have to wait for bombs to jump.



Bad? They were short, simple, I cannot recall them ever not working. I'll agree they were pointless, but nor did they detract from the game - they were just sort of there.

I found the moving backwards and forwards motions to be really unreliable. Sometimes they'd pick up, sometimes they wouldn't. Sometimes I'd move and the game wouldn't respond, then it'd realise what I was doing and complete the entire animation instantly. It was pretty bad.


Always worked great for me, and was one of the things I thought was best about the motion controls there - especially when they added the ability to drain or infuse energy into things with it, which worked on certain enemies. Grapple 'em, pull back on the nunchuk to hold onto 'em, and push the stick forward or back to drain or zap 'em. The feel of that was very fun.

I could always do the gripping things fine, but the pulling was kinda dodgy. The nunchuck seems a lot worse at picking things up than the remote is, half the time it doesn't want to work. It's not that bad in MP, 'cause you just need to keep waving until it picks up that you're pulling backwards, but in other games it gets crazy. You ever play the Wii port of Okami? You have to jerk it in a single direction to dodge that way, it's impossible to do it reliably.


The easy use of the wiimote for pointing your weapons and the grapple beam's functionality are what I find to be Prime 3's excellent uses of motion controls.

I wouldn't really call the aiming motion control. At least, not the sort people complain about when they're against the Wii. The pointing is fine and works well, it's the waving around trying to get games to recognise what motion you're making that presents problems. Anyone who's against the pointing is craaaaaaaazy.

Treayn
2010-07-28, 11:33 PM
I don't see how waving a controller around is any easier than pressing a button.

I don't see, how old people don't know how to record videos onto a VCR/DVR, and that only requires pushing a button.

There are people that are just so technologically illiterate, who get confused trying to hold two buttons at once. *shrugs* motion controls are just easier for them.

Dogmantra
2010-07-28, 11:38 PM
I don't see, how old people don't know how to record videos onto a VCR/DVR, and that only requires pushing a button.

There are people that are just so technologically illiterate, who get confused trying to hold two buttons at once. *shrugs* motion controls are just easier for them.

It's also about what feels more natural. Buttons are very artificial and scream "technology" which can make some people feel uncomfortable using them if they think they're not very good with technology. Swinging your arm about doesn't feel much more technological if you have to hold a piece of plastic while doing so.

Zevox
2010-07-29, 12:17 AM
Nope, it still autograpples just from targeting things. The only change is the bouncy ball. Not that that's a great change, it breaks a lot of the puzzles. Spider Ball Guardian gets crazy easy when you don't have to wait for bombs to jump.
Well, that's a bit disappointing. Still nice to have the wiimote aiming I guess, but they could've done more I'd think.


I found the moving backwards and forwards motions to be really unreliable. Sometimes they'd pick up, sometimes they wouldn't. Sometimes I'd move and the game wouldn't respond, then it'd realise what I was doing and complete the entire animation instantly. It was pretty bad.
Never had such problems myself.


I could always do the gripping things fine, but the pulling was kinda dodgy. The nunchuck seems a lot worse at picking things up than the remote is, half the time it doesn't want to work. It's not that bad in MP, 'cause you just need to keep waving until it picks up that you're pulling backwards, but in other games it gets crazy. You ever play the Wii port of Okami? You have to jerk it in a single direction to dodge that way, it's impossible to do it reliably.
Also never had problems with the pulling either. And honestly, aside from the Force Slam of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, I haven't noticed the nunchuk having any more difficulty than the wiimote - and The Force Unleashed used the nunchuk for more than just that move, and the rest worked fine, so it really is just that move, not the nunchuk.

I have played the Wii port of Okami, but only briefly. I rented it once, and, well, it didn't hold my attention very long. Don't remember much about the controls honestly, other than that I hated how precise it seemed to want me to be with drawing some things.


I wouldn't really call the aiming motion control. At least, not the sort people complain about when they're against the Wii. The pointing is fine and works well, it's the waving around trying to get games to recognise what motion you're making that presents problems. Anyone who's against the pointing is craaaaaaaazy.
Nonetheless, pointing like that is an example of good use of motion controls, so it is an appropriate response when someone makes a blanket statement about motion controls being bad, as we had ryzouken doing earlier.

Zevox

ryzouken
2010-07-29, 04:21 AM
I do not consider lightgun games a form of motion control. While it's true that today's lightgun games probably use the existing motion control architecture, originally, lightgun games did not register motion, but rather the onscreen pattern, to determine game success/failure with varying accuracy. Therefore, not motion control.

My core thesis remains: motion control is bad. New addendum: Lightgun games are not (necessarily) motion controlled.

And yes, I've tried it. I bought a Wii, wasn't impressed, gave it to my nephew for Christmas.

Lord Seth
2010-07-29, 09:59 AM
I do not consider lightgun games a form of motion control. While it's true that today's lightgun games probably use the existing motion control architecture, originally, lightgun games did not register motion, but rather the onscreen pattern, to determine game success/failure with varying accuracy. Therefore, not motion control.It involves motion which controls the game; what else do you want? I don't even see what you're trying to say regarding the older light gun games; sure, the original ones may have been different in how they detected motion, but they still were controlled by it.

It seems to me that you're trying to artificially limit "motion control" to mean "motion control that I don't like" and then use circular reasoning to say that means motion control is bad.

Dragosai
2010-07-29, 11:18 AM
Sorry I didn't feel like reading through 6 pages of what really boils down to opinions. That is all this comes down to there is no argument or discussion to be had in any meaningful way. As for this so called "testing report" this is just Rahul Sood disparaging consoles yet again. The guy works for HP's gaming division (yeah I know who knew they had one) he is just pushing his agenda. Anyone who thinks in this day and age that I can push a button to do something on an electronic device (yeah I am not talking about network lag so don't even bother bringing it up) and have a human be able to notice the lag on the input is an idiot. The only time a human would notice the "lag time" from pushing/click/typing on an interface is if there is SOMETHING else wrong i.e. network lag, slow performance on the machine do to outdated hardware vs. new software etc. I grew up playing FPS from the very first one on a PC and ever since the first Halo game on a console I have never looked back to my old keyboard and mouse for FPS. That is of course my personal taste for everyone of me there is someone who feels the opposite it all depends on the fun and enjoyment they are having or did not have on a give form of interface.

ryzouken
2010-07-29, 03:01 PM
It involves motion which controls the game; what else do you want? I don't even see what you're trying to say regarding the older light gun games; sure, the original ones may have been different in how they detected motion, but they still were controlled by it.

It seems to me that you're trying to artificially limit "motion control" to mean "motion control that I don't like" and then use circular reasoning to say that means motion control is bad.

By your metric, a mouse is a form of motion control. You move the mouse and stuff happens, so obviously it must be motion control!

You cannot say "motion control is anything that requires you to move" because EVERYTHING requires you to move to different extents. After all, to move a thumbstick, were you not required to move your thumb?

And older lightgun games? The input is not your movement. The input is what the sensor at the end of the gun receives. Yes, you need to move the gun into a position to match sensor to target, but the game does not track this movement and thus there are tons of viable positions to fire from. Wii games track your movement of the controller and thus are motion control and are bad.

Motion control is not "I had to move it, so motion control!" Motion control is the tracking of a controller's movement to receive input.

Worira
2010-07-29, 03:06 PM
Light guns and the pointer on the wiimote work pretty much exactly the same.

Dogmantra
2010-07-29, 03:08 PM
Wii games track your movement of the controller and thus are motion control and are bad.

Not for the pointer. The sensor bar sends an infra red light which is received by the controller, and the co-ordinates on the screen sent to the console.

Lord Seth
2010-07-29, 03:14 PM
By your metric, a mouse is a form of motion control. You move the mouse and stuff happens, so obviously it must be motion control!Essentially, it is, actually. I guess you hate mice as well!


You cannot say "motion control is anything that requires you to move" because EVERYTHING requires you to move to different extents. After all, to move a thumbstick, were you not required to move your thumb?Light gun games require you to move your arm around, not just your fingers. Comparing the two is erroneous.


And older lightgun games? The input is not your movement. The input is what the sensor at the end of the gun receives. Yes, you need to move the gun into a position to match sensor to target, but the game does not track this movement and thus there are tons of viable positions to fire from. Wii games track your movement of the controller and thus are motion control and are bad.This argument doesn't even make sense. "Yeah, it amounts to the same thing in terms of how I move it around, but the way it detects movement is different, so it doesn't matter!" You mentioned computer mice, so let's get onto that. Older mice involved using a ball on the bottom of them that would move when the mouse moved, which is what decided how the pointer moved. Nowadays mice use some kind of motion sensor (I don't really the specifics) and that lets the computer know how to move the pointer. Both involve moving the mouse around, they just detect it in different ways. Claiming that they're "different" is ridiculous because it works out the exact same way for the user.


Motion control is not "I had to move it, so motion control!" Motion control is the tracking of a controller's movement to receive input.And you've been complaining about it because it involves movement, haven't you?

ryzouken
2010-07-29, 03:20 PM
My opinion is my own, I don't need to convince anyone else of it and I certainly don't need to defend it against the internet at large.

Believe what you will, I no longer care.

Worira
2010-07-29, 05:21 PM
Saying that the Wiimote's pointer function is functionally different from a light gun isn't a matter of opinion. It's just flat-out wrong.

SparkMandriller
2010-07-29, 05:44 PM
Nonetheless, pointing like that is an example of good use of motion controls, so it is an appropriate response when someone makes a blanket statement about motion controls being bad, as we had ryzouken doing earlier.

I think we're using different definitions of motion control. My idea of motion control involves accelerometers. Yours doesn't seem to. I'm thinkin' this Ry guy's definition is closer to mine than yours.


This argument doesn't even make sense. "Yeah, it amounts to the same thing in terms of how I move it around, but the way it detects movement is different, so it doesn't matter!" You mentioned computer mice, so let's get onto that. Older mice involved using a ball on the bottom of them that would move when the mouse moved, which is what decided how the pointer moved. Nowadays mice use some kind of motion sensor (I don't really the specifics) and that lets the computer know how to move the pointer. Both involve moving the mouse around, they just detect it in different ways. Claiming that they're "different" is ridiculous because it works out the exact same way for the user.

You genuinely can't see a difference between moving the remote to control the pointer on screen and shaking the remote to attack?

Lord Seth
2010-07-29, 06:04 PM
My opinion is my own, I don't need to convince anyone else of it and I certainly don't need to defend it against the internet at large.Then why did you bring it up, and bring it up in such an extreme way at that, declaring Wiis to be evil?


Believe what you will, I no longer care.I'm merely trying to figure out the reasoning behind your vantage point. That is, why a light gun game that uses the Wiimote technology to figure out where your pointing is terrible but it's perfectly fine as long as it calculates it in another way, even though (for the user) it's still the same amount of movement.


You genuinely can't see a difference between moving the remote to control the pointer on screen and shaking the remote to attack?What does that have to do with the part of my post you quoted?

SparkMandriller
2010-07-29, 06:10 PM
Your post gives me the impression that you don't see a difference. I'd like to know if that's correct.

Lord Seth
2010-07-29, 06:18 PM
Your post gives me the impression that you don't see a difference. I'd like to know if that's correct.I'm confused as to how you'd get that from when I was comparing old mice and new mice. I was noting that old mice detected movement with a track ball, and new mice detect movement through some kind of internal sensor. As ryzouken seemed to be arguing that using light gun technology for a shooting game is fine but using the Wiimote's motion sensing capabilities for a shooting game isn't on the basis of the technology they're based on, I was pointing out that regardless of how it figures out where to point, the experience is still the same for the user. Just like how with an old or new mouse, moving it still causes the pointer on the screen to move in the same way.

SparkMandriller
2010-07-29, 06:24 PM
It was just the first sentence that made me think that, really.

Do you think you could answer my question?

Mikeavelli
2010-07-29, 07:12 PM
It was just the first sentence that made me think that, really.

Do you think you could answer my question?

He's talking about the similarities between a light gun sensor, and the sensor at the end of the Wii. The Wiimote is a more advanced version of the same technology, there's no difference.

You're talking about the accelerometers. They're different.

Zevox
2010-07-29, 08:53 PM
I think we're using different definitions of motion control. My idea of motion control involves accelerometers. Yours doesn't seem to. I'm thinkin' this Ry guy's definition is closer to mine than yours.
I don't have a clue what accelerometers are. As far as I'm concerned, if I have to move the controller about to control something in the game, that's motion control. Simple enough, no?


You genuinely can't see a difference between moving the remote to control the pointer on screen and shaking the remote to attack?
I may not be the one you asked, but I will say that I cannot see a significant difference, beyond the fact that one works better than the other at this point in time.

Zevox

warty goblin
2010-07-29, 10:05 PM
Light gun games require you to move your arm around, not just your fingers. Comparing the two is erroneous.


I'm not entirely sure of how much movement is required for the Wii, but from my very brief experience playing Duck Hunt on a friend of a friend's console ages ago I can say it takes essentially no movement to play a light gun game. All you gotta do is use the iron sights, and very, very slight adjustments in posture.

Treayn
2010-07-30, 12:07 AM
While anything can technically be a "motion controller", I would say that most modern, affordable motion controllers share the following characteristics:

- They are wireless.
- They allow for much more freedom of movement to the whole body.
- They must be able to simulate common gestures.

As long as it accomplishes the above, how it's done really doesn't matter.