Knights of the Old Republic II....just finished....

[Quarto]

I think when people point out how much better the PC's controls are, they must be forgetting that when they play FPS games, they move around using keys labelled "w", "a", "s" and "d". That's right - the PC's controls are so great, that game developers are forced to rely on jerry-rigged control systems where keys intended for totally other reasons are used to play the game. An added irony is the fact that whereas games in the mid-nineties relied on arguably more "appropriate" keys (the arrow keys, that is), PC games today have gone full circle and now use the same improvised controls that Spectrum games used. And that's how great the PC controls are, folks.

Half-serious jokes about the appropriateness of using the "wasd" keys as a control system, it's worth pointing out that console controls are incomparably superior to PC controls even if you think that keyboard controls are great. Why? Because they're standardised, and they're limited. A few years ago, I got a new FPS (yes, it happens so rarely, that it's a memorable event for me when I get a new FPS ). I started playing it, saw that the controls were configured a little strangely, and so I went into the keyboard configuration menu. There, I ran into an interesting problem - the game (obviously) didn't allow you to configure two things to use the same key, and it (just as obviously) didn't allow you to exit the config menu until all functions used a key. But every time I assigned a new key to a given function, I found myself clearing the assigned key for another function - there was just so damned many functions! Eventually, I got fed up, assigned any unassigned key to any function just to get out of that damned menu and try playing the game. I then promptly quit and uninstalled the game, because any game that requires you to use so many damned keys is thoroughly unplayable.

This is where the consoles really shine - on consoles, game designers can't simply come up with fifty different functions for fifty different keys. They are forced to actually optimise their gameplay, to ensure that it will be playable and enjoyable with a more limited control system (although, sadly, consoles seem to be squandering this advantage these days by coming up with increasingly complex control pads). Consoles don't allow for lazy game design - and the ultimate result is that while you may have truly amazing games for the PC, the average console game will be far more playable than the average PC game.

 

[AD]

Hmmm. Some interesting thoughts there Quarto.

One of the things I always liked about WC is that the keyboard controls seemed rather straightforward to me. Its not hard to remember that A is Autopilot, N: Nav map, L: Lock, T: Target, etc. Sure there are other controls that don't match up but for the most part you can even finish the game without bothering to use them. (an exception is Tab but you can even stretch that to tAB: AfterBurners)

I got a nintendo around (maybe even before) my first PC so ive used controlers a long time. But I was way better at NES with my big stick controler. But the new xbox, Playstation controlers I just cannot be as accurate as I can with a mouse for somereason. I think you can turn it off in most console shooters, but I also hated the way that the ones I played cheated your aiming supposedly because its harder to aim.

In my experience though, i I found I had about a 2 hour learning curve on a new game (1 or less If I play that genre alot) to get used to the controls. I got pretty cood at wc3 psx and I hated how it didnt use the analog. So for me, ease of control had more to do with the time I was willing to put in getting used to them. PC games, because I am used to the controls I have nearly no time getting used to it, unless I switch to my usb gamepad or joystick.

 

[Delance]

At least you can set up all the functions you want on an FPS. Back in the day where I played FPSs, I used to set "e" for "use", just because is right next to "w". That's my standard setup. At least PCs allow you to configure the game to play in a way you are familiar to. But I agree that a FPS should not have as much control options. It's moronic, and action should be contextual.

I don’t have anything against consoles; but the whole thing is just too expensive. I have a reasonably good PC in other to play modern PC games. The fact that I could get an extra gigabype of RAM for the price of a single console game makes me uninterested on them.

We can always use pirate games, but if one wants to go down that road, the PC certainly is the more appropriate medium.

 

[Wake]

I never use the WASD setup for FPS'. I'm one of the minority of FPS players that use the arrow keys to move around. While the controls on a console FPS may be more exact to a controller for the console, on the PC it's infinetely more customizable to whatever you are most comfortable with.

And yeah I do find games that have ridiculously way too many control options and I've found that sometimes those games are that fun cuz of it but that's just my opinion.

 

[Lt.Death100]

I don't think that point has any substance to it. Yes, gamepads do not have as many buttons as a keyboard does, but it does not limit your control in the game. You say you've played Halo 2. How did the gamepad limit your control in that game or any other?

I found that it was way too hard to control.

 

[d3r3k]

I found that it was way too hard to control.

Good rebuttal.

 

[Edfilho]

Quarto, your keyboard bashing "speech" is cute, but whenever people refer to "FPS", "control" and "PC", they are talking about the mighty MOUSE. Fact is that console gamepads suck at aiming. Many people get used to it, but a big lot of console FPSs have autoaming aids and such, because the mouse is just superior to the analog stick in regards to aiming. OTOH, the analog stick is a lot better than both the keyboard and mouse for steering cars, and that's why I play GTA SA and NFS MW on my pc with a white Dual Shock PS1 controller.

The thing is, some genres are more adequate to pcs, others are more adequate to consoles. It is not a matter of stupid vs intelligent games anymore, as LOAF mentioned.

So ok, you can play RTS games in consoles. Nevertheless the PC is still the better platform for that particular kind of game. And it goes beyond. Advance wars is an example of an excellent portable Turn based strategy game. It is a lot more fun on a DS or Gameboy that it can be on a PC. But I would never play Civilization 4 on any other platform, even though the DS' stylus can do the same job as the mouse.

It's not just the interface device that matters... the whole posture and level of commitment each kind of game platform presents makes a difference.

I really like the cube's exclusive library of games, BTW. Several AAA titles, like the metroid prime series, pikmin (the BEST console RTS ever made, it really plays the strengths of the interface, instead of trying to adapt), the 3 cube Resident evil games (including number 4), mario sunshine (one of the most complex games I know of, and I know thousands of games) and so on. I'm really happy with my new PS2, God of War, Katamari and Shadow of the Colossus alone are worth the price of the machine.

 

[Quarto]

Quarto, your keyboard bashing "speech" is cute, but whenever people refer to "FPS", "control" and "PC", they are talking about the mighty MOUSE. Fact is that console gamepads suck at aiming. Many people get used to it, but a big lot of console FPSs have autoaming aids and such, because the mouse is just superior to the analog stick in regards to aiming. OTOH, the analog stick is a lot better than both the keyboard and mouse for steering cars, and that's why I play GTA SA and NFS MW on my pc with a white Dual Shock PS1 controller.

Hey, sure, I use the mouse to play WC, for example. But you missed my point entirely. The mouse is just another example of the PC games trying to adapt a device intended completely for something else. The fact that it works in this particular case misses the point - WASD also works, to a degree. But every new game that comes out tries to make it even better, and frequently screws up in the process (for example, by making you use the mouse and fifty different keys). Console controls are better because they require a disciplined approach from the designers. A console game designer must make sure that his game will work perfectly using that console's control system. A PC game designer, on the other hand, usually designs his game first, and then tries to make it work with the PC control devices.

It doesn't matter that in many cases (especially FPSes) PCs still do well. The console approach simply drives designers towards better things. You know, in the same way that the internet doesn't destroy all PC games... it just lets the designers give into the temptation of releasing half-finished games with patches added later, while console developers, without the great possibilities of the internet, are forced to release finished games, and come out the better for it in spite of the PC theoretically offering more possibilities.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

I don’t have anything against consoles; but the whole thing is just too expensive. I have a reasonably good PC in other to play modern PC games. The fact that I could get an extra gigabype of RAM for the price of a single console game makes me uninterested on them.

Nope. You will never, ever be able to argue an economic benefit to using a PC over using a console. You ignore some pretty significant points:

* A PC game costs roughly the same amount as a console game (they trend slightly higher, in fact).
* A console is significantly cheaper than a PC in the first place.
* A console will never require you to upgrade anything.

Introducing your 'cheap' upgrade drives the point even further -- there's no way PC + 2xGame will ever be less expensive than Console + Game.

We can always use pirate games, but if one wants to go down that road, the PC certainly is the more appropriate medium.

Valid point... in 1993. Today it's just as easy to pirate a console game as it is a PC title.

 

[Edfilho]

Hey, sure, I use the mouse to play WC, for example. But you missed my point entirely. The mouse is just another example of the PC games trying to adapt a device intended completely for something else. The fact that it works in this particular case misses the point - WASD also works, to a degree. But every new game that comes out tries to make it even better, and frequently screws up in the process (for example, by making you use the mouse and fifty different keys). Console controls are better because they require a disciplined approach from the designers. A console game designer must make sure that his game will work perfectly using that console's control system. A PC game designer, on the other hand, usually designs his game first, and then tries to make it work with the PC control devices.

It doesn't matter that in many cases (especially FPSes) PCs still do well. The console approach simply drives designers towards better things. You know, in the same way that the internet doesn't destroy all PC games... it just lets the designers give into the temptation of releasing half-finished games with patches added later, while console developers, without the great possibilities of the internet, are forced to release finished games, and come out the better for it in spite of the PC theoretically offering more possibilities.

I think that the point is that the mouse and keyboard are flexible and adaptable. And I certainly cannot agree in any sense that the "console approach simply drives designers towards better things". The only device I've even seen that is potentially more flexible than the mouse+keyboard combo is the revolution's controller... But it isn't out yet. BTW, the reason behind its development is a perceived inadequacy of the current console controller model. It is too complicated for anyone who's not into gaming.

Also, the claim that "A PC game designer, on the other hand, usually designs his game first, and then tries to make it work with the PC control devices." is silly. All pc game developers know very well what kind of interface device they will work with. Keyboards and mice have been fundamentally the same for 20 years. On the other hand, each console has a different controller.

Your points seem to be objective, but they don't hold water. Thing is, some gaming genres are more adequate to the console paradigm, while others are more suited to the PC paradigm, and several work on both with varying deegrees of success. there is no absolute general advantage of consoles over PCs (or vice versa) in regards to gameplay and interface.

 

[ChrisReid]

To be perfectly fair about LOTR BFME2 Chris, it is also coming out for PC.

Yeah, and me posting about it was spurred by the comment that "no console can do as good a rts as on the PC." How does this warrant a "to be fair" comment?

I think when people point out how much better the PC's controls are, they must be forgetting that when they play FPS games, they move around using keys labelled "w", "a", "s" and "d". That's right - the PC's controls are so great, that game developers are forced to rely on jerry-rigged control systems where keys intended for totally other reasons are used to play the game. An added irony is the fact that whereas games in the mid-nineties relied on arguably more "appropriate" keys (the arrow keys, that is), PC games today have gone full circle and now use the same improvised controls that Spectrum games used. And that's how great the PC controls are, folks.

Yeah, I can't stand walking around with a keyboard. I find an analog stick much more fluid, and the ability to vary your speed from a crawl to a sprint with fine thumb control is invaluable.

At least you can set up all the functions you want on an FPS. Back in the day where I played FPSs, I used to set "e" for "use", just because is right next to "w". That's my standard setup. At least PCs allow you to configure the game to play in a way you are familiar to.

Wrongo. Modern console games can and do offer dozens of customizable control options.

But I agree that a FPS should not have as much control options. It's moronic, and action should be contextual.

FPS games aren't any more moronic than space shooters or racing games or anything else. In every genre there are simplistic and lame games, and there are detailed games that require a lot of thinking and style to play.

I don’t have anything against consoles; but the whole thing is just too expensive. I have a reasonably good PC in other to play modern PC games. The fact that I could get an extra gigabype of RAM for the price of a single console game makes me uninterested on them.

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. Brand new expensive video cards for PCs come out at shorter intervals and higher prices than consoles. PC gaming definitely has no cost advantage. Of course, the most important thing is that the console and handheld gaming market is much bigger than the PC gaming market. I'd rather have a hundred good games than a hundred gigabytes of ram.

While the controls on a console FPS may be more exact to a controller for the console, on the PC it's infinetely more customizable to whatever you are most comfortable with.

I'm infinitely more comfortable with a controller than a keyboard for certain game types. I really hate using mice for FPS aiming.

So ok, you can play RTS games in consoles. Nevertheless the PC is still the better platform for that particular kind of game.

Where's your justification for that? I'd much rather play a new RTS on the 360 than a PC. 1280x720 minimum resolution, custom soundtracks, built in voice communication with your teammates, surround sound, larger screens and so on. I can't think of a single reason why I'd play any future multiplatform RTS games on the PC. The 360 even has two standard USB ports in the front for a standard mouse and keyboard if you want it.

On the other hand, each console has a different controller.

Not really. PS1, PS2, PS3, XBox, XBox 360 all have two analog sticks, two stick clicks, four facebuttons, four triggers, a directional pad and a button or two for start/select. And the GameCube is only very slightly different.

 

[Delance]

* A PC game costs roughly the same amount as a console game (they trend slightly higher, in fact).

Well, maybe there, but not here. PC Games are much, much cheaper. Even new, top of the line games costs less.

* A console is significantly cheaper than a PC in the first place.

That would be a valid point if only if individual wanted the PC solely for gaming. Since in most cases people already have a PC anyway, that's irrelevant. Gaming might even be a secondary use. To make a normal PC be able to play modern games would cost much less than the price of a console.

For example, I need my PC. If I wanted to play the GC, I'd have to buy the GC. If I want to play new PC games, all I'd need is to upgrade my video card, what would cost way less than the price of the GC.

The cost of not having a PC in other to buy a Console is very high.

* A console will never require you to upgrade anything.

But you still have to buy an entire new console from time to time.

Valid point... in 1993. Today it's just as easy to pirate a console game as it is a PC title.

Yes, if you have a PC.

 

[ChrisReid]

That would be a valid point if only if individual wanted the PC solely for gaming. Since in most cases people already have a PC anyway, that's irrelevant.

This hasn't been a valid point for ten years. The computer everyone has for word processing, email and internet is completely incapable of running almost all new games. Anyone who's into "PC gaming" has to deal with video cards, processors, and memory that add up to far greater cost than the console equivalents.

Gaming might even be a secondary use. To make a normal PC be able to play modern games would cost much less than the price of a console.

This is completely inaccurate. Video cards alone cost as much as or more than consoles.

For example, I need my PC. If I wanted to play the GC, I'd have to buy the GC. If I want to play new PC games, all I'd need is to upgrade my video card, what would cost way less than the price of the GC.

Wrong again. You even picked the worst example. GameCubes have been $100, including two controllers and a brand new game, for a couple years now. There's no way some $50 video card would begin to make your system on par with what you'd be open to with a Cube.

The cost of not having a PC in other to buy a Console is very high.

That's not true either. You can get perfectly functional computers for school/business/home use that are less than a quarter the cost of a modern gaming PC. It's cheaper to buy a couple video game consoles and a standard home PC than maintain a gaming computer.

 

[Delance]

Wrongo. Modern console games can and do offer dozens of customizable control options.

What? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said! I was talking about PC FPS games with a long list of commands, not about console games, and not comparing them. Quatro did that, not me.

FPS games aren't any more moronic than space shooters or racing games or anything else. In every genre there are simplistic and lame games, and there are detailed games that require a lot of thinking and style to play.

Again, you misunderstand me. I was saying some games are more complex than they need! That's hardly simplistic. Besides, I did not say the FPS genre is moronic, but rather that for a FPS game, or in fact any game, to have a long list of unecessary commands would be moronic if they can be made contextual.

For example, in old games there would be a "open" command for doors, which is unecessary because the "use" command should suffice to that action.

This hasn't been a valid point for ten years. The computer everyone has for word processing, email and internet is completely incapable of running almost all new games. Anyone who's into "PC gaming" has to deal with video cards, processors, and memory that add up to far greater cost than the console equivalents.

Not quite. Prices of new computer parts drop really fast. Right now it's pretty cheap to buy a Sempon 2.8+ with 512DDR on a basic motherboard with onboard LAN and Sound, what can play any new game with an entry-level modern video card, like a Geforce 6200. My actual computer is an Athlon XP 2.0 with a low-end Geforce 6200 and I can still play modern games.

This is completely inaccurate. Video cards alone cost as much as or more than consoles.

That really depend on the video card you are talking about.

Wrong again. You even picked the worst example. GameCubes have been $100, including two controllers and a brand new game, for a couple years now. There's no way some $50 video card would begin to make your system on par with what you'd be open to with a Cube.

They cost twice as much here, while the cards do not. For the price of 2 or 3 GC titles, a guy can buy a entry-level a Geforce or Radeon entry-level card. The basic PC sans video card should cost more than an XBox or PS2, but still less than an XBox 360.

That's not true either. You can get perfectly functional computers for school/business/home use that are less than a quarter the cost of a modern gaming PC. It's cheaper to buy a couple video game consoles and a standard home PC than maintain a gaming computer.

That's only true if we are talking about a top gaming PC with a superb gaming card, a lot of RAM, a very fast processor and an expensive motherboard. So, yes, it's cheaper to buy a console than a top PC. But that's not really the point. We are talking about not having a lot of cash to spare. Also, it's much better to use a good computer for e-mail, text editing and internet than a slow, old computer.

Maybe the US market has tons of very cheap, slow computers, and I think that's great. But that's not the way things are here. Functional computers here would cost about 2/3 of a PC capable of running modern games.

That's easy to understand, of course, since a lot of people here are trying to buy the cheapest PCs available, creating a lot of demand on this spectrum of the market, what pushes prices up. In the US I suppose such machines are in low demand, what makes them relatively cheaper.

The lowest computer of the current generation, an Sempron 2.6+, can play modern games with an entry level Geforce. There's no point in buying anything less, at least here, becasue the price difference is not that much.

 

[Quarto]

I think that the point is that the mouse and keyboard are flexible and adaptable. And I certainly cannot agree in any sense that the "console approach simply drives designers towards better things". The only device I've even seen that is potentially more flexible than the mouse+keyboard combo is the revolution's controller... But it isn't out yet. BTW, the reason behind its development is a perceived inadequacy of the current console controller model. It is too complicated for anyone who's not into gaming.

My point is precisely that flexibility is a bad thing. PC game designers have a problem, because they can do anything, while good design (whether it be game design or anything else) is about limitations. That's why I also brought up the internet as another example of a huge advantage that turns out to be a total disaster - the internet doesn't screw up games. It can be an amazing advantage for a game... but most developers make use of it not for a specific goal, but just because it's there. So, you get games that require patches because the developers set out right from the beginning with a schedule that would require them to finish the game in patches. Similarly, PCs have virtually infinite memory, hard drive space and processing power (infinite, because the user can always be forced to upgrade), with the consequence that developers don't bother optimising the games, releasing crap that works half as fast as the console version of the same game, on a system comparable to the specs of the console. And my argument is that it's the same with the keyboard - when you're designing a game for the PC, you are sorely tempted, at every step of the way, to add new options for the player just because there's so many keys for you to use. Console development is different, because you always have such tight limitations - so instead of thinking about what else you can add, you start thinking about how to best use what you have available to make the game better.

Also, the claim that "A PC game designer, on the other hand, usually designs his game first, and then tries to make it work with the PC control devices." is silly. All pc game developers know very well what kind of interface device they will work with. Keyboards and mice have been fundamentally the same for 20 years. On the other hand, each console has a different controller.

This is not true at all. Keyboards are the same, but they are used differently in every generation of games (we used to walk around with arrows, not wasd, and before that... we used to walk around with wasd)... and I won't even mention how infuriating those new Win95 keys were back in 1995 when you constantly jumped out into Windows instead of shooting the damned imps in Doom. As for the mouse, it started off with three buttons, went back down to two buttons, then went up to two buttons plus rollers (also serving as additional buttons) and so on... and don't tell me new PC games don't try to take advantage of rollers and such, because you'll be lying .

(as for console controls - they don't change, for the simple reason that you always develop a game for a specific console. You don't need to worry about how different the PS2 controller is when you're making an XBox game. Even if the same game is then transferred onto the PS2, there will be a team of people working on the conversion, who will spend a lot of time thinking about these issues... and will spend no time at all trying to figure out how the game could best use those remaining fifty-seven keys on the keyboard!)


None of this is supposed to mean that PCs are some awful piece of junk that nobody should use for games any more, BTW. I'm just saying that consoles, as machines designed specifically for gaming, have huge advantages over the PC, and an inherent tendency to force better games out of the designers by virtue of setting clear and concise limitations. Of course, you can make a game that will take full advantage of the keyboard and mouse on the PC in a good way, and such a game will truly be better on the PC than on the console... this does happen, but the trouble is that it requires immense skill and discipline that very, very few game designers have.

 

[ChrisReid]

What? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said! I was talking about PC FPS games with a long list of commands, not about console games, and not comparing them.

This is just silly now.

Delance: "Back in the day where I played FPSs, I used to set "e" for "use", just because is right next to "w". That's my standard setup. At least PCs allow you to configure the game to play in a way you are familiar to."

ChrisReid: "Modern console games can and do offer dozens of customizable control options."

Delance: "What? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said! I was talking about PC FPS games with a long list of commands, not about console games, and not comparing them."

Just look at this. Your memory doesn't even go back one post. Obviously by saying "at least PCs allow you to configure the game," you were making a comparison between PCs and consoles. There's been no coherent discussion for a bunch of posts now, so this thread is dead.