Hear that? That's the PC Gaming Master Race mobilising their rigs, call your loved ones, you won't be coming back.
Diablo III Might Show Up on Consoles
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Where does the keyboard go? What happens when you need to let go of the mouse to type or whatever? It's not comfortable or convenient for most people.Amnestic said:
Haha, why are you trying to make consoles into PCs? It's not like you're going to buy the console version anyway, so why does it matter to you? Expanding consoles methods of controlling the games... that sounds like the Wii. But no, the point is not to bridge the gap between PCs and consoles; why would we need that? We have PCs to be PCs, we don't need consoles to be also. Nor are PCs really good consoles; PC peripheral support is not intuitive or user-friendly with all the calibration and crap you have to go through. PC gamepad support was crap until the 360 gamepads were made and were compatible.Amnestic said:
Of course. A mouse provides better aiming (and faster turning), though with a gamepad you get analog movement, i.e. an analog stick to move around rather than WASD. Not arguing that that is an even trade for FPS games, of course. But even the superior mouselook controls for FPSes on PCs are limited to the subset of computers with good mice (lots of laptops around with no mice at all, and you probably wouldn't want to play an FPS on them)... I doubt it would be comparable to play an FPS with the mouse on your leg. However consoles can have superior FPS aiming and movement, just not with keyboard + mouse or gamepad controls. Yes, I mean the Wii.Amnestic said:
I can see that.Amnestic said:
It will have to be in a way that is specific to consoles. Consoles are not PCs, and don't need to be. Arguments like this that consoles should be more like PCs are silly because even if the experience was exactly the same between PC and console, the people who want this would still buy it for the PC and not the console. Obviously to succeed, consoles need to be different.Amnestic said:
The idea that a console version of Diablo would be "dumbed-down" is ridiculous. How can you dumb down a game franchise that is based on repeatedly clicking the mouse on targets to make them dead? Throw in a few potions for refills and switching between attack/defense skills, and that's about it in terms of interactivity. I had a blast with Diablo 2, but my main thrills were the graphics, multiplayer, random loot drops, and character customization. How dumb could a console version be?
Agreed I tried the Sacred 2 demo for the PC and I wasn't impressed. Pointing and clicking isn't all that fun for me. It doesn't feel like it takes much skill. On the 360 though it was fun (and would have been more fun if they hadn't released it so damn buggy). Diablo 1 worked very well on the PS1 and was my first Diablo experience that got me hooked. I enjoyed Diablo 2 but I would have prefered a controller vs mouse and keyboard to play it.rated pg said:
Sounds good, doesn't it?Pendragon9 said:
The PC game won't change just because it's coming out on consoles as well, so why get worked up by it? Also, it's a sodding point and click action game, how can you dumb it down much more than it already is?
you know diablo 3 is coming out for macs, right?Simalacrum said:
in any case i doubt that diablo 3s requirements will be anywhere near what games like crysis and gta4 require and will likely be able to be run on rather old computers. blizzard, for the most part, is pretty good with scaling their games back to run on older machines as well as making their games run very well at max settings at very reasonable specs.
also, arguing about control setup with dungeon crawlers like diablo is like arguing over control schemes with any game. controllers work fine for fps's and rts's, but you cant effectivly deny that a mouse and keyboard works better for these types of games(espically for rts's). and the same is true the other way around, controllers work better for many 2d side scrolling games, action games like ninja gaiden and dmc among other types of games, but keyboard and mouse works just fine. but for diablo 3 i think that either would work just as well as the other.
first off, i do it easily. wireless is lovely, but just ones with long cables will do. my lap works just fine for my keyboard and a side table does wonders. also, you are forgetting that many people DO have their consoles attached to the same monitors that their computers are attached to, so not everyone sits on a couch to play their consoles.SharedProphet said:
secondly, its called HAVING OPTIONS. ut3 is a great example, the ps3 version supports mouse and keyboard as well as a controller. its not about it being a gimmick, its about giving the players the choice to use whichever input method they prefer. and as i said before, a lot of people attach their consoles to the same monitors their pc's use. its not about providing something for everyone, its about giving people options.
ive seen people lay down more money than it would cost for a keyboard and mouse for only one reason. personally i know four people who paid $500 for a ps3 just for mgs4, and none of them have even touched their ps3's in about a year. people waste money on crap they'll never use or only use once or twice all the time.
on that note though, id like to ask a question. how many people here DONT have a working keyboard and mouse somewhere in their house? or better, how many people do you know who dont have either? pretty much everyone who has the money for games probably has a keyboard and mouse somewhere in their homes, so most wouldnt have to spend any money getting a new one now would they.
your correct, the keyboard WASANT designed for playing games, it was designed for typing. but that hasant stopped people from finding other uses for it now has it? gaming is great example. it may not have been designed for gaming, but it sure as hell works very well for playing games. and it works the other way around as well, controllers werent designed browsing the internet, writing papers, etc, but that hasant stopped console makers from using them to do so now has it?
in my opinion, just like with qwerty, people just need to take the time to get used to using kb&m for games. it took me about a month to get comfortable with using a keyboard and mouse for shooters coming from using controllers for so long, but now i swear by it. its a great interface, just like controllers are great for playing games too.
finally, yes, pc's arent consoles, but your being very fallacious by saying that because pc's arent consoles they suck for playing games. first off, a hell of a lot of people disagree with you there. second, up until recently pc's were way more popular for playing games than consoles were. with the nes, snes, genesis, ps1, n64, commodore 64, etc. people were still using pc's for games more than they used consoles for games, and there are still a lot of people who use pc's for gaming as well, just because the sames arent where they used to be DOESENT mean that people arent still playing games on the pc. pc's work great for playing games, its a fact, no their not consoles but they dont have to be. computers are TOOLS, and tools are made to do what people want them to do, and compuers are VERY versatile tools.
sorry, just one more point. look at halo wars. an rts designed SPECIFICALLY for a console by one of the foremost rts developers in the industry with a control scheme designed specifically for a controller, yet it still left much to be desired. the same is true for many rts's designed specifically for consoles, endwar, universe at war, etc. all of these were designed primarily with a controller in mind yet all were still inferior to a keyboard and mouse.SharedProphet said:
The problem isn't so much having all the skills available at once - in the version at BlizzCon, there were 1-5 skills from the number keys, and three on the mouse (two for the RMB, you switched between them with Tab)... while it'd be a bit cluttered to mimic that on a console, it wouldn't be impossible - as it is the quick and accurate aiming of skills. When you get ambushed and need to quickly throw some spectral blades in one particular direction in order to move. That's the part that I don't see working so well on a console, since when you need to aim with a skill you need it fast, and you need to go EXACTLY where you're clicking.Zerbye said:
EndWar and Halo Wars were more designed for consoles than the others (BFME2, C&C3, Universe at War, etc. are more PC games which had their interfaces redesigned for consoles, or at least still designed with a PC RTS mindset). The problem all the reviews I read complained of with EndWar was that it was too short & easy. I can't remember what they said about Halo Wars but I think it was similar, and I think there were some complaints about the small size of multiplayer maps and stuff.ratix2 said:
RTS stands for Real-Time Strategy. These games are not the only types of games which could fall into such a category; they are what we traditionally think of as "RTS" but they are designed for PCs. They work best on PCs and should probably stay there (though the Wii with its pointing device might be better suited to some of the controls they have than other consoles). No, to make an RTS which is designed with a console mindset, the things which make a console great and distinguish it from a PC should be at the center of the design. Things like local multiplayer (which traditional-style RTS games can't do), simplicity and intuitiveness of interface, etc.
A console-centric RTS would likely look a lot more like Overlord or Pikmin than Command & Conquer. And actually I think EndWar did a pretty good job of bringing RTS to consoles. They just needed to put in more of it. : )