Not really. Like I said earlier, som people simply prefer to play a controller to mouse and keyboard. It may be that mouse and keyboard are superior in regards to SOME genres (like first person shooters), but when it comes to games in the same style as Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden and God Of War or fighting games, I believe a controller to be superior.Jerubbaal said:Back when developers still cared about cross-platform multiplayer, a game called Halo was released on the Xbox and the PC. PC players could play against their friends on Xbox, and vica versa. And guess what happened? Regardless of individual FPS skill levels, the PC players consistently smoked the Xbox players because, like it or not, it is a fact that a mouse and keyboard are superior to a controller, especially for First-Person Shooters.FallenMessiah88 said:No they aren't. Because of two words. Personal preference. Except for 5, all of these "beliefs" are really just personal opinions/preferences being presented as facts.Stall said:All of those are true except 4 and 10. Besides, most of those things aren't even BAD things. How is that set of beliefs supposed to be insulting or demeaning if most of them are fact, or very logically founded? I really don't understand why you'd post that when bashing PC gamers. I just don't get it. Are you trying to insult them or show their snobbery by showing that they are right?MercurySteam said:Here's a summary of general beliefs of PC elitists straight from the Urban Dictionary:
1. Graphic Superiority of PCs over Consoles
2. Infinite Backwards compatibility
3. Mouse and Keyboard beat out Controllers
4. Believe that all Games are PC games since you can't program on a Console
5. Believe in User Generated content for games
6. Feel that DLC should be Free.
7. Think Xbox Live is filled with racist twelve year olds.
8. Know what Steam is and have never bought a game from Gamestop since.
9. Feel that FPS should never have went to console
10. Hate Consoles
Even when I've tried using a mouselike console controller for MGS4, the game's expectation that I was using analog sticks made the mouse much less responsive (issues with max sensitivity, and the maximum rate at which the game let you turn and look). So yes, 2 and 9 are fact (if one rewrites 9 as "shooters are inferior on consoles and have led to an overall degradation in the FPS development process")
And no, shooters aren't inferior on consoles, just different. You may say that shooters are a lot less complex on consoles, because of fewer buttons and such. However, back when developers actually cared about multiplatform titles, they actually took the time to tailer the game to its respective platform, both in terms of graphics and controls.
And I fail to see how having shooters on consoles have led to an overall degredation in the FPS development process. Is it because of regenerating health, limited weapon capacity and linear level design? Those might have originated on consoles (well two of them at least), but the developers who came up with these mechanics didn't do so because of the limited capabilities of consoles, but because they simply thought they were better and or allowed them to make their games unique. If it DID have something to do with the limited capabilities of consoles, then it was simply just stupidity. Plain and simple. Older shooters like Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem 3D, have all been ported to a multitude of consoles and even though the graphics might had to be taken down a notch and the levels had to be redesigned, that still didn't take away from the games overall complexity.
So if the first person shooter genre today seems stagnant and unorignal, thatøs because everyone would rather just copy whats popular (Call Of Duty) instead of trying to come up with their own ideas or at least just bringing in a little variety, i.e. complex exploration based levels, a regular health meter and bring able to carry more than two weapons at a time. Granted, there are some games that try to bring at least a little variety, but they are sadly far from the norm.