Evilducks said:
I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford both and frankly don't enjoy playing certain genre's of games on a console. The FPS genre is one of them. It has nothing to do with thinking my PC is better than my console, it is the control schemes available to me. Its true that HL1 and 2 were both put on consoles and they were horrible there. Halo tries to make up for it by doing a bit of auto aiming for you but that can be awkward when it is locking onto something you don't want to shoot at. The keyboard mouse combination just has not been beat in that genre as far as ease of control. The same goes for RTS games, you just cannot beat the mouse/keyboard combination of the PC.
Thats not to say this is true of everything, I think most JRPG's, 3rd person games (GTA etc) and platformers especially play much better on a console than they do on a PC. Thats not even counting specialty controllers like rhythm games have.
Halo may be 'the shit' as far as console FPS games go, but to me its just shit when it comes to comparing it against other FPS titles that happen to be on the PC.
See, I find the whole keyboard/mouse thing is a preference issue. Someone later mentioned that anyone that played an FPS on PC would hate the controller, but the first FPS I was able to enjoy was Aliens vs. Predator 2, a PC FPS released just when I finally got a PC capable of playing new titles. Unfortunately, I missed out on the original Half-Life until I borrowed it from a friend on PS2, the first time I significantly heard about it. For some reason I still haven't picked it up on PC and don't know why... In any case, before that people thought Goldeneye64 was "the shit", and I couldn't understand that at all. Horrible controls, shitty A.I., and the only challenge from the game came from dealing with a horrid control scheme. Sure, it introduced deathmatch to consoles, but...ugh. I tried playing Alien: Resurrection on the Playstation, and it controlled horribly. Medal of Honor: Frontline wasn't a bad setup, but it was still uncomfortable (I partly blame this on the PS2 controller).
So Halo was the first console FPS I enjoyed, and I think part of the reason is that the Xbox S controller was the most comfortable pad until the 360 one. It was also because it was a working control scheme that felt comfortable, not to mention the gameplay was something new. Sure, Medal of Honor was a WWII game, but Halo actually felt like combat. It felt like warfare. Were any of the gameplay elements, on paper, new? No, but in execution they worked out well. I think one of the flaws of the sequels is they focused less on pure atmosphere and war-style (such as dropping on the beach in Silent Cartographer) in focus of "guys, we need to make sure this is more of a video game" in people's various complaints of level design and other such crap.
The auto-aim was, honestly, not very noticeable when I first played, but if I go back now I notice it a lot. There are plenty of games on console now that don't have auto-aim, or they don't have it on default. For example, Shadowrun. You know the biggest difference between the console and PC versions? When you turn in the PC version the targeting reticule grows larger than in the console version. That's pretty much it, and is mostly because you can turn around faster. There's no auto-aim or other "tricks" involved, and the whole reason is because you can move quicker with a mouse.
Most people may be more precise with a mouse, but I usually am not. Of course, I have a TON of PC gamer friends at College here that I've watched play console games, all of whom swear by the keyboard and mouse, and I've noticed two big trends. The first seems to be some issue at moving two joysticks at once. I can't explain it, but they can never adjust both joysticks at once, to say go backward then back left then left while also aiming everywhere. The second is they are all the way on or all the way off, likely a result of the keyboard. They never gently press the analog slightly just for a minor adjustment, they press it all the way. When they have to snipe it's like they are concentrating way too much. Basically, I see them running into problems I don't recall ever having in any game.
My current roommate prefers keyboard and mouse, and he and I have some interesting discussions on adjustments made. He explained to me how Legendary on the first Halo was easy and horrible, but one thing I'll note is Gearbox handled the port. It's a BAD PORT. However, he gave Halo 2's Legendary a try and he died a dozen times on the first fight on PC, once again, the only adjustment made (other than removing auto-aim) being the increase in reticule size as you turn.
I know most people likely will disagree, but to me, the reticule size thing is a minor issue. After all, I will admit a PC gamer can turn around faster than a console gamer, so the time it takes a console gamer to turn is much longer than a PC gamer.
In any case, a keyboard and mouse may be "better" in some ways, but I've always found precision with a mouse more difficult and uncomfortable. In fact, the keyboard itself is uncomfortable. I just love a controller in my hands, so to me, a console FPS is what I prefer. I purchased S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for PC though, simply because I've been wanting that game for years. Unfortunately, my laptop needs another gig of RAM to run the game adequately...so yeah, if I have a choice, I'm also buying a game on console so I can have the best performance possible.
Strategy games, however, do belong on PC. While many companies have been working to get a good system out on console, with Ensemble Studios looking to have the most promising with Halo Wars (how ironic when you discuss hype on Halo 3 I bring up Halo Wars...), a system designed from the ground up to work on console, it really ends up working best on PC. I cannot see a game like Rome: Total War working on a console without keyboard and mouse.
Of course, if you guys want to talk about fan bases of games that aren't that deserving, why don't we compare the popularity of StarCraft vs. Total War? I mean, StarCraft is fun, but it's got some balance issues and, honestly, is simple for what once can claim to be "strategy". Yet it sells millions, building insane hype for StarCraft 2, and yet here Total War sits, recognized only by a few (by the way, I should note I'm not good at any strategy game, and the only one I can really enjoy is Master of Orion 2, but I can recognize good gameplay elements when I see them. StarCraft looks fun for a strategy game, but Total War.....Christ). Same with Counter-Strike, a massively overrated multiplayer game that so many people play. These games may not get the marketing push Halo does, but aren't they the same thing? Aren't they more shallow than what's really out there?
Merlynn said:
And all those "options" you're talking about in multiplayer? We've been doing that on the PC for years. Even the games that weren't supposed to have it. We did it ourselves. Consoles are only recently starting to move into player created content. There's a reason Half-Life 1 remained a popular game until they made the sequel. Player created content. It got so that modders were able to basicaly rewrite the whole game. For the cost of Half-Life,you got a half dozen games,including Counter Strike (originally made by Half-Life modders) and Team Fortress Classic. God only knows what they're going to do with the Gravity Gun and Portal Gun.
I've seen people have made their own friend lists and other such things for PC games, but Xbox Live has put it all in one spot, makes it part of the OS and makes it easy. Plus, the Marketplace is fantastic.
However, you are right about user created content. Personally, I love what MS Games has done for (console) gaming. However, E3 2005 they claimed Marketplace was going to be a haven for user created content, and yet Halo 3 is just now bringing in Forge and MS is working with Epic for user created tools and content. Of course, the system is very different, but I think, for consoles, it still needs more work. XNA being able to tie in with the Xbox is a nice start. I think what Microsoft should do is start to tie development even further. Let's say you get UT3 on Xbox, and it comes with a special ID number. You log into your MS account (I know, I know, "taking over the world", yatta yatta), plug in the number and now have access to downloading the development kit for that game and engine. Voila. If you can tie them all with XNA and get rid of the stupid Creators Club thing limiting who can access their 360, you now have a way of sharing stuff similar to PC. Either that or include a DVD with the games including the material to install on your computer, which is much more simple.
In any case, yes, the modding scene will always be more at home on PC, but honestly, who would want to work on a console for modding anyway? My console isn't for work. My PC, on the other hand, is.
Man, that was long. I think this thread is actually convincing me to join the forums here, because if this is the worst it gets...
