I'm not trying to 'fight' with you Treb, so I don't want you to think I'm arguing maliciously. It's difficult to express emotion in a text discussion, so just know that I'm engaging you in debate because I'm honestly interested in what you have to say.
Platformers, for instance. A simple control scheme designed to be used on a controller is beneficial when aim and complexity are not integral to the way a game is handled. If a game requires twitch reflexes, the controller is the superior interface device. Assassin's Creed, for instance.
3rd person shooters are also in the same boat, although somewhat less so due to aforementioned aim/auto-aim problems inherent to an analog stick. However, many 3rd person shooters rely on twitch reflexes and therefore are easier and more fluid to control when played on a console. Resident Evil 5 is a good example of this.
Fighting games also benefit from console controls for the same reasons. You NEED a controller to play a fighting game. Mouse and keyboard just don't cut it. I haven't tried Street Fighter IV on PC yet but I can't imagine playing it with anything but a controller. I also can't imagine playing it without sitting next to the person I'm fighting.
Yes, you can plug a controller in to a PC and set it up to play on your TV to emulate a console - but the controls would never be as tight as the console version. The game is tested, designed, and programmed to work with a specific piece of hardware and control scheme when its created for a console. The controller is a part of the design process, and there will always be something lost when you try to set up your own controller on a PC version of a game.
I own Psychonauts for the PC and Xbox, and even with a controller plugged in to the PC the game handles much better on the Xbox. I also tried out the PC demo of Just Cause 2 and while it looks incredible I felt the 360 version controlled better. I may try out the Arkham Asylum demo with a controller just to see what its like. I felt that Final Fantasy XI was basically unplayable on the PC, but its been a while since I've played that on either platform.
I still think RPGs play better on the PC as well, and to me that's the greatest tragedy when developers move to consoles over PC. Games like Mass Effect, while absolutely incredible, seem to be simplified for the sake of a console control scheme. You get less abilities but more 'levels' of the same ability, there are less things that you can interact with in the environment, games and level maps are smaller to cater to weaker console processors, etc. I just picked up The Witcher and I had almost forgotten what an in-depth RPG was supposed to feel like. It has its flaws but the shear breadth of what you're capable of doing in the game is just astounding.
Again these are just my own personal experiences and opinions, but judging from the way that games are designed and released I'd imagine that I'm not alone in them.
Something I didn't consider with the "information" in this report - how many PC gamers purchase a discrete card to play just one game? Even games like World of Warcraft and The Sims 3 require a discrete card to be able to operate, and I know many people who play one game exclusively. I really wish they would make their sources public.Treblaine said:Why are you obsessed with "accuracy" when it is irrelevant. Gaming CAPABLE computers have outsold ALL consoles by a factor of two. There could be an 70% error and that is still a far larger market than Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.
After my recent PC upgrade I was looking at games to buy on PC that I've missed due to an outdated setup and I really think certain genres are actually better when designed for consoles.Treblaine said:Have you not considered the benefit of PC's mouse-aim with First or Third person shooters? Remember, the PC pioneered these genres. Consoles are utterly dependant on aim-assist and still is no where close to what's typically capable with mouse.
Platformers, for instance. A simple control scheme designed to be used on a controller is beneficial when aim and complexity are not integral to the way a game is handled. If a game requires twitch reflexes, the controller is the superior interface device. Assassin's Creed, for instance.
3rd person shooters are also in the same boat, although somewhat less so due to aforementioned aim/auto-aim problems inherent to an analog stick. However, many 3rd person shooters rely on twitch reflexes and therefore are easier and more fluid to control when played on a console. Resident Evil 5 is a good example of this.
Fighting games also benefit from console controls for the same reasons. You NEED a controller to play a fighting game. Mouse and keyboard just don't cut it. I haven't tried Street Fighter IV on PC yet but I can't imagine playing it with anything but a controller. I also can't imagine playing it without sitting next to the person I'm fighting.
Yes, you can plug a controller in to a PC and set it up to play on your TV to emulate a console - but the controls would never be as tight as the console version. The game is tested, designed, and programmed to work with a specific piece of hardware and control scheme when its created for a console. The controller is a part of the design process, and there will always be something lost when you try to set up your own controller on a PC version of a game.
I own Psychonauts for the PC and Xbox, and even with a controller plugged in to the PC the game handles much better on the Xbox. I also tried out the PC demo of Just Cause 2 and while it looks incredible I felt the 360 version controlled better. I may try out the Arkham Asylum demo with a controller just to see what its like. I felt that Final Fantasy XI was basically unplayable on the PC, but its been a while since I've played that on either platform.
I still think RPGs play better on the PC as well, and to me that's the greatest tragedy when developers move to consoles over PC. Games like Mass Effect, while absolutely incredible, seem to be simplified for the sake of a console control scheme. You get less abilities but more 'levels' of the same ability, there are less things that you can interact with in the environment, games and level maps are smaller to cater to weaker console processors, etc. I just picked up The Witcher and I had almost forgotten what an in-depth RPG was supposed to feel like. It has its flaws but the shear breadth of what you're capable of doing in the game is just astounding.
Again these are just my own personal experiences and opinions, but judging from the way that games are designed and released I'd imagine that I'm not alone in them.