Poll: Should RTS stick to just being for the PC?

[mindlesspuppet]

snip...

Again, you are only making assumptions. You don't know everybody who plays a Console do you, or PC for a matter of fact. How do you know console gaming is bigger? Maybe PC gaming is bigger?

... You're kidding right? "Maybe PC gaming is bigger?", look up some fucking sales figures and get a clue before you try to pose an argument kid.

By saying console gamers are dumb, do you mean the games have to be "dumbed down" to make it easier for them to play, or are you saying it just because you don't like them?

Actually I made the comment being a smart-ass, but it's one I'll stand by regardless. Console games are dumbed-down. Yes, in terms of gameplay this is largely due to the limitations of the hardware, primarily the controller.

However when dumbing-down a game in terms of design the only thing that can be credited for this is the user base. Console games try to avoid numbers (for attributes, stats, etc) as much as possible, PC games on the other hand tend to embrace them (which can be seen by nearly every MMORPG, RTS, and Turn-Based strategy around).

Console gaming targets casuals. I'm not sure how anyone could argue against this point. That's not to say all console gamers are casual (though some would say this), it is simply saying that they do in fact make up a large portion of the userbase.

Casuals can not be expected to be as keen with games as hardcore gamers. Thus, the PC gamers -- and I mean those that purchase software titles, not that play Farmville -- are the more "sharp" sample.

You do know that it isn't the gamers intelligence which limits RTS games, it is the console itself. Saying that the game is simplified because console gamers can't handle pressing a few more buttons is pretty stupid, because I'm sure if you can't handle a game which has a bit more functions, then you shouldn't really be gaming in the first place.

I could be the most brilliant fucking physicist in the world, that doesn't make me an adept gamer.

And yes, by all means it is the gamer's intelligence which limits RTS games. Rise of Nations, critically acclaimed, well received, but generally regarded as too complicated for average gamers. Hell, let's use Civ as an example, while not an RTS it stands to represent many of the same things, many long time fans of the Civ franchise regard Civ V as being dumbed down. The same case could be made for the Ages franchise after AoE2.

Now all the titles I mentioned are PC only titles, however, they do represent that intelligence can, and does, limit strategy games.

This all goes without saying that it's generally pretty accepted that PCs have a higher class of gamer than consoles.

At the very least, being a PC gamer implies some degree of computer literacy, while console gaming implies absolutely nothing. When tacked on the fact that many people are into PC gaming solely for modding, a slightly higher degree of computer literacy is implied. When you consider that, be it because the control set-up or otherwise, PC games offer layers of depth that console games cannot, the crowd this appeals to, if nothing else, has a higher attention span.

I'm sorry to say this, but this whole argument is based on the gamers intelligence when it should be on the consoles limitations...

This statement would apply more to FPSs than RTSs. RTSs require thinking and knowledge that most genres simply do not.

Which raises another issue, FPSs were dumbed-down to suit console controller set-ups. An entire generation has only ever experienced this sort of FPS. Put them into an old style FPS, and likely many will not be able to adapt. So one has to pose the question, how long does it take for the limitations of the platform to create limitations in the player.

 

[Nouw]

Please don't necro threads nearly 2 years old -_-

Anyway, yes they should. They sell well and are best suited for the PC because of the controls. Unless it was a slow RTS, no.
The micro/macro is much better on PC, whereas on a Controller it gets a bit messy.

 

[C95J]

... You're kidding right? "Maybe PC gaming is bigger?", look up some fucking sales figures and get a clue before you try to pose an argument kid.

Why should I bother looking up sales figures for this? You've just blown things way out of proportion, and seem to be getting angry...

Do you know how this started? By you harshly stereotyping console gamers, saying they were dumb, then turning the argument in a different direction when it was blatant that when you were writing that short statement you were not thinking about target audience, average intelligence or any sort of logic at all. Only PC rage at the thought of the RTS genre being "dumbed down" for console gamers.

However when dumbing-down a game in terms of design the only thing that can be credited for this is the user base. Console games try to avoid numbers (for attributes, stats, etc) as much as possible, PC games on the other hand tend to embrace them (which can be seen by nearly every MMORPG, RTS, and Turn-Based strategy around).

So what your saying is that if it was the PC gamers with the controller then the RTS design would be exactly the same?

Console gaming targets casuals. I'm not sure how anyone could argue against this point. That's not to say all console gamers are casual (though some would say this), it is simply saying that they do in fact make up a large portion of the userbase.

Casuals can not be expected to be as keen with games as hardcore gamers. Thus, the PC gamers -- and I mean those that purchase software titles, not that play Farmville -- are the more "sharp" sample.

Please explain to me how casual gamers = less intelligent, and how it effects which games they play, and if they like RTS or not.

I could be the most brilliant fucking physicist in the world, that doesn't make me an adept gamer.

And yes, by all means it is the gamer's intelligence which limits RTS games. Rise of Nations, critically acclaimed, well received, but generally regarded as too complicated for average gamers. Hell, let's use Civ as an example, while not an RTS it stands to represent many of the same things, many long time fans of the Civ franchise regard Civ V as being dumbed down. The same case could be made for the Ages franchise after AoE2.

Now all the titles I mentioned are PC only titles, however, they do represent that intelligence can, and does, limit strategy games.

This all goes without saying that it's generally pretty accepted that PCs have a higher class of gamer than consoles.

Oh this is strange! Here you are obviously saying that console gamers are dumb enough not to be able to work an RTS game, simply because they play on a console, not a PC. Your intelligence does not dictate which gaming system you buy, and it is stupid to think that console gamers are so dumb anyway. The average intelligence is lower? Yeah if it is then by a tiny bit, not so much it limits your ability to make decisions! This also sort of confirms my above point that this is mostly PC rage.

At the very least, being a PC gamer implies some degree of computer literacy, while console gaming implies absolutely nothing. When tacked on the fact that many people are into PC gaming solely for modding, a slightly higher degree of computer literacy is implied. When you consider that, be it because the control set-up or otherwise, PC games offer layers of depth that console games cannot, the crowd this appeals to, if nothing else, has a higher attention span.

This is only funny because it makes no sense at all.

At the very least you need some degree of computer literacy. Explain how it is not possible to just sit down and play games on your computer? I'm pretty sure that console gamers know how to turn on, and use a computer as well! Just because they don't game on it doesn't mean they are completely useless, as you imply. I could just go on my PC, or someone else's right now, switch it on, insert the disc and play a game if I wanted.

Higher attention span?? If you think that switching on a computer and using a mouse and keyboard requires skill and intelligence far surpassing that of a console gamers, then I really worry for you...

Which raises another issue, FPSs were dumbed-down to suit console controller set-ups. An entire generation has only ever experienced this sort of FPS. Put them into an old style FPS, and likely many will not be able to adapt. So one has to pose the question, how long does it take for the limitations of the platform to create limitations in the player.

I am genuinely interested in this part. Explain how old FPS games required so much more intelligence to play, that console gamers couldn't "adapt" to playing them. Seriously though you don't need a PhD to play a game...

 

[Netrigan]

While it's a bigger problem than the one Bungie faced when transporting FPS controls over to a gamepad, I think someone could figure out a way to do it. But it would require them building a RTS game from the ground-up around console controls.

I see the same problem with MMOs on consoles. Sooner or later someone will lick it, but as with FPS before it, the porting of the genre to consoles will change the genre to a certain degree. Such as FPS have had to take a lot of the aiming out of the game and they've put more focus on melee combat than PC games have typically had (Bulletstorm looks to be taking this to ridiculous extremes). So when RTS games make the leap, expect them to different in some key way.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Theoretically it can be done but several RTS conventions would probably need to be changed or tossed out completely, probably resulting in an 'action-RTS' that's more akin to something like Dawn of War II than a traditional RTS.

The problem, as I see it, is that a successful console RTS would result in a shitpot of console RTSes being published at the expense of more traditional PC RTSes because Publishers are in this for the money and there's currently more money in putting out games for consoles than for PCs.

 

[ImprovizoR]

No, just no. They should not try to develop RTS for consoles because developing such abominations would mean dumbing it down for the PC eventually. Just look what happened with FPS games. Someone though it would be a good idea to make FPS on a console and now ever god damn FPS is dumbed down and ported in that miserable shape to PC. Only real PC FPS games use more advanced gameplay mechanics. Just wait for Red Orchestra 2 and you'll see what I'm talking about.

That post sounded so full of elitism ._.

If we disregard the console crowd there will be less evolution of current genres.

I'm not saying to attempt to outsource every RTS to consoles, that's ridiculous, Galactic Civilizations 2 would never work on consoles and belongs on PC.

But to completely disregard consoles because of 'dumbing down' is just a defeatist and counter-productive attitude.

I'm not disregarding consoles. Some games like third person adventure games (God of War, Devil May Cry etc.) are better on consoles because of their control scheme. Although to be 100% honest even if it sounds elitist - everything a console can do PC can do better. In most cases it's only a matter of a controller and PC supports joypads.

 

[Samwise137]

I almost said "they can be on either" just to allow for my hope that someday console RTS will be decent and then I remembered StarCraft 64.

 

[Triple G]

This rampant tolerance of console RTS games is alarming. That's just how shit started with console FPS.
First console FPS was just crap, because analog sticks are inferior to mouse aiming. Then Halo came along and just because it was NOT TOTAL CRAP, but mediocre, people got into it and now console FPS rules the market and the PC gets crappy game ports. wait another couple years and with this attitude we will lose quality PC RTS forever.

 

[Triple G]

No, just no. They should not try to develop RTS for consoles because developing such abominations would mean dumbing it down for the PC eventually. Just look what happened with FPS games. Someone though it would be a good idea to make FPS on a console and now ever god damn FPS is dumbed down and ported in that miserable shape to PC. Only real PC FPS games use more advanced gameplay mechanics. Just wait for Red Orchestra 2 and you'll see what I'm talking about.

That post sounded so full of elitism ._.

If we disregard the console crowd there will be less evolution of current genres.

I'm not saying to attempt to outsource every RTS to consoles, that's ridiculous, Galactic Civilizations 2 would never work on consoles and belongs on PC.

But to completely disregard consoles because of 'dumbing down' is just a defeatist and counter-productive attitude.

I'm not disregarding consoles. Some games like third person adventure games (God of War, Devil May Cry etc.) are better on consoles because of their control scheme. Although to be 100% honest even if it sounds elitist - everything a console can do PC can do better. In most cases it's only a matter of a controller and PC supports joypads.

Right? I mean, slap a joypad on a PC and it's superior to a console, consoles even have retard internet aka "Xbox: Live", I mean OK PCs crash, consoles don't but that's just a minor drawback and if you think about it, consoles break too(remember this massive RRoD shit,or all the firmware fuck ups console developers had in the last years). Consoles are developing into retarded PCs, you can even make them into PCs nowadays. And YES, and this goes out to everyone:
CONSOLE FPS IS DUMBED DOWN
Ever played Empires Mod for Half-Life²? Massive depth of gameplay, tactics, building, res capping, massive tank battles and it's still an FPS. Suck it, Halo.
Oh yes, consoles are too underdeveloped for massive modding of games, or dedicated servers in fact.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

... You're kidding right? "Maybe PC gaming is bigger?", look up some fucking sales figures and get a clue before you try to pose an argument kid.

Why should I bother looking up sales figures for this? You've just blown things way out of proportion, and seem to be getting angry...

Actually the angry tone was because the Eagles lost.


Why should you bother looking up sales figure? So you know what you're talking about. PC gaming represents a very small portion of the numbers. You did ask "How do you know console gaming is bigger?" after all.

Do you know how this started? By you harshly stereotyping console gamers, saying they were dumb, then turning the argument in a different direction when it was blatant that when you were writing that short statement you were not thinking about target audience, average intelligence or any sort of logic at all. Only PC rage at the thought of the RTS genre being "dumbed down" for console gamers.

Actually, I was thinking, and as I said, I made the post being a smart-ass. I think most people were able to take it in jest, which is why no one but some thick-headed 16 year old responded to it in outrage.

However when dumbing-down a game in terms of design the only thing that can be credited for this is the user base. Console games try to avoid numbers (for attributes, stats, etc) as much as possible, PC games on the other hand tend to embrace them (which can be seen by nearly every MMORPG, RTS, and Turn-Based strategy around).

So what your saying is that if it was the PC gamers with the controller then the RTS design would be exactly the same?

No, not at all. In fact this has been addressed several times in this thread. FPSs were dumbed-down to fit with the console control setup, it wasn't long before old school FPSs ceased to be. PCs aren't really at the top of developers priority lists, generally they get the hand me downs from consoles.

RTSs are one of the few genres PCs really have to themselves, if RTSs were to catch on with the console crowd it wouldn't be long until RTSs as we currently know them are phased out.

Console gaming targets casuals. I'm not sure how anyone could argue against this point. That's not to say all console gamers are casual (though some would say this), it is simply saying that they do in fact make up a large portion of the userbase.

Casuals can not be expected to be as keen with games as hardcore gamers. Thus, the PC gamers -- and I mean those that purchase software titles, not that play Farmville -- are the more "sharp" sample.

Please explain to me how casual gamers = less intelligent, and how it effects which games they play, and if they like RTS or not.

You'll notice I used the words sharp and keen, not intelligence, I suggest you learn how these words are used.

If you've been gaming all your life you take things for granted. There's a general understanding of what strength, intelligence, wisdom, etc mean. There's a general understanding of how weapons and units work in a rock/paper/scissors sense. Hell, there's a general understanding on how in-game puzzels are solved.

These are things that not all casuals are going to know, things that might turn them off. RTSs have more such rules to know then any other genre, a casual gamer who has never encountered such a game could easily be overwhelmed, regardless of 'intelligence' outside of gaming.

I could be the most brilliant fucking physicist in the world, that doesn't make me an adept gamer.

And yes, by all means it is the gamer's intelligence which limits RTS games. Rise of Nations, critically acclaimed, well received, but generally regarded as too complicated for average gamers. Hell, let's use Civ as an example, while not an RTS it stands to represent many of the same things, many long time fans of the Civ franchise regard Civ V as being dumbed down. The same case could be made for the Ages franchise after AoE2.

Now all the titles I mentioned are PC only titles, however, they do represent that intelligence can, and does, limit strategy games.

This all goes without saying that it's generally pretty accepted that PCs have a higher class of gamer than consoles.

Oh this is strange! Here you are obviously saying that console gamers are dumb enough not to be able to work an RTS game, simply because they play on a console, not a PC. Your intelligence does not dictate which gaming system you buy, and it is stupid to think that console gamers are so dumb anyway. The average intelligence is lower? Yeah if it is then by a tiny bit, not so much it limits your ability to make decisions! This also sort of confirms my above point that this is mostly PC rage.

Actually all I said is that PCs are generally regarded as having a higher caliber of gamer. You know how you know that's what I said? You can read it, clear as day.

You're also overlooking the entire purpose of that statement, you said "You do know that it isn't the gamers intelligence which limits RTS games, it is the console itself,". To which I gave examples of how intelligence does create limits.

At the very least, being a PC gamer implies some degree of computer literacy, while console gaming implies absolutely nothing. When tacked on the fact that many people are into PC gaming solely for modding, a slightly higher degree of computer literacy is implied. When you consider that, be it because the control set-up or otherwise, PC games offer layers of depth that console games cannot, the crowd this appeals to, if nothing else, has a higher attention span.

This is only funny because it makes no sense at all.

At the very least you need some degree of computer literacy. Explain how it is not possible to just sit down and play games on your computer? I'm pretty sure that console gamers know how to turn on, and use a computer as well! Just because they don't game on it doesn't mean they are completely useless, as you imply. I could just go on my PC, or someone else's right now, switch it on, insert the disc and play a game if I wanted.

I did say "some degree" not a lot. Though honestly, I'm inclined to agree. I don't understand how anyone could find gaming on a PC difficult. Yet, some do, and quite a few if you look around any gaming forums.

Maybe they don't understand hardware requirements, perhaps they can't update drivers -- hell if I know. Either way, you'll find no shortage of people who think gaming on PCs is complicated.

Nice job avoiding the whole mod point BTW.

Higher attention span?? If you think that switching on a computer and using a mouse and keyboard requires skill and intelligence far surpassing that of a console gamers, then I really worry for you...

Well, actually the higher attention span thing is somewhat of a carry over from the aforementioned PC games focusing more on numbers. Also, I'm curious if you read the full sentence or just the "higher attention span" part. Regardless, another point you avoided.

Which raises another issue, FPSs were dumbed-down to suit console controller set-ups. An entire generation has only ever experienced this sort of FPS. Put them into an old style FPS, and likely many will not be able to adapt. So one has to pose the question, how long does it take for the limitations of the platform to create limitations in the player.

I am genuinely interested in this part. Explain how old FPS games required so much more intelligence to play, that console gamers couldn't "adapt" to playing them. Seriously though you don't need a PhD to play a game...

Never said FPSs required more intelligence. Old school FPSs required twitch above all else, new ones pretty much require none. Which I mentioned in an earlier post, and several others have mentioned, yet somehow you keep managing to misconstrue things... repeatedly.




I suppose we should wrap this up... You demonstrated a definite lack of reading comprehension; you've either misunderstood what I have said/or purposely mistook the meaning to suit your argument. You've posed questions and then asked what relevance the answer was. You demonstrated almost no understanding of the genre in question. You've offered no actual counterpoints, and avoid any posed by repetitiously rambling... but I digress.

I could mention the age demographics of console versus PC, the alarming trend of motion controllers, etc... but it'd clearly all be in vain.

That being said, I think part of the problem here is that (and I'm assuming) you're still in highschool. I'm not saying "you're a teenager so you have no clue what you're talking about". What I am saying is that when your in school, it's very easy to give the general population far more credit in its ability to understand things than it deserve.

In the real world, most people think troubleshooting anything on their computers means shaking their mouse. You'll find an overwhelming number of people who don't know what CTRL+Shift+Esc or Alt+Tab do. These days I find myself impressed if people can use the fucking self-checkout at grocery stores without treating it like rocket science in a foreign language. Perhaps that's just me being jaded though.

 

[Jkudo]

Genius idea! if you think console games are dumbed down, dont play! Stick to those good old non dumbed down games and you wont have anything to complain about!

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Just keep RTS on the PC. Developers can't put an RTS on consoles and have it be better than it would be if it was on PC. The controls and options need to be simplified for the console and the core RTS audience usually recoils from this.

 

[stygN]

I don't play consoles that much, but a friend of mine do.

So we played this game called EndWar on the PS3, and it worked pretty well! If you haven't played it then I guess I should explain. You use voice commands to order your troops around! You say into the mic "One, attack Alpha" or "Three, defend Charlie".

Basically you had groups of soldiers from 1 to 9, and spots on the map called Alpha, Bravo and so on. (or it was the other way around, don't remember).

But you could still use the buttons to order around.

It wasn't flawless, but it worked! Get some better software for voice recognition, and you're golden!

But did I like it? Not really.. I like the good old mouse and hot-keys : )

And besides, it wasn't a "real" RTS.. You didn't build a base or train units. You got points and could use the points to call in reinforcements, but that was it.

 

[Warlord Kentax]

Unless RTSs make a significant change I really think they should stick to the PC. Almost all RTSs have one flaw endemic to them: MICROMANAGEMENT. Unless consoles are going to start using mouse peripherals heavily or RTS games move away from heavy micromanagement (see Sins of a Solar Empire) the PC will always be able to play RTS games stupendously better than any console.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

Genius idea! if you think console games are dumbed down, dont play! Stick to those good old non dumbed down games and you wont have anything to complain about!

The problem is we can't avoid these games, they end up phasing out their predecessors. Perfect example is FPSs, which has been mention over and over and over in this thread.

 

[gyro2death]

*edit* March 2009 was when I posted this...holy hell nearly 2 years?

How the hell did this get started up again lol? I made this topic in march of last year...months ago and some how its still kicking, this does make me giggle.

Seems this has turned mostly into a "console have ruined X genre". And while I'll say I'm still completely a pc guy, I don't think FPS games on the consoles have ruined them, I think they've merely made them more accessible. Though as many said, when they are made for the console first then ported to the PC it usually results in something terrible. I will say console RTS seems to be far out there, making it more simple its going to be hard without removing the strategy involved. But one thing is for sure, more and more game will be making it to the consoles for now, and if RTS can make the jump I think is still unanswered.

 

[Fishyash]

I personally don't see how RTS games as they are could work nearly as well for consoles without having to dumb them down.

RTS' as PC games being ported to consoles? No.

But, if they changed how RTS games worked on a console compared to PC, then go for it. But you cannot make a console RTS like a PC RTS. I don't see how you can get it to work nearly as well.