The_root_of_all_evil said:
Jordi said:
Aside: I do love the idea of having a computer that philosophises on the nature of OSs.
Like I said, it's much easier to then say that the XBOX version will be fixed at a certain setting, than it is to later make the game run at higher graphical levels for the PC.
It really depends. Some PC specialist games have graphics options so far up the wazoo as to be unachievable at the moment. Beyond a certain point though, I think it's just fluff. In an FPS, how long are you going to pay attention to something before getting headshot? I'm still running on 1024x768.
Once you've got a general level of graphics that work across all the systems, then you can leave flourishes to post-production. They're the least important parts really, as they're the first things people turn off for a better FPS.
I agree, but I think that a lot of PC gamers would be really pissed if they had to run a game on "console graphics" on their monster gaming PC. I don't think this is something that developers can easily get away with.
The_root_of_all_evil said:
The thing is that both controllers are better at different things and sometimes you need to adjust the gameplay for that. For instance, focusing on an enemy with a controller is much slower than with the mouse, so difficulty, number of enemies and possibly even the level design need to be "adjusted" to take that into account.
True...hadn't thought of that. But still, does that make that huge a difference?
I think so. It is very important to have balance in your game and you need to present a fun challenge. I think the whole "cover-based shooter" mechanic was basically invented for consoles.
The_root_of_all_evil said:
Ideally, a game could be developed that is optimized for both, but I understand that sometimes that isn't really feasible. However, it would be nice to see developers at least make an effort to make the PC port decent.
I think most developers (See Gearbox) are terrified of innovating because the base audience is looking for the no-scope, instakill as standard; and will return the game with a torrent of criticisms if it doesn't keep up to their standards.
I'm just thinking pipe dreams here, but how about if the consoles had a keyboard you could plug into one of the ports? Mad idea I know...
I'm pretty sure I heard you could already connect a keyboard and mouse to modern consoles. But I don't really think that that is what most console gamers want. I don't think anyone disagrees that the mouse is superior to the game pad in terms of reaction time in a shooter. But that doesn't mean that the gaming experience is also objectively better. Sometimes being handicapped in what you can do can lead to more fun game play. Furthermore, with a game pad it's much easier to just slouch on you couch, which may be more relaxing than sitting with a keyboard and mouse at some sort of desk or table. These things come down to preferences, and I bet that most console gamers prefer the "console" way of gaming to the PC way, and vice-versa.
ecoho said:
Jordi said:
I don't have any problem with focusing on consoles as the primary platform. But unfortunately what this usually means is not "we will focus only one third of the energy on PCs", but "fuck PCs, you guys are getting a crappy port".
The_root_of_all_evil said:
If you want to reduce the input, graphics and options - I guess it makes sense to work on the easy version first.
Actually, if you have any intention of doing both versions right, I think it is a lot better to develop primarily for PC (but with a controller). Basically the PC needs extra features/complexity and it is far easier to make a console version from a PC game than the other way around, because you can just fix most of the settings at whatever will work for that console.
The control scheme is a little different of course, so I understand they want to get that right on consoles first. However, I don't think there is any reason why they can't also keep the PC (and keyboard + mouse) into account when developing the game.
ok i went back and reread the article and heres what ive got from it and what i think he was trying to say. they are making it on the pc but not syincing the controls to anything but controllers now. now when you think about it this is a great idea, see one of the reasons ports from pc games fail is that they dont take the time to optimize the controls for consoles, which is in fact a hell of a lot harder to do then PC, so the game flops and the publisher losses money. now if you do what they are doing making the controls (not the graphics as some have incorrectly assumed) for consoles the main focus they wont screw over their majority and still have a great game for the minority as they can do the pc right in less time(a keyboard and mouse are not that hard to work out controls for expessialy if its a pc developer) so relax my PC brothers its not the devil.
This is only a great idea if you are not a PC gamer. It's interesting to hear someone being concerned about a crappy console port, because almost every game nowadays is developed primarily for consoles and then (crappily) ported to the PC. I don't know if it is harder to get the controls right for consoles, but I can tell you right now that it is apparently not that easy to do for the PC either, because a lot of PC ports fail completely at this.
I understand that most games nowadays are developed primarily for consoles. They are right: that's where most of the money is. But I think forbidding the developers to use the PC control scheme goes a little far in my opinion. After all, if two thirds of the sales will be console games, doesn't that also mean that one whole third (or fourth, whatever) will be PC sales? In my opinion that means that the PC should also get some love, and not "how dare you use a keyboard!". They have made it very obvious that they are making the PC control scheme an afterthought. And that does not bode well for the quality of the PC port.
