What is so great about the keyboard as a gaming tool?
- Thread starter LilithSlave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally, I don't believe that the keyboard and mouse combo are superior to console controller pads, nor is it the other way around. For me, the issue is more of which tool is suited better to a particular job.
Keyboard/mouse certainly allows for more complexity of control through the large number of assignable functions/keys. The accuracy and speed of a mouse are also, in my opinion, unmatched by a console controller. These features are an absolute must for some game genres.
Console controllers, however, add a certain sophistication to video game control. Their design is more ergonomic, and their button layouts are more intuitive for the casual user. Some consoles offer pressure sensitive controls which provide a level of control that a keyboard/mouse just isn't capable of. A controller can have a variable range on the same input, whereas a keyboard/mouse would need a multi-key toggle/combination to achieve the same result.
Quick example: Basic Player Movement.
Console controller: anywhere from a slow creep to a quick jog, all tied to a single analog stick.
Keyboard/mouse: based on which pace you want to set, you'll need some combination of multiple key presses, or toggle functions to get that same range.
Unfortunately, a controller's inputs are limited by design, and can not easily match mouse-like accuracy in situations/games that would require/benefit from it.
Each is a tool best suited to a particular job. I don't think one is better than the other. It's up to the developer to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen control method; and to build the experience with those factors in mind.
TL,DR: Brain diarrhea
Keyboard/mouse certainly allows for more complexity of control through the large number of assignable functions/keys. The accuracy and speed of a mouse are also, in my opinion, unmatched by a console controller. These features are an absolute must for some game genres.
Console controllers, however, add a certain sophistication to video game control. Their design is more ergonomic, and their button layouts are more intuitive for the casual user. Some consoles offer pressure sensitive controls which provide a level of control that a keyboard/mouse just isn't capable of. A controller can have a variable range on the same input, whereas a keyboard/mouse would need a multi-key toggle/combination to achieve the same result.
Quick example: Basic Player Movement.
Console controller: anywhere from a slow creep to a quick jog, all tied to a single analog stick.
Keyboard/mouse: based on which pace you want to set, you'll need some combination of multiple key presses, or toggle functions to get that same range.
Unfortunately, a controller's inputs are limited by design, and can not easily match mouse-like accuracy in situations/games that would require/benefit from it.
Each is a tool best suited to a particular job. I don't think one is better than the other. It's up to the developer to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen control method; and to build the experience with those factors in mind.
TL,DR: Brain diarrhea
I'm fine with any method of input so long as it functions for the game I'm trying to play.
I will say though that I found being able to type in codes and passwords in deus ex human revolution novel, was kind of immersive to type as if i was actualy typing on the computer i was hacking and perhaps slightly faster than on console but I havent played it on console so I cant comment
I will say though that I found being able to type in codes and passwords in deus ex human revolution novel, was kind of immersive to type as if i was actualy typing on the computer i was hacking and perhaps slightly faster than on console but I havent played it on console so I cant comment
I just don't see why anyone should care what other people play their games with. If you like your keyboards then, well... use a keyboard. Same goes for controllers.Hammeroj said:
But for some reason people feel the urge to run about the internet screaming about how much more awesome their preferred input device is. Borderline fanboy behavior. And 90% of the time, at least in my experience, it's the mouse+keyboard people. Which is why I would really appreciate it if they were to shut the hell up and... I dunno, go play some games or something.
As for objectivity... yeah. We've been there. Suffice to say, I don't think that "bashing it into people's skulls as often as humanly possible" is at all necessary. It fact, that sounds utterly fucking obnoxious.
Yeah, I mostly agree with that.Baneat said:
But as to the last point... While it should be the case, it can be really irritating sometimes when people in the forums for a game with poor or no joystick support that argue 'why would you even want it?'
An example comes to mind from Railworks - That's a niche train simulator mind you, but it illustrates the point quite well:
Someone asked why railworks doesn't support game controllers, joysticks and so on. (To be honest it doesn't even support keyboard re-mapping.)
And... Someone actually came along and said something like this:
"Why would anyone want to play a train simulator with a gamepad, or a joystick probably designed with flight simulators in mind? Railworks doesn't need joystick support, and you're stupid for asking for it."
So... Leaving aside that given how a train is controlled, a throttle controller designed for flight sims would actually be quite useful...
There is also the fact that if any specialised controllers exist for such a train simulation, making them usable with any given simulator is much,much easier if the simulator has generic support for joysticks and game controllers.
(By point of comparison, X-plane, a flight simulator, allows you to use any kind of game controller or joystick, and arbitrarily map any analog controls on these controllers to whatever flight controls the game has...)
So... Apparently, refusing to support anything other than mouse+keyboard is a good thing to some people?
Yeah... It's when you see stuff like that that it becomes apparent how narrow-minded and short-sighted people can be at times.
Because it's infinetly cusomisable. At least in most games. You can configure it to your heart's content.
Hey guys, lets just let people use what they want, I can see why you might prefer keyboard on FPS or RPG, I don't thats fine, lets move on
You're talking about the keyboard like it's used alone rather than with a mouse. The combo together makes for, in my opinion at least, the best possible controller, at least for the moment. The keyboard gives you plenty of buttons to easily work within the reach of your left hand and the mouse is a perfect pointer, with further possibility of extra buttons (I'm cool with 3 and can go up to 5, don't care too much for the 12 button sideboard, but I haven't tried it, so might change my mind if I did).
All around, they make for great controllers. There are a few things they're not great for working with (The Force Unleashed telekinetics come to mind), but I don't see the console controllers working for that either, I think the task would be up to a Kinect-like device. From what I've heard, Kinect is making it's way over to the PC, so if that's a success, the PC would have the absolute best control imo for quite literally everything.
All around, they make for great controllers. There are a few things they're not great for working with (The Force Unleashed telekinetics come to mind), but I don't see the console controllers working for that either, I think the task would be up to a Kinect-like device. From what I've heard, Kinect is making it's way over to the PC, so if that's a success, the PC would have the absolute best control imo for quite literally everything.
I prefer using a controller, I have been using them all my life, more than keyboards.
But with a keyboard, there are many more possibilities of keys to use, and assigning hotkeys. some games on consoles have full button mapping,but again, it is more limiting.
With the Xbox 360, you have the option of the D-Pad, where you can sometimes hotkey up to 8 items, but the keyboard it definitely better for that kind of stuff.
But again, I do prefer the controller over keyboard and mouse, because I am more familiar with it.
Depends on the game as well, I mostly play Strategy games, and PC exclusives on my computer, but shooters, RPGs on my consoles.
But with a keyboard, there are many more possibilities of keys to use, and assigning hotkeys. some games on consoles have full button mapping,but again, it is more limiting.
With the Xbox 360, you have the option of the D-Pad, where you can sometimes hotkey up to 8 items, but the keyboard it definitely better for that kind of stuff.
But again, I do prefer the controller over keyboard and mouse, because I am more familiar with it.
Depends on the game as well, I mostly play Strategy games, and PC exclusives on my computer, but shooters, RPGs on my consoles.
To be fair with this topic it is all about what game your playing.
I would never over my dead body use a gamepad for an RTS or an MMORPG, in the same way that I would never use a keyboard and a mouse for a Platformer, Hack-n-Slash or an Adventure game.
They're two wastly diffrent controllers with both negative and positive aspects.
I would never over my dead body use a gamepad for an RTS or an MMORPG, in the same way that I would never use a keyboard and a mouse for a Platformer, Hack-n-Slash or an Adventure game.
They're two wastly diffrent controllers with both negative and positive aspects.
It's not just the keyboard, it's keyboard and mouse.
Mouse offers a level of precision not avaialble with analog sticks. Also, gaming mice provide a number of buttons to rival most gamepads.
The keyboard on the other hand is all about the buttons. You have a fuckton of buttons to work with, which means you can have shortcuts for everything. I do think that the core button count needed to play a game should exceed what could be found on a gamepad, but options for stuff is always good.
Example: You can play Mass Effect on the PC and the Console. The number of buttons needed to play the core game is pretty much the same. However, while console gamers have to struggle with the radial menu (or whatever you call it), PC gamers just have a number button mapped to every ability their Shepard has acquired. Also shortcuts to every menu screen.
Mouse offers a level of precision not avaialble with analog sticks. Also, gaming mice provide a number of buttons to rival most gamepads.
The keyboard on the other hand is all about the buttons. You have a fuckton of buttons to work with, which means you can have shortcuts for everything. I do think that the core button count needed to play a game should exceed what could be found on a gamepad, but options for stuff is always good.
Example: You can play Mass Effect on the PC and the Console. The number of buttons needed to play the core game is pretty much the same. However, while console gamers have to struggle with the radial menu (or whatever you call it), PC gamers just have a number button mapped to every ability their Shepard has acquired. Also shortcuts to every menu screen.
As it has been noted several times already, it depends on the genre of the game in question; some games are frustrating to try on a console, and vice versa.
As a general rule, controllers lend themselves to games where you can expect a lot of action and are in control of only a single character. A controler's simple layout lends itself well to context-sensitive actions and "touchy-feely" gameplay; it's just easier to do things like "a little more" and "a little less" on a controller. All aspects of gameplay simply have to be more elegant when you use a controller, leading to a great deal of streamlining; however, this is also what makes a lot of games very fun to play at the same time.
Where the keyboard & mouse excel is at providing a wide set of options and precision. Action does not need to be fast-paced, but there's also very little preventing games from being very fast at the same time. Anyhow, precision and options are still the main focus. One button press (or mouse click), one action; and a button for every individual action.
Neither style of gameplay is inherently better than the other, they're simply different styles which lend themselves to different types of gameplay. People need to realize that just because you prefer one of these styles does not mean that it is better than the other.
---
To compare the different styles of gameplay, there's two genres I'll take a quick look at: FPS games and RPGs, both of which are available on both PCs and consoles.
FPS games were predominantly on the PC until the last decade (and a half?) or so, and for a good reason: the mouse allowed for faster and more precise aiming. Throw in the keyboard allowing players to quickly switch between a dozen weapons very quickly, and it was a natural fit for the keyboard & mouse setup. Halo: Combat Evolved is usually credited for being the game which made FPS games much more viable on the consoles, and there's a few very simple and elegant changes to the genre it made which made it work: only allowing you to carry two weapons at a time (no need for fancy menus to select the weapon you need), grenades and melee attacks being baseline abilities and independent of the weapon you're using, slowing down the player's runspeed to a more managable pace (... I think), and the easy-to-read shields & health meters (rather than a numerical readings). The regenerating shields are also an elegant change to the genre, though that particular change probably wasn't necessary to make the move to consoles (though it probably helped). Anyhow, these changes made FPS games fun to play on consoles.
For RPGs, its easier to look at the older Final Fantasy games; specifically, the Active-Time-Battle (ATB) system. This move away from the older turn-based approach (everyone gets one action per turn), it allowed for players to include a sense of speed in the games and allow everything onscreen to act in a vaguely real-time setting. But rather than issuing or queuing up commands all at once, the player takes control of one character at a time and issues the action when they need to do it (when the ATB guage/timer fills up). A PC RPG like Dragon Age: Origins (and presumably Baldur's Gate, to which DA:O is considered a spiritual successor) takes the "pause-and-play" approach, where commands are issued or queued up for the whole party in advance then executed in real-time. The former is more simple & elegant, the latter allows for more complex actions.
In both cases, consoles have to take an elegant & streamlined approach to accomplish what a PC does. It may have to sacrifice complexity to allow for quality gameplay, but at the same time it is more accessible. Again, neither is fundamentally better; they are merely different styles.
As a general rule, controllers lend themselves to games where you can expect a lot of action and are in control of only a single character. A controler's simple layout lends itself well to context-sensitive actions and "touchy-feely" gameplay; it's just easier to do things like "a little more" and "a little less" on a controller. All aspects of gameplay simply have to be more elegant when you use a controller, leading to a great deal of streamlining; however, this is also what makes a lot of games very fun to play at the same time.
Where the keyboard & mouse excel is at providing a wide set of options and precision. Action does not need to be fast-paced, but there's also very little preventing games from being very fast at the same time. Anyhow, precision and options are still the main focus. One button press (or mouse click), one action; and a button for every individual action.
Neither style of gameplay is inherently better than the other, they're simply different styles which lend themselves to different types of gameplay. People need to realize that just because you prefer one of these styles does not mean that it is better than the other.
---
To compare the different styles of gameplay, there's two genres I'll take a quick look at: FPS games and RPGs, both of which are available on both PCs and consoles.
FPS games were predominantly on the PC until the last decade (and a half?) or so, and for a good reason: the mouse allowed for faster and more precise aiming. Throw in the keyboard allowing players to quickly switch between a dozen weapons very quickly, and it was a natural fit for the keyboard & mouse setup. Halo: Combat Evolved is usually credited for being the game which made FPS games much more viable on the consoles, and there's a few very simple and elegant changes to the genre it made which made it work: only allowing you to carry two weapons at a time (no need for fancy menus to select the weapon you need), grenades and melee attacks being baseline abilities and independent of the weapon you're using, slowing down the player's runspeed to a more managable pace (... I think), and the easy-to-read shields & health meters (rather than a numerical readings). The regenerating shields are also an elegant change to the genre, though that particular change probably wasn't necessary to make the move to consoles (though it probably helped). Anyhow, these changes made FPS games fun to play on consoles.
For RPGs, its easier to look at the older Final Fantasy games; specifically, the Active-Time-Battle (ATB) system. This move away from the older turn-based approach (everyone gets one action per turn), it allowed for players to include a sense of speed in the games and allow everything onscreen to act in a vaguely real-time setting. But rather than issuing or queuing up commands all at once, the player takes control of one character at a time and issues the action when they need to do it (when the ATB guage/timer fills up). A PC RPG like Dragon Age: Origins (and presumably Baldur's Gate, to which DA:O is considered a spiritual successor) takes the "pause-and-play" approach, where commands are issued or queued up for the whole party in advance then executed in real-time. The former is more simple & elegant, the latter allows for more complex actions.
In both cases, consoles have to take an elegant & streamlined approach to accomplish what a PC does. It may have to sacrifice complexity to allow for quality gameplay, but at the same time it is more accessible. Again, neither is fundamentally better; they are merely different styles.
Couldn't you apply that thinking to, well... everything?Hammeroj said:
"I don't like military FPSs. But see that guy over there? He likes Call of Duty. He's slanting the market. Fuck him up!"
"I like streamlined RPGs, but some people want more depth. Well, to hell with them, they're slanting the market. This cannot be allowed continue!"
"I love me super-casual games, but some people keep buying complex PC games. We should flame the crap out of them. After all, they're slanting the market."
You get the idea.