More people play FFXI on the PC than the PS2 or Xbox 360. I don't know if you can check the sales of the same game on different platforms, but if someone could.... Both FFXI and EQOA were flops by the standards of consoles. Your game can be considered a hit on the PC if you sell 100K copies. On consoles, if you don't break a couple of million copies sold, your studio will probably be shut down in short order. Yes, both games had respectable populations by PC standards, but they were nothing when compared to the Numbers behind Devil May Cry, Halo or Metal Gear Solid.
And it still probably made more profit than all of those titles. You can't compare standalone sales of single player games to sales of subscription based games like MMO's. An MMO on a console is not a flop if it doesn't sell as many copies as single player games do. You still make more money overall even if the playerbase is smaller.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
More people play FFXI on the PC than the PS2 or Xbox 360. I don't know if you can check the sales of the same game on different platforms, but if someone could.... Both FFXI and EQOA were flops by the standards of consoles. Your game can be considered a hit on the PC if you sell 100K copies. On consoles, if you don't break a couple of million copies sold, your studio will probably be shut down in short order. Yes, both games had respectable populations by PC standards, but they were nothing when compared to the Numbers behind Devil May Cry, Halo or Metal Gear Solid. As for TES games being "Dumbed down," please point me to an RPG with depth that consoles can't handle. Dragon Age? It's on consoles. Baldur's Gate? That came out in 1998 and even a Dreamcast could probably run it. Fallout 3? I'm currently playing it on XBox 360. No really. Find me a PC RPG that has deeper combat than Final Fantasy Tactics or Star Ocean or Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic.
well.... how about neverwinter nights 1& 2 Deus Ex, 1.. the second one isnt as good as the first but.. not bad.. or how about Far Cry.. Dragon age isnt really a good example tbh, as i really don't think its a good representation of whats possible on a PC, and.. is sadly a rather boring game, if pretty.. though do have to admit, lately it seems like the only things that get released on PC are dodgy console ports ... so while the PC may be more capable generally than the various consoles, its an often overlooked one by games developers, outside of mmo's that is.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe As for TES games being "Dumbed down," please point me to an RPG with depth that consoles can't handle. Dragon Age? It's on consoles. Baldur's Gate? That came out in 1998 and even a Dreamcast could probably run it. Fallout 3? I'm currently playing it on XBox 360.
Wow. Worst examples ever. Dragon Age was more linear than Mass Effect, last I heard and Fallout 3 is a shameless Oblivion reskin.
I'll give you Baldur's Gate, though.
Try the Persona series, try Disgaea, try the Tales series, try Skies of Arcadia. Hell, I could list off tons of games that aren't even American with a hell of a lot more depth than anything Bethesda has crapped out recently.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe As for TES games being "Dumbed down," please point me to an RPG with depth that consoles can't handle. Dragon Age? It's on consoles. Baldur's Gate? That came out in 1998 and even a Dreamcast could probably run it. Fallout 3? I'm currently playing it on XBox 360
Please link the console version for, lets say Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. Or lets go even further back and go with Baldurs gate 1.
And i am not talking about Dark Alliance or whatever that crap hack n slash game was called.
Sure i know my ps3 would "handle" it. But not with a gamepad.
As for TES games being "Dumbed down," please point me to an RPG with depth that consoles can't handle. Dragon Age? It's on consoles. Baldur's Gate? That came out in 1998 and even a Dreamcast could probably run it. Fallout 3? I'm currently playing it on XBox 360. No really. Find me a PC RPG that has deeper combat than Final Fantasy Tactics or Star Ocean or Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic.
*Facepalm* its not a question "if it could run it".
You do realize that the combat for Dragon Age, Oblivion, KoTOR as well as Mass Effect, were specifically designed to work on both PC AND consoles? This means that the control schemes and combat for PC versions were also made with the restrictions of the console in mind. You can't make a Baldur's Gate I and II game to consoles.
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance I and II were both action RPGs specifically designed for the consoles only. That is why they are as they are - simple.
Only good thing the consoles have that PCs don't have is that analog trigger on the controller as well as its shaking when the protagonist gets his/her ass handend to him/her.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I dunno -- I feel like tv's (and therefore consoles) just aren't conducive to the amount of reading necessary for mmo's. Now, I'm not making reference to Nancy McIntyre here, I'm just saying that given multiple boxes for chat and world interaction coupled with the fact that you aren't sitting on top of the television (unlike a monitor you're probably 15inches from), it doesn't seem like a good fit for the genre. Even if some of that chat is replaced by voice in teams, I don't see it happening effectively.
I play city of heroes on my 46" z-5100 (at 1920 x 1080p) and there's only so far back (typically I lay on the floor, about 4 feet back) you can play before the actual game is obscured by chatboxes. I only suffer this because my game machine doubles as the media center too otherwise it would be at a real desk with a monitor.
They already exist.... on the PC... Yeah, EQOA and FFXI are traditional MMOs that have been on consoles and failed.
Uhh...
Anyway, the simple truth is that the current gen consoles will be more powerful than most PC's for quite some time. If you invest on a console MMO, you can make the graphics and the engine much better. See; FFXIV vs. SW:TOR when it comes to visual looks. The players don't have to invest on high end PC to play the game with good graphics, simply having a PS3 or Xbox 360 is enough.
Nope. Dead wring. Consoles will never be more powerful then computers. They pulled dev. of FFXIIV from x-box because it takes too long to dumb it down. I've played plenty of games that I hated on the x-box and loved on pc becasue they look better, play better, and aren't dumbed down. Also, you're comparing 2 different games. Look at runescape vs pac-man.
Nope. Dead wring. Consoles will never be more powerful then computers. They pulled dev. of FFXIIV from x-box because it takes too long to dumb it down. I've played plenty of games that I hated on the x-box and loved on pc becasue they look better, play better, and aren't dumbed down.
My point is, that for most people consoles are more powerful than their PC's. They'll get good quality hardware for much cheaper price, and that's what matters for most people.
If you have a high end PC, you'll get more out of it than console. But for most people, this isn't the case. And when developers aim for the majority which hasn't upgraded their PC hardware in few years if ever, you have to make sure those people can play the game effectively.
WoW wasn't the top notch game graphics wise when it came out, and there's a simple reason for that; Blizzard wanted the game to be available for as many potential customers as possible, even if they didn't have a PC that runs Crysis on high graphics. The same goes for the upcoming StarWars MMO.
However, game such as FFXIV can sport graphics as good as the consoles allow, because every console owner has the same hardware available. You can have both high end graphics And not lose potential customers in the process. This is why consoles are good for both the players and the developers.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Nope. Dead wring. Consoles will never be more powerful then computers. They pulled dev. of FFXIIV from x-box because it takes too long to dumb it down. I've played plenty of games that I hated on the x-box and loved on pc becasue they look better, play better, and aren't dumbed down.
My point is, that for most people consoles are more powerful than their PC's. They'll get good quality hardware for much cheaper price, and that's what matters for most people.
If you have a high end PC, you'll get more out of it than console. But for most people, this isn't the case. And when developers aim for the majority which hasn't upgraded their PC hardware in few years if ever, you have to make sure those people can play the game effectively.
WoW wasn't the top notch game graphics wise when it came out, and there's a simple reason for that; Blizzard wanted the game to be available for as many potential customers as possible, even if they didn't have a PC that runs Crysis on high graphics. The same goes for the upcoming StarWars MMO.
However, game such as FFXIV can sport graphics as good as the consoles allow, because every console owner has the same hardware available. You can have both high end graphics And not lose potential customers in the process. This is why consoles are good for both the players and the developers.
true: consoles support players better, because they are all the same thing, but that is my problem. I want something that is better. The x-box is 5 years old now. It's falling behind some of the PC gaming market. I built my computer and it cost 300 bucks and then another 300 in upgrades, it's an old machine, but it's still better than any console you can throw at me.
Okay, I got too bogged down in examples last time and most of you missed the point. Let's start over.
Thesis: The controller does not dictate the depth of a game.
You can play Go and Chess with a mouse or a one button joystick and they are the deepest games ever made by mankind.
If you want to talk Baldur's gate (the PC version, not Dark Alliance) / Neverwinter Nights, I doubt that you'd have a problem converting to a gamepad. It's been a while since I've played either one but if I recall correctly, navigating the world was a point and click affair with 0-9 assigned to quick abilities and items and everything else nestled in various menus. Neverwinter Nights had that Sims 3 style radial menu, but it still used the quick slots and what not.
Now consider that a standard gamepad has about 16 buttons. If we keep the screen centered on the party and put the player in direct control of one character, that the rest of the party follows in formation naturally, we'll have more than enough buttons for hotkeys, calling up menus, cycling targets, and so forth. In short, you have access to exactly the same commands that you would have in the PC version. In what way would the game be "dumbed down?'
Answer: It wouldn't be. The people screaming about console games being for retards are simply full of shit.
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe As for TES games being "Dumbed down," please point me to an RPG with depth that consoles can't handle. Dragon Age? It's on consoles. Baldur's Gate? That came out in 1998 and even a Dreamcast could probably run it. Fallout 3? I'm currently playing it on XBox 360.
How about show me a game that runs just as smooth, doesn't suck, and plays with the same graphics as a high-end gaming computer for X-box.
true: consoles support players better, because they are all the same thing, but that is my problem. I want something that is better. The x-box is 5 years old now. It's falling behind some of the PC gaming market. I built my computer and it cost 300 bucks and then another 300 in upgrades, it's an old machine, but it's still better than any console you can throw at me.
PS: lets not turn this into a flame-war
I know what you mean and it's a valid point, but even still, when it comes to MMO's, you won't be able to make use of that hardware if the developers want the game to be played by the majority of PC's.
When you make an MMO (or any game) available on both consoles and PC's, you won't have to care about what kind of machines most people have, and can make the game with the console hardware in mind. And when ported to PC, if you have a good machine you can enhance the experience even further.
I don't think the consoles hinder PC players, but only complement them. Most players will be able to play the game with good graphics even without spending 600 bucks, and those with the money will be able to play even a better looking game on their PC's.
For example, while FFXIV will be on PS3 as well as PC, the console and PC versions will have different textures so the PS3 does not hinder the PC version, and all kind of players will be able to play the game, regardless of what hardware they own. If the game was available only on PC's, they would have to tune down the graphics (moreso than on consoles) so that the majority of PC's would be able to run the game without it looking ugly as sin.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe 2) A gamepad isn't sophisticated enough to handle all of the functions needed in an MMORPG. This is also laughable since gamepads worked just great for both the Xbox version of Morrowind and the 360 version of Oblivion. Niether of those games are "dumbed down" by the standards of RPGs.
And which one of those is an MMO? Oblvision or Morrowind?
Did you really come here to tell us the difference between a keyboard and a gamepad?
And to add...I've played MMO's with a gamepad before, its generally pretty terrible -- even if you can macro/config/alt every single button. Not because its a gamepad, but because the UI and game itself was never designed with that device in mind. But that is another story altogther...
Its just not possible to place 50-70 skills on a gamepad and make it fun & easy to use. Its a fawkin nightmare...
And which one of those is an MMO? Oblvision or Morrowind? Did you really come here to tell us the difference between a keyboard and a gamepad? And to add...I've played MMO's with a gamepad before, its generally pretty terrible -- even if you can macro/config/alt every single button. Not because its a gamepad, but because the UI and game itself was never designed with that device in mind. But that is another story altogther... Its just not possible to place 50-70 skills on a gamepad and make it fun & easy to use. Its a fawkin nightmare...
The more skills you have = the better the combat.
Nnnnnot.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Buttons that change HUD modes or character modes = 0 - varying number
So on and so forth...
This is an example what an MMORPG might have for controls in PC. I'd like to see you try and allocate those actions to a controller and still keep it understandable and natural. I'd imagine you'd have to make heavy use of modality (button+button type of things) or more menus which all are bad, in general, for usability. Either that or simplify things: Auto-target, auto-attack, auto-reload... or drop a few of those actions altogether.
By no means are console games dumbed-down, but they have severe limitations due to the controller. That and mouse is superior to controllers in FPS and RTS games which require more nimble and faster movement. Console-games have to make sacrifices.
It is not true that console games are for idiots. It's just that some console games are really, really simple and console gamers like simpler games in general.
EDIT: ...and yes, controller does dictate the depth of combat to some extent.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe As for TES games being "Dumbed down," please point me to an RPG with depth that consoles can't handle. Dragon Age? It's on consoles. Baldur's Gate? That came out in 1998 and even a Dreamcast could probably run it. Fallout 3? I'm currently playing it on XBox 360.
How about show me a game that runs just as smooth, doesn't suck, and plays with the same graphics as a high-end gaming computer for X-box.
Or you could admit that you don't have a pot to piss in because the "dumbed down" arguement is complete bullshit.
It's true that gamepad has less buttons than your normal mouse+keyboard combo..
Thus the games have to be made with that fact in mind.
But that doesn't mean that the gameplay has to be simple or dumbed down. It just has to be aimed elsewhere than the number of buttons you have to press.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
It's true that gamepad has less buttons than your normal mouse+keyboard combo.. Thus the games have to be made with that fact in mind. But that doesn't mean that the gameplay has to be simple or dumbed down. It just has to be aimed elsewhere than the number of buttons you have to press.
You can plug a keyboard into a ps3 or 360, mouse as well. So that debate is rather pointless.
It's true that gamepad has less buttons than your normal mouse+keyboard combo.. Thus the games have to be made with that fact in mind. But that doesn't mean that the gameplay has to be simple or dumbed down. It just has to be aimed elsewhere than the number of buttons you have to press.
You can plug a keyboard into a ps3 or 360, mouse as well. So that debate is rather pointless.
That doesn't mean that console games are designed to use with keyboard and mouse. So yes, it is pointless.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Let's see: WASD, for movement, jump, crouch = 6 buttons Left analog stick for movement, press the stick for crouch, use a face button for jump. 1- varying number for skills and abilities = 8 - 10 Let the player assign three or four skills to the face buttons and have a <shift> button, like taping the RB, to cycle through two or three layers of skill assigns. F1- to varying number to target party members = 4 - 12 Left or right on the d-pad Next target, previous target, target nearest, call target, and target called target = 5 Up or down on the d-pad. In fact, for both of these you could just have one button that would cycle through all visible targets. Like up cycles through party members while left cycles through enemies. This will leave right and down for other functions. Push to talk, chat = 2 party voice chat is a beautiful thing. Request or alert status, mana, health or otherwise = Usually used with a lock-key and a mouse Confused by this one. You can't just find this info on the screen? attack, block, dodge, cancel skill/spell, reload = 5 Right trigger attacks, left trigger blocks, only one spell can be cast at a time so starting a new one auto cancels the one in progress. Normally only see reload in FPS games so I don't know why you're bringing it up here. Reload is normally the X button. Menus, varying screens, map = 1 - varying number Back and start are usually used to call up menus. once in the menus you can switch between menus with the trigger buttons and select stuff with the left analog stick and the A button. Buttons that change HUD modes or character modes = 0 - varying number Probably either the back or start button. I'd assume that the start button would take you to the menus so the back button would logically work for this. So on and so forth... This is an example what an MMORPG might have for controls in PC. I'd like to see you try and allocate those actions to a controller and still keep it understandable and natural. I'd imagine you'd have to make heavy use of modality (button+button type of things) or more menus which all are bad, in general, for usability. Either that or simplify things: Auto-target, auto-attack, auto-reload... or drop a few of those actions altogether. By no means are console games dumbed-down, but they have severe limitations due to the controller. That and mouse is superior to controllers in FPS and RTS games which require more nimble and faster movement. Console-games have to make sacrifices. It is not true that console games are for idiots. It's just that some console games are really, really simple and console gamers like simpler games in general.
Notice that alot of what I listed off are basically control standards on consoles. Not only is it possible for these functions to be assigned in an intuitive way, but it's been done thousands of times before.
The speed issue is also moot since I play the PC version of UT3 with an XBox 360 controller and have the same kill / death ratio that I acheive with a mouse and keyboard. I do have to play a bit differently with the gamepad, but it doesn't put me at any kind of disadvantage.
Comments
And it still probably made more profit than all of those titles. You can't compare standalone sales of single player games to sales of subscription based games like MMO's. An MMO on a console is not a flop if it doesn't sell as many copies as single player games do. You still make more money overall even if the playerbase is smaller.
well.... how about neverwinter nights 1& 2 Deus Ex, 1.. the second one isnt as good as the first but.. not bad.. or how about Far Cry.. Dragon age isnt really a good example tbh, as i really don't think its a good representation of whats possible on a PC, and.. is sadly a rather boring game, if pretty.. though do have to admit, lately it seems like the only things that get released on PC are dodgy console ports ... so while the PC may be more capable generally than the various consoles, its an often overlooked one by games developers, outside of mmo's that is.
Wow. Worst examples ever. Dragon Age was more linear than Mass Effect, last I heard and Fallout 3 is a shameless Oblivion reskin.
I'll give you Baldur's Gate, though.
Try the Persona series, try Disgaea, try the Tales series, try Skies of Arcadia. Hell, I could list off tons of games that aren't even American with a hell of a lot more depth than anything Bethesda has crapped out recently.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Please link the console version for, lets say Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. Or lets go even further back and go with Baldurs gate 1.
And i am not talking about Dark Alliance or whatever that crap hack n slash game was called.
Sure i know my ps3 would "handle" it. But not with a gamepad.
*Facepalm* its not a question "if it could run it".
You do realize that the combat for Dragon Age, Oblivion, KoTOR as well as Mass Effect, were specifically designed to work on both PC AND consoles? This means that the control schemes and combat for PC versions were also made with the restrictions of the console in mind. You can't make a Baldur's Gate I and II game to consoles.
Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance I and II were both action RPGs specifically designed for the consoles only. That is why they are as they are - simple.
Only good thing the consoles have that PCs don't have is that analog trigger on the controller as well as its shaking when the protagonist gets his/her ass handend to him/her.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I dunno -- I feel like tv's (and therefore consoles) just aren't conducive to the amount of reading necessary for mmo's. Now, I'm not making reference to Nancy McIntyre here, I'm just saying that given multiple boxes for chat and world interaction coupled with the fact that you aren't sitting on top of the television (unlike a monitor you're probably 15inches from), it doesn't seem like a good fit for the genre. Even if some of that chat is replaced by voice in teams, I don't see it happening effectively.
I play city of heroes on my 46" z-5100 (at 1920 x 1080p) and there's only so far back (typically I lay on the floor, about 4 feet back) you can play before the actual game is obscured by chatboxes. I only suffer this because my game machine doubles as the media center too otherwise it would be at a real desk with a monitor.
Anyway, that's just my experience.
Uhh...
Anyway, the simple truth is that the current gen consoles will be more powerful than most PC's for quite some time. If you invest on a console MMO, you can make the graphics and the engine much better. See; FFXIV vs. SW:TOR when it comes to visual looks. The players don't have to invest on high end PC to play the game with good graphics, simply having a PS3 or Xbox 360 is enough.
Nope. Dead wring. Consoles will never be more powerful then computers. They pulled dev. of FFXIIV from x-box because it takes too long to dumb it down. I've played plenty of games that I hated on the x-box and loved on pc becasue they look better, play better, and aren't dumbed down. Also, you're comparing 2 different games. Look at runescape vs pac-man.
My point is, that for most people consoles are more powerful than their PC's. They'll get good quality hardware for much cheaper price, and that's what matters for most people.
If you have a high end PC, you'll get more out of it than console. But for most people, this isn't the case. And when developers aim for the majority which hasn't upgraded their PC hardware in few years if ever, you have to make sure those people can play the game effectively.
WoW wasn't the top notch game graphics wise when it came out, and there's a simple reason for that; Blizzard wanted the game to be available for as many potential customers as possible, even if they didn't have a PC that runs Crysis on high graphics. The same goes for the upcoming StarWars MMO.
However, game such as FFXIV can sport graphics as good as the consoles allow, because every console owner has the same hardware available. You can have both high end graphics And not lose potential customers in the process. This is why consoles are good for both the players and the developers.
My point is, that for most people consoles are more powerful than their PC's. They'll get good quality hardware for much cheaper price, and that's what matters for most people.
If you have a high end PC, you'll get more out of it than console. But for most people, this isn't the case. And when developers aim for the majority which hasn't upgraded their PC hardware in few years if ever, you have to make sure those people can play the game effectively.
WoW wasn't the top notch game graphics wise when it came out, and there's a simple reason for that; Blizzard wanted the game to be available for as many potential customers as possible, even if they didn't have a PC that runs Crysis on high graphics. The same goes for the upcoming StarWars MMO.
However, game such as FFXIV can sport graphics as good as the consoles allow, because every console owner has the same hardware available. You can have both high end graphics And not lose potential customers in the process. This is why consoles are good for both the players and the developers.
true: consoles support players better, because they are all the same thing, but that is my problem. I want something that is better. The x-box is 5 years old now. It's falling behind some of the PC gaming market. I built my computer and it cost 300 bucks and then another 300 in upgrades, it's an old machine, but it's still better than any console you can throw at me.
PS: lets not turn this into a flame-war
Okay, I got too bogged down in examples last time and most of you missed the point. Let's start over.
Thesis: The controller does not dictate the depth of a game.
You can play Go and Chess with a mouse or a one button joystick and they are the deepest games ever made by mankind.
If you want to talk Baldur's gate (the PC version, not Dark Alliance) / Neverwinter Nights, I doubt that you'd have a problem converting to a gamepad. It's been a while since I've played either one but if I recall correctly, navigating the world was a point and click affair with 0-9 assigned to quick abilities and items and everything else nestled in various menus. Neverwinter Nights had that Sims 3 style radial menu, but it still used the quick slots and what not.
Now consider that a standard gamepad has about 16 buttons. If we keep the screen centered on the party and put the player in direct control of one character, that the rest of the party follows in formation naturally, we'll have more than enough buttons for hotkeys, calling up menus, cycling targets, and so forth. In short, you have access to exactly the same commands that you would have in the PC version. In what way would the game be "dumbed down?'
Answer: It wouldn't be. The people screaming about console games being for retards are simply full of shit.
How about show me a game that runs just as smooth, doesn't suck, and plays with the same graphics as a high-end gaming computer for X-box.
why oh why did they give Dust 514 to the 360.
EVE player "we're getting an FPS addon to go down to planets SWEEE....its only for the 360.....CCP why do you hate us ?
I know what you mean and it's a valid point, but even still, when it comes to MMO's, you won't be able to make use of that hardware if the developers want the game to be played by the majority of PC's.
When you make an MMO (or any game) available on both consoles and PC's, you won't have to care about what kind of machines most people have, and can make the game with the console hardware in mind. And when ported to PC, if you have a good machine you can enhance the experience even further.
I don't think the consoles hinder PC players, but only complement them. Most players will be able to play the game with good graphics even without spending 600 bucks, and those with the money will be able to play even a better looking game on their PC's.
For example, while FFXIV will be on PS3 as well as PC, the console and PC versions will have different textures so the PS3 does not hinder the PC version, and all kind of players will be able to play the game, regardless of what hardware they own. If the game was available only on PC's, they would have to tune down the graphics (moreso than on consoles) so that the majority of PC's would be able to run the game without it looking ugly as sin.
And which one of those is an MMO? Oblvision or Morrowind?
Did you really come here to tell us the difference between a keyboard and a gamepad?
And to add...I've played MMO's with a gamepad before, its generally pretty terrible -- even if you can macro/config/alt every single button. Not because its a gamepad, but because the UI and game itself was never designed with that device in mind. But that is another story altogther...
Its just not possible to place 50-70 skills on a gamepad and make it fun & easy to use. Its a fawkin nightmare...
The more skills you have = the better the combat.
Nnnnnot.
Let's see:
WASD, for movement, jump, crouch = 6 buttons
1- varying number for skills and abilities = 8 - 10
F1- to varying number to target party members = 4 - 12
Next target, previous target, target nearest, call target, and target called target = 5
Push to talk, chat = 2
Request or alert status, mana, health or otherwise = Usually used with a lock-key and a mouse
attack, block, dodge, cancel skill/spell, reload = 5
Menus, varying screens, map = 1 - varying number
Buttons that change HUD modes or character modes = 0 - varying number
So on and so forth...
This is an example what an MMORPG might have for controls in PC. I'd like to see you try and allocate those actions to a controller and still keep it understandable and natural. I'd imagine you'd have to make heavy use of modality (button+button type of things) or more menus which all are bad, in general, for usability. Either that or simplify things: Auto-target, auto-attack, auto-reload... or drop a few of those actions altogether.
By no means are console games dumbed-down, but they have severe limitations due to the controller. That and mouse is superior to controllers in FPS and RTS games which require more nimble and faster movement. Console-games have to make sacrifices.
It is not true that console games are for idiots. It's just that some console games are really, really simple and console gamers like simpler games in general.
EDIT: ...and yes, controller does dictate the depth of combat to some extent.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
How about show me a game that runs just as smooth, doesn't suck, and plays with the same graphics as a high-end gaming computer for X-box.
Or you could admit that you don't have a pot to piss in because the "dumbed down" arguement is complete bullshit.
The more skills you have = the better the combat.
Nnnnnot.
Hyanmen, I'm disappointed. With how critical you're being, I thought you would have caught that, lol.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Actually, it's not. But that's a debate for the console crowd vs the PC crowd, not the platforms themselves.
P.S. Guess where you're proving to fit in.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
It's true that gamepad has less buttons than your normal mouse+keyboard combo..
Thus the games have to be made with that fact in mind.
But that doesn't mean that the gameplay has to be simple or dumbed down. It just has to be aimed elsewhere than the number of buttons you have to press.
I'm unfortunately missing your point =/
I'm unfortunately missing your point =/
The word that was highlighted was spelled horrifically.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
You can plug a keyboard into a ps3 or 360, mouse as well. So that debate is rather pointless.
You can plug a keyboard into a ps3 or 360, mouse as well. So that debate is rather pointless.
That doesn't mean that console games are designed to use with keyboard and mouse. So yes, it is pointless.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Notice that alot of what I listed off are basically control standards on consoles. Not only is it possible for these functions to be assigned in an intuitive way, but it's been done thousands of times before.
The speed issue is also moot since I play the PC version of UT3 with an XBox 360 controller and have the same kill / death ratio that I acheive with a mouse and keyboard. I do have to play a bit differently with the gamepad, but it doesn't put me at any kind of disadvantage.