Topic: Dear internet fanboys

[idolminds]

The Wiis graphics are not a step back, they just aren't a step forward. There is a difference, please learn it. Saying stupid shit like "graphics from the stone age" is, well, stupid. They are the graphics we've had for the last 5 years. It's not like we're going back to fucking Pong.


I just had to vent. If I had a blog that I cared about I would have posted it there...but no one reads blogs.

[Cobra951]

"I'm a gamer who only cares about graphics."

I actually read that in a forum just the other day.  I did a double take to see if it was sarcasm, but no.  This guy was being serious.  The bitching wasn't even about hardware, but about how worthless some game or other was because it didn't have the best graphics the system could deliver.

I see all these arguments and complaints about stupid shit that has little bearing on how enjoyable games are.  I'm all for competent hardware and good displays, but we're there already.  Been there for a while, in fact.  I'm perfectly happy with GC and PS2 games even now.  The Wii is perfect, as far as what it can crunch out.  But the dumbasses are going to sit there and bitch about shit like resolution.  Play the damn games.  The tech is taken care of.

[iPPi]

I agree.

However, some of the Wiis ports have been pretty bad.  Take a look at that Far Cry game.  That really does look absolutely terrible. 

[Quemaqua]

You'd be amazed how many self-professed graphics whores are out there, and a lot of them are completely shameless about it.  I'm sure that they do pay attention to the gameplay of whatever they happen to be trying, it's just that they can't enjoy a game without great graphics.  Or they won't.  Or something.  It's stupid, but what are we gonna' do?  We don't have an idiocy vaccine yet.

EDIT - I was thinking, and for me, it's more of an artistry thing.  I don't care how technically impressive a game's graphics are if there's no artistry to what's there.  And if there's fantastic artistry, I don't care how technologically dated a game's graphics are.  That to me is of the utmost importance.  Have artistry, you have everything.  Have none, you have nothing.  Well, graphics-wise.

[angrykeebler]

who was that guy from IGN PC General who was completely obsessed with having the most up-to-date graphics? I remember him saying some crap like "YOU ARENT REALLY PLAYING THE GAME UNLESS YOU ARE PLAYING IT AT 200 FPS" or something stupid

[idolminds]

I was just reading a thread on the Xbox 360 IGN board (which was my first mistake). I thought it could be interesting, as the original topic was "Anyone else not into all this motion sensor controller crap and glad 360 kept it basic?" and I figured they would discuss the pros and cons. On one hand the standard controller is...standard, so devs know what works and what doesn't and can just build games around it like they already know how to do. On the other hand the Wii remote will take some getting used to, but could open up some interesting control and gameplay opportunities if it works out.

By about page 2 there are people bitching about the Wiis graphics, as if that has anything to do at all with the controller.

Keeb: thats probably Ominous1. Hes still an asshole.

ippi: True, but thats more a fault of the game itself and not the hardware. The Gamecube could spit out respectable graphics, and the Wii is supposed to be (marginally) more capable.

Que: I agree on the artistry. Okami is a great example of a game I think looks amazing even though its not a technical marvel. Splinter Cell looks good technically, but for me it just looks lifeless and boring. It has no style.

[angrykeebler]

YES! Ominous! Now I remember! What a jackhole.

[Pugnate]

"Anyone else not into all this motion sensor controller crap and glad 360 kept it basic?"

haha I love how he turned a negative into a positive. I am glad they kept it basic... haha.. gotta love fanboys.

But the graphics argument is sorta valid if that is the only console you are going to buy. If you have another gaming platform like a high end PC, a 360, or even a PS3, then the Wii may turn out to be the perfect thing to have on the side.

On its own so far, I feel that the Wii is a bust. It just doesn't have a single must-have title yet, which is a shame. The only reason I dived into the GC so late was the lack of games, and the Wii doesn't have anything brilliant that isn't borrowed.

The graphics argument holds lots of weight if you are going to be wanting to play cross platform like the Fifas, the Need for Speeds, Crysis etc on the Wii.

But that's not what you buy a Wii for. You buy it for the very unique and very rich titles, that are yet to debut, but anyway.

The Wiis graphics are not a step back, they just aren't a step forward.

No I am pretty sure the graphics are a step back, unless you are getting it for free. You are paying $250 for a console that displays graphics on a slightly higher level than its predecessor. I think that is a massive step back.

But please note, I mean the graphics. I am not yet saying the system itself is a step back, as it comes with a highly innovative control system. However the control system has yet to be proven. The only must have game for the Wii is also available on the GC, so basically you are paying $250 to be able to swing the sword in unison with your controller a little. Visually it is pretty much the same right? So is $250 worth you having some more freedom with Link’s actions? I don’t know, but I hope someone with a Wii can answer that.

To me it is over priced and should be fine at $150. I think the only way they can justify the $250 price tag is if they start releasing must have titles that fully utilize the controller.

I think you can find the 360 for a very good price these days, and four years from now it will still look good.  On the other hand the Wii's visuals four years from now won't look four years old, but rather eight years old.

I agree that some of the games coming out on the PS2 still look gorgeous, purely because of the art direction. But to let that justify the Wii's visuals is a bit ridiculous considering you can find a PS2 for less than a hundred buckeroos.

It isn't just about graphics whores who can only enjoy top quality visuals. If that were truly the case then games like Okami wouldn't be the best sellers that they are. I think it is about getting the best bang for your buck.

Also does anyone else find it ridiculously annoying that both Gamespot and IGN have written a gazillion reviews for the retro titles available on the Wii? I think the retro titles should have their own section or at least have a very clear title. It is really annoying to browse the game reviews for the Wii and having to figure out which are actual new releases.

IGN is getting far more annoying because it now has a million reviews for every game. Now they have Australian reviews, British reviews as well as the standard American review.

Write one review and stick to it.

[poomcgoo]

I think graphics play a huge role in the enjoyment of MOST games, and the Wii looks fairly shitty compared to anything on the 360.  There are games I've played on 360 that I probably wouldn't normally enjoy, but enjoyed anyways because of how pretty it all looked.  Not to mention the number of games that I've given a chance that I normally wouldn't have -- Fight Night Round 3?  I've never played a boxing game I liked, so it never even occurred to me that this would be good.  The graphics blew me away, and literally made me try the game.  Turns out it's fun as all hell.

Sure I'd enjoy the hell out of Zelda:TP, but something like Call of Duty 3 I'd never play without the awesome graphics and the Xbox Live support.  Reasons like this are why I feel that the Wii is just plain inferior -- and I really do love Nintendo.  Before I actually played any of the consoles, I was planning on getting a Wii and I was badmouthing the 360 just because it's an MS product.  I played them both, and not even my fanboyism for Nintendo could sway me to the Wii.  It's great for some people, I just felt disappointed by it.  Because really, I don't see how anybody can fairly say that the Wii is a better console than the 360 -- it just isn't.

[iPPi]

On its own so far, I feel that the Wii is a bust. It just doesn't have a single must-have title yet, which is a shame. The only reason I dived into the GC so late was the lack of games, and the Wii doesn't have anything brilliant that isn't borrowed.

I kind of agree, but the same can be said with the PS3 and the Xbox360.  There just aren't that many must-own titles yet on any of the new consoles.  The only exception I think is Gears of War for the 360.  The PS3 has no must-own titles, and the Wii has Zelda.

I disagree with you on the GC though having a lack of games.  There are a lot of GC games that are absolutely phenomenal and completely amazing. 

[Pugnate]

I kind of agree, but the same can be said with the PS3 and the Xbox360.  There just aren't that many must-own titles yet on any of the new consoles.  The only exception I think is Gears of War for the 360.  The PS3 has no must-own titles, and the Wii has Zelda.

Yes well I think the PS3 is easily the biggest bust so far, so yea.

On the 360 you have two must haves, Oblivion and Gears of War. Both of those will debut on the PS3 as well, but obviously not the Wii. 

Aside from that you have extremely high quality titles like:

1. Rainbow Six Vegas
2. Splinter Cell: Double Agent
3. Dead Rising (The only one of these aside from F.E.A.R. and DOA 4 so far not announced for the PS3)
4. Need for Speed: Most Wanted (Well I am not fond of it, but racers sell consoles)
5. Smackdown vs Raw 2007 (Again a quality grappler is an important game for every console)
6. Dead or Alive 4 (Does the Wii even have a fighting game?)
7. Call of Duty 3
8. F.E.A.R.
9. GRAW (Not for me personally, but a lot of people love it.)

Heck you could even put Project Gotham 3 on that list. I know it isn't fair to compare that list to the Wii's choices considering the 360 has had a year, but within 2 months I think it had Fight Night Round 3, Dead or Alive 4, Oblivion, Project Gotham 3 and GRAW.

I disagree with you on the GC though having a lack of games.  There are a lot of GC games that are absolutely phenomenal and completely amazing.

Yes the GC had some fantastic games, but they took so long to come out which is why I took the late dive. Compare that to the PS2 and it is still churning out top class titles.

[iPPi]

I agree with you there.  The Xbox360 does have a lot of high quality titles.  Rainbow Six: Vegas is an awesome game.  You can also add Kameo and Viva Pinata to that list too, since they're first rate titles as well.

But the biggest problem with the 360 remains that there are many games that aren't exclusive.  I mean, from that list, most of them are being released for the PS3, or already out on the PC as well.

[Pugnate]

Like for instance, Oblivion as well as Gears of War... the two real must have titles. I wouldn't worry about the PC as much as the PS3. The games being developed on another platform all together is a loss, but not as bad as going to another console, which as you mentioned is the PS3.

I think it is dangerous ground for the console makers, as it looks like the publishers aren't offering exclusive deals anymore.

The biggest example of this for me is Smackdown vs Raw.

The Smackdown wrestling series has been exclusive to the playstation for ages, and Sony just didn't want it going anywhere else. I know most of you lot aren't fans, but a lot of people decide on a console by its wrestling game. I was shocked... really shocked when they announced the next Smackdown game would be cross platform. I think it had to do with the fact that the PS3 wasn't out and the 360 was.

You know, Sony may surprise us after all this hullabaloo and win the console war again. They still have God of War, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and a whole bunch of exclusives on their side.

Hell, what gets me is that even Splinter Cell isn't a 360/PC exclusive anymore, and is on all the consoles.

What exclusives does MS have on its side? Halo will definitely be one, and there will always be the Bioware games that will find themselves on PC as well.

Sony has loyal developers. The PS3 could still win the battle.

[scottws]

I think the appeal of the Xbox 360 lies in its seamless ties to your home LAN and in Xbox Live.  Those things are extremely well done.

[scottws]

Also Pug, I think you're wrong about Zelda being the only game to own.  When my brother, a Wii owner, was home for Christmas break, he had Zelda and Wii Sports.  I played Zelda a little, but Wii sports a lot.  It was a ton of fun.  Yeah, Zelda was just Zelda with a different control scheme. 

I think the system has it's place as more of a party/local multiplayer system.  I'm really looking forward to getting one and playing bowling and tennis and that Wario game with Jennie and her son.  I think that's going to be the appeal of the system, games like Wii Sports.  Wii Play and that Wario game immediately come to mind.  There is going to be a Wii DDR as well.  Stuff like that will be its forte.

Some driving games might turn out really well on it as well.  The game sucked, but Excite Truck's control scheme was really neat.

[idolminds]

I think the Wii is having the same growing pains the DS had when it was first released, where developers really like the idea but have no clue how to properly utilize it. They either release a game that has good implementation but the overall game isn't that substantial or ports with the new stuff simply tacked on.

[Pugnate]

The Gamecube is a fantastic party console as well. We simply love Mario Tennis in my extended family 

[shock]

I played Wii Tennis for the first this past weekend.  It was amazing.  Luckily, my roommate is bringing his Wii to college with him next year.  I am excited to play that thing all day..

PS: Ominous is infinitely amusing.  I have known him ever since I came to IGN.  And he has never stopped being an asshole.  Ever.  He's just as big of an asshole today as he was 5 years ago. You would think it would be tiring pissing on everyone, but he still finds it amusing.

[Quemaqua]

I agree with idol.  The DS took some time to catch on, but it's doing really well.  And jeez, compare it to the PSP and it's a monster machine.  The PSP fucking sucks unless you're using really early or hacked firmware.  There's just so few reasons to own it.  There are a few, but just not enough really big ones, especially since most of the cool games are niche in the first place.  Obviously the playing field is different with home consoles, but I had fun when I was at Sy's playing around with the machine.  It worked well for a lot of things.  Once people get the hang of developing for it there should be some cool stuff, and I'm definitely interested in what Nintendo will be offering in the future.

[Cobra951]

My problem with the GC is the unproven control system.  That's all.  If it does prove itself, and the kind of games we expect for it pan out, I'll probably end up owning one.  I do think the X360 is in the zone right now.  (The Wii may actually get there sometime.  The PS3 hasn't even found the roadmap.)  It has a year's worth of games, some of which are awesome.  Like Scott said, the network connectivity and content is done right.  You can spend all your free time on this thing without buying a single game box.  That took me completely by surprise.  Most of that entertainment is free too.   I've bought 3 arcade games, but I've also played a bunch of trial versions and demos to death.  People who get into the online multiplayer have that much more to like about it, added cost aside.  (Even that is very low.  I'm considering paying for Gold now that my trial's over.)

I'm a bit disappointed to see some comments above equating graphics with worthwhile gameplay.  If a game sucks, it sucks even if it's the prettiest thing ever to grace a screen. 

[nickclone]

Have you people forgotten that the 360 has had over a year long, head start over both systems? If you have an advantage like that its obvious you'll win the sprint, but what about the long run? I've never played a lot of Xbox PS2, but when I did and asked "how do I reload", I always had to look down at the controller to see where the button was that would put a new mag in my gun. When it comes to the Wii, even senile ol' grandma can remember that holding the controller like a gun aims, bowling like a bowling ball bowls and swinging it like a tennis racket...well...swings. The Wii isn't about graphics, its about having fun which it happens to have loads of.

Just look at the DS, look at the VC and all the other "shitty" looking games that sell. I used to think the majority of gamers were graphics whores, my mind has been changed as of late.

Edit: Xbox Live content isn't free, you've already paid for it.

[MysterD]

I dunno, but I think the Atari 7800 has the best graphics and gameplay.
It's all about one game on that system....
ET.

[Cobra951]

Have you people forgotten that the 360 has had over a year long, head start over both systems? If you have an advantage like that its obvious you'll win the sprint, but what about the long run? I've never played a lot of Xbox PS2, but when I did and asked "how do I reload", I always had to look down at the controller to see where the button was that would put a new mag in my gun. When it comes to the Wii, even senile ol' grandma can remember that holding the controller like a gun aims, bowling like a bowling ball bowls and swinging it like a tennis racket...well...swings. The Wii isn't about graphics, its about having fun which it happens to have loads of.

Just look at the DS, look at the VC and all the other "shitty" looking games that sell. I used to think the majority of gamers were graphics whores, my mind has been changed as of late.

Edit: Xbox Live content isn't free, you've already paid for it.

I know the 360 is a year old.  That's exactly why it's in the sweet spot.  It has the history, the easy availability, the user base and the games.  The new systems have yet to get here.  (When they do, call me.)

If you have trouble remembering what button does what, you need more experience with the game.  I know exactly what button does what in the games I get heavily into.  And I know where those buttons are without looking.  The one thing Sony has done better than anyone is controller design, in the form of the Dual Shock 2.  The X360's controller copies it rather well, only inverting the L-stick and the D-pad to call it their own.  That kind of ergonomics is usually an evolutionary process.  2-handed, mostly thumb-driven controllers have been evolving for decades.  The Wii's scheme is too green for me to trust just yet.

If you mean I paid for Xbox Live as part of the console price, I agree.  Otherwise, except for the 3 games I mentioned, everything online came at no added cost.

[gpw11]

I was totally ready to go and buy a Wii as soon as it launched, but then the more I thought about it the more it seemed like waiting would be a really good idea.  The controller is cool, but you can apply the same argument to it that people have been applying to graphics; a shitty game is still a shitty game even if it has a new control scheme.  I'll get one eventually...after games like Super Mario Galaxy come out.  I might as well pick one up to play all the Game Cube games I missed anyways. 

I think we can all agree that the design of the system provides for a ton of fun through it's unique control scheme, but how that's actually executed in the majority of third party games is what will define if the actual system is great or not.  I waited for first party releases enough back when I owned the n64, I feel no need to do that again. 

As for the VC, it's priced all wrong for a lot of people.  Sure, it's convenient, but playing those same games for free on my PC, Dreamcast, or Xbox is convenient AND free.  That's where it doesn't compare to the Live! Marketplace. Expensive re-releases of old games are fine, but you're much better off if you're also offering some new content on there. 

The 360 is doing pretty much everything right at this point.  From the sounds of it it doesn't really seem like the PS3 will ever have a huge graphical advantage over it, and that's all the PS3 really has going for it.  Sure, they have all the Japanese developers that have been loyal to Sony, but let's not kid ourselves - that's because Sony has been where the money was in the past.  With both the Wii and 360 gaining popularity, it seems apparent that Sony could be at a loss this round.

That said, as far as the original topic is concerned, graphics do play a huge part in a lot of games by creating an immersive environment, but they're not everything.  Overall processing power is also a large factor when you want to get into new and innovative game types and the such (procedural synthesis is the way of the future my friends).

[nickclone]

I know the 360 is a year old.  That's exactly why it's in the sweet spot.  It has the history, the easy availability, the user base and the games.  The new systems have yet to get here.  (When they do, call me.)

If you have trouble remembering what button does what, you need more experience with the game.  I know exactly what button does what in the games I get heavily into.  And I know where those buttons are without looking.  The one thing Sony has done better than anyone is controller design, in the form of the Dual Shock 2.  The X360's controller copies it rather well, only inverting the L-stick and the D-pad to call it their own.  That kind of ergonomics is usually an evolutionary process.  2-handed, mostly thumb-driven controllers have been evolving for decades.  The Wii's scheme is too green for me to trust just yet.

If you mean I paid for Xbox Live as part of the console price, I agree.  Otherwise, except for the 3 games I mentioned, everything online came at no added cost.

You know, I was totally with you about me not knowing the game to well until you mentioned Sony's controller. All it is is an SNES controller with every improvement Nintendo has ever made to it (minues the rumble...now). Obviously Nintendo knows something about innovation, otherwise all of their new and improved inventions wouldn't become standards in this day and age. Who knows what the Wii will introduce to all the skeptics next generation.

[iPPi]

No doubt.  Sony has blatantly copied almost all controller innovations from Nintendo.

[Cobra951]

No question Sony copied previous designs.  They also improved on them.  And that SNES controller is an improvement on the NES controller.  That's my point.  This form of control has evolved and reached a state of reliability and maturity that's hard to beat with something right out of the starting gate.

[nickclone]

No question Sony copied previous designs.  They also improved on them.  And that SNES controller is an improvement on the NES controller.  That's my point.  This form of control has evolved and reached a state of reliability and maturity that's hard to beat with something right out of the starting gate.

You may say "improved", but I think stealing every new idea from each company's generation is actually just stealing. Also, to admit that Sony stole all the designs from Nintendo and then doubt their current setup with the Wii controller sounds inconsistent.

[Cobra951]

Why?  Would you be happy with the rectangular NES controller today?   

[idolminds]

Of course! *forgets who hes talking to* Back in my day our controllers only had one button! You kids and yous *two* button controllers...

[Cobra951]

You're damn right, punk!

[nickclone]

I'm not that old. Rock the casbah!

[Pugnate]

hahaha my cousin had that when I used to visit him as a kid. Thanks for the memories Cobra, that was awesome.

[idolminds]

Didn't feel like making a new thread...maybe I should just write a blog...

Another argument over Keyboard+mouse vs gamepad, specifically for first person shooters. I know gamepad users can do well enough, but pitting both against each other is crazy. Just look at what happened on Quake 3 for Dreamcast because it supported both (and PC users figured out how to join DC servers). It was a slaughterhouse.

Then someone pointed this out:

Console Vs PC in a Shooter?!?  How are you going to balance that?!

That is exactly what the design team for Shadowrun was thinking when we realized we wanted to have cross-platform play between the Xbox 360 and Vista PC players.  In this article I’ll walk you through the process we went through and some of our general design philosophy.

So how do you balance a shooter where console and PC players can play against each other?  Controller vs. Mouse & Keyboard, which is better?  It’s a question that has been on gamers minds ever since shooters started appearing on consoles.  Obviously the mouse is superior, right?  I mean the mouse is designed as a hyper-sensitive pointing device and has been refined over the years specifically for that purpose.  We all know that the most important element in any shooter game is the ability to quickly get your crosshair over the enemy and pull the trigger.  So given that, it’s obvious that the mouse will win every time in a fire fight, regardless of the game, right?  Wrong.  Don’t misunderstand me, that is exactly what every single member of the design team thought, including me, until we actually tried it.  So, what actually happened when we played our first cross-platform game?  The controller players trounced the mouse/keyboard players.  It wasn’t even close; the mouse players got stomped on. Over and over.  So what happened?  Did the mouse players just suck?  Or was the controller actually a superior aiming device?  Short answer: the mouse is better at aiming, but the controller is better at gaming.  Long answer: read on.


If you’re even bothering to read this, then you’re probably a gamer of some kind.  Being a gamer, you know that good controls are essential to any game.  As designers, we want the controls to feel like they are an extension of the player.  If the player is blaming the controls for their failures, then we have done something wrong.  Additionally, mapping precise aiming control to the sticks on a controller is not a simple problem.  There are very few console shooter games that do this well, and even fewer that manage to make it feel like an extension of your will.  The design team knew good console controls were going to take some serious time and effort to get right, so we set out to do that first.  Lucky for us some of the team members worked on the original Halo, so we had that going for us from the start.  I’ll spare you the technical details, but it basically breaks down like this:


The 360 controller is awesome; it is probably the best console controller to date (Ignoring its D-pad, which sucks).  The resolution on each stick axis is something like 64K, plenty of resolution to give precise aiming on the screen.  Unfortunately the throw distance on the sticks (Throw distance = distance from neutral to pegged) is so small that most humans simply don’t have the motor skills to utilize it.  To help alleviate this, and make the controls feel “right”, we do a bunch of tricks to essentially enlarge the stick throw area.  What exactly do we do?  We map the sticks to a curve so that most of the area is used for micro movement and only the very edge is used for large turns.  We also bend the weapon ray a bit within the crosshair (auto-aim).  There are a few other proprietary tricks we do, but I can’t tell you the specifics.  The point is that we do a bunch of extra work, and tuning to make the controls feel good with a 360 controller.  So we did all that work.  I spent months tuning and refining the 360 controls, until the team was happy with the results.


So now that we have console controls that we’re happy with we start implementing the mouse/keyboard controls.  At this point we are still paranoid that the mouse is going to “own”, so we put in all kinds of extra code to help us balance the game play.  Meaning that we remove all the controller assistance, and auto-aiming stuff.  We also add the concept of accuracy “blow out” from quick turning.  Let me explain.  In our game we use an accuracy model on the weapons, meaning that if you hold down the trigger or run or jump while firing a weapon you will be less accurate.  This is similar to any of the Clancy games, or CS.  So for the mouse we also added the idea that if you spin around 180 very quickly your weapon will be less accurate than if you stood still and fired.  We take a guess at some values and go into the lab to see how it plays.

To everyone’s surprise, the mouse players get owned.  Ok, so we overdid the numbers, no big deal.  We make some tweaks and try it again.  Same result.  This cycle continues until we have everything (auto-aim, targeting assistance, and accuracy) turned back on for the mouse.  It’s a lot closer, but the mouse players are still losing.  WTF?  Do the mouse players just suck?  No, some of our testers play semi-professional gaming, so we know they don’t totally suck (In fact they recently dominated in a shooter tournament at PAX).  Is it because our game plays so much differently than a standard shooter?  Partially, but we also found a bug.  The mouse players were getting slightly more recoil when shot, this caused them to lose most of their fire fights.  So we fixed that, and the mouse players finally started to win.  So now we know we are close to having a balanced game.

Again, we turn off all the targeting assistance stuff for the mouse, and test.  It’s pretty even.  The mouse players are a little better at long range combat, but the controller players are better close in.
So what is it about our game that makes it possible for controller players to hold their own?  Two things:  1 – we do some things to assist targeting with the controller so you don’t have to be pixel precise.  2 - Easy access to all the other abilities and powers.  No one is disputing the fact that the mouse is a superior aiming device for the standard shooter, but in our game its not all about how fast can you get your crosshair on the head of your opponent.  That’s been done, and frankly is not all that exciting anymore.  Shadowrun is a tactical shooter, it’s all about the situation and whether or not you are setup to take advantage of it.  If you find yourself in combat where you don’t have the advantage, perhaps you should consider some counter move or quick retreat.  Its always better to live to fight another day.  The controller is designed to give players quick and fluid access to all the games controls.  It also gives players analog control of movement speed.  This means that they are able to maneuver around the map much more effectively than the mouse players.  Therefore, they are better at close combat.

I like how he explains how they add auto aim as well as other "top secret" stuff to give the controller a leg up, then explains how they do everything in their power to nerf the mouse and keyboard...and are all shocked when the MKB players are losing. No shit? Then theres a bug that causes more recoil to MKB players when they get hit. Awesome!

I made the analogy: Thats like pitting Bill Gates against Mike Tyson, only Bill gets to use a baseball bat and Mike has his hands tied behind his back. Plus every time Bill hits Mike, Mike has to hop on one leg.

I wonder how Shadowrun plays on PC. Is it going to "feel" like shit compared to other FPSs? Probably. I mean they are going to penalize you for spinning around quickly to shoot the guy behind you! Makes me wonder how many PC players are going to even play it.

[sirean_syan]

Yeah, that's hardly proof that a controller can win over a mouse & keyboard. It just means they did a lot of work to make the controller feel right in the game. There's nothing wrong with that because that's how you do it; it's what makes FPSer's enjoyable on a console. Halo worked because of it and, consequently, it's why it felt strange on the PC. I imagine the same thing will happen with Shadowrun.

All this means is that an enjoyable FPS on a console is generally designed differently than one for PCs. We already have divisions like that in a couple other genres. Look at RPGs and RTSes.* Taking things even further, what it really comes down to are the best games are the ones designed for a specific platform from the ground up, for the most part. It's why exclusive titles tend to have a little something multiplatform games lack.

* If you're having a hard time thinking of a great console RTS, just think of stuff like Pikmen.

[MysterD]

.
Taking things even further, what it really comes down to are the best games are the ones designed for a specific platform from the ground up, for the most part. It's why exclusive titles tend to have a little something multiplatform games lack.

Very true....

...Though, the best game designers should be able to design their game for both the console style of control pads and the PC style of KB/mouse.

I was able to play many console-to-PC ports fine on the KB/mouse b/c the designers knew how to develop around a different set of controls. Some examples on the PC that played game, which were ex-console games, include -- Fable: TLC and SW: KOTOR.

Though, on the other hand, some games, such as Silent Hill series, just weren't ported to the PC to be used around a KB/mouse period. They didn't do a good job in modifying the controls to be adapted to the PC. They're a lil' wonky on the KB/mouse, but play better w/ the PC control pad; namely ones similar to those found on the consoles (like X360 or PS2). SH games are best played w/ a PSX-style control pad, since Konami didn't think of how to adapt their game w/ using MOUSELOOK too darn well.

As a gamer, in general, especially since I grew on gamepads on console systems (NES, Genesis, PSX), I just find it silly not to own some sort of good gamepad that works on the PC -- whether it's a PC control pad or one of those X360 controllers that work on the PC. You never know when you'll need it for when you buy a PC game that definitely feels like a port.
 

[Cobra951]

Unbelievable.  They intentionally fuck up the mouse response, add all sorts of AI to the joypad control, then have the nerve to say that mouse look is not necessarily better than joypad look.  "Look!   That olympic runner dragging the ball and chain lost to the wheezing fat man!  Who would've thunk?!"

The clear, undeniable advantage of the mouse as a looking/pointing device has less to do with sensitivity than with its perfectly linear response and range of movement.  It mimics head/eyeball movements oodles better than a joystick (which is much better suited to control things like throttles and steering vehicles than a mouse--it's a better analogue to those actions).  This is objective fact, not some political/fanboy hot potato.

[MysterD]

KB/mouse rules & 0wnz.