FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
right. this post would be relevant in 2002.
Typical biased PC fanboy, knowledge of console gaming still lagging many years behind. bet its also a surprise to you that consoles have more than composite outputs now?
Actually I have both a PC and console; my point is that the standards for what makes a good FPS on a console vs what makes a good FPS on a PC are different. Again use Halo, console it sold very well; PC the sales were drek at best; why; it was nothing better than average. Same holds true for UT3; sold/is selling well on consoles but crappy sales due to it being a crappy game on the PC.
Based on the sales; you would be one of the few; there will rarely be a game that doesn't sell at all; someone/group will invariable love it.Loved Halo PC
As as been stated before, sales != good game, or in general good product. Halo sold well because it was one of the first FPS games on a console. Halo2/3 sold well because they were one of the first MP FPS games on a console. Big selling points which would draw a crowd in; another thing that would lead to big sales would be MS's advertising budget. Count how much was spent on HL2 advertising vs any one of the Halo advertising, (your examples,)... more pubic eye = more potential sale.The thing is - in the perspective of a game developer sales are worth a hell of a lot more than any critical acclaim or demands on an enthusiast messageboard.
Yes, PC gamers will forever say that Halo is "average" and this and that - but it's outsold every PC shooter in the last 10 years and it got stellar ratings to boot. All 3 did in fact. Yet, I'm sure PC gamers will find a way to discard that critical acclaim (and $ made) yet accept the acclaim for a PC game like HL2. It's a double standard.
And yes HL2 is a better game than all 3 of the Halo's; not because of the acclaim but because it was a better game. It played better, was more fun and actually had a good storyline; unlike the Halo storyline which read like it was freshly spiewed out of some grad-student's FanFic blog.
Fact is, the developers see that console shooters can be great and they're selling like hotcakes.
Great for their sales yes; again has nothing to do with how good or not good a game is; you tend to equate $$ with quality which is not always the case.
If they can ever do that, you'll see even more of the hardcore PC gamers (the few left) make the switch, too.
If PC gaming goes away, (which it will not,) it would be bad for gaming as a whole; innovation happens on a PC, the new hardware to push the latest and greatest causes the machine to move ever forward; if the devs have the same hardware to program on for a 7 to 10 year span... how much innovation will you see come out of that?
The way you continue to toss around titles like 'mr biased pc gamer' simply sheds light on your own zelotry towards consoles; you realize this yes? I will agree that precision on a mouse is far better than a controller, (for some things,) but to say that these are the only advantages are bunk.No. not superior in every way, mr biased pc gamer. there are only 2 things the mouse/keyboard setup is better at, and that is precision(mouse) and the capacity for more buttons(keyboard). thats it.
the controller is only more ergonomic if the controlls are programmed properly and the 'one size fits all' controller fits you. I know a fair number of people that had to order a 360 controller from Japan becase the american version was to large to be comfortable. On top of that if the buttons aren't assigned correctly by the dev, (and not all games allow you to remap,) then it gets real uncomfortable real quick.The weaknesses of the keyboard/mouse setup are that it requires a large flat surface to fit both of the devices. which is why on a couch its impractical. Another weakness is that it's simply more ergonomic and relaxing to use a console controller.
Another vast generalization; see some of the most pouplar games on the PC, (SIMS, Civ etc...) aren't overly amped games and I've seen just as many 'chill consolers' go ape over a Halo multi-player match as any pc gamer... has nothing to do with the platform has to do with the attitude of the individual... your statement above = Fail.Many gamers just want to chill. they aren't like some amped up PC gamers who can only think about competition on a game(thus makinga big deal about mouse speed). some gamers like to have fun. crazy I know.
yes everything is there for a controller over a mouse; but when something becomes simplified that is much easier to occur. Controls on a comtroller aren't as precise because they don't need to be; the level of auto-aim in most console FPS games helps to compensate for that.The thing about it being a "superior" form of control is an opinion. Yes, the mouse aims faster - but with a pad everything is all there.
Consoles/controllers definately have their place, honestly I couldn't play through some of the games I enjoy without a controller, most of that though occurs through general lazyness of the programmers. GTA series, flying is tons easier with a controller, (though would be even easier with a flight stick but whatever...) Legos starwars much easier with a controller, though this is due to lazyness in the port.