Controller Deemed Inferior for FPS Games
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
<div class="IPBDescription">In other news, fire still burny, water still drowny</div>I guess it's old news (or new olds) to everyone here, but here's a <a href="http://www.rahulsood.com/2010/07/console-gamers-get-killed-against-pc.html" target="_blank">blag post</a> about it. Rumour only and sorely lacking in detail, but then again anyone who has ever tried both controls can fill in the detail themselves. It's sad that FPS gaming has to such a high degree moved to formats that use an arguably inferior control scheme, especially when those formats seems to willfully sabotage any attempt to reclaim the lost advantage of mouselook.
Or have they finally started allowing mouselook on consoles? I haven't been keeping up really. It seems such an obvious thing to do that if they actually went ahead and DID it, the next question would be "what took you so long?"
Or have they finally started allowing mouselook on consoles? I haven't been keeping up really. It seems such an obvious thing to do that if they actually went ahead and DID it, the next question would be "what took you so long?"
Comments
My thoughts exactly. People tell me "once you get the hang of it, it's easy!" as I see them aiming their crosshair a whole inch away from their target and still hit.
The same people also tell me "You've been playing guitar for 15 years now, you should be good at guitar hero!"
It. is. not. the. same. thing.
Or... y'know... perspective.
(controllers suck for FPSes)
Actually a good point.
While in terms of numerical responsiveness a mouse is quicker, as you aren't likely to ever have joysticks being used against mice, it doesn't matter much.
Back in the early Halo beta days post-acquisition, there was an XBOX and a PC version. They could crossplay. The PC gamers would regularly beat the console players terribly. And I mean entirely embarassingly... circle-strafing around them, getting matches going where the PC players were only allowed to BEAT the console gamers to death with melee attacks, and still won decisively.
I'll go down to the local games store (legal retrogaming supplies aren't digital) hear console kids complaining about how it can be balanced if you limit the mouse rate, and give the console a bit of auto-aim and/or tighter shot grouping, and all of this other blatant CRAP that should not be necessary if a gamepad were an equal control scheme to a KB/mouse. I proceed to get into the same argument, and without fail they bring up how it can be 'just as good' if you limit the keyboard and mouse in drastic ways, to compensate for the gamepad's inability to compete.
If you are drag racing and you need twenty lengths to make it a 'competitive' race (aka: so you have an 'even' chance of winning), YOU SUCK. GO HOME. Same difference.
That said, I still prefer a gamepad for SmashTV style play, platformers or driving games if I don't have a wheel available. Multiple analog constraints with set limits are great for saying 'turn this much' or 'shoot in this rough direction'. But not for the rapid, pinpoint accuracy FPSes demand, without OVERWHELMINGLY having the odds stacked in their favor.
As for the ever important anecdotal evidence: I can FPS using either a mouse or joystick equally well. With a joystick you just need to get used to not being able to snap-shot, you have to plan ahead and knowing where exactly the other players may come from helps tons.
As for the ever important anecdotal evidence: I can FPS using either a mouse or joystick equally well. With a joystick you just need to get used to not being able to snap-shot, you have to plan ahead and knowing where exactly the other players may come from helps tons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except if you cloned yourself and gave one of you a mouse and keyboard and the other one of you a gamepad, Mr. Gamepad would lose every time.
Gamepads are terrible.
Kinect will be even worse.
Wii is better than a gamepad
PS Move will probably be better than the Wii.
Mouse for aiming is better than everything because not only can you quickly aim, you can also turn quickly (this is where the Wii fails, and PS Move will too.)
The most ideal scenario would probably be a nunchuck + mouse combo... so you get analog movement with accurate view control and turning.
For general games...
Gamepads are the best.
Kinect will suck.
Wii is okay.
PS Move will be better than Wii.
Gamepads are the best.
Kinect will suck.
Wii is okay.
PS Move will be better than Wii.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not following what your definition of 'general games' is, playing a game like Dance Central or Just Dance with anything other than a motion controller is already defeating the purpose. For FPSs, the Wii is much worse than a gamepad. Having played the Wii/360/PC version of COD4, the Wii just doesn't allow precise aiming whatsoever. What it does excel at are rail shooters because they give you a finese you couldn't get out of using from a mouse.
Your narrow minded views are what's hurting things like innovation in the game industry right now. Everyone wants to play it safe and we end up with a million military first person shooters that all control the same. People looked at the DS as a big joke and now a portable device that doesn't have touch capability is seen as a flaw.
I like this image. It speaks to me.
My definition of general games are things like platformers, action games, adventure games. Not specialized games like Guitar Hero or Dance Central... Obviously those are a different beast... and Dance Central and the exercise game are the ONLY games I think will be good to play on the Kinect. I've demoed an earlier version of Natal, so my hopes are not too high, but I'm giving it a second chance with the assumption that they did improve the technology from then.
The problem with Kinect is that it doesn't have anything physical. Buttons are important, actually holding something is important for the experience. Otherwise you get distracted by trying to get the game to react how you want.
This is why PS Move seems better. I feel like Sony has already tried the Kinect with the Eyetoy, and realized that Nintendo had a good idea by keeping the controller. The only good uses I've seen for Kinect were the super specialized bits like exercise and dance, and the other uses were really just secondary uses (like a COD style game where you do everything with a normal controller but can give hand motions to control your squad).
As to the Wii... It certainly allows more precise aiming than a gamepad. A gamepaduses an analog push-stop metaphor. The Wiimote actually has "digital" positioning, like a mouse. It's still not that great, especially when it comes to turning because they need to do the hoakey solution of having it spin on the edges of the screen. I'm using red steel as the comparison, and even with that game... the controls allow for more accuracy while aiming than a gamepad...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your narrow minded views are what's hurting things like innovation in the game industry right now. Everyone wants to play it safe and we end up with a million military first person shooters that all control the same. People looked at the DS as a big joke and now a portable device that doesn't have touch capability is seen as a flaw.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My "narrow minded views" are as such because I have seen and tried all this technology and have made my own opinions of where it is best utilized.
I don't really care about innovation, I care about immersion and the experience. Innovation is a dumb thing to shoot for because 99% of the time if you try to be innovative you end up making derivative crap. The people who actually do something "innovative" don't know it until the press starts clamoring about it. You can try to be different, but if you're just being different from the hell of it, no one will care. They will just say your game sucks. If you make a great fresh experience for the player, they will say it is innovative. These new controllers are really just gimmicks. The controller needs to become an extension of the player, otherwise it distracts from the immersion. This is where motion control, camera control, and touch control tend to fail. The player ends up needing to fight against the system in order to make it do what it wants. I have high hopes for more interactive control schemes, but from what I have seen so far we are not there yet.
Hopefully the new Zelda will get us closer.
Circular reasoning. It "doesn't matter" because we aren't likely to ever have them being used against each other you say, but the REASON they aren't used against each other is because one is so vastly inferior it lets mediocre players beat good players handily.
It's like forcing you to play football (soccer, whatever) with ten kilo weights around your ankles. It doesn't matter because everyone else has to wear ankleweights too and people without ankleweights aren't allowed to play against you because they would win.
It's like forcing you to play football (soccer, whatever) with ten kilo weights around your ankles. It doesn't matter because everyone else has to wear ankleweights too and people without ankleweights aren't allowed to play against you because they would win.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. The goal of a controller is to allow the player to control the game well enough to play it.
2. With things like autoaim and wide spread weapons, players can use joypads to control games adequately.
3. Mice do not require autoaim or wide spread weapons to allow players to control the game adequately.
4. Games controlled by joypads are always provided with autoaim and/or appropriate weapons.
5. Games controlled by mice are provided without autoaim and without weapon restrictions.
6. Controllers and mice are not used together.
7. From 2+4 it follows that joypads allow people to play joypad games.
8. From 3+5 it follows that mice allow people to play mouse games.
9. From 6 it follows that joypad games and mouse games are not the same games.
10. From 7+8+9 it follows that both joypads and mice are functional controllers, and that there is no issue with the existence of both, nor any balance issues with them assuming all premises remain true.
The only time you have a problem with either controller is if you put them against each other, because that very rarely happens and there isn't really any need for it to happen, there isn't a problem with either controller.
If you want a sports related analogy, take boxing. A featherweight hits less forcefully and has lower resistance to hits than a heavyweight, however heavyweights are not 'better' boxers, they compete in a different game and are not required to compete with people outside their weight class. The existence of heavyweight boxers is not a reason to abolish all other weight classes.
The problem I have is the people who enjoy the featherweight matches, and INSIST that a featherweight could easily handle a heavyweight. So long as the heavyweight had one eye covered, one arm behind his back, and one leg hobbled.
The short version being that anyone aside from that deluded individual would see just how badly slanted the playing field has to be to make things 'fair'. Imposing a levelling handicap on one when both are trying to accomplish the same task means, implicitly, that the other is inferior.
Sure, you can MAKE it even-ish... but ignoring the significant handicap after that point, knowing that the match would be quite one-sided WITHOUT those restrictions is particularly galling. Especially given the penchant most console gamers seem to have for being poor winners... and ignoring the fact that yes, when the game has been dumbed down to a level on which they can actually compete, they have a chance of winning.
Yes, it's a sore point. Especially as the argument about how it would have been a different story without the handicap tends to come across as a hollow complaint or excuse, rather than a valid fact. A bit like spotting someone your Queen, a rook, and a bishop in chess to compensate for a weak player, and getting to put up with a five minute rant about how badly they kicked your ass afterward. Of course in that instance you can just reset the board and NOT spot any pieces to make your point.
or
<a href="http://www.google.com/products?q=fragfx&hl=en&aq=f" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/products?q=fragfx&hl=en&aq=f</a> <-- this
I don't console game, because controllers feel ridiculous, however I would use this.
or
<a href="http://www.google.com/products?q=fragfx&hl=en&aq=f" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/products?q=fragfx&hl=en&aq=f</a> <-- this
I don't console game, because controllers feel ridiculous, however I would use this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not much point in a peripheral that none of the software developers support.
Not much point in supporting a peripheral in my software, that does not exist.
Indecently they finally solved the chicken/egg dilemma.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Those of us who have been in the gaming business for over a decade know the real deal. You simply don't get the same level of detail or control as you do with a PC over a console.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Really? It takes 10 years in the industry to discover this? I would have thought 5 minutes playing Halo PC vs. Halo Xbox would have made it clear.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While gaming seems to be shifting away from large rich productions to independent app developers and less immersive titles, the audience is growing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not shifting away; people are adding to the current scope of the industry to fill in the blanks where niche markets exist. I can only think of a few major developers who have shifted away from what they traditionally do to something more casual, but I wouldn't say what Rare have been working on was 'less immersive'. Publishers have been expanding their portfolios, but publishers go where the money is. His argument is that the industry has stayed the same size and simply shifted away from what it has been doing and over to these 'independant apps and less immersive titles'. My argument is that it's gotten bigger, because people have discovered new and additional market opportunities and new companies have been set up to exploit these.
But the worse thing in the blog is this line:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a real shame that Microsoft killed this -- because had they kept it alive it might have actually increased the desire of game developers and gamers alike to continue developing and playing rich experiences on the PC which would trickle down to the console as it has in the past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What kind of assertion is that? They tried it, it failed miserably. But if only they'd tried banging their heads against the wall it might have just worked. The control systems are not comparable. It would take a lot of R&D investment to create a controller that gave mouse-like control; a complete restructuring would be required. That would mean lots of time and money as I said, and the huge risk of releasing a piece of hardware that the consumer would have to learn from scratch.
I'm a PC player predominantly; especially for FPSes. But I'm also a realist. People trying to blame a single R&D project for the continued plight of the PC gaming industry need to pull their heads out their arses and look at the real issues:
- Piracy (yeah I'm going there, because people still don't get it) on PC far outweighs the console market. PC users are generally more technologically savvy and have greater access to other savvy users and pirated materials. Piracy is also a lot easier on the PC than on console (for the average user). Every time I meet someone who labels themself as a PC gamer and who complains about late PC release dates or PC ports, etc., and then admit to pirating most of their content on PC, I am in awe. What? Publishers are making less games or spending less on games for PC because their profit margins are far lower vs. consoles? Shock-horror! Why don't you do something to help PC games then, instead of leeching the lifeblood of a dying breed?
- Piracy also leads to another issue with PC games, and that's that they don't retain their value for as long as console games. If a game comes out, most PC users who want it will pirate it within days if not weeks. Thus, PC games not only release at a lower pricepoint, they also plummit at an insane rate of decline. Sadly we're in a bit of a quagmire for releases right now so there's not much that can directly be compared, but the price from online retailers tends to drop very fast in the first few weeks for PC but stays relatively steady for console equivalents. Later on, when the bulk of buyers has passed, both prices drop to a roughly equal level.
- Ensuring compatibility on PC is far more time-consuming than on console (and with piracy taken into account, far less cost-effective). Each console usually has 1 set of hardware, but with PC you have low and high spec requirements, completely different graphics and CPU architecture, and a far greater need for after-sales support. This takes far longer to implement and test, and can never really fully be tested before release, leading to increased post-release development costs on PC.
So PC games cost a lot to make and mantain and still make less money than console games. What's the reason they make less money? -PC gamers. Who complains most about less investment in PC game dev? -PC gamers. Go figure.
/rant
Doubt you need software to have the mouse pretend to be one half of the controller, the version I saw was a dualshock ps3 controller cut in half oloo
you just crank your sensitivity and have the mouse be look...
Also:
both the 360 and PS3 (IIRC) support mouse/keyboard (just plain old USB), however none of the developers support it for obvious reasons.
unreal tournament 3 ps3 and that's about it. it's creepy how much support mouse/keyboard has on the xmb. function keys are mapped, mouse can navigate the menus, etc
Also:
both the 360 and PS3 (IIRC) support mouse/keyboard (just plain old USB), however none of the developers support it for obvious reasons.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with "it's obvious" is that I'm never sure if everyone else's "obvious reason" is the same as my snarky, cynical one. So what's the obvious reason again? >_>