How the controller took the importance of aim out of shooters (self posted)
148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Metist;51536077]You are acting like tactical military shooters were invented with COD. COD wasn't the first, it just popularized it because it is the genre that works best on controllers[/QUOTE]
COD isn't a tactical military shooter though? At it's base, it's a simplified arena shooter with minimized verticality, and a lack of need for map control. It's themed around modern military conflicts, but does nothing to seek out an experience like that. So I can't call it a "Tactical military shooter" because it's themed like that. It's just an inaccurate description.
A game like Rainbow 6, the original 3 that came out on PC, those are far more readily classed as "Tactical military shooters". COD is just an arena shooter slowed down and made "flatter".
[QUOTE]The issue is that it doesn't control very well and needs to lower it's depth to be able to deal with a bad control design.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so how about you do me a favour, and you define what you mean by "Depth" here. It is, as of this moment, meaningless in this part of the discussion.
What depth is there to Quake or Quake Clones? Lets be honest here. Map awareness. Map knowledge. And twitch reactions. You're defining that as "Depth".
Would it be fair to say that your definition of "depth" is, to be honest, subjective, and limited based upon that?
I'll define depth as I see it in these games.
Depth in a shooter is the complexity of the mechanics and how those interact with each other. The basic "Mechanic" in a shooter is the aim and movement of your character. The next "mechanic" would be the guns, and how those function. The game keeps getting layers from here.
By this definition, COD is a "less" deep game than say, Quake, because it does lack verticality, and it does lack the need for map awareness.
[QUOTE] Tactical shooters are fine but COD is only popular because it works with a bad control system. COD isn't anywhere near the most popular shooter on the PC because on the PC players have more options. Console players play COD because they have less options. COD is a dumbed down version of a genre with better examples.[/QUOTE]
COD is popular because it's simple, and not everyone [B]wants[/B] a deep experience for a surface level activity. You're not the target market, and you're clearly displeased about that.
[QUOTE]No one is saying consoles shouldn't exist. Also I highly doubt the ps4 and xbone had anything to do with the PC becoming more popular. Even if that is the case that in no way is a defense of COD and games like it.[/QUOTE]
Okay, again, I never said you said that. What I did say is that everything about how you talk, what you say, and how you're saying it leads me to believe that if it were up to you, consoles as a whole would never have become a thing at all.
So I don't understand how you don't see this. Gaming in the days of the PSX, N64, Xbox, wasn't that popular. It was not a billion dollar industry. It had not reached mainstream appeal. Now, follow me for a second here. PC gaming is an expensive hobby to just get into out of the blue. What I'm saying happened is that due to the rise in popularity of these consoles, from the Xbox to the Xbone, more people are more familiar with gaming now, then back then. Following that logic, on top of the fact that PC gaming isn't really the "Entry" level into the gaming hobby, it makes reasonable sense to say that systems like the Consoles pushed gaming, as a whole, to mainstream levels, allowing more people to be more interested in it and be willing to take the plunge into a more prohibitive market, AKA, PC gaming.
[QUOTE]Sure, everything is subjective but COD is a pretty bad game compared to other shooters on a mechanical level. But the biggest issue isn't that COD is worse than it's competition it's that it's become the (at least over the last 8 years) the dominate type of shooter and almost the only type that got made for years because better games simply wouldn't work on the controller or not nearly as well.[/QUOTE]
Can you define how it's bad "Compared to other shooters"?
So you're using CODs status as a fad, a trend, a particular market trend, to say that controllers and consoles helped dumb down the shooting genre? I can't agree. Not even 1%.
Why? [B]because excellent shooters still came out during those 8 years that you claim nothing but those did[/B]
[QUOTE]It is a less well designed game. It has major flaws caused by it's bad control scheme.[/QUOTE]
Please define this. You can't just say "It's bad" "It's less good" without fucking definining these things. That's why I made the """""Objective opinions"""" remark. Because you're not saying why, just that it is, and it's your opinion, and so it is.
[QUOTE] I would have people all have the option to play shooters with control schemes that are far more functional.[/QUOTE]
So if someone was [B]just[/B] looking for a shooter to play on the couch, if you had your way, you'd stop them from playing it with a controller because you know better?
[QUOTE]Before another person says that it isn't fair for the people playing with analog sticks well that is the choice they made. People who play splatoon with analog stick have a disadvantage to people who play with a gyro. People who play L4D with a controller on PC have a disadvantage compared to people who play with a mouse and keyboard. They are willingly gimping themselves and that is their own fault.[/QUOTE]
Look, a console is clearly not for you. You've made nothing but arguments about how it's damaged shooters as a whole, how it's a disadvantage, how it's a problem and created a whole decade of bad games
It's clearly not for you, so what is the purpose of the argument here? To argue that the simple existence of those games, of the console did irreparable harm to the genre? Because as we can see it didn't, and even during those "8 years" of nothing but "Cod clones" many games of interest and difference in designs came out.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
I can't help but feel you want to keep gaming away from those "filthy casuals" and keep it out of the mainstream all together.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]COD isn't a tactical military shooter though? At it's base, it's a simplified arena shooter with minimized verticality[/QUOTE]
This is going to take a bit to go through but before then how can COD be an Arena shooter or anything like it? It is nothing like an Arena shooter at all.
The core elements of an Arena shooter are
-Players start out the same with only skill making the difference
-An Arena filled with pick ups and health that the players must utilize
-Fast movement and an emphasis on fast and precise reflexes
I could sort of see you calling halo a simplified arena shooter but COD almost the furthest you can get from one.
It's not a "Tactical Military Shooter" either though
Is it "fast paced"? Yeah, it is, relative to a "Tactical Military shooter" which is what I grew up playing.
COD is much faster than those games. It's more similar to an arena style shooter, than it is to any game that you could describe as "tactical".
COD is "Tacticool". Not tactical.
It'd be comparable to Halo, but Halo was [B]the[/B] console shooter that popularized the console shooting genre and COD tacked on a bunch of "improvements" to that system that allowed for more customization off the bat, something people wanted.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
Okay, so how about you do me a favour, and you define what you mean by "Depth" here. It is, as of this moment, meaningless in this part of the discussion.
[/quote]
Depth is something that is hard to define but it is what separates the the skill ceiling from the floor and a good player from a bad one. Controller shooters don't have a very high skill ceiling. Since the gun play is so easy and simple. The difference between a player who has played for 5 hours and 500 aren't that big.
On the other hand Quake's precision, movement and map design allow for a much bigger gap of skill and more to learn and get good at. Also see [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5YbWQ8KcM[/media]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
Would it be fair to say that your definition of "depth" is, to be honest, subjective, and limited based upon that?[/quote]
No. Just like how Chess has more depth than checkers, Quake has more depth than COD. Quake takes more skill to master and has a higher skill ceiling. I am not insulting checkers players or even people who enjoy simple games but they don't have as much depth.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
I'll define depth as I see it in these games.
Depth in a shooter is the complexity of the mechanics and how those interact with each other. The basic "Mechanic" in a shooter is the aim and movement of your character. The next "mechanic" would be the guns, and how those function. The game keeps getting layers from here.[/quote]
I don't mind that definition.
[[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
COD is popular because it's simple, and not everyone [B]wants[/B] a deep experience for a surface level activity. You're not the target market, and you're clearly displeased about that. [/quote]
TF2 and Smash Brother melee can be played as simple games too but also better designed and offer players the ability to reach for better skill heights. But most importantly they weren't designed based on having to deal with a horrible control system. COD was designed to be the way it is as a way to move around a flaw that shouldn't even exist and that is the issue with controls. Bad controls are bad controls and should never be excused. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
Okay, again, I never said you said that. What I did say is that everything about how you talk, what you say, and how you're saying it leads me to believe that if it were up to you, consoles as a whole would never have become a thing at all.
[/quote]
What makes you say this? Because me and others agree that the controller isn't good for shooters? Many of my favorite games of all time are on consoles and require a controller. Super Mario bros 3, DMC, MGS and Twisted metal are all on my top 10 games of all time. All people want is for a feature that even the Dream Cast gave players, and that was the ability to use a mouse and keyboard or use one of the many other options that are better than controllers for shooters.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
So I don't understand how you don't see this. Gaming in the days of the PSX, N64, Xbox, wasn't that popular. It was not a billion dollar industry.[/quote]
Yes it was. The ps2 (which was around during the days of the xbox) was the most popular console of all time. The gaming industry of 2001 was worth billions of dollars in america ALONE. In fact this was even true when Arcades where the biggest part of the industry.
But the real question is. Why should I care if the videogame industry is big or not? As long as games are made why should I care if it is worth 5 billion or 30 billion? Why should I be willing to be ok with bad videogames because people who don't know any better spend money on them?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
It had not reached mainstream appeal. Now, follow me for a second here. PC gaming is an expensive hobby to just get into out of the blue. What I'm saying happened is that due to the rise in popularity of these consoles, from the Xbox to the Xbone, more people are more familiar with gaming now, then back then. Following that logic, on top of the fact that PC gaming isn't really the "Entry" level into the gaming hobby, it makes reasonable sense to say that systems like the Consoles pushed gaming, as a whole, to mainstream levels, allowing more people to be more interested in it and be willing to take the plunge into a more prohibitive market, AKA, PC gaming.[/quote]
Except the PC gaming market has been going for 40 years now and has some amazing games over the last 20 alone.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
Can you define how it's bad "Compared to other shooters"? [/quote]
Bad controls, not well designed outside of having to cater to the bad controls.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
So you're using CODs status as a fad, a trend, a particular market trend, to say that controllers and consoles helped dumb down the shooting genre? I can't agree. Not even 1%.
Why? [B]because excellent shooters still came out during those 8 years that you claim nothing but those did[/B]
[/quote]
Far less good shooters came out from 2008 to 2016 than what can be seen before. On the single player front DOOM, Half-life 1/2, FEAR have not been beaten. In fact even console shooters have gotten worse. Halo and Metriod Prime is better than almost any shooter to come out since 2008 on the consoles. On the multiplayer front there is far less diversity which I have mentioned [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
Please define this. You can't just say "It's bad" "It's less good" without fucking definining these things. That's why I made the """""Objective opinions"""" remark. Because you're not saying why, just that it is, and it's your opinion, and so it is. [/spoiler]
Less original, worse designed. Cover shooting has lead to camping and peek a boo combat which basically consists of repetitive shooting, then putting your head under cover to regen health where he has is basically taking a time out.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
So if someone was [B]just[/B] looking for a shooter to play on the couch, if you had your way, you'd stop them from playing it with a controller because you know better? [/quote]
No, you are putting words in my mouth again. Players who use controllers can use the worse control option if they wanted to but players who want to use better controls could use better controls if they wanted to. The success of splatoon shows that players are willing to switch to a better control scheme if it is available to them.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536157]
Look, a console is clearly not for you. You've made nothing but arguments about how it's damaged shooters as a whole, how it's a disadvantage, how it's a problem and created a whole decade of bad games
[/quote]
Are you implying that consoles are only for bad console shooters? I like good and well designed games no matter the platform. Platformers are amazing, I also still fire up my ps3 to play Ninja Gaiden and Demon's Souls. What makes you think I don't like consoles?
Controllers have damaged shooters. That doesn't mean I don't like the good genres consoles have to offer.
Also COD is still nothing like an arena shooter.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
I bet no one in this thread besides the 2 of us are even going to bother to read these walls of text.
metist my dude did a controller kill your family or somethin
i think letting people use m+kb on a console is a duct tape-like solution. while yes from a PC gamer standpoint it'll make shooters more enjoyable to play, if people don't own one or the other, then there'll naturally be a rift in the playerbase between the controller users and mouse users.
so my 2c for a more elegant solution is to innovate on the design of a controller, so you don't choose because you already have a controller that feels like a controller, but can be as (or almost as) accurate as a mouse. kind of like the steam controller.
personally i think this issue would be most resolved if consoles started to make controller designs that are comparable to or even improve on what the steam controller did. i've played many shooters on that shit and i didn't even need to use aim-assist once.
[QUOTE=Fox Powers;51536526]metist my dude did a controller kill your family or somethin[/QUOTE]
No, it just isn't good at aiming with.
[QUOTE=Metist;51536573]No, it just isn't good at aiming with.[/QUOTE]
i don't think anyone is arguing that it doesn't suck to aim with some thumbsticks, because it really does.
but i don't think letting people use kb+m on their console is a good solution.
i mean it is a solution, but it'll definitely bring in more problems than what you're trying to fix.
[QUOTE=Metist;51536505]Depth is something that is hard to define but it is what separates the the skill ceiling from the floor and a good player from a bad one. Controller shooters don't have a very high skill ceiling. Since the gun play is so easy and simple. The difference between a player who has played for 5 hours and 500 aren't that big[/QUOTE]
Fair enough but I think shooters like CoD exist precisely to try and lower that and remove that as much as possible to make it more accessible and friendly to new players and new gamers. They're entry level titles pretty much, and they get your foot in the door of "gaming" as a whole for a lot of people. The lack of a high skill ceiling is part of the design and I can't say that's bad by design because that's the goal.
[QUOTE]On the other hand Quake's precision, movement and map design allow for a much bigger gap of skill and more to learn and get good at. [/QUOTE]
Yes and because of that new players rarely stayed without serious motivation. Games that are too punishing to new players die out as they lose old players to new games and fail to get new gamers in as the skill ceiling is just too hard to approach. In a game like LOL, or really any other competitive game, the skill ceilings are largely determined by things that work in tandem with "twitch" reaction skills. Shooters lean heavier on that "twitch" reaction time than other game types do in large part. This makes the skill ceiling even harder to deal with for new players as it's very punishing. I don't think either design is "Better". They just are.
[QUOTE]No. Just like how Chess has more depth than checkers, Quake has more depth than COD. Quake takes more skill to master and has a higher skill ceiling. I am not insulting checkers players or even people who enjoy simple games but they don't have as much depth. [/QUOTE]
I think I even gave a caveat that Quake does have more depth by my definition than COD, it's just not such a degree that it harms the genre to do so.
[QUOTE]TF2 and Smash Brother melee can be played as simple games too but also better designed and offer players the ability to reach for better skill heights. But most importantly they weren't designed based on having to deal with a horrible control system. COD was designed to be the way it is as a way to move around a flaw that shouldn't even exist and that is the issue with controls. Bad controls are bad controls and should never be excused. [/QUOTE]
Controllers are better for certain game types. I don't think they're better for shooters, just acceptable. Again, I played at a high end competitive level using just a stock gamepad, and I would say the accuracy, while lacking, was there far more than you would give credit for.
[QUOTE]What makes you say this? Because me and others agree that the controller isn't good for shooters? Many of my favorite games of all time are on consoles and require a controller. Super Mario bros 3, DMC, MGS and Twisted metal are all on my top 10 games of all time. All people want is for a feature that even the Dream Cast gave players, and that was the ability to use a mouse and keyboard or use one of the many other options that are better than controllers for shooters.[/QUOTE]
Your tone.
I don't think that feature would be a good thing. I think it would ultimately harm the console market and make an even playing field that arena shooters rely on so heavily, weaker. Now, maybe CoD isn't an "arena" style game, but it also isn't a "tactical" game, so what is it? And why is the comparison to an "arena" shooter so important?
For me, CoD is a game that is a hybrid of Arena style games, and Halo style shooters. It's an arena shooter because it's a relatively fast paced game, again, this is all relative. Compared to Halo, CoD is a "faster" game. Compared to Quake, it's a slow game. It's relative. A higher speed doesn't make a better game. Just a different one.
CoD relies on fast pace, twitchy moments. It's not as extreme as the arena shooters of Quake, but it's there.
Now, This actually sparks a memory. My friend was a Quake 4 player on the xbox 360. Watching him, and the other top ranked players in the world play that game on a console, you wouldn't think it was a slow hum drum paced game. It was fast, and it was hard to follow, and was a tough game to get into precisely because the demand on your twitch skills was so intense.
[QUOTE]Yes it was. The ps2 (which was around during the days of the xbox) was the most popular console of all time. The gaming industry of 2001 was worth billions of dollars in america ALONE. In fact this was even true when Arcades where the biggest part of the industry.
But the real question is. Why should I care if the videogame industry is big or not? As long as games are made why should I care if it is worth 5 billion or 30 billion? Why should I be willing to be ok with bad videogames because people who don't know any better spend money on them?[/QUOTE]
It's not even similar though. I am wrong that it wasn't a billion dollar industry, it was, my mistake.
However the comparison is greatly different now adays. And yes, the PS2 was part of the generation I was speaking of there that turned gaming from a niche hobby to a mainstream thing. You're actually arguing my point for me on this one. Consoles made video games mainstream. They made it an accessible, and easily enjoyed hobby, and the PS2 was the literal epitome of that mindset.
[QUOTE]Except the PC gaming market has been going for 40 years now and has some amazing games over the last 20 alone.
[/QUOTE]
That's a very non-nuanced point though. It isn't that black and white. The PC gaming market has been growing, it's always been growing, but it's also always been a nigh inaccessible hobby to get into. Gaming in general, until just the last 5 years or so, has been a "Kids" thing. It wasn't in the realm of adults, young teens, it was a "kid" thing. Consoles changed this in a big way for the mainstream, while us PC gamers have often been on the nose with these things, we're enthusiasts and a rare breed for that. The mainstream, regular average joe, he's not going to get into gaming via a PC more likely than not, it'll be a console.
[QUOTE]Bad controls, not well designed outside of having to cater to the bad controls. [/QUOTE]
I wouldn't define COD as suffering from this though. Because everyone is on an even playing field controller wise, relatively speaking, there is no difference except for skill. And again, the skill ceiling on these games were designed to be lower so that more people could enjoy them.
[QUOTE]
Far less good shooters came out from 2008 to 2016 than what can be seen before. On the single player front DOOM, Half-life 1/2, FEAR have not been beaten. In fact even console shooters have gotten worse. Halo and Metriod Prime is better than almost any shooter to come out since 2008 on the consoles. On the multiplayer front there is far less diversity which I have mentioned [/QUOTE]
I disagree heavily and this is where it becomes heavily subjective. There have been a wealth of great games in the last decade, and consoles never stopped that or harmed that in any way as far as I can see. Market trends will always exist, and always harm things far more than any particular trend.
[QUOTE]Less original, worse designed. Cover shooting has lead to camping and peek a boo combat which basically consists of repetitive shooting, then putting your head under cover to regen health where he has is basically taking a time out. [/QUOTE]
This is subjective, again, and not based on any "Objective" principle. Those are worse things [I]to you[/I]. They are not worse things in [I]general[/I]
[QUOTE]
No, you are putting words in my mouth again. Players who use controllers can use the worse control option if they wanted to but players who want to use better controls could use better controls if they wanted to. The success of splatoon shows that players are willing to switch to a better control scheme if it is available to them.[/QUOTE]
I think Splatoon just shows that there is options available and that in certain contexts there are options.
[QUOTE]Are you implying that consoles are only for bad console shooters? I like good and well designed games no matter the platform. Platformers are amazing, I also still fire up my ps3 to play Ninja Gaiden and Demon's Souls. What makes you think I don't like consoles?
Controllers have damaged shooters. That doesn't mean I don't like the good genres consoles have to offer.
[/QUOTE]
No what I'm saying is that your method of defining a shooter on a console is bad is very subjective and not based on any objective facts and it harms the industry as a whole to degrade an entire genre of games on the consoles as "bad" because you disagree with the design goals, design process, and the implement with which the playing field is leveled on those given systems.
[QUOTE]Also COD is still nothing like an arena shooter.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
I bet no one in this thread besides the 2 of us are even going to bother to read these walls of text.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's like any other pre-defined category really. It's it's own thing.
And no, they probably won't.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Octopod;51536634]i don't think anyone is arguing that it doesn't suck to aim with some thumbsticks, because it really does.
but i don't think letting people use kb+m on their console is a good solution.
i mean it is a solution, but it'll definitely bring in more problems than what you're trying to fix.[/QUOTE]
It creates the problems of "haves" and "have nots"
It divides a player base into the group that uses the high skill ceiling device versus the group with a low skill ceiling device and it creates a situation that would surely destroy any gaming community that exists to this day.
Shadowrun tried cross play Multiplayer and it was a horrible choice and made the game a very hard, and unenjoyable experience with a game pad.
If people on consoles start using m+kb, then everyone has to in order to keep the playing field even.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536636]
It divides a player base into the group that uses the high skill ceiling device versus the group with a low skill ceiling device and it creates a situation that would surely destroy any gaming community that exists to this day.
[/QUOTE]
Then that is their problem for not using a 5$ mouse.
If they don't care about getting good at a videogame why would they care if people with higher MMRs do use mice?
Not everyone in splatoon wants to use gyro controls and so rightfully have to deal with the a disadvantage. You would rather have everyone be on the same low and clunky level. Basically this would be like disabling fight sticks or controllers on fighting games and force everyone to use a keyboard.
[quote]Fair enough but I think shooters like CoD exist precisely to try and lower that and remove that as much as possible to make it more accessible and friendly to new players and new gamers.[/quote]
But there are many casual games that have good controls and are better designed.
You're just using nebulous terms and subjective opinions dude
that's fine, but it's not an argument.
If console players are forced to buy a mouse and keyboard for their console experience, that is a detractor from the experience as a whole because you'll still have the situation of "Haves" and "have nots" and for someone who was previously very concerned with skill ceilings and the fair nature of arena shooters, I think you're kind of spitting in the face of even playing grounds when you institute changes like that. It wouldn't make the genre better, it'd just piss off people who weren't expecting to need to invest in order to have an even moderately good time online.
The analogy of flight games, or Splatoon literally doesn't work. Those aren't the same types of games. Splatoon doesn't count because if you own the controllers the wii comes with, you have the option for Gyro. This is like saying the option for gyro costs you extra. It didn't, and it doesn't.
Flight sticks and wheels are an entirely different subject IMO, and when we're talking about an even playing field in competitive shooters, it feels [B]very[/B] disingenuous to bring that up. The reason I say they're different is that they generally speaking, don't exist in competitive environments, and generally speaking, don't require you to compete against other people for the victory. Those are generally speaking, single player experiences. I don't play flight sims, but I can't at all think that's a decent comparison because it's not even in the same playing field of genre, type, competition, nothing.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536636]I think I even gave a caveat that Quake does have more depth by my definition than COD, it's just not such a degree that it harms the genre to do so. [/quote]
It does because a controller lowers what the designers can do. It has hurt the genre by reducing creativity, diversity and game design.
[quote]
Yes and because of that new players rarely stayed without serious motivation. Games that are too punishing to new players die out as they lose old players to new games and fail to get new gamers in as the skill ceiling is just too hard to approach. In a game like LOL, or really any other competitive game, the skill ceilings are largely determined by things that work in tandem with "twitch" reaction skills. Shooters lean heavier on that "twitch" reaction time than other game types do in large part. This makes the skill ceiling even harder to deal with for new players as it's very punishing. I don't think either design is "Better". They just are.
[/quote]
That can be fixed with better match making so similar skilled players play together. But even then side stepping that you can again have other examples like TF2 or Melee which have much higher skill ceilings but are very inviting.
[quote]
I don't think that feature would be a good thing. I think it would ultimately harm the console market and make an even playing field that arena shooters rely on so heavily, weaker.[/quote]
Giving consumers options would harm the console market? Most of the players playing with a mouse and keyboard probably wouldn't even be on the same MMR level as people who play with a controller.
[quote]
However the comparison is greatly different now adays. And yes, the PS2 was part of the generation I was speaking of there that turned gaming from a niche hobby to a mainstream thing. You're actually arguing my point for me on this one. Consoles made video games mainstream. They made it an accessible, and easily enjoyed hobby, and the PS2 was the literal epitome of that mindset.
[/quote]
The gaming industry has been worth over a billion dollars for nearly 40 years now. But either way. You haven't explained why I should be ok with badly designed games if it makes business men more money. All I care about is good games being made and no, COD has not allowed for better games to be made.
[quote]
That's a very non-nuanced point though. It isn't that black and white. The PC gaming market has been growing, it's always been growing, but it's also always been a nigh inaccessible hobby to get into. Gaming in general, until just the last 5 years or so, has been a "Kids" thing. It wasn't in the realm of adults, young teens, it was a "kid" thing. Consoles changed this in a big way for the mainstream, while us PC gamers have often been on the nose with these things, we're enthusiasts and a rare breed for that. The mainstream, regular average joe, he's not going to get into gaming via a PC more likely than not, it'll be a console. [/quote]
You have no real evidence to show that consoles are the reason PC gaming has gotten big. It's far more likely it is due to steam and hugely popular games like minecraft. But even if that was the case no one is arguing saying that consoles shouldn't exist.
[quote]
I wouldn't define COD as suffering from this though. Because everyone is on an even playing field controller wise, relatively speaking, there is no difference except for skill. And again, the skill ceiling on these games were designed to be lower so that more people could enjoy them.[/quote]
Everyone having to deal with bad controls doesn't make a game not have bad controls. And again, there are many games with high skill ceilings that are inviting to new players. COD is only played on consoles so much because that is one of the few types of shooters that work semi decently with a controller. There are many casual players on PC who play minecraft or TF2 but don't play COD. COD isn't a good game, it is a game people play because they can't really play any others.
[quote]
I disagree heavily and this is where it becomes heavily subjective. There have been a wealth of great games in the last decade, and consoles never stopped that or harmed that in any way as far as I can see. Market trends will always exist, and always harm things far more than any particular trend.
[/quote]
Except in lowering the diversity and creativity of shooters because a controller can't play many types of shooters.
[quote]
I think Splatoon just shows that there is options available and that in certain contexts there are options.
[/quote] Or that players will turn to the better controls when given the options.
[quote]
No what I'm saying is that your method of defining a shooter on a console is bad is very subjective and not based on any objective facts and it harms the industry as a whole to degrade an entire genre of games on the consoles as "bad" because you disagree with the design goals, design process, and the implement with which the playing field is leveled on those given systems. [/quote]
No, they are bad because they control poorly and don't allow for much innovation or improvement. That is about as objective as you can get when it comes to game criticism.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536720]You're just using nebulous terms and subjective opinions dude
that's fine, but it's not an argument.[/quote]
No, it is an objective fact that the controller is worse at shooting than a mouse is. It has worse controls.
[quote]
If console players are forced to buy a mouse and keyboard for their console experience, that is a detractor from the experience as a whole[/quote] They aren't forced to. Does dark souls having the option to play with a controller rather than the inferior PC controls detract from Dark souls on PC?
[quote]
because you'll still have the situation of "Haves" and "have nots"[/quote]
Just like with Dark souls PVP. I guess we should take away controller support. Oh and take away gyro controls so people who don't want them don't have to be at a disadvantage.
[quote] and for someone who was previously very concerned with skill ceilings and the fair nature of arena shooters, I think you're kind of spitting in the face of even playing grounds when you institute changes like that. [/quote] Every game should try to allow the player to have the best control experience possible.
[quote]
It wouldn't make the genre better, it'd just piss off people who weren't expecting to need to invest in order to have an even moderately good time online.
[/quote] It would make the genre better. It would allow devs to be more free in designing. Also a 5$ mouse is less of an investment than they pay every money for Xbox live. But even then if they don't want to use a controller then they will just be in low MMR and play with similar people.
[quote]
The analogy of flight games, or Splatoon literally doesn't work. Those aren't the same types of games. Splatoon doesn't count because if you own the controllers the wii comes with, you have the option for Gyro. This is like saying the option for gyro costs you extra. It didn't, and it doesn't.
[/quote] Controllers are more expensive than mice but are pretty much required at least if you want to be good at dark souls or fighting games.
[editline]15th December 2016[/editline]
Also there is the case of smash bros Brawl allowing people to use superior gamecube controllers to wii motes.
[QUOTE=Metist;51536748]It does because a controller lowers what the designers can do. It has hurt the genre by reducing creativity, diversity and game design.[/QUOTE]
How has it done that? Be specific, not vague.
[QUOTE]That can be fixed with better match making so similar skilled players play together. But even then side stepping that you can again have other examples like TF2 or Melee which have much higher skill ceilings but are very inviting.[/QUOTE]
so now we need to split the communities of games into even smaller sub communities in order to have an enjoyable experience? That seems to be a thing that would harm games.
Again, shooters aren't really comparable to other games directly in terms of their skill ceilings. Those games are entirely different from the way they introduce the player, to where the typical players skill ceilings typically fall. A shooter isn't like Melee. I mean you can compare them but the comparison is so weak it's not worth it to me.
[QUOTE]Giving consumers options would harm the console market? Most of the players playing with a mouse and keyboard probably wouldn't even be on the same MMR level as people who play with a controller. [/QUOTE]
I think if not handled well, yes. And it wouldn't be handled well.
[QUOTE]
The gaming industry has been worth over a billion dollars for nearly 40 years now. But either way. You haven't explained why I should be ok with badly designed games if it makes business men more money. All I care about is good games being made and no, COD has not allowed for better games to be made.[/QUOTE]
Source at least?
You haven't explained how CoD, and controllers existing in the shooter market, have damaged the genre. You really haven't. You say words, but you don't even point to anything specific. It's just vague. Be specific if you can.
The existsnce of a game that you don't like, that you consider to be "Bad" is not detrimental to an industry as a whole.
Games cost money to make. They cost an investment to make. They're an artform, and a product. If one side of that combination dies, the game doesn't make it typically.
Why are you inflamed and enraged that something exists when it doesn't harm you and it doesn't detirment your hobby? That's what I can't fucking understand about you. You're clearly mad that such a choice even exists for people, you clearly think it's damaged gaming and shooters as a whole but have yet to actually make any specific points out of this.
[QUOTE]
You have no real evidence to show that consoles are the reason PC gaming has gotten big. It's far more likely it is due to steam and hugely popular games like minecraft. But even if that was the case no one is arguing saying that consoles shouldn't exist.[/QUOTE]
No and it was all based upon a thought for me, it's not a sourced argument but I do think it has value.
You're saying the PC market is an easily accessible market for an outsider to step into. As a PC gamer with a fuck ton of friends who aren't gamers at all, this is distinctly not true as everything I'm into seems arcane and strange to them.
But they recognize CoD, and they recognize consoles.
[QUOTE]Everyone having to deal with bad controls doesn't make a game not have bad controls. And again, there are many games with high skill ceilings that are inviting to new players. COD is only played on consoles so much because that is one of the few types of shooters that work semi decently with a controller. There are many casual players on PC who play minecraft or TF2 but don't play COD. COD isn't a good game, it is a game people play because they can't really play any others.[/QUOTE]
I never said it magically fixed the controls I just said it gives in an even playing ground.
You keep sourcing non competitive games as if it makes a difference when we're strictly talking about shooters that you typically play against other people.
[QUOTE]Except in lowering the diversity and creativity of shooters because a controller can't play many types of shooters.[/QUOTE]
[B]how does it lower the diversity and creativity[/B]
I literally don't see this as a fact of our hobby. Like, do you just look back at 2008 and onwards and go "FUCK THIS IS ALL FUCKING GARBAGE FUCK" because it seems that way and it doesn't seem to be informed by the """"objective"""" view point you seem to believe you hold.
[QUOTE]
Or that players will turn to the better controls when given the options.
[/QUOTE]
But have they? Is everyone looking at that as a better option? As a massive fan of the Steam Controller, yeah, a gyro and a track pad together is sweet but just because it's an option you do value as better, is it actually factually better for everyone?
[QUOTE]No, they are bad because they control poorly and don't allow for much innovation or improvement. That is about as objective as you can get when it comes to game criticism.[/QUOTE]
So you believe that if our control surfaces had literally never advanced beyond M+KB we'd have radically more "innovative" shooters?
I don't believe that is the case for even a minute. Restrictions often breed creativity and innovation. You're saying getting rid of that rule would make better art and better products. I disagree.
you don't see the skill gap between controller and keyboard in dark souls as much as you do in basically every shooter. for example, super meat boy recommends a controller but many people have made leaderboards using their keyboard. same with osu
[QUOTE=Octopod;51536794]you don't see the skill gap between controller and keyboard in dark souls as much as you do in basically every shooter. for example, super meat boy recommends a controller but many people have made leaderboards using their keyboard. same with osu[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt you can give me examples of people winning big fighting game tournaments with keyboards. Sure maybe not all these control systems are equally as bad but the fact that you even have to try to make a special exception for how bad the controller is shows that it shouldn't be what is used for shooters. Limiting everyone to having to use the bad control scheme is a horrible idea. Especially now when there are so many more accurate control devices besides the controller.
Also dark souls 1 is THAT BAD with a keyboard and mouse. At least with DS 2 and 3 they greatly improved the keyboard and mouse functionality but as it is for DS 1 (unless they fixed it later with patches) it was horrible.
I have no idea why you guys are making special exceptions for the controller. I feel like it's only because you were forced to use it for so long that now you would rather everyone have to deal with it then have the simple option of going to something better.
Not only would adding keyboard and mouse support help shooters they would also help all those bad RTS ports on the console. Are you saying you also don't believe people should be allowed to use a keyboard and mouse when playing console versions of RTS?
Tbh I haven't used a mouse/keyboard to game for about over a year now, it's been just the steam controller.
Controllers just feel way better than a keyboard for me. Far more natural, even use them at a desk of all things and I like it. But that's me, and I find the gyro-pad combo to be perfectly fine
I'm saying, simply and easily, that dividing up the active player bases of a game based upon device in such a manner would likely harm the games that did it.
Shadowrun on PC and Xbox360 died a fucking horrible death due to that
I believe in giving people options, it's the entire reason I own a fucking PC dude. So I have options. I have 3 controllers, and a steam controller, a good mouse and keyboard, options.
But you're not giving people "options" when you're punishing them by making them have an un-enjoyable experience because their control surface isn't as good as yours.
Imagine playing Quake and the other player just permanently has Quad damage. The skill gap is too large to be enjoyable and would actively harm the experience. This is similar.
Consoles exist in large part so people can sit on the couch and play whatever they want, shooters included. You're basically saying "Well you should be fucking punished by the community, other players, the game itself, if you don't choose the better control surface and that's just how it is and you made your choice".
[QUOTE=J!NX;51536843]Tbh I haven't used a mouse/keyboard to game for about over a year now, it's been just the steam controller.
Controllers just feel way better than a keyboard for me. Far more natural, even use them at a desk of all things and I like it. But that's me, and I find the gyro-pad combo to be perfectly fine[/QUOTE]
Then that is totally up to you. The fact that you have the option to use the control scheme you like is a good thing. I just wish I could use my prefered mouse and keyboard for console Shooters, RTS and RPGs.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536850]I'm saying, simply and easily, that dividing up the active player bases of a game based upon device in such a manner would likely harm the games that did it.
Shadowrun on PC and Xbox360 died a fucking horrible death due to that
I believe in giving people options, it's the entire reason I own a fucking PC dude. So I have options. I have 3 controllers, and a steam controller, a good mouse and keyboard, options.
But you're not giving people "options" when you're punishing them by making them have an un-enjoyable experience because their control surface isn't as good as yours.
Imagine playing Quake and the other player just permanently has Quad damage. The skill gap is too large to be enjoyable and would actively harm the experience. This is similar.
Consoles exist in large part so people can sit on the couch and play whatever they want, shooters included. You're basically saying "Well you should be fucking punished by the community, other players, the game itself, if you don't choose the better control surface and that's just how it is and you made your choice".[/QUOTE]
Quake for dreamcast had mouse support and I don't remember people complaining.
I think one simple solution would be to allow players to play with controller players or not in the options menu like how street fighter 5 lets me choose to fight PC players or console players. I do believe a lot of players would switch to using mice given the option the same way so many people bought xbox pro controllers except over 100$+ less expensive to buy. Either way I think many console players who really want to use a controller will just keep using a controller. If they really don't care about being hardcore or not they probably wont mind too much that other players can use a mouse. For example even though the mouse devices for consoles aren't perfect they are still far far better than the controller and yet I haven't heard very many people complain about it.
See vid related at around 13:30. He is completely destroying all the console players.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvElk0WjtiM[/media]
Also there are tons of single player games that would work better with a mouse and keyboard too. Any single player shooter, most complex RPGs, any RTS, ect would work leagues better with a mouse and keyboard.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;51529716]Battlefield 1942 (the first one) and BF2 treated Iron sights differently. They weren't as necessary. Since the series started selling better on consoles they started configuring it more for the controller.[/QUOTE]
If they really did, as you say, configure the controls to be more suitable for a controller then I 100% welcome that change, anyone who thinks the gunplay from 1942-2142 was "good" in anyway is kidding themself, the fact that it may aswell be a dice roll (pun intended) of whether your bullets actually hit a guy even though your cross hair is directly on said person was and still is a terrible design decision on DICE's part and has nothing to do with controllers for them to finally fix that from BC1 and onwards.
I don't even see why this would even be a "problem" when it's fixing an important gameplay element to actually work like it should.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;51529716]I don't want BF to be quake but I don't want it to suffer from modern game philosophy either.[/QUOTE]
If adding aiming down sights is suffering from modern game philosophy then what do you think of Project Reality, a mod built on top of BF2's foundation and also relies heavily on aiming down sight despite being a PC exclusive?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;51529716]They also did a few other things like lower TTK and added in health regeneration into the later games to appeal more to console players.[/QUOTE]
I never played Hardline personally but I remember them changing the TTK specifically just for the PC version, also you got things like Hardcore mode where you may aswell die instantly most of the time and is something that originated back in BC2, which was for both PC and console.
Health regeneration is a lot less forgiving in BF1 considering that if you even have a stray bullet come close to you at all, it's enough for the game to delay it from happening, and even when you're in the clear you have to wait quite a period of time before your health reaches 100 because it heals in increments of 20hp or something (correct me if I'm wrong on that number), and the only way to get health while in combat is through a medics health pack/crate because the game also doesn't regen when you're in combat with someone/being suppressed
[QUOTE=Joshii;51538502]If they really did, as you say, configure the controls to be more suitable for a controller then I 100% welcome that change, anyone who thinks the gunplay from 1942-2142 was "good" in anyway is kidding themself, the fact that it may aswell be a dice roll (pun intended) of whether your bullets actually hit a guy even though your cross hair is directly on said person was and still is a terrible design decision on DICE's part and has nothing to do with controllers for them to finally fix that from BC1 and onwards.
I don't even see why this would even be a "problem" when it's fixing an important gameplay element to actually work like it should.[/quote]
What do you mean work like it should? I agree that BF2 and before had problems but that doesn't mean the other games don't as well. The new Battlefields have updated the gun play but it still isn't good. Artificially decreasing accuracy when not aiming down sights has hurt gameplay and it isn't like it is somehow super realistic to have bullets spread simply because you aren't looking down the barrel.
[quote]
If adding aiming down sights is suffering from modern game philosophy then what do you think of Project Reality, a mod built on top of BF2's foundation and also relies heavily on aiming down sight despite being a PC exclusive?
[/quote] It is how ADS works in many shooters that is suffering. Not all ADS is bad. In this thread someone mentioned Halo which doesn't have crazy bullet spread if you aren't scoped.
[quote]
I never played Hardline personally but I remember them changing the TTK specifically just for the PC version, also you got things like Hardcore mode where you may aswell die instantly most of the time and is something that originated back in BC2, which was for both PC and console.[/quote]
This is an example of how the controller does interfere with gameplay. Luckily the devs knew that what works on a controller doesn't work on a mouse and was willing to increase TTK for PC. However this isn't a common practice. Also of course a mode like hardcore mode would change the TTK. But it has never been the main focus of development. It is a nice side thing.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;51538900][B]What do you mean work like it should?[/B] I agree that BF2 and before had problems but that doesn't mean the other games don't as well. The new Battlefields have updated the gun play but it still isn't good. Artificially decreasing accuracy when not aiming down sights has hurt gameplay and it isn't like it is somehow super realistic to have bullets spread simply because you aren't looking down the barrel.[/QUOTE]
What I mean by it is that 2142-pre there was an issue of that despite your crosshair being directly ontop of someone the bullets wouldn't always hit because, like what was said previously in the thread, they would be shot out in a cone in front of the player with no pattern to the bullet spray leading it to be luck based on whether your bullets actually hits the guy or not, BC1 was the first Battlefield game to get rid of it finally and actually have the bullets go where you're aiming, whether you're aiming down sites or not.
Yea from BC1-onward it's less accurate if you're not aiming down sights leading you to stop and take aim in a lot of situations but how is that any different than 2142-pre where you pretty much had to do the same because of random deviation?
Can i aim this firehose of words at me for a second?
I just want to know, how is it that Halo had its levels designed to complement the controller scheme? I'm not sure i understand that claim
keyboard n mouse master race, prove me wrong
[QUOTE=Grindigo;51539909]keyboard n mouse master race, prove me wrong[/QUOTE]
well
its true
[QUOTE=Grindigo;51539909]keyboard n mouse master race, prove me wrong[/QUOTE]
i think you're completely right and i love controllers
[editline]16th December 2016[/editline]
well for shooters at least
[QUOTE=Joshii;51539416]What I mean by it is that 2142-pre there was an issue of that despite your crosshair being directly ontop of someone the bullets wouldn't always hit because, like what was said previously in the thread, they would be shot out in a cone in front of the player with no pattern to the bullet spray leading it to be luck based on whether your bullets actually hits the guy or not, BC1 was the first Battlefield game to get rid of it finally and actually have the bullets go where you're aiming, whether you're aiming down sites or not.
Yea from BC1-onward it's less accurate if you're not aiming down sights leading you to stop and take aim in a lot of situations but how is that any different than 2142-pre where you pretty much had to do the same because of random deviation?[/QUOTE]
Now I am not saying BF2 aim was perfect either. I think both scopes and unscoped aim should have no random cone fire. By having both scoped and unscoped fire be accurate you make it so one isn't vastly superior to the other. In Bad Company 1 and later games the player is almost always scoped while firing. Both scoped and unscoped should be perfectly ok without the game forcing the player to do one or the other. Instead scoping should exist for the players benefit in order to get better aim at long distant targets like how it works in the halo games. Making weapons randomly spread makes dying is heavily based on chance and that isn't what should determine a victory in a fire fight. At the same time players should be allowed to fire without having to go into scope mode or pray that a random few bullets hit their mark.
Ultimately I don't get what's gained by all shooters emulating the same sets of rules
It's not creating a more innovative or creative scene. It's the opposite.
So we make all guns, in all shooters work the same. Why would I ever play more than one shooter?
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51534882]What about wrist fatigue / gaming with controller held at odd angles? When I play games on the couch there's sometimes quite a lot of idle motion controller experiences while I play. Would that be an issue for such a setup?[/QUOTE]
if you have weak wrists than many but that's never happened to me
the gyro is easy to recenter, I have mine set on touching the trackpad
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51541336]Ultimately I don't get what's gained by all shooters emulating the same sets of rules
It's not creating a more innovative or creative scene. It's the opposite.
So we make all guns, in all shooters work the same. Why would I ever play more than one shooter?[/QUOTE]
Avoiding specific detrimental gameplay decisions don't make all games the same. Halo, tribes, counter strike, Unreal Tournament, ect all have weapons that work very differently. I don't see why you think taking out random weapon spray would make all shooters feel the same.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.