How the controller took the importance of aim out of shooters (self posted)
148 replies, posted
I don't get how random weapon spray is inherently bad, it's for a different subgenre.
Comaring Arena Shooters to something like Call Of Duty is like comparing fencing to football.
Generally controllers have been made to be comfortable and portable, you're obviously sitting away from that large tv screen.
Keyboard and mouse is simply always better because of quickness of use and accuracy, keyboard gives you so much more flexibility when it comes to key binds and thus games can be designed in different ways, everything on consoles is always contextual so that the user doesn't have to think about the input.
Mouse is simply designed in a way that it can be used both by wrist and entire arm as you desire, anyone who played online arena shooters knows it, the accuracy and the actual feeling it gives you when you land all the perfect shots without any aiming assistance as in console games, it blows everything out of the water.
Call of Duty on console uses that aim assistance with iron sights, you can click iron sight button while somewhat aiming at another player and it will auto target for you, that on pc would be considered a cheat in so many cases, but on console it's a necessity. Shooters never been good on consoles anyway, however thirdperson games or platforming games on consoles are always superior, that's what a controller has been made for, even for racing games it feels smoother.
Took me a while to have the time to reply so
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51536784]How has it done that? Be specific, not vague.[/quote]
The same way for example the NES controller wouldn't be able to play N64 games. Designing a shooter with a controller in mind limits what the designer can do the same way the controller prevents RTS games going to the console. The controller can't do any type of shooter that requires good aim or quick reflexes or very fast movement or if it does have these things they will be very difficult and frustrating to do. This is evident in the type of shooters that PC games have that consoles don't. On the other hand pretty much all console shooters could work fine with a mouse and keyboard. COD works well with a mouse and so does every other shooter on the console. This is why a controller restricts what devs can do with the FPS genre and why the FPS genre has been so stagnant for the last 9 years.
[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.
[/quote] That wouldn't be splitting the community more than any other game with MMR does. Players who do worse are with players who also do worse and players who do better will be with players who do better. It will just happen to be that on average controller players will do worse than mouse and keyboard players.
But allowing for mouse and keyboard support could actually do the opposite. If we allow mouse and keyboard support on consoles we can have a lot of games have cross play between PC and console. This would join the communities together.
[quote]
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] First off yes they are. It shows that games can be inviting but still have a high skill ceiling but even then TF2 is a shooter.
[quote]
I think if not handled well, yes. And it wouldn't be handled well.[/quote]
Are you going to back up that assertion with anything?
[quote]Source at least?[/quote] You should have done your research before making the claim that Videogames didn't become a billion dollar industry until lately. But sure. I am surprised you actually thought the industry was so niche before COD came out. [quote]In 1980, the U.S. arcade video game industry's revenue generated from quarters tripled to $2.8 billion.[16] By 1981, the arcade video game industry in the United States was generating an annual revenue of over $5 billion[1][17] with some estimates as high as $10.5 billion for all video games (arcade and home) in the US that year[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_arcade_video_games[/url]
[quote]
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.[/quote] I have explained multiple times. COD lowered the diversity of videogames. This is obvious by the amount of sub genres of videogames that came out in the years after and the amount of critically acclaimed FPS with a metacritic score of over 95 from 2008 onward. Many sub FPS genres died with nothing taking their place.
[quote] 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. [/quote] No but these bad games with very few originality or creativity is a great sign of it.
[quote]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. [/quote] Funny how the shooter genre was far more diverse and critically acclaimed when it was worth less money.
[quote]
Why are you inflamed and enraged that something exists when it doesn't harm you and it doesn't detirment your hobby? [/quote] Except it has and that has pretty much been shown over and over again.
No and it was all based upon a thought for me, it's not a sourced argument but I do think it has value.
[quote]
You're saying the PC market is an easily accessible market for an outsider to step into. [/quote]
Never said this. But there is no proof at all that the ps4 and COD pushed people towards PC's since PC was popular for over 20 years now and had amazing games. Also it was far more likely to be steam that increased PC's popularity not bad games.
[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] Even playing ground isn't a good excuse for bad controls. Also just because a game isn't competitive doesn't mean I should be ok with bad controls.
[quote]
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]
Why do you keep misrepresenting my argument?
These are the facts
Controllers are bad at controlling with
Controllers can't do the same things keyboard and mice and therefore devs have to make console style shooters if they want their game to sell on consoles.
The FPS genre has gotten less critically acclaimed and diverse games.
Controllers hurt the FPS genre and you can't accept that because you play(ed) on a controller.
[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.[/QUOTE]
Why do you keep making strawmen? The controller is objectively worse at aiming with and therefore restricts what can be made as far as shooters go. The shooter industry ran out of innovation as soon as the main focus was on controllers though.
[editline]16th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51541441]I don't get how random weapon spray is inherently bad, it's for a different subgenre.
Comaring Arena Shooters to something like Call Of Duty is like comparing fencing to football.[/QUOTE]
It's bad because it means you will die based on a coin flip rather than skill. Counter strike took it out for that reason. Also why do you people think Arena shooters are the only genre without BS like weapon spray?
[QUOTE=Metist;51541700]
The same way for example the NES controller wouldn't be able to play N64 games. Designing a shooter with a controller in mind limits what the designer can do the same way the controller prevents RTS games going to the console. The controller can't do any type of shooter that requires good aim or quick reflexes or very fast movement or if it does have these things they will be very difficult and frustrating to do. This is evident in the type of shooters that PC games have that consoles don't. On the other hand pretty much all console shooters could work fine with a mouse and keyboard. COD works well with a mouse and so does every other shooter on the console. This is why a controller restricts what devs can do with the FPS genre and why the FPS genre has been so stagnant for the last 9 years.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that I've enjoyed the last 10-15 years of shooters, and you haven't? There's been plenty of games in that time frame that have been far more unique than you give them credit for.
I never said controllers were better in any way, I just think they're [B]valid.[/B] When the genre, today, has as much diversity as ever, then I find it pretty hard to actually bitch and moan that the controllers damaged shooters. They clearly didn't as evidenced by the literal glut of games that aren't CoD Clones today.
[QUOTE] That wouldn't be splitting the community more than any other game with MMR does. Players who do worse are with players who also do worse and players who do better will be with players who do better. It will just happen to be that on average controller players will do worse than mouse and keyboard players.
But allowing for mouse and keyboard support could actually do the opposite. If we allow mouse and keyboard support on consoles we can have a lot of games have cross play between PC and console. This would join the communities together.[/QUOTE]
Shadowrun did this. It split the community and killed the game. Are we going to ignore precedent?
I don't see it taking off with people who are comfortable doing what they are, and I don't think devs would even support this on a wide enough basis to make a difference to the genre as you imply
[QUOTE] First off yes they are. It shows that games can be inviting but still have a high skill ceiling but even then TF2 is a shooter.
[/QUOTE]
How does "Yes they are" in any way show me or tell me why that is? I don't think they're similar because the use of skills isn't the same and the pacing is often considerably slower in games that aren't shooters.
Starcraft is a high APM game, would you say the two rely on the same skills? I wouldn't
[QUOTE]Are you going to back up that assertion with anything?[/QUOTE]
I can ask you the same thing in regards to quite a few of your points. Historically, game devs and publishers have bumbled a lot of things of that nature. I am not wrong to doubt the efficacy of an industry plagued with issues.
[QUOTE]
You should have done your research before making the claim that Videogames didn't become a billion dollar industry until lately. But sure. I am surprised you actually thought the industry was so niche before COD came out. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_arcade_video_games[/url]
I have explained multiple times. COD lowered the diversity of videogames. This is obvious by the amount of sub genres of videogames that came out in the years after and the amount of critically acclaimed FPS with a metacritic score of over 95 from 2008 onward. Many sub FPS genres died with nothing taking their place.
[/QUOTE]
Being a billionaire dollar industry since the 80's doesn't mean it wasn't niche dude. It wasn't mainstream. It was a niche. You can act like it has never been a niche, but even today, it's only JUST getting there it's fucking ridiculous to me that you think it was a serious and respected thing in the 80's. It was a fucking joke to the mainstream world. That's my point.
And that's [B]solely[/B] the fault of controllers and consoles and the shooters that resided there?
[QUOTE] No but these bad games with very few originality or creativity is a great sign of it.
Funny how the shooter genre was far more diverse and critically acclaimed when it was worth less money.[/QUOTE]
Proof? I grew up playing shooters, and I've played all the big ones. I'm still playing them today, why is it that you're miserable at the state of it and I'm not?
[QUOTE] Except it has and that has pretty much been shown over and over again. [/QUOTE]
Not really. You just keep saying so and insisting that I can't disagree. You're saying you're right because you are right. It's circular. Why are you right? Because you're right? If the genre today has as many interesting titles as it does, how is it that you're right? Oh, is it possible... Subjectivity is at play here?
[QUOTE]
Never said this. But there is no proof at all that the ps4 and COD pushed people towards PC's since PC was popular for over 20 years now and had amazing games. Also it was far more likely to be steam that increased PC's popularity not bad games.[/QUOTE]
Whatever you say. You literally have never even responded in any sense to my point in regards to this. You just keep saying what you keep saying and have no argument in regards to "Accessibility" and "niche"
But then again, you do think gaming has never been a "niche" hobby based on your use of valuation to say it hasn't been.
[QUOTE] Even playing ground isn't a good excuse for bad controls. Also just because a game isn't competitive doesn't mean I should be ok with bad controls.[/QUOTE]
Subjectivity is a real bitch in this argument isn't it. If we develop something better than controllers, that allow someone to sit on a couch, and still play their games as they desire to, then would you oppose that or be okay with that? If it wasn't as "Good" as a mouse and keyboard, I'm guessing not so much?
[QUOTE]Why do you keep misrepresenting my argument?
These are the facts
Controllers are bad at controlling with
Controllers can't do the same things keyboard and mice and therefore devs have to make console style shooters if they want their game to sell on consoles.
The FPS genre has gotten less critically acclaimed and diverse games.
Controllers hurt the FPS genre and you can't accept that because you play(ed) on a controller.[/QUOTE]
I can't accept that "fact" because it doesn't seem to be represented by reality. Degrade or generalize or whatever you want dude, but that isn't a fact as much as it's something you've repeated ad nauseum without any form of backing. Is the only genre around today CoD? No, clearly not. There's a wide variety of very interesting shooters and I find it ridiculous that because you hate controllers so much you're ignoring many things that stand in argument with your points.
[QUOTE]Why do you keep making strawmen? The controller is objectively worse at aiming with and therefore restricts what can be made as far as shooters go. The shooter industry ran out of innovation as soon as the main focus was on controllers though.[/QUOTE]
You've made no shortage of bad argumentation in this thread as well so to say it's purely me is silly.
The controller is worse than a mouse and keyboard. I have literally, never once, said anything else. You keep stuffing words in my mouth, to make the same strawmen you're accusing me of. I just don't believe it caused the stagnation of a genre I'm still fascinated by.
[QUOTE]It's bad because it means you will die based on a coin flip rather than skill. Counter strike took it out for that reason. Also why do you people think Arena shooters are the only genre without BS like weapon spray?[/QUOTE]
"You people". I mean if you weren't so needlessly, and constantly condescending, I'd enjoy this conversation.
My argument is that shooters weren't ruined, or damaged or harmed, or made worse, through the mere existence of consoles, controllers, and CoD. My argument is that the shooter genre isn't a dead, purely clone filled genre today, which if you were right, it must by definition be.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51541829]
I never said controllers were better in any way, I just think they're [B]valid.[/B] When the genre, today, has as much diversity as ever, then I find it pretty hard to actually bitch and moan that the controllers damaged shooters. They clearly didn't as evidenced by the literal glut of games that aren't CoD Clones today.
[/QUOTE]
But the Shooter genre isn't as diverse. This is for an obvious reason that for some reason you can't admit. Just because you like the modern military shooters doesn't change the fact that they are less diverse. So many genre's of shooters are near dead or are dead and no other genre's have come around to take their place. It is a FACT that controls limit what a designer can do and the controller has limited what the FPS genre can do. This is pretty much the entire point that has been said by me, Imasillypiggy, and others.
Every FPS on playable on a controller can be played on a mouse and keyboard but many FPS on keyboards and mice can't be played on controllers. It is as simple as that. The control filters what games are made.
Also you have no given any evidence to show that Shadowrun was killed off because of the community being split. But even then this situation is different because the console players CAN use keyboards and mice so finally PC and console can have proper cross play.
[quote]Being a billionaire dollar industry since the 80's doesn't mean it wasn't niche dude. It wasn't mainstream. It was a niche. [/quote] You yourself literally said it wasn't worth a billion dollars and I proved you wrong. Also no, something worth 4 billion dollars isn't niche. The arcades were huge. Adjusted for inflation the arcade industry was over 11 billion a year in america alone. Not niche.
But again, even if it was niche. How is that a bad thing? If good videogames are being made why should I as a consumer complain if it isn't making as much money?
[quote]Proof? I grew up playing shooters, and I've played all the big ones. I'm still playing them today, why is it that you're miserable at the state of it and I'm not? [/quote]
You are ok with playing the same thing over and over or like the very specific types of games the controller can play but don't care for the ones that it can't.
[quote]Not really. You just keep saying so and insisting that I can't disagree. You're saying you're right because you are right. It's circular.[/quote]
That is not a circular argument at all. I have shown that it has harmed the genre and you keep refusing to accept it despite not being able to show that I am wrong.
I will respond to your other posts later but these are the big ones you keep not getting.
[editline]16th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grindigo;51541517]
Call of Duty on console uses that aim assistance with iron sights, you can click iron sight button while somewhat aiming at another player and it will auto target for you, that on pc would be considered a cheat in so many cases, but on console it's a necessity. Shooters never been good on consoles anyway, however thirdperson games or platforming games on consoles are always superior, that's what a controller has been made for, even for racing games it feels smoother.[/QUOTE]
It's sad that the FPS genre (a genre that doesn't even really work on consoles) somehow became the biggest genre on the platform while genres that are far better fits are being made less and less. 3D platformers, Car combat games, Crazy Hack n slash games. Devs have been putting more and more effort into the FPS genre since COD but they always come out extremely flawed.
You made so many assumptions about me right there
1) I don't like COD
2) I am not a fan of the "modern military shooter" as I do not play those on average
3) you've assumed I grew up playing games like COD
Don't even write a retort if you're going to go down that route dude
[editline]16th December 2016[/editline]
I played tribes as a kid, quake, etc.
You're saying I use strawmen but then you do this?
[editline]16th December 2016[/editline]
I played console shooters and PC shooters, I enjoyed the difference in control schemes and frankly I saw a lot of difference in the games that were released that weren't "modern military shooters" like COD but you keep saying those didn't exist.
Niche is not a bad thing but you keep iterating billions like it means something in perspective to the global economy and yes I did mispeak and I have ALREADY stated so, that it was indeed a billion dollar industry. I have clarified this point before. But gaming has more people than ever and you're very selfish as to how the industry should continue
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51542016]You made so many assumptions about me right there
1) I don't like COD
2) I am not a fan of the "modern military shooter" as I do not play those on average
3) you've assumed I grew up playing games like COD
Don't even write a retort if you're going to go down that route dude
[editline]16th December 2016[/editline]
I played tribes as a kid, quake, etc.
You're saying I use strawmen but then you do this?[/QUOTE]
You have been making strawmen over and over and you are going to blame me for assuming you like modern military shooters when you said you have been enjoying modern shooters and have enjoyed military shooters in the past?
Either way it has basically been shown that a controller can't do what a mouse and keyboard can and because of that it has limited what designers can do with the genre. You have yet to show why this isn't the case and is the main argument most of the other arguments are based on.
Why is aim assistance already in most if not all modern games, what's prevents any third party from calling their aimbot an aim assistant? and getting away with it.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;51542599]Why is aim assistance already in most if not all modern games, what's prevents any third party from calling their aimbot an aim assistant? and getting away with it.[/QUOTE]
You can tell. If you can't, you might as well use the included aim assist.
[QUOTE=Metist;51542075]
Either way it has basically been shown that a controller can't do what a mouse and keyboard can and because of that it has limited what designers can do with the genre. You have yet to show why this isn't the case and is the main argument most of the other arguments are based on.[/QUOTE]
So I haven't read this whole argument between you two so I'm sorry if this has already been covered, but isn't it a bit hard to claim that designers are limited in what they can do with a genre when you really have nothing to do with the designers yourself?
Like, look: aim assist is pretty obviously a band-aid solution to the problem of controllers not being as capable in aiming as KB+M. But I think it's fair to look at it's inclusion in games, especially in the early 2000s, as a temporary solution that gave way to it's own genre of games.
Modern military shooters aren't trying to live up to the same standards as most standard "FPS" games(arena shooters, twitch-aim heavy games), aim assist in modern military shooters isn't "dumbing" down the game, it's [I]part[/I] of the game. With the entire game designed around the idea that aim assist is integral to the controller experience, entire new conventions and avenues of play are opened up. An entirely new way of incorporating the raw mechanics of shooting other players has been explored and perfected. It's downright unfair to say that controllers have limited what designers can do with the genre, since that very "limitation" exploded an entirely new genre with entirely different goals.
One that is enjoyed by millions of people, mind you, and is probably the most accessible and definitely one of the most played genres in gaming. If that isn't a net positive for gaming, I'm not sure what your standards are.
The games you enjoy and are used to when using the term "shooters" still exist, even if they may have become a more niche genre. It doesn't mean that the games that fill the genre aren't quality. You see the controller giving way to a new subgenre of a slightly more casual, accessible nature as a bad thing, as if the new subgenre is of lesser quality because of it's different goals. But I cannot see how innovating and incorporating a new peripheral into gaming is a bad thing.
This process of experimenting with new controller methods until they fit into a larger genre group is one that has been repeated time and time again in the gaming industry. Touch screens, motion controls and more recently (and most impressively imo) vr all essentially rely on this process.
[QUOTE=Metist;51542075]You have been making strawmen over and over and you are going to blame me for assuming you like modern military shooters when you said you have been enjoying modern shooters and have enjoyed military shooters in the past?
Either way it has basically been shown that a controller can't do what a mouse and keyboard can and because of that it has limited what designers can do with the genre. You have yet to show why this isn't the case and is the main argument most of the other arguments are based on.[/QUOTE]
I really haven't
Yes, I will blame you for making out of character assumptions about me as you would no doubt do to me with some vitrol.
No, it hasn't been shown that a controller limited the design of shooters.
It's been proposed, but it's not been shown.
You've also never confronted the fact that there's still a vibrant, and active shooter genre now, with no real shortage of games that aren't "Modern military" whatevers that you go on and on about.
I don't believe "Limitations" are a bad thing. Every creative exercise I've ever done, heard of, or been through, or around, has focused on the concept of "Limitations", because absolute creative freedom is suffocating. Being forced to work within the confines of a rule set can make you creative, and innovative and I don't believe that just wholesale removing controllers from the "shooter" genre, would have improved diversity as you say it would have.
And nothing you've said actually supports that in any serious, non conjecture based way but you're so dead set solid on that it's pretty hard to argue with you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51543680]
No, it hasn't been shown that a controller limited the design of shooters.[/quote]
Really? So are you saying that the controller can play the sub genres listed well? If not that is definitive proof that it has limited what the developer can do.
[quote]
You've also never confronted the fact that there's still a vibrant, and active shooter genre now, with no real shortage of games that aren't "Modern military" whatevers that you go on and on about. [/quote]
Except this is also false. The FPS genre over the last few years has been far less diverse. Arena shooters, FPSZ, FPS/RTS, ect, ect all went away with no sub genres to replace them. The genre was dominated by COD clones for years.
[quote]
I don't believe "Limitations" are a bad thing. Every creative exercise I've ever done, heard of, or been through, or around, has focused on the concept of "Limitations", because absolute creative freedom is suffocating. [/quote] Having more options is a bad thing? Are you serious? The entire reason we have new consoles every few years is to lower the limitations of what developers can do. That is what new hardware is for.
So these limitations are a good thing despite the fact that they have limited what the genre can do?
[quote]
And nothing you've said actually supports that in any serious, non conjecture based way but you're so dead set solid on that it's pretty hard to argue with you.[/QUOTE]
That is because I have the facts on my side.
It's a fact that the controller can't do the same things the mouse and keyboard can.
You have in no way shown this not to be the case.
[editline]17th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51543557]
The games you enjoy and are used to when using the term "shooters" still exist, even if they may have become a more niche genre. It doesn't mean that the games that fill the genre aren't quality. You see the controller giving way to a new subgenre of a slightly more casual, accessible nature as a bad thing, as if the new subgenre is of lesser quality because of it's different goals.[/QUOTE]
You haven't shown how this is the case. Every FPS on consoles can be played better with a mouse and keyboard. The controller hasn't opened anything. All that has happened is that developers have had to design around a worse control scheme which has limited what they can do. Also yes shooters have been dumbed down. The biggest aspect of most shooters is the shooting and that has been handled in part by the game itself. The processes of shooting has been partially automated and partially taken out by the use of controllers. This is dumbing down.
[QUOTE=Metist;51543983]Really? So are you saying that the controller can play the sub genres listed well? If not that is definitive proof that it has limited what the developer can do.[/QUOTE]
I never said that, so for someone like you to be complaining about strawmen and such then doing this every post? Cmon.
[QUOTE]Except this is also false. The FPS genre over the last few years has been far less diverse. Arena shooters, FPSZ, FPS/RTS, ect, ect all went away with no sub genres to replace them. The genre was dominated by COD clones for years.
Having more options is a bad thing? Are you serious? The entire reason we have new consoles every few years is to lower the limitations of what developers can do. That is what new hardware is for.
So these limitations are a good thing despite the fact that they have limited what the genre can do? [/QUOTE]
How is that false? You're lying out of clenched fucking teeth right now. There are every genre, subgenre, and even new ones out today so you're just fucking wrong and ignorant as fuck
[QUOTE]That is because I have the facts on my side.
It's a fact that the controller can't do the same things the mouse and keyboard can.
You have in no way shown this not to be the case.[/QUOTE]
But I never said it could?! Please, complain about how you've been strawmanned, and then do the same to me repeatedly in the same post, after having just finished making a page worth of assumptions about me, while still acting like you have some high road here.
What I've said is it's a valid control method. You shove fucking paragraphs worth of words down my throat in order to get YOUR point across. It's fucking bullshit dude.
[QUOTE]You haven't shown how this is the case. Every FPS on consoles can be played better with a mouse and keyboard. The controller hasn't opened anything. All that has happened is that developers have had to design around a worse control scheme which has limited what they can do. Also yes shooters have been dumbed down. The biggest aspect of most shooters is the shooting and that has been handled in part by the game itself. The processes of shooting has been partially automated and partially taken out by the use of controllers. This is dumbing down.[/QUOTE]
So Titanfall 2 is a "Dumb" shooter? So "Doom 2016" is a "Dumb" shooter? So STRAFE, Lawbreakers, and the new Unreal are all dumbed down? How so? Can you quantify that in anyway?
SOME games got designed around controllers, and you say the entire genre is dead. That's ludicrous, untrue, and unfounded.
At this point, I'm literally just arguing with your """"OBJECTIVELY RIGHT""""" Opinions and I can't argue with someones subjective fucking thoughts
metist my dude u dont need to take this matter seriously
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51544085]I never said that, so for someone like you to be complaining about strawmen and such then doing this every post? Cmon.[/quote]
That isn't a strawman, that is me asking a question.
This is a strawman [quote]and you say the entire genre is dead.[/quote] A great fine example of one.
[quote]
How is that false? You're lying out of clenched fucking teeth right now. There are every genre, subgenre, and even new ones out today so you're just fucking wrong and ignorant as fuck [/quote]
There hasn't been a big Arena shooter released in years. They have all been done by indie studios pretty much. Even UT4 which is a PC exclusive is being made on an extremely small budget and quake is only finally coming out now that console COD shooters aren't making as much money since it is PC exclusive.
[quote]But I never said it could?![/quote]So then do you admit that the controller limits what a developer can do? If so then the entire point that the controller has limited the FPS genre is correct.
[quote]
What I've said is it's a valid control method. You shove fucking paragraphs worth of words down my throat in order to get YOUR point across. It's fucking bullshit dude. [/quote]
You mean making an argument?
[quote]
So Titanfall 2 is a "Dumb" shooter? So "Doom 2016" is a "Dumb" shooter? So STRAFE, Lawbreakers, and the new Unreal are all dumbed down?[/quote] It is amazing how most of these shooters are designed for PC. So no, most of those probably aren't because they aren't designed with a controller in mind. Though I haven't played titanfall 2.
SOME games got designed around controllers, and you say the entire genre is dead. That's ludicrous, untrue, and unfounded.
[quote]""""OBJECTIVELY RIGHT""""" Opinions [/QUOTE]
Who are you quoting?
So here again are the facts.
The controller limits what the developer can do.
Most FPS released from 2008 to 2015 were designed with the controller in mind since they were on consoles.
So this is just some deductive reasoning here. If most games were designed with a controller in mind and the controller limits what developers can do it seems like most games have been limited to what they can do because they are designed with a controller in mind.
So controllers have limited the FPS genre.
That's the most reductionist logic ever used
How did consoles affect PC shooters when the PC was still getting those genres?
You're saying controllers made them defunct but you're ignoring and pretending that was a sole factor
[editline]17th December 2016[/editline]
When your opinion is the baseline for what you consider a fact it's very hard to argue with you
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51544239]
How did consoles affect PC shooters when the PC was still getting those genres?[/quote] Not really outside of half finished or shoe string budget games made by fans in their spare time.
[quote]
You're saying controllers made them defunct but you're ignoring and pretending that was a sole factor[/quote]
What other factor is there? Genres of FPS that can't be played with a controller stopped being made. It is as simple as that.
[quote]
When your opinion is the baseline for what you consider a fact it's very hard to argue with you[/QUOTE]
Except it's not an opinion that controllers can't play as many types of shooters and it isn't an opinion that less games in genres that don't work with a controller were being made, especially any of them with a budget. It is also a fact that the amount of critically acclaimed shooters went down after COD was released.
These are all facts.
[QUOTE=Metist;51544332]Not really outside of half finished or shoe string budget games made by fans in their spare time.[/QUOTE]
Oh so the games I played didn't exist? Fuck yeah, you get to rewrite my personal history, and stick words in my mouth.
[QUOTE]What other factor is there? Genres of FPS that can't be played with a controller stopped being made. It is as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
So you're actually asking "What other factors could even exist" because you've never thought about that? That's pretty fucking telling dude. YOu haven't thought about this issue as much as you act like you have.
What other factors? Well, how about the popularity of those genres or game types, the desire of people to play those, the change in taste that might have occured? No, you literally have ignored all that to say that people who don't enjoy what you enjoy are wrong, stupid, and you've never considered any other reasons. That's pretty short sighted.
[QUOTE]Except it's not an opinion that controllers can't play as many types of shooters and it isn't an opinion that less games in genres that don't work with a controller were being made, especially any of them with a budget. It is also a fact that the amount of critically acclaimed shooters went down after COD was released.
These are all facts.[/QUOTE]
Like did PC gaming just not happen between 2008-2015 for you? Because it did for me and I enjoyed many spectacular titles that weren't COD and you keep reiterating that no titles BUT CODS and CoD Clones ever existed?
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;51529479]I don't think it's really a bad thing when a game designed for controllers uses aim assist, and it's not worth trying to debate whether or not it's better. Trying to play a game like GTAV with a controller is impossible without it, in fact it feels terrible trying to line up sights with a game like that even on mouse and keyboard. it's just not a game that's designed around combat, it's designed around being a crazy hollywood level badass getting from point a to b with minimal disruptions, letting player interaction and gun/car fights disrupt that.
as for the aim bot argument, the best way to avoid it is to stay in cover but keep on moving, which again plays in to the "a to b" argument. those who know the best paths on either side will have the better chance at making it through. GTA players move slowly, which is why it's important to plan your routes ahead of time. its a game to play on the couch, get relaxed, but start to amp up due to the situations becoming more critical on how quick you can move, not how well you can aim.
on the other hand, it's the same reason why I wouldn't dare touch Quake 3 on a console, because it's almost impossible to play due to being a game that was designed from the ground up to be all about combat and quick thinking. thats a game that relies on twitch reactions, it relies on staying alive. GTA is point to point combat, while Quake is about situational combat in an arena. he covers this a ton in the video, that there are games that require one or the other. you've just gotta know that some games provide one type of gameplay experience and the other doesn't.
thanks for making this video btw pig, it's short but indepth and I appreciate it's existence a lot.[/QUOTE]
Mind you a lot of people forget that the aim assist is one of the smallest hitches. Generally speaking a lot of the game will be designed around the controller of choice.
The movement system between console designed and pc designed games will often see a fair difference, the same goes for the level design. The lack of verticality is a good example of this.
[quote]
while unreal tournament and the like were fun, frantic games, I'm not sure footage of people flailing around like their mouse fell off the desk is the best example to play when talking about raw skill of shoot-and-avoid gameplay. Sure it applies but it's a visual mess and anybody who's unfamiliar with the franchise will see it as silly nonsense
[/quote]
Or just show people using a claw grip?
[QUOTE=darth-veger;51529628]True but you would get your ass kicked to all the players who play with aim assist[/QUOTE]
Actually no. Since you would be able to move significantly better than the controller players, across a wider variety of angles. Games which offer auto aim to controller players and turning it off for Mice and keyboard players have been done. The Mice players generally trash the controller ones.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51544347]Oh so the games I played didn't exist? Fuck yeah, you get to rewrite my personal history, and stick words in my mouth.
[/quote] So are you saying that there are big budget Arena shooters that came out in the last few years I didn't know about?
[quote]
So you're actually asking "What other factors could even exist" because you've never thought about that? That's pretty fucking telling dude. YOu haven't thought about this issue as much as you act like you have.[/quote] Or maybe I have and since controllers are the major factor they are pretty much what matters in this discussion unless you are willing to give an alternate explanation.
[quote]
Well, how about the popularity of those genres or game types[/quote] Well yeah, they are popular because they work well on a controller. That is why COD is so popular on consoles while not nearly as popular on PC.
[quote]
Like did PC gaming just not happen between 2008-2015 for you? Because it did for me and I enjoyed many spectacular titles that weren't COD and you keep reiterating that no titles BUT CODS and CoD Clones ever existed?[/QUOTE]
Can you make a single post without a strawman please? Seriously, it is hard to argue with someone who will make up a fake argument to counter every time.
No, 2008-2015 did exist and there were a lot of games that I did enjoy in that time. But there were very little FPS that weren't designed with the controller in mind because most shooters are designed to also be on consoles.
So do you not agree that most FPS were designed with consoles in mind from 2008-15? If you do agree then you admit most shooters were limited to what the controller could do.
[QUOTE=Metist;51546242]So are you saying that there are big budget Arena shooters that came out in the last few years I didn't know about? [/QUOTE]
You earlier said [QUOTE]But again, even if it was niche. How is that a bad thing?[/QUOTE] so I have to ask, you why does it have to be big budget? I didn't say they were, I just said they existed, big budget or not, you're the one saying it being niche isn't a bad thing. I would agree, they're niche's in the current genre.
[QUOTE] Or maybe I have and since controllers are the major factor they are pretty much what matters in this discussion unless you are willing to give an alternate explanation. [/QUOTE]
I have given you a minimum of 3 options that you either didn't read, or ignored wholesale to reiterate it's all about the controller.
[QUOTE] Well yeah, they are popular because they work well on a controller. That is why COD is so popular on consoles while not nearly as popular on PC.[/QUOTE]
There have been UT, Quake, and the like on Consoles with fairly active playerbases for a long time. They aren't as big as COD, no, but [QUOTE]again, even if it was niche. How is that a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
CoD doesn't have an insignificant playerbase on PC, and I think if you looked at the most recent CoD you'll see they're the fastest and most movement centric games in the series, so for all your bluster that controllers destroyed the shooter genre for you, that seems to be just your opinion, and one based largely on your ignorance OF the modern shooter.
[QUOTE]Can you make a single post without a strawman please? Seriously, it is hard to argue with someone who will make up a fake argument to counter every time.
[/QUOTE]
I'd like you to stop, and think about how many different positions you've assumed I hold, and how many different arguments you've based off of that.
[QUOTE]
No, 2008-2015 did exist and there were a lot of games that I did enjoy in that time. But there were very little FPS that weren't designed with the controller in mind because most shooters are designed to also be on consoles.[/QUOTE]
It's true that a large mainstream trend took over, but [QUOTE]again, even if it was niche. How is that a bad thing?[/QUOTE] Those games still stuck around, those sub genres existed. They exist today for christsakes.
[QUOTE]So do you not agree that most FPS were designed with consoles in mind from 2008-15? If you do agree then you admit most shooters were limited to what the controller could do.[/QUOTE]
You just made a statement that says "If you agree with me, you agree with all the tangentially related things I demand you agree with". No, I don't think I'm going to play your game pal.
Here's what I'll say.
Mainstream shooters, that were designed for maximum marketability copied the control and general design methods and mentalities of COD.
Did most shooters during that time period ape controllers? Definitely not. Controllers don't have lean functions, but I can name a bunch of FPS's during that time period that focused on that kind of thing, that you say didn't exist.
You're using the mainstream trends to deem the rest of the genre damaged, when from where I'm sitting, today, the genre is in the best spot it's ever been in with the most interesting titles out, and coming out and still around the corner.
Feel free to not enjoy them though, you've been very deadset on how it's just no longer a very good genre, and that being the fault of one device solely. I find that hard to believe, due to the fact there was once a lively scene for Quake and Unreal on consoles that I witnessed first hand, you can say controllers make that impossible, and they sure do add some challenge to the process, but I don't get the claim that they're responsible for the downfall of things you enjoy. I find it far more likely that it's not that simple.
It's not that the genre is niche that is the issue. It is that the genre was bare with unfinished or extremely small projects made by single devs which were basically always broken.
[quote]Quake and UT on consoles[/quote]
You mean quake 3 that allowed the player to use a mouse and keyboard on dreamcast or do you mean UT 3 for xbox which flopped?
Console players don't want to play games that don't work on controllers and I don't blame them.
Now stop side stepping the real argument here.
The arena shooter genre (as well as other shooters that don't work on controllers) have been barren.
The fact of the matter is that the genres that don't work on a controller basically died while the genres that work with a controller succeeded. Most games were designed to work on a console and therefore only the genres that worked on a controller survived.
Now show me how the above argument is flawed.
[quote]You're using the mainstream trends to deem the rest of the genre damaged, when from where I'm sitting, today, the genre is in the best spot it's ever been in with the most interesting titles out, and coming out and still around the corner.[/quote]
Are you simply too young to have played shooters in the past or are you being willingly ignorant? The only way the FPS genre has been moving forward is very recently because COD clones started selling less and FPS on PC started making more money. Which again proves my point.
[quote]Controllers don't have lean functions, but I can name a bunch of FPS's during that time period that focused on that kind of thing, that you say didn't exist.[/quote]
Lean worked fine with a controller. I don't see why you are saying it didn't since FEAR's lean worked great.
[quote]
Feel free to not enjoy them though, you've been very deadset on how it's just no longer a very good genre[/quote] It hasn't been. Review scores and amount of genres agree with this and it is the controllers fault and you have done nothing to show how it isn't the controllers fault. You are in full denial.
[QUOTE=Metist;51548439]It's not that the genre is niche that is the issue. It is that the genre was bare with unfinished or extremely small projects made by single devs which were basically always broken. [/QUOTE]
How was it bare? How so? You saying this doens't make it the case, and when I look at the genre, I see plenty of the titles you say don't exist?
[QUOTE]
You mean quake 3 that allowed the player to use a mouse and keyboard on dreamcast or do you mean UT 3 for xbox which flopped?
Console players don't want to play games that don't work on controllers and I don't blame them.
[/QUOTE]
Now I know you don't read anything I fucking say. You just skim, condescend, and then post. That's all.
No, Quake 4 on the xbox 360, UT on the Xbox 360/xbox/PS2. But please, tell me those games 1) didn't exist and 2) that I didn't see a decent online presence
[QUOTE]
Now stop side stepping the real argument here. [/QUOTE]
Haven't once done that. I don't think you even read my posts.
[QUOTE]The arena shooter genre (as well as other shooters that don't work on controllers) have been barren.
The fact of the matter is that the genres that don't work on a controller basically died while the genres that work with a controller succeeded. Most games were designed to work on a console and therefore only the genres that worked on a controller survived.[/QUOTE]
So Quake 4 didn't work with a controller? Seeing as you didn't even know the game existed, I'm going to have to say, you're just flat out wrong because of your own ignorance of the genre you act like you know so much about.
[QUOTE]Now show me how the above argument is flawed. [/QUOTE]
So you can ignore it again? I've gone over this. There's still a lively, and diverse genre. You say it's not a diverse genre. I say it is.
[QUOTE]Are you simply too young to have played shooters in the past or are you being willingly ignorant? The only way the FPS genre has been moving forward is very recently because COD clones started selling less and FPS on PC started making more money. Which again proves my point. [/QUOTE]
Oh yay, more assumptions!
No, I actually have told you, time and time again, what I grew up playing, but you're not reading my fucking posts. This is proof. I grew up playing Tribes, UT, QUAKE, Halo, and more. But please, assume away, you know everything clearly.
[QUOTE]Lean worked fine with a controller. I don't see why you are saying it didn't since FEAR's lean worked great.[/QUOTE]
But didn't you say the controller destroyed the innovation of the shooter, so how can a game like FEAR have existed in a COD world? Oh, it did, and to me, that alone proves my point that controllers didn't destroy the innovation of the genre. But that it was market forces that drove that more than anything.
[QUOTE] It hasn't been. Review scores and amount of genres agree with this and it is the controllers fault and you have done nothing to show how it isn't the controllers fault. You are in full denial.[/QUOTE]
I assume you have hard and fast proof linking that to the controller, and solely the controller?
[editline]18th December 2016[/editline]
For someone complaining about being strawmanned every post, you sure as fuck don't read anything I say.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51548575]How was it bare? How so? You saying this doens't make it the case, and when I look at the genre, I see plenty of the titles you say don't exist?[/QUOTE]
Like? What decently budgeted Arena shooters were there, just that for an example.
[quote]Quake 4[/quote]
Didn't release between the years we are talking about. Also it flopped hard on consoles.
[quote]UT on xbox/xbox 360[/quote] Also flopped hard causing epic to focus on Gears of war. Also didn't release in the years mentioned.
[quote]So Quake 4 didn't work with a controller? Seeing as you didn't even know the game existed[/quote] No, because it wasn't in the years listed and it didn't have much of an online presence since it sold worse than any other numbered quake game and died quickly and forgotten.
All your examples are proving my point.
[quote]It is still a lively and diverse genre[/quote] Except from the years listed apparently.
FEAR also came out before the years listed again.
So by your own examples we can see genres that didn't work with the controller weren't made and the ones before that tried all flopped.
The fact that these IP always sold well on PC before but can't sell well on consoles pretty much shows that it is the control system that is the crucial difference.
You won't even admit there's a possibility people want different things and market trends change?
They did change. They changed because some games play with a controller better than others. Consumers wanted games that felt better to play with on their control device and the market responded by developing games that work well with the preferred device.
RTS never sold very well on consoles either and the exception to that is Halo wars because it was an RTS designed from the very beginning to work on controllers.
[QUOTE=Metist;51550239]They did change. They changed because some games play with a controller better than others. Consumers wanted games that felt better to play with on their control device and the market responded by developing games that work well with the preferred device.
RTS never sold very well on consoles either and the exception to that is Halo wars because it was an RTS designed from the very beginning to work on controllers.[/QUOTE]
whether that change is for the better or worse is not up to just you or me. big-name game developers usually appeal to the majority; you can say that shooter/rts/whatever games have gotten worse because of controllers but that doesn't really matter when a vast majority of other gamers seem completely okay with the changes.
when everyone around you is completely okay with how shooters are today and you're the only one who wants it to change there's really not much you can do. i've played arena shooters since RA3 and even i can see that that genre is never going to be as popular again as it was in 1999. but i have to say that i'm completely okay with that.
as far as consoles supporting a mouse and keyboard like the dreamcast, it's just going to give you a ridiculous advantage. from the developer's perspective, a design decision like that is taking a huge sales risk because you'd naturally have mouse users dominating controller users and while you could reason that everyone could buy a mouse because of that, we both know people are lazy fucks and nobody is going to do that, they're more likely to just quit the game.
i'd be more fine with the idea if the people using the different devices were segregated OR engineers found a fucking breakthrough and somehow found out how to make a controller that lets people aim as precisely as a mouse. [sp]steam controller 2nd generation anyone?[/sp]
then again i feel like all the arguments in this thread aren't reaching anybody and i'm just mindlessly adding to it
The biggest solution to controller aim is a steam controller, the track pad with the combination of the gyroscope makes it great.
I don't really know where I stand. I disliked most of the FPSes of the previous 5-10 years and I am really happy about the recent changes in the industry and I'm someone who would love to be able to use the best control scheme suited for the game so that the designers wouldn't feel constrained by the input options. But that is just my 2c to add to the discussion.
What I really wanted to say was this has been an amazing discussion so far. I've read about relatively well thought out arguments on topics people feel passionate about to discuss but discuss in a fairly civil manner. Overall reading through the thread gave me a lot to think about and consider. So thank you to all sides.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.