Metroid Prime also, while a FPS in the sense that it was a First Person Shooter, wasn't an FPS in the traditional gameplay sense. That is to say, the focus wasn't on the combat, but on the exploration. In that context, using snap-aim is not really a big deal.
Frankly, the latter two Prime games, which tried to include more involved combat, weren't as good in the exploration front. Prime 2 didn't have as tightly-integrated of a world, opting instead for the old hub/spoke system (which makes backtracking to previous regions a real pain), and atmospherically, half the game took place in a murky purple place. Prime 3 never let you get more than six or so rooms away from your spaceship, which robs the game of a lot of tension.
But all of this is completely beside the point. I just like being argumentative.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Consoles just need to work out a way of controlling an FPS that has 3 properties:
1: intuitive
2: both high rate of movement, but maintaining the opportunity to be accurate with practice
3: not shipping an aimbot.
Halo 2 fails on point 3. Anyone else enjoy sweeping around at head level with a battle rifle and letting the aim correction do the rest?
Consoles just need to work out a way of controlling an FPS that has 3 properties:
1: intuitive
2: both high rate of movement, but maintaining the opportunity to be accurate with practice
3: not shipping an aimbot.
Easy: Include a couple of USB ports and mouse and keyboard support.
I honestly wonder if consoles aren't doing that already, and if not, why not. What's the big deal? Almost everyone nowadays has an usb keyboard and mouse. And if they don't, they are really cheap.
The best controller I've used is the Saturn controller. Very nicely shaped and has very clicky L/R buttons and certainly the best d-pad of any console. It's also excellent for button mashing. The best controller with an analougue is probably the GameCube one. Mostly because the analogue stick is so good and won't wear and tear like the N64 controllers do and The L/R triggers are also and still are inovative. The worst one is probably the PS2 controller as the analogues are just completly unuseable espeacially in FPS because of the sheer awkwardness of coodinating with duo analouges which are so closely placed together and the grip required just makes it difficult for pressing other buttons. However, the original XBOX controller is terrible for comfort espeacially the trigger buttons and shape of the controller which cripple my hands after about an hour of use. Note, the argument only refers to offfical console controllers so third party and PC controllers don't count.
I honestly wonder if consoles aren't doing that already, and if not, why not. What's the big deal? Almost everyone nowadays has an usb keyboard and mouse. And if they don't, they are really cheap.
Because consoles aren't computers. A lot of people out there find computers really intimidating. Consoles are comparatively pick-up-and-play. You still have to learn your way around the controller, though, and modern controllers have gotten really expensive [ed: meant complicated]. IIRC this was part of the motivation for the Wii - Nintendo was trying to find a controller that was both expressive and intuitive.
Don't think for a moment that the keyboard/mouse combination is intuitive. It took you years to learn to use it fluently. It's powerful, yes, and many people do know how to use it effectively...but many do not. Fundamentally this comes down to a tradeoff:
* Require keyboard and mouse. Now your game has strong controls, but players must either purchase an additional set of input devices or re-use an existing set (and most people do not have spares lying around). Your game is now moderately more intimidating to people who are computer newbies.
* Allow for keyboard and mouse, but support the default controller as well. Your game has the potential for strong controls. Multiplayer between keyboard users and controller users is unfair. Assuming you have a singleplayer campaign, odds are good that either mouse users will find it too easy, or controller users will find it too hard.
* Require the default controller. Your game is now stuck with what the controller can provide. It's not intimidating, requires no additional purchases, and only the niche FPS adepts will complain about the lack of a keyboard/mouse.
Looking at this, my choice would be for the third option. The second looks good, but there's too many balance issues to sort out and I assume I wouldn't have that kind of time or budget. If I were doing the first, I'd make a game for PCs instead of for a console in the first place.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Derakon wrote:
[ Your game is now moderately more intimidating to people who are computer newbies.
Its insane to think its worth marketing an online FPS to people that still cant use a mouse and keyboard.
The only people still intimidated by a mouse and keyboard are the same kind of people who are unlikely to play games at all, and when they do, probably avoid games that use the new fangled internets.
Seriously, using bad controls because its easier to learn for people who will never play your game anyway is just ridiculous.
I wouldn't be too certain of that. Yes, practically everyone you know has tons of experience with the mouse and keyboard. Intuitively, it makes sense to extend that level of expertise to the general population. But unless you can cite a study that shows that there's a negligible number of people who are console-literate but not computer-literate, I'll continue to believe that targeting your game at the keyboard and mouse crowd shrinks your potential market.
I grant that I cannot, in turn, provide a study that shows that there is an appreciable population of people who are console-literate and not computer-literate. Still, I've learned, over the few years I've done website work, that there's a lot of people who just don't know what they're doing when it comes to computers.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Derakon wrote:
there's a lot of people who just don't know what they're doing when it comes to computers.
Amen.
And I've never had problems using a console controller for FPSs. I may not be a master-super-1337-awesometastic player, but I hold my own. So, while keyboard/mouse may be moderately better method for some people, controllers are by no means bad.
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
I once saw an XBox controller where they moved the face buttons onto triggers on the back of the controller, so there were 4 triggers on each side; you could hit all the buttons without taking your thumbs off the analog sticks.
While not exactly fitting with the genre, I still consider the Prime series to have the most intuitive controls in a console FPS to date, and this is especially true of Prime 3.
The reason I can't play console shooters to save my life is because my first was Turok for N64, whose controls are the inverse of, well, every other game to come out since. I can get away with the backwards movement on Prime, since all movement is devoted to one stick anyway. I'm aware none of this makes sense, but humor me.
according to the FAQ they are: "Video game consoles are computers."
somewhere it also says that computers are calculators. i think that's interesting, and funny.
I honestly wonder if consoles aren't doing that already, and if not, why not. What's the big deal? Almost everyone nowadays has an usb keyboard and mouse. And if they don't, they are really cheap.
Because consoles aren't computers. A lot of people out there find computers really intimidating. Consoles are comparatively pick-up-and-play.
Nobody said anything about any console or console game *requiring* mouse+keyboard. I only wondered why no consoles and console games offer it as an *alternative* to playing with the gamepad. If someone wants to play with the gamepad, then he is free to do so, but if someone would want to play with mouse+keyboard, why not offer him the chance?
Besides, the keyboard would allow hardcore gamers a lot of additional possibilities, especially for online gaming (such as sending messages and outright chatting).
(Yes, sure, many people probably are just happy that online console games are not flooded with "LOL! FAG! U SUK!" messages, but still...)
Modern consoles are also starting to offer features where the mouse could be very useful, such as web browsing. Why not offer it? An USB port wouldn't raise the price of the console much, and adding support for USB mice to the console OS is trivial (if not actually already there).
Don't think for a moment that the keyboard/mouse combination is intuitive. It took you years to learn to use it fluently.
There's a difference, though: Most people already know how to use the mouse and the keyboard (and the latter doesn't need almost any practice at all to be used as a game controller). Also, when you get proficient with the mouse+keyboard, your gaming will be much more fluent than when you get proficient with the gamepad.
according to the FAQ they are: "Video game consoles are computers."
somewhere it also says that computers are calculators. i think that's interesting, and funny.
Strictly speaking this is true - people have even done things like install Linux on a Dreamcast, and the Wii's web browser is really blurring the line. However, I'm speaking in terms of what the device is typically used for. Consoles are used for playing videogames (and, secondarily, for watching movies). Computers are much more general-purpose. Even though consoles are capable of many different things, because they were designed with games in mind as a primary purpose, they were able to make decisions that computers, which must be general-purpose by default, cannot do. This includes things like assuming that the CD/DVD/cartridge in the slot is a game and loading it on power-on; expecting inputs via console controllers; having a fixed set of hardware (no mucking about with device drivers), and so on.
A new user who turns on a computer is confronted with a vast selection of choices. This is very intimidating (and studies have been done on choice paralyzation). A new user who turns on a game console, in contrast, has very few choices, and they're all well-defined.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Nobody said anything about any console or console game *requiring* mouse+keyboard. I only wondered why no consoles and console games offer it as an *alternative* to playing with the gamepad. If someone wants to play with the gamepad, then he is free to do so, but if someone would want to play with mouse+keyboard, why not offer him the chance?
I covered this in my list of options. Any additional input device you support requires extra coding on your end. And while coding in support for keyboards may not be much extra effort, remember that game developers are always under the gun as it is. For the time being, mouse+keyboard users have been able to get by just fine with the standard controller, which makes mouse+keyboard a "nice to have" feature - that is, one that quickly gets cut when the developers are in crunch mode. Not only that, but adding in a new input method might have balance implications: as you've noted several times, the mouse allows for faster turning and tighter aiming, which creates an imbalance in gameplay. Games that are designed with a console controller in mind would be a bit easier for mouse+keyboard users, and gamers with console controllers playing against gamers with mouse+keyboard would, all else being equal, be at a disadvantage.
Besides, the keyboard would allow hardcore gamers a lot of additional possibilities, especially for online gaming (such as sending messages and outright chatting).
These would also require extra coding.
Modern consoles are also starting to offer features where the mouse could be very useful, such as web browsing. Why not offer it? An USB port wouldn't raise the price of the console much, and adding support for USB mice to the console OS is trivial (if not actually already there).
This is just another version of the game argument, writ large. How much extra does it cost the console developer to add a USB port? Not much, but there is extra cost, not just in the hardware but also in the drivers and API. How many extra game sales would that port enable? Is it enough to justify the cost? If not, then there's no USB port.
Don't think for a moment that the keyboard/mouse combination is intuitive. It took you years to learn to use it fluently.
There's a difference, though: Most people already know how to use the mouse and the keyboard (and the latter doesn't need almost any practice at all to be used as a game controller). Also, when you get proficient with the mouse+keyboard, your gaming will be much more fluent than when you get proficient with the gamepad.[/quote]
Again, this is true for you but is not true for a vast number of users. You don't encounter these users on a regular basis because they inhabit different social circles, but they do want to be able to use computers and play games and they have very little experience at either. Keyboards are a slow input mechanism for these people. If they even know about copy+paste, it's through the Edit menu. Internet Explorer is the Internet, and they type through hunt&peck. They need many attempts to hit the close box on a window. And so on.
The thing about these people is, they still want to use the computer! They still want to play games! But it's very discouraging to play games with controls that require mastery of the keyboard, because they don't have it.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Modern consoles are also starting to offer features where the mouse could be very useful, such as web browsing. Why not offer it? An USB port wouldn't raise the price of the console much, and adding support for USB mice to the console OS is trivial (if not actually already there).
You know what's the funniest of all? Pretty much every console since PS2 has had the hardware required for connecting mouse and keyboard (either through USB or Bluetooth) already installed. The only thing lacking has been the software support!
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
But this isn't actually extra work above porting to the PSes, because they devved the PC version too, and had the keyboard/mouse handling code already.
Nobody said anything about any console or console game *requiring* mouse+keyboard. I only wondered why no consoles and console games offer it as an *alternative* to playing with the gamepad. If someone wants to play with the gamepad, then he is free to do so, but if someone would want to play with mouse+keyboard, why not offer him the chance?
Time and budget. The more options you include increases man-hours in development and testing. A new control system would certainly require a massive amount of increased playtesting.
And remember one big disadvantage of PC inputs - they require a flat surface in front of you. When I play console games, I like to sit on a bed, on a couch or similar. A controller allows more body movement. and doesn't need me to hunch over something.
Mouse & keyboard are probably the 'optimal' combo, but not necessarily the most fun or practical.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
I'd like to mention that Nintendo's Wiimote+Chuck looks like a really good middle ground. What's everyone's opinion on the mostly unfulfilled potential there? I personally find it frustrating that developers are putting more emphasis on polygons and pixel shading than interface. "We don't care that it doesn't play as well, it looks better!"
And yes, I know that consumer are part of the blame as well.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
