Slashdot Mirror
New Details On Halo Wars
As Halo Wars gets closer to its February release, details are gradually emerging about the game. In an interview with CVG, lead designer Graeme Devine claimed that the controls are actually better than those of a PC RTS, and said the downloadable content for the game is mostly done already, but will be held back until well after the release. Giant Bomb got some hands-on time with the game, and said the controls the controls "do work well enough, even if they're geared more toward broad tactical strokes than intensive small-group micromanagement." Kotaku has further details about the game as well. A video showing some of the gameplay is also available. Ensemble Studios has explicitly denied the possibility of a PC port.
"Sure some games that are poor ports from PC to console and haven't had their control schemes thought through on the console kinda suck but for the major releases where time is spent on these things there's nothing about console control schemes that detract from the fun of the game or your ability to play it and compete."
In my experience, if the game controls were well thought out for the console, they detracted from the PC gameplay. If they were well thought out on the PC, they are flat out wretched on a console. If developers want to make us wait a year or more after a games console release to release the PC version, they should consider redesigning the control scheme as if the game was PC only. They could get double sales from people who don't want to wait a year or more for the game, but also enjoy the added benefit of more precise controls. As far as competing goes, if everyone is subject to the same control scheme (good or bad), then everyone is equally capable of competing.
"Getting used to console controls for RTS, FPS and RPG games is really no different than initially getting used to them on a PC, it's just that most people here were brought up with playing them on PCs and don't like the idea of change."
Actually, most people I know, were brought up playing action/adventure/RPG games on the console. I didn't get into RTSs and FPSs until C&C and DOOM II. I first played C&C, C&C Red Alert, and Doom II on consoles. I, and many people I know, started moving towards the PC when PC games started implementing proper mouse support. Thus, I've already gone through change with my controls, and found the added control and precision to be worth the move. The real problem is that the change you speak of involves the loss of control and precision that comes with simplified controllers.
Some games don't need as much control to enjoy to the fullest. Most RPGs I've played fall into this category. I've played Knights of the Old Republic on console and PC and found them equally enjoyable. In fact, when I played it on the PC, I found I enjoyed it more playing it through the TV an using my cordless gamepad while lounging on my couch.
Some games still good with simpler controls, but are better with more complex or precise controls (depending on user). I've seen people you only use general tactics in RTS games who don't think the simpler controls are a problem. However, people who like to micromanage and/or pull off complicated maneuvers that require precise timing to achieve their full effect find simpler control really hold them back.
Finally, some games genres simply hold no comparison. I actually have a cousin who refuses to play an FPS with a mouse and keyboard. He gave much the same rhetoric as you are giving. So, in order to include him in the computer festivities over the holidays, I setup a PC with Halo and a game pad (same as above). I let him get used to the controls for a few days, though he said there really wasn't much of a difference. When we had our LAN party, he was the one always getting toasted. In fact, he thought we were cheating because he does very well online with his console.
Limiting everyone to simpler controls isn't really any different than any other hindrance or rules imposed (whether by design or not) as long as everyone is subject to it. However, that doesn't make it the equal of more complex controls or precise controls. The case with my cousin is just one of many I can reference that make this point very clear.
This doesn't mean that console gamers are inferior, just the controls. You could argue that console gamers have to be very good to deal with the precision handicap. I compare it to with $10000 instead of $40000 in Tiberium Wars (or constantly playing maps with low funds). Like self imposed handicaps (monetary or otherwise), the less precise controls can make things more fun for some people. But again, that doesn't make them equal.
On the other hand, I've seen control schemes that are overly complicated and give no real benefit once learned. There is a limit to what 10 fingers and muscle memory can do in the span of reflex time.
Or at least, I hope it will.
I've been playing RTS's off and on since C&C and Warcraft (the original), and I've always had a love/hate relationship with them. I love the strategy and tactics of the genre, but the whole concept of "micro" and continuously abysmal unit AI just infuriates me.
For instance, in the dominant RTS paradigm, if I have a group of units standing in a group in my base, I get two choices: leave them in "free acting" mode, where if they're attacked by some plinker my opponent sends, they'll rush headlong into whatever danger lurks outside the base, outside the range of my fortifications; or they can stand there in "hold" mode, and get picked off impassively by ranged enemy units as their mates stand around watching them bleed.
Why can't I tell them to automatically scatter and get behind fortifications to fight back? Or maybe retreat to draw the enemy into range of my big, immobile guns/cannons/wizards/what have you?
Since micro is so much harder on a console than a PC, my hope is that console RTS developers will address some of these issues, to reduce the frustration of unit management.