Slashdot Mirror
PC Gamers Too Good For Consoles Gamers?
thsoundman sends in a blog post from Rahul Sood, CTO of HP's gaming business, who claims there was once a project in development at Microsoft to let Xbox users compete against PC users playing the same game. According to Sood, the project was killed because the console players kept getting destroyed by their PC counterparts. He wrote, "Those of us who have been in the gaming business for over a decade know the real deal. You simply don't get the same level of detail or control as you do with a PC over a console. It's a real shame that Microsoft killed this — because had they kept it alive it might have actually increased the desire of game developers and gamers alike to continue developing and playing rich experiences on the PC, which would trickle down to the console as it has in the past."
I got a wireless mouse and keyboard working on my XBox 360 and then played through Modern Warfare 2 in single player mode. On my back projection TV from 1999, I was doing on average a lot better on XBox live than I was with the control pad. We set it up on my friends massive LCD with a very high response time and I felt unstoppable. It seems when you increase the input devices and give me finer tuned control I can concentrate on that and get further up the curve more easily. Might not be the same for some people but if you want to walk all over people, see if your device supports keyboard and mouse through USB and then relearn the game. It took a while but it got to the point of not being fun anymore.
I'd imagine on average the PC user would trounce the XBox 360 user. For me the killer aspect was reducing having to use my thumbs on two joysticks to look around down to the two dimensional plan of my mouse pad. Had to tweak the sensitivity a bit but really two different worlds.
My work here is dung.
I tried a third party accessory that lets you plug in a keyboard and mouse, but the latency was nasty. It just wasn't responsive enough to be usable. If they sold a keyboard and mouse that compared to the PC gaming experience, I'd buy it.
You're right. A lot of console gamers wouldn't know what to do with themselves. In fact, a lot of console gamers would be incredibly surprised to realize that all this time, they've been using aim-assist (I say aim assist instead of auto-aim, because auto-aim can also refer to mods that are far more influential than aim assist). If you were to ask the random console Bioshock player or Left-4-Dead player if the game had aim assist, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them said "no." But they do.
Personally, I think it's kind of a testament to how well aiming assist has been implemented into console games. It's almost transparent, and still allows for a wide range of skill. PC gamers who don't play console games very often probably still think of aim-assist the way they think of auto-aim, that the cross-hairs instantly snap to a players head or that bullets that wouldn't have hit magically hit their targets. While the latter is still the case in some games (like left 4 dead), the former doesn't exist in any game that I am aware of. Instead, the aim-assist acts more like a weak magnet. Large analog movements have less impact the closer you get to your target. So in, say, Call of Duty, holding the analog stick all the way to the right when not targeting an enemy causes you to turn quickly. But when you're targeting a person, the person acts as kind of a magnet which means you can use larger analog movements to fine tune your shot. It's an amazing system that works considerably well and is the ONLY reason fps games work on consoles.
That being said, as a PC gamer and a console gamer, I have to say I think there are quite a few PC gamers out there who still think there's little-to-no skill involved in console shooters and that playing a console shooter couldn't POSSIBLY be as fun as playing it on the PC. I think this is a shame as I find console games with clever aim-assist to be quite fun, not at all frustrating, with a ride range of skill levels and very entertaining.
RTS games, on the other hand...
While I agree with most of what you say, I think that if it were done with a ton of testing before release, a fps could work out quite well. The catch is you'd have to keep the console gamers confined to a tailor made 'class', say a heavy-armor soldier with heavy firepower, and keep pc gamers with lightly-armored and lightly weaponized soldiers. Rather than worrying about how to balance classes using the traditional methods, use the limitations of the differences between the console and pc as the limits of the playable characters in the game itself. We expect heavier classes to turn slower, move slower than lighter classes. Not sure if most gamers have both a console and a pc, but I'd guess that many do. Of course, the best scenario of this would have it sold as downloadable content, which could be installed on both a console and pc, while only being charged for a single copy (playable key) of the game itself (I figure we're dreaming of cross-platform gloriousness anyways.) Part of me still wishes, of course, that they still had released it anyways... who wouldn't want to beat up on console gamers all night long? I'd have bought a copy.