Controller vs keyboard has nothing to do with a "downgrade", it falls down to game design and what CDPR wants to accomplish. I'm confident that they will deliver a good K/M UI, but if their vision happens to play better with a controller then that doesn't make the game inherently worst. If CDPR wants to make a game with Demon Souls or Batman-like combat then thats what they should make. Its ridiculous to force developers to limit themselves to some arbitrary concept of "true PC gaming" just because you choose to be stubborn about what input you use.I want to know more about the actual gameplay and how it performs with M/K. If some people tell me that a game feels much better with a controller than with M/K (take e.g. Dark Souls or Assassin's Creed or even Witcher 2) I am deeply worried and disappointed because that's not a "true" PC game for me anymore. Even if it's PC exclusive (e.g. like Witcher 2 for a certain time) it's made with controllers in mind. It's made with console gameplay in mind. It's made by people and for people who are used to controllers and console gameplay. To me personally, that's REAL downgrading. That's sacrificying the possibilites and core values and devices on PC for console and controller gameplay and I don't like that at all. Too bad that it seems that exactly this is happening with the Witcher series since Witcher 1 as well...uch:
- Status
It makes the game worse FOR ME. It's a downgrade FOR ME. If CDPR wants to make a game for controllers it's totally up to them. That doesn't mean I have to like it. That doesn't mean I have to support it. And making a game for controllers is always limiting its possibilities. That's just the nature of things.
It's not that hard to understand, really.
And please don't call other people "stubborn" just because they don't share your gaming tastes. I hate playing 3D games with a controller but not because I'm stubborn but because it's not fun to me.
Actually, it is hard to understand because the way you are using the term doesn't fit. A "downgrade" generally refers objective factors that must be sacrificed against the developers original vision. The fact that you prefer to use a K/M is just a preference, it has nil to do with the objective quality of the game.
I also did not call you stubborn, I think the attitude that PC game developers must exclusively make games that lend themselves to K/M controls is the definition of stubborn. If they announce tomorrow that Cyberpunk is designed for a racing wheel, I'm fine with that. Whatever works best for the ideas and concepts they have planned is exactly what they should do. I might think it sounds silly and I may be disappointed that I'll need to buy a racing wheel... but in no way is that a downgrade.
You are wrong. First I disagree with your definition of "downgrade". Something like an original vision doesn't exist or at least it's not important at all. A vision in game development is an evolving and interating issue, usually changing during development time. Also your "objective" factors in gaming are almost nonexisting. Everything in gaming (except broken stuff) is up to opinions and dfifferent ideas. Second I compare the Witcher games since their origins and I compare them to other games in the genre. Compared to them Witcher 3 seems like a downgrade for me as someone who plays on PC. Third, K/M is NOT only a preference, that's the most crucial mistake in your post. Game design for controllers and M/K CAN be completely different. If you make a game for M/K ONLY you can make different things than if you make a game for controllers. If you make a game for controllers you only get a port for M/K which can work ok but you limited yourself in your initial game design. Of course you can always say that you don't care since you only want to use a controller. But for some people on PC this is an issue. And Witcher started as a PC game/franchise. Witcher 1 was a M/K only game. That's just an "objective" fact...
Nobody said that.
But there is one basic flaw in your logic: you seem to think that CDPR wanted to make a certain game with a certain design in detail and then they suddenly noticed "Wow, 100% of our design is possible with controllers!". I think that this is highly unlikely. That's usually not how game development works, at least not in detail. It was probably more like that (even for Witcher 2): "Ok, we want the game functional with controllers to be able to port the game to consoles. What can we realistically do in our game if everything has to work with a controller?" Even your "objective factors" needed for downgrading apply in this scenario...
There are a ton of objective factors in game design and review that we can examine. When people say that Watchdogs was downgraded they are talking about graphics and animations that are well beyond what is in the final game -- that is a downgrade. The AI in TLOU's first trailer is no where near as sharp and dynamic as what we were first shown -- that is a downgrade.
K/M is a preference. We're not talking about an FPS where mouse aiming is objectively better or an MMO where you are using 50 separate keybinds, this is an action combat game that doesn't use a complicated control set up. Even in Witcher 1 the controls are very limited compared to traditional CRPGs. In fact, the Witcher started as an action RPG game and it has continued to evolve as an action RPG that draws influence from other action combat games like Demon Souls and Batman. I have also never said that I only want to use a controller. I make those decisions on a game by game basis; I'll use a K/M, a controller, a fight stick, or whatever is the best for that game. I don't make stern decisions like: "I want to use K/M and that is all I ever want to use!" Its fine if you feel that way, as I said in the beginning though, its your preference.
When you want to make an logical argument, you base it on things that you know.. not baseless conjecture. What we know is that Witcher 2's combat took inspiration from the Souls games. We know that they've taken inspiration from the Arkham games. So when we consider that controller friendly games have had the most influence on the game's combat, it seems natural to me that the W2 and W3 would also be adapted to controller support.
Witcher 1 was hardly such a complicated UI that it couldn't have been rejiggered for controllers. Which CDPR was going to do, if you recall.
About Watch_Dogs and graphics: again I couldn't care less about graphics. Also it's arguably not a downgrade since you compare a trailer and a vertical slice to a full game. That's neither reasonable nor senseful. A trailer in general is pure marketing (and a reasonable gamer shouldn't give much about trailers) and a vertical slice is a way to explore what is possible in a game and what you could achieve in theory. But in now way it's something you should compare to a full blown game. Also the whole thing was way exaggerated. They game play exactly the way it was marketed. You know, the gameplay - that was video games are all about - is exactly the same. Only the visuals for a view guys with super expensive PC hardware is A BIT less great than an early trailer suggested. That's not even a problem. That's imo a non-issue. That's not downgrading, that's something I would call laughable/pathetic. That's something which pollutes every discussion in gaming right now for no apparent reason I'm fed up with it, really.
I'm also tired of arguing whether my points are "downgrading" or not. That's not the point. It's just a term, shallow words trying to describe something. It's about what I say and not about whether it shall be called downgrading or not...
No. You still don't understand it. It's not about whether you can control the game better with M/K or with a controller. It's not about precision. It's about core game design, it's about what is even possible in the game.
I can give you a simple example: real time strategy. Of course that's not what Witcher is about but it's arguably something which isn't possible with a controller or at least something which isn't suited for a controller. That means that probably every possible mechanic based on real time multiple target control is limited for the game. No minigame will be based on something like that because it's not possible/comfortable with a controller. That's not a preference question. That's a question about how you limit you basic possiblities in game design by making your game as controller-friendly as possible. The point is that you can do (almost) everything with a M/K setup. You can't do the same with a controller. You can do some things equally good or even better with a controller (like fluid 2D movements) but you can do less things in total. This is a design limitation and an objective fact.
Of course Witcher 3 is an action RPG. Nobody denied that. But that doesn't mean that you have to stick to a certain formula. With PC- or M/K-only you would imo just have more options to freshen up gameplay. Why not implementing a certain section in which you control Geralt and his friends (maybe Triss and Zoltan) in a top down perspective like a traditional CRPG? Ah, that's not possible because it would be a chore to control that with a controller and the console crowd usually don't play such stuff in general so it's not worth doing it. Why not implementing some sections with point-and-click puzzles like in a traditional PC adventure game? Ah, that's not possible because it would be a chore to control that with a controller again. Why not making a certain section in which you control an army like in a traditional RTS game? Ah, that's not possible.... (you get the picture).
Of course I'm exaggerating and I don't expect that anything of these would have been in the game either way. But if you develop a game for controllers from the very beginning you don't even really think about that. You are more ore less stuck to your third person perspective and a certain form of action gameplay for the whole game and there are little possiblities to freshen up the experience and little possiblities to come up with something innovative or surprising. That's sad and for me that's some kind of "design downgrade/limitation" or "gameplay downgrade/limitation" (you can stick with limitation if you don't like the term downgrade).
You know the problem is that with a game "made with controller in mind" your game design possiblities are limited and squeezed in a certain pattern which was previously tested and acknolewdged to work well for controllers. Your game is artificially constrained by its input method even before you thought about game design. That does mean that possibly not every decision and every element/design was chosen by the devs because they wanted it to function exactly that way but because there was not other way to do it with a controller. Or some things which would have been nice are just not part of the game because they don't work with a controller.
Both Dark Souls and Batman ARE console/controller games. Witcher 2 wasn't adapted to controller support: it was basically made as controller/console game from the very core and the same is true for Witcher 3. Again, I never said that CDPR can't come up with whatever they want to. That's not the point here. The point is that their shift to console/controller gaming is a downgrade of the series to me - no matter how good controls or possiblities where in W1.
UI is only one elment of what I'm talking about. I also don't think that Witcher 1 was the best PC game ever. That's not my point. I guess the term "downgrading" is the problem here. Just ignore the term or replace it with limitation while reading my posts.
Last edited:
Actually, the Arkham games work flawlessly with M&K. Rocksteady did a marvelous job of designing the gameplay and then making it work for both input methods, rather than designing it for a controller and making adjustments for M&K. I can tell when a game has been made for a controller. Sleeping Dogs is a perfect example. A great game, but the camera function is severely limited, the feel of the controls is wonky and the UI doesn't take full advantage of the mouse.
The topic is about downgrades, so it does matter. If you want to talk about your preference of K/M over controller then I'm sure there is another topic where you can discuss that. Whether you care about visuals or not is irrelevant, the reason for explaining that to you was to offer 1 of the more obvious examples of objective criticism; which you deny exists in videogames. I'm not going to speak much on WD since mods have already warned against that, so I'll just say that I disagree with every single statement you've made on it and I applaud people for standing up to these companies over BS practices.
I'm not even sure how I'm suppose to respond to a wall of exaggeration and examples that have nothing to do with the Witcher series? At no point have I said that K/M and controller were identical or capable of the same things. Obviously, there are genres and gameplay elements that work better with a K/M. Likewise, there are genres and gameplay elements that work better with a controller such as platforming, racing, fighting, sports, and 3D action brawlers (like the witcher). Quite frankly, nothing you've mentioned above is even impossible with a controller -- There are games that incorporate all of those things. Is it as good as with a K/M? Nope. Thats pretty much the point though, the type of action combat they are using in these game works perfectly with a controller so if a controller is a bit better than K/M... then so be it.
Seems to me like you wanted them to create a traditional CRPG style game they were never interested in making.
Thanks for reminding me. I love talking to people who are more interested in word games than what other people really write.
Same to you. Are you the moderator here? You answered to my posts although you think they are off-topic. But instead of saying that in the first place you respond with bland statement. And writing in bold really doesn't give your statements more weight. Only arguments can do...
I just say that I disagree with this whole passage. It's this attitude that poisons the PC gaming place in the last months and that really makes me sad. I hate everyone who whines about these minor graphical issues without any significant importance to the question whether a game is fun in the first place or not.
Likewise, there are genres and gameplay elements that work better with a controller such as platforming, racing, fighting, sports, and 3D action brawlers (like the witcher). [/Quote]
I agree with everything instead of 3D action games. They don't work better with a controller but that is really a question of preference. Your problem is indeed that you think in generes and limitations from the very beginning. You seem to think that a game HAD to follow some genre conventions and limitations without any serious creative freedom. Like "Ok, which genre-game should we make next? Third person action RPG? Ok, so features G-W are not possible because that's not what usually is made in this genre. People expect features A-F in this genre." It would be really, really sad if any developer would think in that way. That's the complete opposite of creative freedom. Of course many games follow some traditional ways in the end but that's a question of what seems to be important to you. Many indie games though only laugh about these AAA genre conventions.
I said "comfortable". There is a reason why 95% of all console games are first or third person action games or sports games. That's because of the limitations of the input method and not because people only want to play these games. That's basically another level of what I critizice: if you think in categories like "this have to function with controllers" or "this must work in this genre" you limit your game from the very start.
Seems to me like you like making bland statements without any proof. Proper reading of my posts would easily solve the issue although it seems that you can't or don't want to understand me. We could just stop this discussion here since it makes no sense. We are talking almost completely on different levels.
I highly doubt that Rocksteady designed Batman on the white board without control inputs in mind. That's just not how games are made nowadays. I never questioned that games made with a controller in mind can't work flawlessly on PC. I also prefer playing AC with M/K. That's not my point at all...
We are coming from two opposite perspectives. You guys look at the final game and assess whether it can be played on PC. That's not what I'm talking about. I look at time zero, the time when not a single line of code is written yet. I talk about basic game design and development in theory.
Last edited:
I just want optimal PC game not some damn console port. If this go watchdogs road(which i already boycotted) i will never buy ever game from CDproject ever.
But ive faith in CD Project that's why i already bought the game on GOG.COM because i also support them for DRM free games.
I would be realy dissapointed if the PC version is the same as PS4 or Xbone that would be HUGE INSULT to PC gamers which nomatter what have a superior gamamachine over consoles.
I just hope we all have great experience and PC get fully potential graphic wise and KEYBOARD/MOUSE plus hopefully support for mods.
But ive faith in CD Project that's why i already bought the game on GOG.COM because i also support them for DRM free games.
I would be realy dissapointed if the PC version is the same as PS4 or Xbone that would be HUGE INSULT to PC gamers which nomatter what have a superior gamamachine over consoles.
I just hope we all have great experience and PC get fully potential graphic wise and KEYBOARD/MOUSE plus hopefully support for mods.
Drama queen. I guess you sit all day long in front of your monster PC wondering why you don't have any games to play... :ball:
Both Watch_Dogs and Witcher 3 are real multiplatform games. Watch_Dogs was totally ok on PC and Witcher 3 will be the same.
My point was the 3 Console pro's I made a few pages back? You keep going on about how PC games are more innovative or whatever which I argue by saying does that equal a better game? Of course it does not. I fail to see why we are discussing this at all?
No, you are talking about PC's technical capabilities which nobody is denying the fact that they are superior (refer to my previous posts), and no. I don't 'think' console exclusives are better It is an observable fact in terms of critical and commercial success. Name one PC exclusive with over 200 game of the year awards? If you cannot then I fail to see how my statement is not factual based as TLoU achieved that very statistic last year. Now I acknowledge the fact that gaming preference is entirely subjective, this is why I have referred to more solid statistics such as awards and sales figures. You keep throwing around the "PC allows their games to be more innovative" statement which I counter by saying 'So what?'.
It is 100% related as you keep throwing around the 'innovative' remark as if it makes PC games better than console games which statistics show is not the case. Also even if I use ONE console. Name one PC game that rivals Halo 3 or Halo 4 in terms of sales and critical reception (during the 360 life cycle, don't go bringing up some PC game from the late 90s). Name on PC game that Rivals Super Mario Galaxy (1 or 2) critically and commercially (or Zelda Skyward Sword) and bring up a game that Rivals TLoU and Red Dead Redemption Critically and Commercially. The latter two games are not considered innovative yet they have achieved amazing global recognition and are hailed as true gems of last generation, both of which were not found on PC and both of which are exclusive to consoles, with TLoU being exclusive to ONE console.
Completely misinterpreted me. I stated this paragraph in my previous post:
"Naughty Dog have yet to lie during E3. Compare The Last of Us (visuals) with the final product, compare Uncharted 1-3 with the final product. That company has not let us down, while I will not remain ignorant and hypocritical to the fact that it could happen, I am just saying that I have more of a basis to form my assumptions around given Naughty Dog have yet to lie about the visuals of their games. Unless you can prove me wrong."
You deliberately ignored this statement as to cheaply make me sound hypocritical. Not cool dude.
What I am saying is how can you state all these ridiculous claims surrounding this game when it is not out yet? You make it out to be the harbinger of gaming technical capabilities etc yet you have not played it nor is it out yet. Neither is No Man's Sky so calling it an Indie game frankly, is ludicrous and a baseless assumption. Due to the fact Witcher 3 is not 'specifically targeted to high end machines' (The minimum system requirements for the Starship Citizen w/e state otherwise) does that mean Witcher 3 is an indie game by comparison? Going by your logic.
There you go, it would not be 'impossible' as you quoted. Also the scale of which the developers vision would be compromised cannot be said with an ounce of fact supporting it, so I hope you do not linger on that statement made by developers that seems to me to be an attempts at generating hype, as many developers do.
[video=youtube;-a3eilZRlyk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a3eilZRlyk[/video]
While the graphical superiority is apparent, you do realize the 360 costs $70-140 and the PC (the game is being compared to a PC running of MAX settings) capable of running the game at max settings would be upwards of $500? So you do see how an 8 year old machine even managing to run the game at a tolerable level is proof of how powerful and cost efficient, consoles truly are?
Oh come on this is a known fact, I am talking about recent games for god sake. Nobody is arguing PC's superiority they are damn PC's. I am stating that recent games (that have not been considered innovative, aka Last of Us) have achieved far greater awards that any one PC game or game in general for that matter.
http://gearnuke.com/the-last-of-us-awarded-game-history-critics/
It is not innovative in the slightest (in comparison to what you are talking about), my argument (which is damn clear) is that innovative does not always mean 'good'.
I agree. What this has to do with exclusive games, I have no idea.
You fail to understand me. The fact is these exclusive games are console exclusives. I do not care if they could be made better on other platforms this whole debate derived from my initial '3 cons of console gaming' which included exclusives. You then ask me to answer the obvious (which nobody is arguing) such as 'PC technology is better' and 'If those games were on PC they would be better', my response is, cool story bro I agree but they aren't nor do I care, the fact of the matter is they aren't on PC which is why I listed it as a pro. How we got on to talking about virtual reality, StarShip Citizen (or w/e) is beyond me.
Refer to my above statement on how I previously stated (which you ignored) that the same case may be for Uncharted 4. However given ND's track record I would say it is much less likely to happen than it is for Starship Citizen. Period.
Yes and I am stating that I do not care. Lol, why should I? Are you going to force me to care? If I suddenly boycott consoles (despite their damn obvious benefits) will I make a difference? Fuck no.
I PM'ed the genetleman who posted that screenshot of UC3 showing the final product to be drastically inferior to the E3 which was not the case. I can do the same for you and show that they have not lied nor have they 'misrepresented' their product visually.
Factually false. You cannot get Witcher 3 running on Playstation 1, with the core elements present. Crysis 3 was on Xbox 360 with the core elements present.
Last edited:
Bold emphasizes words and phases that are key to the statement. And yes, it is important to clarify what "downgrade" actually means. It is also important to explain that videogames can be judged on objective merit. Those are concepts central to the topic and everyone should understand what they mean, applying our own individual definitions to a word or denying they exist (when they clearly do) is really not how language works.
I agree that some people are too obsessed with graphics. Though I do think arbitrary notions of "true PC gaming" are far more toxic.
I can't figure out if this is in response to me, or yourself. You are the one thinking in terms of limitations and genres and what can/cannot be done. My position is simply that developers should be free to create whatever they want with whatever input tools they think are most conducive to their game design. As I started this discussion saying, they can make a 3D action gaming using a racing wheel -- It does not matter to me. I'm not going to stamp my feet because the game doesn't revolve around my favorite input method (I don't have one).
Input method has nothing to do with it, the second half of that statement is the only reason. Those genres make the most money, so they are the ones publishers will make. The same is true of the AAA PC scene, you simply replace fighting/sports with MOBA/MMO. Both platforms also have genres that work extremely well with their control input, but are on life support because they make little money. Luckily, indy gaming exploded and has injected new life into some.
You are talking about design processes and game theory that you have no intimate knowledge of. I'm not going to sit here and tell you what limitations and constraints CDPR has to deal with because I'm not in the room when those discussions happen. As I've said, smart developers will often figure out ways to work around those limitations or develop better methods. If you had asked me a year ago if a traditional MMO could work with a controller I would laugh my ass off -- and yet, FFXIV has controller support and it works extremely well with no compromises to the game, and they did that because console gamers are important to their bottomline. If CDPR really wanted to include party support or PnC elements to the game, I imagine they could figure out how to do that.
One real example we can pluck from this series is the inventory interface. W2 got lots of shit for using a list inventory and the blame was put on the controller because "grid inventories dont work with controllers" -- yet, we can clearly see that they are using a gid inventory with a controller in W3.
The proof is laid out over the last few pages of this discussion, you've consistently talked about the imaginary K/M game that CDPR could be making, instead of what they actually are making. I do agree with your final statement, this is becoming circular and I feel like I've said everything I can on the topic. I'll leave you the last word if you want it.
Jesus dude, chill... If the game is rocks on all platforms who fucking cares right.
So, after so many pages, what have we all learned?
1. That no one actually knows how to even begin answering the question.
2. People sure do love to fight about fairly trivial stuff on the internet.
1. That no one actually knows how to even begin answering the question.
2. People sure do love to fight about fairly trivial stuff on the internet.
I feel like I'm repeating myself. What does this discussion or topic have to do with "better games?" Good games are not necessarily innovative, and innovative games may not necessarily be good.. They are completely distinct metrics..
You're wrong, it's not a fact. Enjoyment of games is completely subjective first off so discussions about what is factual in that regard is nonsensical. I own a PS3 BTW, and the only game I ever bought for it was UC2 and I never even finished it because it was so boring, scripted and linear.. If console games being so much better than PC games is a FACT as you claim, then why is PC gaming so popular?
You're doing a really good job of contradicting yourself here..
It doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me and a lot of other gamers who are tired of the same crap being regurgitated over and over by developers..
This is something you made up in your own mind. From the start, I said that a good game is a good game regardless of whether it's innovative or not..
You're all over the place with your argument and you keep shifting goal posts.
Well you harangued me for bringing up Star Citizen, a game which isn't out yet, but yet you brought up UC4 and No Man's Sky both of which aren't out yet either as examples of the PS4's offerings, so what am I to believe?
Um, the game has a webpage that anyone is free to peruse if they want to learn about the game's technology and vision. So it's not me saying so, it's the developer making the game..
No Man's Sky is being made by four dudes, and is listed on IndieGames.com so it's hardly a baseless assumption..
It's apparent that you don't know what an Indie game is... Also Star Citizen isn't even out yet, so how on Earth do you know the minimum system requirements?
The developers themselves made that comment, not I, and since you're so willing to believe Naughty Dogs about UC4, I don't see what you're problem is..
The devs themselves know their own game and what it's about better than anyone..
You use BETA footage to prove your point? Are you serious, or are you trolling me?
I feel like a broken recorder. Do me a favor and look up what the word innovation means. Being innovative has nothing to do with quality..
The PC is by far the most innovative platform because it's not as limited as the consoles. How difficult is it to understand this?
Again, look up what the word innovative means.. I think we are having an English problem..
It fits the narrative of the discussion we are having about innovation.
And you fail to understand that exclusivity is mostly an artificial marketing concept that has nothing to do with a platform's capabilities. TLOU could have been on Xbox 360, another console just as easily as PS3 if it weren't for corporate politics..
You're welcome to your opinion, but from what I've seen of those screenshots, Naughty Dog is no different from many other developers..
Well I'm glad that you can at least admit it... It only took two pages of back and forth..
Go ahead. I'll take a look..
There are limits of course, but I didn't think I had to state the obvious..
If by "corporate politics" you mean "Sony outright owns Naughty Dog and the shareholders would have thrown a legally justified fit if the game had appeared on a competitor's hardware", then yes.
As trivial as it may seem, I'd rather keep it around so CDPR knows the fans don't want another 'designed for gamepads' event.
That's a valid purpose for the thread, but it's tending to get hidden among the ongoing PC vs Console war.
Which appears to have stopped at the moment, so please let's keep it that way?
Stay on topic everyone please, with no more "Consoles are better than PC" or "PCs are better than consoles" posts, or the thread WILL be locked and action taken against the posters concerned.
- Status