Console FPS vs PC FPS

[kinglumby]

I started thinking about the differences between the two types of FPS when reading the Halo 2 posts and though it might be worthwhile talking about it here.

So the question is do you guys think there is a difference?

The obvious comparison would be Doom vs Goldeneye or more recently Half Life vs Halo

I must admit I am a bit of an FPS fan although I haven't tried any of the new ones yet like Far Cry, HL2, Doom3. But I do have some very fond memories of Doom 2 (never really liked Quake). I think the first one I tried was Wolfenstein but it may have been Doom. Anway....some of the greats would have to be System Shock and Half Life although I think the alien levels are a bit of a cop out. Recently I've started working my way through the bargin bin FPS picking Unreal, Unreal tournament, Red Faction, etc. All cheap and run well on my laptop which I plug into my TV. Unreal was ok, Unreal Tournament was a lot more fun mainly because of the Assult levels and I wish there were more of them. I've played Halo on the PC and thought it was ok but not Super.

So Consoles: Recently I have just starting playing Metroid Prime 2. I loved the first game and although the 2nd is much the same it's till cool. But a better comparison would be Time Splitters 2 for when talking about PCs.

I guess my point is that there appears to be a world of difference between the two platforms and a lot of it has to do with the style of the game. For example Halo is proably great on the XBox but not so great on the PC, FPS on the GBA.....crap, Doom on the SNES.......crap. But FPS on the Nintendo DS could be good with multiplayer via Wireless.

There is no doubt in my mind that Metroid Prime is an Awesome game on the GameCube but I do think it would suck on the PC.

My point is that comparing the two platforms is not really useful. There is no point comparing Halo 2 to Half Life 2. I think.

[jamcat]

The PC is the ONLY way to play a FPS game. Nothing beats keyboard & mouse control. Playing a FPS game on a console with a gamepad and analog sticks sucks.

[kinglumby]

Jamcat unfortunately you're missing the whole point. They are different beasts.

[jamcat]

Well, in any case, FPS games are better on the PC. I have yet to play a console FPS game that matched the quailty experience of say System Shock 2 or Thief.

[Bryan 'KidHype' Smith]

So, how long will it be before this post makes it to flames and fanboys

[Shane R. Monroe]

When jamcat posts ... its just a matter of time.

We should have FMmy's ... "Person whose posts in a topic MOST LIKELY to lead it to Flamewars and fanboys".

Back ON the topic.

I'm only seen ONE console FPS that tries to be different. Its name was then soilied through the mud on the PC with the part 2. That's Medal of Honor. If you EVER played Medal of Honor on PS1, you will know that while it shares a similar look and feel with 'traditional' FPS, the game is really different.

I believe that its possible for games to feel "more right" on their native systems. Why? Makes TOTAL sense.

If I'm making a game for PS2 - and that's where ALL MY CASH is going; all my playtest time, all my marketing research, etc. then the game is going to make use of the dual shock. My testers en masse have said "this button should be over here on this button" or "the analog control isn't tight enough". So, I fix it - and hopefully put out a decent game. Then, the ports come. How much time to I give the Xbox version (none .. hehe) or the GC version? I've blown the load on the developed system.

That being said, FPS was indeed spawned with a SPECIFIC set of controls in mind; the keyboard and mouse. To use anything else is bucking the system and is the equivelant to using a steering wheel to play pacman. Wrong tool for the job. Sure, it might work - and people might "get used to it" - but fact remains that nothing gives you the kind of freedom in gameplay as a keyboard and mouse. MOUSELOOK is the #1 feature in FPS (remember when some popular FPS came out and they had mouselook OFF BY DEFAULT? Christ, everyone was bitching about THERE IS NO MOUSELOOK THIS GAME SUCKS).

Personally, I've tried FPS with a dual shock. I tried it at a demo station on the Xbox and GC. I can't do it. Its 100% NON-INTUITIVE. The closest I've gotten to halfway enjoying a console FPS was with Medal of Honor (and I'm rather enjoying the DS's simulated analog controller and layout in Metroid First Hunt). ANd if you've only played MOH:AA then you aren't even coming close to playing the same game.

That being said - I think without the proper controls, playing FPS on a console is like trying to iceskate uphill. I'm sure they've made great strides in making it better. But you might as well ask me to play Crazy Taxi or Sambo Safari with a keyboard.

[sci]

Shane, I have no idea how exactly Metal of Honor is special and "more intuitive" than other fps, since you can adjust the control scheme to your liking in most console fps. Halo 1 and Halo 2 give you like 10 different settings.

Its just a matter of adjusting the control. It's harder for "us", pc gamers, since we're used to pc games, hell I was doing the same speech back then, but once you find a good controller configuration, it becomes second nature.

Well to me it was like that.

[Shane R. Monroe]

Medal of Honor looked like a generic FPS, but it wasn't. Its hard to explain why - you just have to play it.

I notice the mass public didnt' like it - so they brain-deaded it for Part 2 and made it just like everything else.

Sci - they say the same thing about the MS Natural Keyboard. I tried one for 2 weeks - just can't 'get used to it'.

[Flare]

Using the right tool for the right game is key... heck, being a console man foremost, I remember I used to play PC games like Serious Sam with the DUAL SHOCK because the "W-A-S-D" key configuration was too dificult for me!!!

That was until I came along this excelent FPS called 'No One Lives Forever 2' which didn't support joystick that I made the switch... and boy! was I a pleased with the change. Controlling the view with the thumbstick will never beat the mouse.

[sci]

Medal of Honor looked like a generic FPS, but it wasn't. Its hard to explain why - you just have to play it.

I played and finished Medal of Honor back then, the psx sequel too. They were great because it was the first 'on-rail fps' game , totally scripted from one point to the other. It felt 'better' but at the end, there was no replayability at all. It's the same case with Half-Life 2. Awesome experience on the first time thru, but after that.. hmm

But as a early console fps, the presentation was great. The control scheme was easy because it auto-aimed for you, and you had the dual analague aiming which was really cool for a fps game. Golden Eye also had that kind of system where you could zoom (or aim using the sight) and then you could adjust the sight manually with one of the stick.

Oher than that, the engine was very limited and basic. The PC sequels were great too, especially Call Of Duty, who was a great 'on-rail fps' aka a fps where you go thru the game following in-game scripts, which was totally different than the free-roaming hub system from Quake who was a descendent of Hexen's system.

As for mouselook in games, the first game to really support it was Duke Nukem 3D. Quake came out like 2 months after.