The Witcher 2 on Xbox360?

[vlad321]

daroamer said:

vlad321 said:

I obviously gave off the wrong idea here. I was talking SOLELY about action RPGs (true for tactical too though). A control scheme is better worse given how much is gained/lost, and objectgively you lose a shitton of functionality (objectively measured) in RPGs when you go from a keyboard to a controller, and barely gain some comfort (ironically, a subjective measure). Objectively, keyboards are better at controlling RPGs and I laugh at anyone who can't get that through their heads.

I had a rant someplace in the PC Forum about what a piece of shit keyboards were for fighting games and platformers. Again objectively, you lose a lot of ability for accurate movements in both game types if you use a keyboard instead of a controller, and only gain more keys, which are not needed. Objectively, controllers are better at platformers and fighting games and I laugh at anyone who can't get that as well through their heads.

There are so many more examples. Race wheels are objectively better due to the finer control they give you for racing games. Arcade sticks are objectively better to the finer control you get over the game in fighting games. Mouse is objectively better than anlog sticks for shooters due to the fact transition times can be brought down to near 0. Sticks are objectively better than keys for anyting that requires precise movements in a 3d evironment. etc. etc. etc.

Each control scheme is better at some things, and worse at others, OBJECTIVELY. I am honest to god tired people who can't comprehend that and then try to defend their choices by laughably pushing off facts as opinions.

You use the word objectively so many times and still don't understand what it means.

If someone plays a fighting game better on a keyboard than he does on a controller then for him the keyboard is a better option.  It's completely subjective.  If someone prefers using a controller to a wheel in a racer then that is their choice.  If you can race better with the controller then it's the better control scheme.  It's completely subjective.

As for The Witcher 2, obviously the designers didn't design the combat so that bombs should be used a primary mode of fighting or they would have focused the controls more on that.  The fact that you want a key for each slot is a personal preference but obviously not one the deveopers intended.  You said yourself you can stampede any group of enemies by spamming bombs and using daggers which they can't block.  Very likely not what was intended and throws off the balance of the fighting.  Therefore it is a subjective opinion that you should have more keys so that using items in your inventory is easier.  That is not an objective desire, it's subjective.  You're arguing that the game would be better if you could do that, they developers felt otherwise, so it's your opinion vs theirs, and it doesn't mean "the game mechanics are shit" unless you add "in my opinion".

No, I don;t thin you are understanding at all, I am talking about something much deeper. Objectivity means that you can measure something, not that someone is better off using one control scheme or not. There are plenty of fools out there using controllers to play the PC versoiin of Left 4 Dead 2, and they are better at it than if they used a mouse. However objectively the mouse is better for FPSes than controller AND YOU CAN MEASURE WHY. That is true for everything else I just pointed out. There is something you can measure in every single example I gave that makes each control scheme superior to the others.

For example, the reason why a mouse is superior to dual analog stick for FPSes is simple. It comes down to the amount of time it takes for a person to look from 1 spot to another. With analogs it is set due to the analogs. With a mouse it approaches 0 the more skillful a player is.

In action RPGs, you get more keys, which gives you the ability to quickly use more "stuff" which means less pausing in the action (unless you are into that, then youa re playing the wrong genre). It also means the ability to have more "stuff" this leading to a deeper gameplay.It doesn't mean the game WILL have that, it just means that it CAN, which is not true if you had less buttons.

It really comes down to one thing, and that is how much restrictions exist due to a control device, and that can be measured. Because if there are restrictions then you have less options, and less options are always bad. More restrictions also means hamstrung gameplay, that is why if you had two twins who have played the exact same FPS the exact same way but one was on a PC the other on a console, the one using the PC will absolutely dominate the one on the console, becausethere are less restrictions on his controls.

There is a difference between difficulty due to shit controls and difficulty due to the game. The designers have made knives and ingredients abundand, therefore the use of both is very much intended. Now their controls are shit therefore it becomes annoying. If they didn't intend for either to be used, there would be many other ways to prvent it, especially onces that couldn't be circumvented with some annoyances. Also, Alchemy and Magic are entire fucking specializatoin trees so I am fairly sure they intended to be valid forms of play. Also daggers are a skill, which means they are also meant to be used the way they are. Which leads back to objectively shitty controls.