Console RTS=Instant Phail

There you go.

It's a beginners guide for Anno 1701 DS I wrote a while ago, it covers the BASIC mechanics of this console RTS, which, by the way, controls beautifully. Now please stop the "theres no complexity in console rts".

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Hermits tell themselfs it can't work because they're afraid that they might lose another genre to consoles.Lothenon

It can work, but it has to be dumbed down to be able to work on gamepads. I don't see a COMPLEX RTS game working on consoles.

Would you please listen? Go. Look up "Anno 1701 DS".

Yeah, like Nintendo DS RTS game can compete with my PC using keyboard and mouse, along with a 22 inch 1680x1050 monitor and Geforce 9800GX2.

In an RTS game, you NEED a good resolution and big monitor so you have more space to work with. You also need good graphics since the units are so small, that a bad resoltuion would make it harder to see them. I am speaking from experience here. The DS has a tiny 256x192 screen. No way I would play an RTS on that.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Hermits tell themselfs it can't work because they're afraid that they might lose another genre to consoles.xsubtownerx

It can work, but it has to be dumbed down to be able to work on gamepads. I don't see a COMPLEX RTS game working on consoles.

We've seen nothing yet. Let me tell you that Halo Wars will be something special and it will set a new standard.

Its jsut another command and conquer type game, how is that setting any standard?

have you played it? How can you compare it to something already? :?

Its called videos, you watch them, you watch the gameplay and its features, you come to a somewhat logical conclusion.

You should try it.

There you go.

It's a beginners guide for Anno 1701 DS I wrote a while ago, it covers the BASIC mechanics of this console RTS, which, by the way, controls beautifully. Now please stop the "theres no complexity in console rts".

Lothenon

DS isnt a console, DS has an interactive pen thats somewhat up there with a mouse, therefore thats a pointless comparison.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Hermits tell themselfs it can't work because they're afraid that they might lose another genre to consoles.Meu2k7

It can work, but it has to be dumbed down to be able to work on gamepads. I don't see a COMPLEX RTS game working on consoles.

We've seen nothing yet. Let me tell you that Halo Wars will be something special and it will set a new standard.

Its jsut another command and conquer type game, how is that setting any standard?

have you played it? How can you compare it to something already? :?

Its called videos, you watch them, you watch the gameplay and its features, you come to a somewhat logical conclusion.

You should try it.

Oh me oh my.. You are seriosuly basing yourself on 2 minutes of gameplay?

[QUOTE="lordlors"]i definitely agree that RTSs on consoles are inferior espexially with the limited controls of the traditional controller. However, the ds and the wii wii has big potentials for RTS because of the wii mote and its pointer functionality and the touch screen. Still, the wii lacks power and memory for this though.fishfake

lacks power for what ?? 360,ps3,pc graphics's ?? maybe it dont need those graphics ?

if its a good game it dont need outstanding graphics

i dunno if the wii can handle many units in a screen providing better graphics and effects than last gen. If it can, then that's great. Even RTSs doesn't look extreme compared to FPSs like Far Cry 2 or Crysis, they demand power since effects are needed and many units have to be shown in the screen. Also, the wii has very little memory for save files or other files.

PandaBear, I'm not trying to downsize PC RTS here. I've played my share of them, and I hold many of them in high regard. But, unlike you, I also have played many console RTS. And while it's true that most of them suffer from bad controls, there ARE exceptions. There have been many people who played and beat Battle for Middle-Earth or C&C3 on X360 and had fun with them, and there are many reviewers who have played both versions (X360 and PC) and rated them equally so OBVIOUSLY THEY WORK.

Now Anno. It is not a big name in the US, so I will not scorn you for not having played it. But I did play it. On the PC. Way, way, way before a DS version came out. I played Anno on my PC, with a big monitor, a high resolution and a lot of space. It was fun.

I played the DS Version.

It was better.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Hermits tell themselfs it can't work because they're afraid that they might lose another genre to consoles.xsubtownerx

It can work, but it has to be dumbed down to be able to work on gamepads. I don't see a COMPLEX RTS game working on consoles.

We've seen nothing yet. Let me tell you that Halo Wars will be something special and it will set a new standard.

Its jsut another command and conquer type game, how is that setting any standard?

have you played it? How can you compare it to something already? :?

Because we've seen RTSes of many varieties, and gameplay in these games is usually apparent even from videos. That, and because Ensemble Studios is not known for making particularly complex RTSes to begin with. Not good ones, anyway.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]Hermits tell themselfs it can't work because they're afraid that they might lose another genre to consoles.xsubtownerx

It can work, but it has to be dumbed down to be able to work on gamepads. I don't see a COMPLEX RTS game working on consoles.

We've seen nothing yet. Let me tell you that Halo Wars will be something special and it will set a new standard.

Its jsut another command and conquer type game, how is that setting any standard?

have you played it? How can you compare it to something already? :?

Its called videos, you watch them, you watch the gameplay and its features, you come to a somewhat logical conclusion.

You should try it.

Oh me oh my.. You are seriosuly basing yourself on 2 minutes of gameplay?

Says the lemming who claims "it will set a new standard."

Please.

And your basing yourself off that same 2 minutes AND A BRAND NAME and a somewhat average RTS developer?

How are oyu any different? "Setting a standard" why because Halo is some sort of "Standard?" :roll:

Meu2k7

I'm basing myself on the people that have played the game.. :roll:

It's all good that you have your own opinions, but I am saving this for future ownage on a well known hermit. :D

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

And your basing yourself off that same 2 minutes AND A BRAND NAME and a somewhat average RTS developer?

How are oyu any different? "Setting a standard" why because Halo is some sort of "Standard?" :roll:

xsubtownerx

I'm basing myself on the people that have played the game.. :roll:

It's all good that you have your own opinions, but I am saving this for future ownage on a well known hermit. :D

Oh yes, because as we all know, previewers are TOTALLY immune to marketing hype, especially with games belonging to a franchise that begin with an H, end with an O, and rhyme with "Pay Low."

[QUOTE="fishfake"]

[QUOTE="lordlors"]i definitely agree that RTSs on consoles are inferior espexially with the limited controls of the traditional controller. However, the ds and the wii wii has big potentials for RTS because of the wii mote and its pointer functionality and the touch screen. Still, the wii lacks power and memory for this though.lordlors

lacks power for what ?? 360,ps3,pc graphics's ?? maybe it dont need those graphics ?

if its a good game it dont need outstanding graphics

i dunno if the wii can handle many units in a screen providing better graphics and effects than last gen. If it can, then that's great. Even RTSs doesn't look extreme compared to FPSs like Far Cry 2 or Crysis, they demand power since effects are needed and many units have to be shown in the screen. Also, the wii has very little memory for save files or other files.

the creative assembly (developers of the total war series and, as far as the whole strategy genre goes...god) did some incredible stuff with spartan total warrior on the GC. i think they got a few hundred 3d models on the screen with basic bloom also. spartan total warrior was an action game though but theres clear potential for some pretty big battles. not rome total war big mind...but failry hefty. the biggest issue is ram....strategy games love ram and lots of it.

but yeah...with a good dev backing it, i think the wii could be a great platform for RTS games on consoles. pikmin total war :D.

Now Anno. It is not a big name in the US, so I will not scorn you for not having played it. But I did play it. On the PC. Way, way, way before a DS version came out. I played Anno on my PC, with a big monitor, a high resolution and a lot of space. It was fun.

I played the DS Version.

It was better.

Lothenon

What made the DS version better? Did it have extra features? If so, those features can be applied to the PC as well. On top of that, the other other good thing about the DS version is the portability.

If you LIKE having a small screen and touch screen, then I wonder what you would think of a 13 inch tablet notebook with touch screen and stylus?

[QUOTE="lordlors"][QUOTE="fishfake"]

[QUOTE="lordlors"]i definitely agree that RTSs on consoles are inferior espexially with the limited controls of the traditional controller. However, the ds and the wii wii has big potentials for RTS because of the wii mote and its pointer functionality and the touch screen. Still, the wii lacks power and memory for this though.osan0

lacks power for what ?? 360,ps3,pc graphics's ?? maybe it dont need those graphics ?

if its a good game it dont need outstanding graphics

i dunno if the wii can handle many units in a screen providing better graphics and effects than last gen. If it can, then that's great. Even RTSs doesn't look extreme compared to FPSs like Far Cry 2 or Crysis, they demand power since effects are needed and many units have to be shown in the screen. Also, the wii has very little memory for save files or other files.

the creative assembly (developers of the total war series and, as far as the whole strategy genre goes...god) did some incredible stuff with spartan total warrior on the GC. i think they got a few hundred 3d models on the screen with basic bloom also. spartan total warrior was an action game though but theres clear potential for some pretty big battles. not rome total war big mind...but failry hefty. the biggest issue is ram....strategy games love ram and lots of it.

but yeah...with a good dev backing it, i think the wii could be a great platform for RTS games on consoles. pikmin total war :D.

Me too. I already have an idea. A on the wii mote is left click on the mouse and B is right click. Move the cursor with the wii mote to the edge of the screen to move to another place on the map or just use the analog stick for it. Use the D-pad on the wiimote to rotate the angle view of the game. Z for zoom in and C for zoom out. The problem is shortcut keys.

[QUOTE="lordlors"]i definitely agree that RTSs on consoles are inferior espexially with the limited controls of the traditional controller. However, the ds and the wii wii has big potentials for RTS because of the wii mote and its pointer functionality and the touch screen. Still, the wii lacks power and memory for this though.fishfake

lacks power for what ?? 360,ps3,pc graphics's ?? maybe it dont need those graphics ?

if its a good game it dont need outstanding graphics

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

And your basing yourself off that same 2 minutes AND A BRAND NAME and a somewhat average RTS developer?

How are oyu any different? "Setting a standard" why because Halo is some sort of "Standard?" :roll:

mjarantilla

I'm basing myself on the people that have played the game.. :roll:

It's all good that you have your own opinions, but I am saving this for future ownage on a well known hermit. :D

Oh yes, because as we all know, previewers are TOTALLY immune to marketing hype, especially with games belonging to a franchise that begin with an H, end with an O, and rhyme with "Pay Low."

Heh nice, couldnt of put it better :P

even if it scores AA-AAA? standard? pffft. its just proof that standards are lower, obviously I could hide behind that excuse, but C&C 3 scoring 8,7 was just proof of that.

I've been playing RTS's since the early 90s on my PC. Two of my favorites are C&C:RA and SC. I'm actually hoping EA nails the control scheme for the 360's Kane's Wrath. The only real differences between KB/M and a gamepad is a mouse allows you to scroll across the screen more quickly and you don't have hot keys with a gamepad. Considering you are playing someone with the same controls scheme on consoles, those two differences do not matter.

BTW: there is no more complexity in Star Craft than there is in BFME2 for the 360!

Now, I think I'll go play BFME2 on my 42'' HDTV:lol:

I've been playing RTS's since the early 90s on my PC. Two of my favorites are C&C:RA and SC. I'm actually hoping EA nails the control scheme for the 360's Kane's Wrath. The only real differences between KB/M and a gamepad is a mouse allows you to scroll across the screen more quickly and you don't have hot keys with a gamepad. Considering you are playing someone with the same controls scheme on consoles, those two differences do not matter.

BTW: there is no more complexity in Star Craft than there is in BFME2 for the 360!

Now, I think I'll go play BFME2 on my 42'' HDTV:lol:

DarthKalo

Really? is that why Starcraft is the biggest E-Sport game? you cant possible match the actions per minute they have to do with a controller, which is the whole point in this arguement.

Your TV isnt impressive, thats reality.

Pikmin isn't on that list.

Why?

I've been playing RTS's since the early 90s on my PC. Two of my favorites are C&C:RA and SC. I'm actually hoping EA nails the control scheme for the 360's Kane's Wrath. The only real differences between KB/M and a gamepad is a mouse allows you to scroll across the screen more quickly and you don't have hot keys with a gamepad. Considering you are playing someone with the same controls scheme on consoles, those two differences do not matter.

BTW: there is no more complexity in Star Craft than there is in BFME2 for the 360!

Now, I think I'll go play BFME2 on my 42'' HDTV:lol:

DarthKalo

StarCraft's complexity comes from its pace and its delicate unit balance, not how many special abilities you have. The BFME series is quite bad.

I mean seriously we all know RTS's on consoles are instant fail mix:

Command & Conquer (N64)- 7.6
Command & Conquer (PS1)- 8.2
Command & Conquer (SATURN!!)- 9.2
Command & Conquer: Red Alert (PS1)- 7.6
Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars (360)- 8.7
Starcraft 64 (N64)- 8.4
Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders- 8.5
Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes- 8.2
The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth II (360)- 8.3

Average Score: 8.3

And note that with the exception of the two KuF titles, these are all more-or-less quick-and-dirty PC-to-console overly-hyphenated ports. So why exactly can't a game like Halo Wars, an RTS built exclusively with consoles in mind by a quality developer, work out again?

PBSnipes

[QUOTE="DarthKalo"]

I've been playing RTS's since the early 90s on my PC. Two of my favorites are C&C:RA and SC. I'm actually hoping EA nails the control scheme for the 360's Kane's Wrath. The only real differences between KB/M and a gamepad is a mouse allows you to scroll across the screen more quickly and you don't have hot keys with a gamepad. Considering you are playing someone with the same controls scheme on consoles, those two differences do not matter.

BTW: there is no more complexity in Star Craft than there is in BFME2 for the 360!

Now, I think I'll go play BFME2 on my 42'' HDTV:lol:

Meu2k7

Really? is that why Starcraft is the biggest E-Sport game? you cant possible match the actions per minute they have to do with a controller, which is the whole point in this arguement.

Your TV isnt impressive, thats reality.

I have a 22 inch monitor that is close to my face when I play PC games, which is much better than having a 42 inch HDTV that is several metres away from me.

yep. strategy games and mmos, the last bastion of pc gamingNaiKoN9293

More last bastions of PC gaming: Free mods, great online, hardware customisation, digital distribution, superb ccontrols, good graphics, great games, complex games, etc.

How is an 8.3 instant fail :?

Starcraft 64 is one of y all time favorite RTS games next to Starcraft for the PC.

Heh nice, couldnt of put it better :P

even if it scores AA-AAA? standard? pffft. its just proof that standards are lower, obviously I could hide behind that excuse, but C&C 3 scoring 8,7 was just proof of that.

Meu2k7

You can argue standards but there is not proof that such standards exist. From the obvious points that they deduced from C&C3-360 as apposed to the PC version. Standards had nothing to do with the score it recieved but rather.

And there are many instances were the standards argument falls to shreds.

Theres always a catch 22 with arguments like this; If game scores higher then the platforms standards are higher on PC. If the game scores lower, then that just goes to show that the PC version is superior in most regards. If they both are equaly critical then you can blame "consolitus" for t3h dubbed downness.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Heh nice, couldnt of put it better :P

even if it scores AA-AAA? standard? pffft. its just proof that standards are lower, obviously I could hide behind that excuse, but C&C 3 scoring 8,7 was just proof of that.

Pro_wrestler

You can argue standards but there is not proof that such standards exist. Trom the obvious points that they deduced from C&C3-360 as apposed to the PC version. Standards had nothing to do with the score it recieved but rather.

And there are many instances were the standards argument falls to shreds.

But there are also times where it succeeds, needless to say, providing Halo Wars is anything like a C&C clone with Halo slapped on it, it will succeed, sell alot and get its AA+ statues.

"Ownage to Hermits" though? :lol: I think not. I like how they seem to think they have stolen the FPS genre because to casual obsessed FPS franchises have sold better on consoles.

But there are also times where it succeeds, needless to say, providing Halo Wars is anything like a C&C clone with Halo slapped on it, it will succeed, sell alot and get its AA+ statues.

"Ownage to Hermits" though? :lol: I think not. I like how they seem to think they have stolen the FPS genre because to casual obsessed FPS franchises have sold better on consoles.

Meu2k7

Define casual FPS.

-Maybe or there might actually be a fanbase legitimately waiting for Halo Wars. It works both ways in my view, there are gamers like you who condem it because it has Halo in its name and there are gamers who will love it because it has Halo in its name. Gamers on the negative side of the fense is just as guilty, if not more guilty when it comes to the hype train.

-Were where these standards when Halo CE scored just .2 points shy of HL2 in '03? Why did Far Cry Xbox offer an equally impressive experience a year later than the PC version though are different in many regards. Bioshock, COD4, TOB, UT3. Where were these standards then?

Console RTS are just Lemmings having delusions of grandeur

Hermits have the best RTS already with the likes of Starcraft 2 and Company of heroes as well as 4X games like Sins. Lemmings have inferior online that costs money (ROFL), no user created content, terrible controls and a juvenile audience.

strategy games will not sell on the 360 unless they have some fat swearing marines in them or half naked chicks, and even if they did sell they would suck thanks to the terrible controls and inferior graphics

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

Heh nice, couldnt of put it better :P

even if it scores AA-AAA? standard? pffft. its just proof that standards are lower, obviously I could hide behind that excuse, but C&C 3 scoring 8,7 was just proof of that.

Pro_wrestler

You can argue standards but there is not proof that such standards exist. From the obvious points that they deduced from C&C3-360 as apposed to the PC version. Standards had nothing to do with the score it recieved but rather.

And there are many instances were the standards argument falls to shreds.

Theres always a catch 22 with arguments like this; If game scores higher then the platforms standards are higher on PC. If the game scores lower, then that just goes to show that the PC version is superior in most regards. If they both are equaly critical then you can blame "consolitus" for t3h dubbed downness.

It's only a catch-22 when it comes to scores.

They aren't really bad but they are better on PC.Anyone can play a RTS using Mouse+KB on the PS3.ma7moud93

Still isn't the same as the PC version as it is gimped down to fit the PS3's hardware.

[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

But there are also times where it succeeds, needless to say, providing Halo Wars is anything like a C&C clone with Halo slapped on it, it will succeed, sell alot and get its AA+ statues.

"Ownage to Hermits" though? :lol: I think not. I like how they seem to think they have stolen the FPS genre because to casual obsessed FPS franchises have sold better on consoles.

Pro_wrestler

Define casual FPS.

-Maybe or there might actually be a fanbase legitimately waiting for Halo Wars. It works both ways in my view, there are gamers like you who condem it because it has Halo in its name and there are gamers who will love it because it has Halo in its name. Gamers on the negative side of the fense is just as guilty, if not more guilty when it comes to the hype train.

-Were where these standards when Halo CE scored just .2 points shy of HL2 in '03? Why did Far Cry Xbox offer an equally impressive experience a year later than the PC version though are different in many regards. Bioshock, COD4, TOB, UT3. Where were these standards then?

1) Casual FPS? Easy all round ( Except impossible modes, thats a design intention/flaw ) , Halo is the WoW of the FPS genre, as is CoD series was built around being a more casual form of Medal of Honour in gunplay respects.

WoW? Halo? Easy games, with the illusion of hardcore pros slapped on, fun great games yes? no denying that, but thier entire build is easier than most of thier competitors.

2) I;m not condemning Halo Wars "Because its Halo" I'm condeming it based on the type of RTS it is, the system it is on and the developers making it.

3) Are you ignoring the biggest example of all? Halo 2 vs Half-Life 2, Halo 2 scored higher, im sorry but thats a quite clear indication in the FPS genre as an example, and once ahain, GOLDENEYE was still behind PC shooters at the time, compeltely different standard.

i disagree, C&C one 360 is pretty good.

but i already have warcraft III, what's the point in having any other strategy game?

You know, I find it surprising that people still don't get what is meant when console RTS games are "phail." The fact is that in order to make a console port of a PC RTS work, dumbing down is required. Just because a console port gets a decent score doesn't mean it's equal to the intensity, features, and skills involved in the PC version. It's like taking Street Fighter II and trying to fit it into a 2 button scheme. You can get it to work, but you take out options in the process when compared to the true version.

Console specific RTS games are fine, especially when there is no PC version to compare it to. Just don't bother bragging that a console port of a PC RTS is just as good. The fact is that its simply not true and is simply dumbed down due to the compromises made to have it work on a joypad.

1) Casual FPS? Easy all round ( Except impossible modes, thats a design intention/flaw ) , Halo is the WoW of the FPS genre, as is CoD series was built around being a more casual form of Medal of Honour in gunplay respects.

WoW? Halo? Easy games, with the illusion of hardcore pros slapped on, fun great games yes? no denying that, but thier entire build is easier than most of thier competitors.

2) I;m not condemning Halo Wars "Because its Halo" I'm condeming it based on the type of RTS it is, the system it is on and the developers making it.

3) Are you ignoring the biggest example of all? Halo 2 vs Half-Life 2, Halo 2 scored higher, im sorry but thats a quite clear indication in the FPS genre as an example, and once ahain, GOLDENEYE was still behind PC shooters at the time, compeltely different standard.

Meu2k7

Thats how you define a casual FPS. My definition is different, it all depends on the users for me or the level of competition/ dedication put forth in such a game, of course, it has to be above average as well. A casual FPS in my eyes consist of games like TimeShift, The Darkness, MOH:Airborne, Turok etc; People won't be playing these games years from now, you'd be hard pressed to even remember them in 5 years save The Darkness.

I'm unfamiliar with WoW but this doesn't look casual to me:

Seems that your definition of it is "Appeal to the masses = casual" because those two games specifically have a huge fan following. In that regard, CounterStrike and StarCraft become casual games.

-Halo 2 came out for PC 3 years later and a large part of its score considered the fact that you have to have Vista in order to play it. Unlike console games, PC games get deducted for their hardware requirements if too steep, Crysis did in fact. I'm willing to accept industry standards but platform specific standards IMO have become a thing of the past or are quickly headed down that route.

No my definition of casual is the RANGE of difficulty, WoW and Halo being ridiculously basic at a easy/normal level, while not having any "Hardcore Depth" in the sense that other games have.

Comparison? EQ to Wow , Halo to Battlefield 2?

The PvP in WoW is extremely limited, the PvE is just completely retard friendly thanks to alot of mods and well, the general nature of the game, stand still, cast, dont be a retard and move once a minute.

Halo? Can you find an easier all-round FPS? one that moves so slow, with very little reason to miss with any weapon?

I dont define casual by mass appeal, but there is a link between the 2 naturally.

Besides this is way off topic, my point was, only 2 FPS games sold better on consoles, 1 being built purely for the Xbox and marketed by one of the richest companies in the world? second, a good series that had already peaked on the PC... being new to the Xbox ( New online, new generation ).

And somehow, "We lost the FPS genre"? :lol:

How is an 8.3 instant fail :?

Starcraft 64 is one of y all time favorite RTS games next to Starcraft for the PC.

Gh0st_Of_0nyx

Haven't played Warhammer 40k?

The PvP in WoW is extremely limited, the PvE is just completely retard friendly thanks to alot of mods and well, the general nature of the game, stand still, cast, dont be a retard and move once a minute.

Meu2k7

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]

And your basing yourself off that same 2 minutes AND A BRAND NAME and a somewhat average RTS developer?

How are oyu any different? "Setting a standard" why because Halo is some sort of "Standard?" :roll:

Meu2k7

I'm basing myself on the people that have played the game.. :roll:

It's all good that you have your own opinions, but I am saving this for future ownage on a well known hermit. :D

Oh yes, because as we all know, previewers are TOTALLY immune to marketing hype, especially with games belonging to a franchise that begin with an H, end with an O, and rhyme with "Pay Low."

Heh nice, couldnt of put it better :P

even if it scores AA-AAA? standard? pffft. its just proof that standards are lower, obviously I could hide behind that excuse, but C&C 3 scoring 8,7 was just proof of that.

Seriously, I love how both of you are now making reasons as to why it will score high. Pathetic. Seriously.

No my definition of casual is the RANGE of difficulty, WoW and Halo being ridiculously basic at a easy/normal level, while not having any "Hardcore Depth" in the sense that other games have.

Comparison? EQ to Wow , Halo to Battlefield 2?

The PvP in WoW is extremely limited, the PvE is just completely retard friendly thanks to alot of mods and well, the general nature of the game, stand still, cast, dont be a retard and move once a minute.

Halo? Can you find an easier all-round FPS? one that moves so slow, with very little reason to miss with any weapon?

I dont define casual by mass appeal, but there is a link between the 2 naturally.

Besides this is way off topic, my point was, only 2 FPS games sold better on consoles, 1 being built purely for the Xbox and marketed by one of the richest companies in the world? second, a good series that had already peaked on the PC... being new to the Xbox ( New online, new generation ).

And somehow, "We lost the FPS genre"? :lol:

Meu2k7

"while not having any "Hardcore Depth" in the sense that other games have"

What sense is that? It has just as much as ANY game as far as skill goes. A level 1 is not match for a level 50 or a level 20 for that matter in Halo 3 which is why the game restricts the two varying levels from ever meeting.

"Halo? Can you find an easier all-round FPS? one that moves so slow, with very little reason to miss with any weapon?"

This is a shallow statement in that, it doesn't matter wether it moves to slow, the idea is that the playing feild is even and consistant that your opponant poses no advantages over you aside from having pure skill in playing the game. It moves to slow for you, but that doesn't change the fact that your able to reach a level in Halo 3 were your virtually unbeatable. Thats why leveling mechanics exist.

Comparing it to other FPS' in that regard is useless because you can be a l337 in BF2 and suck in Halo 3 and vise versa. Being a pro at flying model airplanes doesn't mean you can pilot the real thing and likewise.

Besides this is way off topic, my point was, only 2 FPS games sold better on consoles, 1 being built purely for the Xbox and marketed by one of the richest companies in the world? second, a good series that had already peaked on the PC... being new to the Xbox ( New online, new generation

And my point is, this isn't 1997 were there was a clear difference between PC and Console games. People are actually taking the time to make RTS' and FPS' work on a console. Shooters are as good and RTS' are no longer bad in comparison. There are standards but the scale is certainly more balance in 2008 as apposed to 10 years ago.

"And somehow, "We lost the FPS genre"?"

Who said you lost anything? :(

Pikmin isn't on that list.

Why?

SSCyborg

because it's an actual good RTs and not a dumebd down PC game for lemmings

I can't say anything myself about console RTS games because I have little to no experience with them. But I'll state the obvious here: Some RTS games on PC are IMPOSSIBLE to get going good on consoles due to their complexity. We all know that SupCom has been dumbed down due to the high level of complexity in the game.

I believe it's safe to say that consoles will never get what Relic or Blizzard dish out because their games are really deep, complex and difficult for it to work out on a gamepad.

I'm a serious (and until recently exclusive) PC gamer, and I don't agree with the OP.

I used to play the old C&C games on the PS1 and, by and large, they worked well with a pad - but the PS1 also had a mouse peripheral, which made the game fundamentally identical to the PC version from a control perspective.

Now, at a high end level of competitive play - and in games with a lot of micromanagement, RTS games don't work with a pad. But simple, drag-box-and-point-at-enemy games like C&C work just fine with a pad. It's not ideal, but a pad isn't ideal for an FPS, either. Point is, it works.

But, that being said, if you can't get the square block into the triangular hole, what do you do? Do you keep trying to jam it in until you finally break it enough so that it fits, or do you put the triangular block into the triangular hole?

The RTS formula set out in the early 90s has been so stringently adhered to for so long that it's barely even occurred to anyone to try and change it. The entire game structure can be reworked in such a manner that it does work with a pad. I don't know how exactly, but everything can be made to work if the game is built specifically for the controller in question.

Console RTS players will never have hundreds of APMs and they'll never be able to compete with high end competitive PC RTS games, but a console RTS can be made to work - and made to work very well. The problem is, most (read: all) RTS developers will build a PC game on the consoles - and that's no different than making a console game on PC (see PC Resident Evil 4). The game has to be reworked - or better yet, built from the ground up - for the machine in question for it to work.

I haven't read anything about Halo Wars and, as a non-360 gamer I have no intention of ever playing it, but it's being developed by a talented RTS developer who are building the game from the ground up for the 360. That is what the consoles need - not just PC ports.

Of course, all problems could be solved with a mouse peripheral. If the consoles are going to see more and more FPS games, as well as RTS games on the horizon and even MMORPGs, I really don't see any good reason not to release official keyboard and mouse peripherals. It would make things so, so much better.

As for the scores, I hardly see some arbitrary number blithely thrown out by one individual with no more credibility than you or me is in any way indicative of a game's quality. Just their opinion.