|
Josh: Well, we've covered a lot on the differences between what are commonly called the 'standard' RPGs for each system, but what about the other ones, the Tactical RPGs and the Real-Time Strategy? They seem to be quite divided amongst the two platforms.
Matt: RPGs have their different off-shoots, and they seem to be divided between the two systems. That might come back to the interface issue, but I do wish that some would be willing to take a chance and bridge the gap.
Matt: True, Starcraft 64 might not have burned up the charts, but it showed that Blizzard gave the idea a chance.
Josh: There have been a few RTS that have somehow made it onto consoles. I know Warcraft II made it onto PSX.
Josh: Though it wasn't received well...not sure why they bothered with Starcraft.
Matt: Tactical RPGs like Advance Wars (for example) would seem to only work better with a mouse to control your units with. They put AW on the Nintendo DS, after all.
Matt: And on the flip side, perhaps the NDS's stylus might make RTS games worth the effort, for once.
Josh: Most TRPGs use the grid system, though, so it works pretty well with a controller. The mouse makes it better for selecting large groups of units, as well as units that are not restricted to a grid.
Josh: I really don't like the stylus. I cannot stand it. But yes, it may actually prove useful for RTS games.
Matt: Perhaps a tap-and-direct system, where you can encircle a group of units at once, and then sent them off elsewhere with a tap on the map. The stylus isn't always worth bothering with, but in the games where it's used productively, it could have so many possibilities.
Josh: Probably, but one of the major draws to RTS games (and I should know, I've been utterly destroyed in Starcraft when I lived over in South Korea), are all of the hotkeys. With a controller, the number of hotkeys that you have access to are sorely limited.
Matt: But that's on handhelds -- I've been neglecting consoles, I fear. I think that, again, the Revolution controller could make this kind of game a reality, for once.
Matt: Or, at least, a worthwhile reality.
Josh: It very well may, but it's still not readily available to the public, so the system is sadly, all theory.
Matt: I never played it, but there's a game out for PS2 called Lifeline -- you direct your character entirely through voice commands. Perhaps a similar set-up might work, if all of the bugs could be worked out. Lifeline was *notoriously* inept at actually working the way you wanted it to, I heard.
Josh: Interesting...I've never had too much luck with voice commands, regardless of platform.
Josh: But back to TRPGs, they seem to be more popular on consoles, due to the fact that you only control a small amount of units (say, about 10), while on PCs, you can control upwards of 200.
Matt: I'm not so sure that isn't just according to each game's design. Warcraft 3 limited you to 90 units, for example. I think that TRPGs do that simply because they only want to limit you even further.
Josh: No, I agree, to some extent. It is according to design, but it is designed that way because it's much harder to command a large amount of units on a console rather than a PC.
Matt: Also, RTS games are literaly in real time, so everyone moves around at once. In most TRPGs that I know of, you take turns.
Matt: So, taking a turn to move 200 units might be very time-consuming.
Josh: Due to the reaction time of the medium.
Matt: I'm afraid so.
In the home stretch: MMORPGS
|
RSS feed
iTunes