The PC Spotlight 3.27.09: The Control Scheme Debate From a PC Gamer, Max Payne 3 Thoughts, and More
Posted by Chris Vicari on 03.27.2009
Chris Vicari is back with another issue of The PC Spotlight. This week features buttloads of opinion as he discusses several topics in great detail.
Welcome back to another issue of the PC Spotlight. Opinions abound in this week's edition as I share my assessments on a variety of topics.
Max Payne 3 Under New Banner. For Good or Ill?
With the recent announcement of the upcoming threequal to the award-winning film noir action series Max Payne, it's exciting to know that after all these years, we finally have another opportunity to enjoy the in-depth storyline and brooding characters which have made the series so exceptionally enthralling since its inception. Being a huge fan of the series, minus the movie of course, I was ecstatic to hear of the game's upcoming winter release, but surprised to learn that Remedy is not taking part in the game's production, as they are devoting most of their resources to the development and eventual release of the action-thriller Alan Wake. I wouldn't call the decision to opt for a new developer a total buzzkill, but the situation remains somewhat perturbing, as I'm sure a hearty chunk of Max Payne fans are scratching their heads over this as well.
Now, I'm certainly not knocking Rockstar Vancouver's ability to produce a quality game, as Bully, the award-winning sandbox game, is a prime demonstration of their talents, but the sheer differences between both games, to put it lightly, are staggering. On one hand, you have a gritty, foreboding third-person action-shooter backdrop showcasing the dark strains of humanity and revenge, while on the other you have an open-ended mission-based game depicting the hilarity of the high school atmosphere. What I don't want is an amalgamation of both games, as I'm quite content with a gritty and linear experience seen in the first two games.
Looking a little scruffy there Mr. Payne.
According to the press release, which you can read for yourself here, Rockstar hopes to move the story in a different direction. Payne is no longer within the confines of New York City, a major centerpiece of metaphor and narrative, and instead resides in a currently unnamed metropolis. A tad older, retired, and perhaps a little wiser, Payne is a victim of a double-cross and must fight his way to the truth, or a truth. An intriguing backdrop and I enjoy the idea of a time lapse after the second game. As for the action, I'm eager to see if Rockstar can cook up anything new, or if they'll change the formula at all. Regardless, I'm sure a cover system akin to Gears of War and Grand Theft Auto 4 is pretty much a guarantee in this latest installment.
Despite the differences and my reticent opinion on the matter, Rockstar Vancouver was able to deliver a satisfying experience in Bully, one which contained a worthwhile setting and storyline. Hopefully then, Max Payne 3 continues the trend of its predecessors by equally focusing on the story, characters, and the heart-pounding action. I await the game's eventual release with excitement, and perhaps a bit of anxiety too.
After reading this week's Fact or Fiction, featuring a bout between 411's own Jacob Lopez and Ty Huston, I felt compelled to voice my own thoughts on the sixth question, as the responses were void of any PC Gamer impressions. The control scheme debate is one which has been waged for countless years, and is a conflict on par with the never-ending PC vs. Console arguments. My preference in this clash is self-evident, so instead of blabbering on in a chest-pounding nonsensical diatribe, let's delve a little deeper and focus on the evidence as well as any potential theories, if they eventually present themselves.
Using the 2007 FPS Shadowrun as a prime example, as gamers from both platforms had the opportunity to battle one another, we can see the disadvantages of preferring a controller over a keyboard and mouse eloquently illuminated. When developers intentionally give controllers distinct advantages to put them on par with PC users, you cast a shadow over its supposed superiority. Let's have a look at what they had to do to even the playing field. The following quotes were taken from Wikipedia and the various sources therein. They are easily verified by following their specific citations.
"Because of the lack of 'pixel-accuracy' with the Xbox 360 analog thumbstick, the designers have included an aim-assisting technology, which basically interpolates the player's movement and causes the reticle to stay over an enemy player like a weak magnet." What we have here is a soft auto-aiming control scheme, giving console players the advantage of not having to worry about full-on accuracy.
Continuing, "…FASA has implemented a feature which causes the crosshair to expand during quick movements, thus lowering the player's accuracy, making it impossible to quickly turn and maintain accuracy, reducing the potential advantage of playing with a mouse. PC players, who have a more sensitive control scheme, are able to turn significantly faster than their controller-using counterparts and would have gained an unfair advantage."
Developer discussing the creation of Shadowrun for both platforms.
In the end, controllers and the mouse/keyboard combination are two entirely different design philosophies. One emphasizes ease of use while the other focuses more on complexity and precision. Ironically, controllers may tout user-friendliness, but even they can make matters tedious or overly-complicated, something the PC is generally called out for. Using the Xbox version of the Sims as another example, we're provided with an additional lens into the issue. For anyone who has played the game, you'll quickly find that placing objects, customizing houses, and controlling your Sims are time-consuming tasks. Navigating the many in-game menus with the D-pad or analog stick is also exceedingly clunky. When making the switch to the PC version though, such issues are insignificant, as a mouse has little trouble making the necessary commands in quick succession.
Chris Taylor's 2007 epic RTS Supreme Commander is another fine choice to express this point too. For those unfamiliar with the game, Supreme Commander is a very in-depth RTS game featuring hundreds of units from tanks to airplanes that zip across gigantic maps battling it out for supremacy. The game itself features a wide assortment of hotkeys and unit commands to give players as much control over their armies as much as humanly possible.
When the idea to port the game over to the 360 console was first considered, many gamers – myself included – ridiculed the prospect, explaining the console could never hope to achieve the PC version's complexity and intuitive control scheme. While the developers performed admirably bridging the gaps, the game's overall complexity overwhelms the improved control framework. The game just gets far too crazy when hundreds of units are moving around at once, making it impossible to keep track of everything that's going on.
Developers did the job admirably, but it wasn't enough.
Since that time, and even before Supreme Commander came out, many developers remain confident in the notion that today's consoles are more than able to tackle the strategy game genre. Halo Wars being the newest example of that mindset, but these games are just not overly complicated. Controls are simple and unintuitive, while the game's themselves aren't particularly challenging, yet very forgiving of player mistakes. Despite this, I'm glad console gamers get to enjoy the genre.
As for the Fact or Fiction question itself, personal enjoyment of a game based on the control scheme, whether playing an FPS or anything else, is entirely subjective, and there is no right or wrong answer. PCs all the way though! Rock on!
Is Playing RTS Games with Your Voice a Sound Prospect for the Future?
While not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, voice recognition games are an exceedingly rare breed as only a handful have seen the light of day. Specific examples include Seaman for the Sega Dreamcast, a couple DS games such as Phoenix Wright but only sparingly, and if I remember correctly, SOCOM: U.S. Nave SEALs for the PS2. Oh, and there was a recent RTS for the 360 as well that utilized the technology. In any case, I believe the technology has untold amounts of underused potential, especially for RTS games. Imagine controlling an army not just by the swivel of your arm and a click of a mouse, but by your vocal commands as well. The technology adds a whole different level of player involvement, and the prospects sound pretty tantalizing, in theory of course.
The Challenges
Obviously, the development hurdles one would have to tackle when creating such a game are quite staggering, but I believe the idea is still relatively feasible. Clearly, the game cannot be too fast, as the user will have the impossible task of keeping up with the game. Striking the perfect balance between tempo and how quickly it ramps up is critical. You want the game to be slow enough giving users the chance to keep up, but quick enough to prevent boredom. A grid interface is practically a near necessity as it allows users to better refine their orders. The game would have an easier time discerning what a player wants if they say "Team 1 move to house at D-4," rather than "Team 1 move to the house over there by the car," although that might work as well.
Regrettably, a game only using player voice as an input for control is a fairly poor idea, as at times using the mouse provides far more efficient and accurate results, but combining the control schemes to a point where users are still able to rely on the mouse, and can supplement various commands and actions with their voice, is a potentially good idea. For instance, let's say you're focusing on a battle at a particular location, to a point where your base is no longer in view, and your units are in desperate need of reinforcement. Instead of scrolling all the way back to base and clicking on the individual buildings necessary for unit production, one could simply say, "Barracks build four units of Swordsman and send them to E-5," and the action would be done for you. All the while you're able to maintain your full attention on the skirmish. Some games have already combated this issue such as the Command and Conquer series and Company of Heroes, by putting the building icons on the interface itself. Similar to game tempo, striking a balance between actions requiring the mouse or your vocal cords is important.
Would development of such a game be possible?
The biggest challenge of all though is utilizing competent voice recognition software. In video games, and RTS' especially, mistakes can decide the difference between a positive or negative outcome, and if players have to consistently repeat orders to get their units to perform the tasks they desire, you're just better off using a mouse. Thankfully, voice recognition technology has come a long way since it was first used, and most companies that use the technology claim an accuracy of 98% to 99% under optimal conditions. Currently, voice dictation software is used heavily by the healthcare industry, and the U.S. military for fighter aircraft, helicopters, and battle management. Commercial products such as Dragon Naturally Speaking are also available to the general public. Sadly, those who have an accent or a learning disability and cannot vocalize words properly are a little left out here. Optimal conditions require a clean voice in a no-noise environment. Proper vocabulary is another obstacle, but this can be easily solved by supplying an in-game voice tutorial, acclimating new players with the proper word usage to play the game properly, in a variety of different languages.
When Dragon Naturally Speaking costs 60 bucks, and the more accurate software used by the military and hospitals sells for much more, the issue of price raises a grave concern. How can a game stay relatively cheap using top-of-the-line voice recognition software when it already costs $40-60? Is it worth taking a hit in voice accuracy to keep the price down? In my opinion, if you're building a game from the ground up to heavily utilize the technology, any drop in quality may prove disastrous. This leads to a very important question: Does current technology allow for same-or-similar-price feasibility? It's a question I can't hope to answer, as I have zero experience in the game development field.
The Payoffs
I think the payoffs pretty much speak for themselves. You have the opportunity to enjoy an RTS game that allows you to give orders with the click of a mouse and the roar of your booming voice. Proper implementation is key, and it's a feat that should only be tackled if it can be done right. There's no room to half-ass it.
An Idea?
Only recently have I been really toying with the idea of an RTS game dependent upon the player's voice, and the more I add onto it, the more I like the prospect. When I first came up with the idea, I wanted to have a game not attached to a particular timeframe, to appeal to a wider audience. It's certainly doable for all manner of RTS archetypes ranging from medieval to modern day, and even science fiction or fantasy. Basically, the game plays like most RTS games out there, but on a much larger scale.
You'll be doing the usual stuff such as resource hunting for money and food, sending scouting parties to gather intel on the enemy, organize raiding parties on various neutral and enemy settlements, and wage war. I would prefer the game map to be fairly large, perhaps even the scale of Supreme Commander maps, as it allows full advantage of voice recognition software, simply because a player cannot keep track of everything happening at once. This is where a new way of relaying information and distributing commands comes into play.
The new idea is something that I call the Advisor, and it's the always-present entity which provides verbal information to keep the player up to date on everything going on. No, he won't be blabbering on a constant basis, as it will only save verbal cues for very important events such as an imminent attack. Here, the game would then take further advantage of speech recognition software by giving players the opportunity to "converse" with the Advisor to acquire specific pieces of information. For instance, let's say you sent out a scouting party about five minutes ago and your Advisor reports they just returned. Simply saying, "Advisor, what's the latest intel?" to which he would respond with, "Recent scouting reports have suggested minimal (or immense) enemy presence in the area you designated from D-3 to D-6." You can also click on the individual report yourself for more detailed and text-based information if you so choose as well.
As for the overall look of the Advisor, a 3-d graphical representation would be on the game's interface, and his appearance can be changed to make him look more evil or of a different race entirely if players wished to do so. The game itself would also take advantage of dual-monitor support, where similar to Supreme Commander, the mini-map appears on the secondary monitor, along with the Advisor.
Your orders all-powerful one?
Photo courtesy of www.burkestudios.com
An example of using the Advisor
To give a better description of what the advisor can do for you and what you can in-turn tell it to do, let's use a clearly-defined example.
When amassing your army for a large-scale assault on an enemy fortress, your Advisor notifies you that rumors – yes, similar to real-life the Advisor may also provide unintentional misinformation based on faulty or out-of-date intel he receives – suggest the enemy leader is currently encamped in a nearby town called Priory. He will then ask you what you want to do, while also providing a few suggestions of his own, ranging from a full-on assault, a small party of soldiers, or an assassination attempt. The voice dialogue would go something like this:
Advisor – "What are your orders my Lord?"
You – "Get me the Assassin's Guild." At which point the Advisor window splits into a second screen and Assassin's Guild leader fills the second window
Leader – "This is the Assassin's Guild."
You – "We have reports the enemy leader is at Priory. Send your best assassin to kill, he is alone, go at night.
Leader – "Done." Using speech recognition technology, the guild leader is able to pick up on various keywords in the player's order, discerning the location, the target, who to send, and what to expect. Being very specific with your orders is critical, because if you fail to provide all the important information, he may wind up getting killed due to being unprepared.
Of course, the process would be far more streamlined than actually typing it all here, as this all happens in a matter of seconds.
Various orders also have a success/fail chance as well. Using the previous example again, if military morale is low from previous unsuccessful engagements, you may be more apt to send an assassin to do the job for you. Or if your assassins don't like you very much, because you don't pay them or get them all killed, you may have to go a different route. Influence plays animportant factor here too. If you are lackadaisical with your authority, your troops may follow suit.
That's pretty much it for my idea on the subject. You guys are more than welcome to bash it to your heart's content.
