Well, you not liking mouse control and sitting arrangments of a PC doesn't mean it isn't superior for those platforms, it just isn't superior enough to get your attention (btw, good chair = PLENTY comfortable). It's still faster, more precise, and the PC's strengths as a platform just lend themselves better to genres like RTS/FPS. I dunno, to me, if I'm playing a game lying down half asleep, I'm not really playing it at all. And I guarantee you when game developers make a PC/console FPS or any other action game without auto-aim, the console versions have bastardized AI so gamers have a chance to aim in time. That's pretty lame IMO.
BTW, COD4 is on the PC too. I actually like it better online for the 360 though *because* of the same reason it makes it inferior to the PC version - controls. Online, people are waaay too accurate and when you have 16 v 16 games on maps designed for consoles, it gets way too hectic. I like the slower pace of the 360 version (which can still be plenty hectic itself, particularly in Ground War).
With that said, I'm sure plenty of people prefer console controls for RTS/FPS etc in general, but the PC is still more powerful in almost every way. As mva5580 said, it basically comes back to effort. I don't consider gaming on the PC to be an effort at all, but I'm sure plenty do. I'm also pretty sure if you could magically eliminate all of the things that make PC gaming an effort for some people but retain its strengths, it would be the no brainer choice for the vast majority of gamers. I think that's what mva5580 is getting at - because those effort inducing issues are really not that hard to over come and it's a shame more people don't give it a try IMO. Basically, the compromises console introduces in comparison is outweighed by its ease-of-use and mainstream appeal, but they're ultimately still compromises.
Comment