Civilization Revolution 'never' coming to PC

Agreed. I'll be picking this up on day one as well. I love the series on PC, but when I'm gaming on my 360 I just want to sit back on the couch and relax - not lean over a mouse and keyboard.

I'll do the same, but I do have my concerns, being a fan since civ II, I don't see how it will work.

Still, Sid Meier hasn't steered me wrong yet.

I'm pretty sure it is.

Agree. Its not like this game is heavy on any kind of anything, really, the power is in the code, not the need to burn resources

I still wonder at the idiocy of that move

The keyboard allows for more accesssible keys, and the mouse for more precise pointing, so it's better suited for complex games, or games that require fast & precise aiming. In any case, you can use just about any kind of input device on PC thanks to JoyToKey, you're not limited by the hardware.

I've yet to find a game that handles better on PC over gamepad, so I'm sticking with the superior control scheme!!!

My razer mouse is more comfortable than any gamepad. A tiny bit better than the 360 controller, imho, and infinitely better than Sony and Nintendo's garbage.

I think my friend summed it up pretty well. He used to PC game, but started console-gaming once his computer stopped maxing games out (took like 5 years).

You just feel more into it when playing with mouse and keyboard. Aiming is more precise; you can focus on other aspects of the game more because movement/aiming isn't as difficult as with a controller.

For casual games, I prefer a gamepad. But guess what? That's why I have a 360 controller for windows. Works great for Audiosurf, Lost Planet, Gears of War.


Moreover, RTS just don't work with a gamepad. Unless its dumbed down as hell, you need lots of keys and easy movement/unit selection.

Jeff what the hell are you talking about a M/KB is way more uncomfortable then any gamepad (other then the BSX ones they're equally shitty), as for precision you must just not be able to handle it, I never have trouble with my gamepads.
As to your view of RTSs by dumbed down you mean removing needless polygons that waste system resources then your correct any other aspects remain intact, in fact they're more fun on console. I only buy the console version of games, if it's not available for one of my consoles then I just download it from a torrent site (but mostly only when I don't have the money to buy any new games).

As for precision, you're wrong, but there's a reason why you wouldn't know it:
Console FPSs are generally slower and have a ton of auto-aim. Teh l33t Halo-snipaz don't actually have to be that good to get lots of headshots, it's incredibly forgiving, because the developers are aware that you just can't be as accurate on a gamepad. Try using a 360 gamepad on a PC shooter and you'll see.

JonFitt gamepads are just as if not more precise and no they don't add auto aim. Every time I tried a PC FPS with the gamepad I found it way easier but the M/KB fucked me over. There's more then one reason the consoles are quickly lapping PCs in sales (software and hardware) and the gamepad is most definitely one of them.

I've yet to find a game that handles better on PC over gamepad, so I'm sticking with the superior control scheme!!!


=> One word: Starcraft.

(seriously though, different control schemes for different game designs: game controllers allow you to slouch on a couch in front of a big screen, whereas keyboard+mouse forces you into a more engaging and active stance by sitting up in front of a computer monitor, hence why competitive Counterstrike fans are more attached to keyboard+mouse setups)

Kujel, you're an idiot.

I will prove to you that the mouse is a more precise method of controlling.

First, a mouse has more DPI than a controller does. Since you probably have no idea what that is, DPI stands for Dots Per Inch. For a mouse, DPI is essentially the measurement of sensitivity. The more DPI it has, the more sensitive it will become.

Now, lets compare a mouse to an analog input. For an analog, you have around an inch which you change the placement of your stick. For a mouse, you have as much space as you want to change the placement of your stick, but for arguments sake, one usually uses around a few inches to work with.

What does this all mean? It means that in order to my reticle on the screen from point A to point B, I can move my mouse in a fashion that will allow for a smaller margin of error. If I move my mouse a tenth of an inch too far, it won't matter as much as if I moved my analog a tenth of an inch too far. Basically, the mouse's higher DPI and higher allowable range of movement allows the user to move from point A to point B with a higher allowable range of error.

But don't take my word for it, just look at history. FPS games on PC have generally always been much faster paced than console FPS because the reticle on consoles is harder to control. When Epic was designing UT3, they slowed down the pace for the console versions in relation to the PC version. The creators of Shadowrun, who spent a tremendous amount of time balancing out their FPS for console and PC users to play each other, even admitted that the mouse was a more precise method of aiming. Console games have also featured methods of dealing with a console controllers less than accurate aim by adding features such as auto-aim and aim assist.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't enjoy an FPS with a controller, but trying to say that using an analog controller is just as easy as a mouse in a FPS game is absurd.

I'm not even going to go into why a mouse AND keyboard is vastly superior for RTS play.

Well quite literally it *will* stop lots of Civ fans from playing, and also, I would like to see the reaction we'd get if Final Fantasy 14 or GTA 5 is announced as a PC only game 'never' to be released on consoles.

or maybe it'll be like Battlefield: Modern Combat and we can be content that the PC version is just better in every way?

(?) is right. What is that? The first bearded lady?