Diablo III

Yeah, that's the stuff.

I'm not really a PC gamer anymore, I've moved pretty much entirely over to consoles, but when I was a more avid PC gamer one of my favorites was Diablo II.  Since that time I've been anticipating how well Diablo III would do when it finally comes out.  Obviously it's done really well, considering that it's the sequel to a game that people have been actively playing for over ten years; that's right Diablo II, released in 2001, has had active players for the last 11 years.  That's just insane, I can't think of any other game that's really had that much participation after such a long time.

So obviously, when I heard back in 2010 that Diablo III could be coming to consoles, I was ecstatic.  I'm a little disappointed that it hasn't yet panned out though.  I'm still hopeful that Blizzard will wisen up and put the game onto consoles, similar to the latest Dungeon Siege and Witcher games.  Both games ported really well, especially Witcher II with it's similarities to Skyrim, and many console gamers that I know would love to see Diablo II follow suit.  My best guess as to why this isn't confirmed yet is that Blizzard tried to make this same jump a few times with various games and even more various results:  Diablo on PS1 and Starcraft 64. 

If you don't already know what I think about Starcraft 64, take a look at what I said about it previously.  As for Diablo, the game was ported from the PC in 1998, two years after its release.  Die hard fans of the PC game were disappointed with the lackluster graphics, the awful experience with sluggish and high-capacity saves, and the lack of an online multi player experience; though the PS1 version boasted a two-player mode on a single console.  The controls, however, did translate over to the controller very well, and many were surprised at how much easier the game was to play on the PS1 version.  The main components of the game; the dungeon-delving, action RPG, and arcade style game play; were all there so it was still a good game for those that haven't experienced the PC version, but overall the PS1 game was unable to cut the cake when compared to it's forefather.

 I could see all of the same issues with porting Diablo III to consoles today that there were in 1998 with the original, but are those really good reasons to keep it from us Xbox and PS3 gamers?  The saves have gotten better, the controls will still be grand, and you can have your multi player experience and eat it too.   Expand your Diablo III audience, Blizzard, I guarantee that it's worth it.

Day Eight: Star Craft 64

Ah, Star Craft.  What PC or console gamer hasn't heard of this classic Real Time Strategy game set in outer space?  It's a wonderful story of Space Marines, Alienesque (like the movie series) creatures, and your typical "super-advanced" race of Predatoresque aliens.  The game is pure classic however you look at it, and a sequel came out just recently that mimics the great feel of the original and could be a candidate for one of the best RTS games of all time.

These types of games are best played with a mouse and a keyboard.  Not only do you need precise, tactical movements in a large-scale battlegrounds, but you need to be able to move quickly from squad to squad and fight to fight.  With a keyboard and mouse you can use single keystrokes to move to designated squads.  How in the love of fuck do you accomplish all of that with the N64 controller?  So obviously the controller doesn't have enough buttons to have up to ten squads simultaneously yet separately accessible.  Rather than assigning 1 to a squad and 2 to a squad and moving between them freely, the controller only really allows you to move between groups on a fixed basis, so from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4.

The other thing on my shitlist about this pile of crap is the movement.  An infrared mouse is difficult to beat, especially when you're attempting the same level of complexity with an analog stick.  It's like trying to play Halo with an Atari 2600 controller.  Okay, maybe not that bad, but it still sucks ass.  This isn't the only time that a PC game has been ported to a console an been a freaking pile.  The Command and Conquer series also put a game onto a console, but this time, it's for the Playstation.

So here we see the same limitations, but at a much higher rate of failure.  In this regard, again, it's the controller's fault.  The 64's controller is limited, yes, but the Playstation's is even more so, especially if you're looking at a controller that's not Dual Shock.  On a purely button vs. button comparison we see 11 on the 64 and only nine on the PS1.  Fans of C&C might love the adaptation, but at best, it's a butchered version of a mediocre RTS.  Even the expansion packs were released onto the PS1.  Now that's a desperate attempt to expand your game onto a new platform.  If you need a more recent example, there's Halo Wars, and that crap bombed out even though it's part of one of the most marketable franchises in recent gaming history, though it was more streamlined and optimized to be easier to handle with an Xbox 360 controller.  Bottom line, don't port your goddamn RTS onto a console, it just doesn't fucking work  Leave it where it belongs.