That would take a special kind of retardation to do that. I'm not saying that controllers are superior but they're perfectly fine when you're playing against other people who are also using controllers. 

That's horrible logic, the fact that EVERYONE is handycapped is not a valid excuse. If I am a healthy person who wants to have some fun and compete, I am not going to strap myself into a wheelchair and take part in the special olympics. 

Eh, you're obviously locked into your mindset on this so there's no point in arguing it. Just know that millions of people find shooters on consoles to be fun so .. *shrug* 

that the reason so many people enjoy FPS gaming on consoles is because they are utterly horrible players. At first, they had no choice, if they wanted to play multiplayer FPS, they had to do it on the PC, where people with ridiculous reflexes using keyboard, mouse and a fast rig repeatedly mopped the floor with them for months and years on end.

Over time, people realised that some FPS games also exist on consoles and they gave that a go and found it "fun". The reason they found it fun is because everyone is handicapped, artificially setting a lower barrier to one's top performance in a game. The bads still lose, but instead of getting raped 50 to -5 all day long, it's now 30 to 5 and they can feel good about themselves after getting a few lucky kills. 

I am not saying it's a bad thing. If someone enjoys console FPS gaming more than PC FPS gaming, by all means, let them have their fun! What I have a problem with is these people trying to come up with ridiculous justifications as to why think console FPS gaming is better. 

I think both have merit (PC and console FPS gaming). No need to get all angry about it - play whichever one you want. 

I don't think I've ever met somebody who would attempt to claim that consoles are a better platform for FPS's, even if they happen to be a fan of goldeneye/halo/turok/whatever. They're just different.

I do think it's true that console FPS's have to be dumbed down skill-wise, not because the players are dumb but because the controllers are less capable. And yes, I do think that some of that dumbing down has crossed over to PC games as well which is unfortunate, but it's not really the fault of consoles or console gamers. 

I'll troll you one day Willem, see if I don't. 

The problem with at least some of the boring shooters for PC is that they're lousy ports from console games. (That's obviously not the fault of console gamers, it's rather related to ignorant developers.)

The new Wolfenstein is the worst example I've seen so far. You can't even assign keys for the weapons it seems because the controller of the stupid console it was developed for doesn't have enough keys for that. :O I really regret I bought it.

All the other stuff you may need to add for the usual technicial situation (and audience?) on consoles (auto-regeneration of the player to fullhealth in secs, arrows telling you where to go, shimmering items so you can distinguish them from the background easier on low-res screens, respawning enemies, ...) were simply left in the game. Feels like you're playing a console game on some console emulator instead of playing a PC title. Even the design of the box says 'console game'. :x

Wolfenstein is not the only example though. Noticed that more and more 'modern' games tell you not to turn off the machine while saving? Guess why. :p 

"The new Wolfenstein is the worst example I've seen so far. You can't even assign keys for the weapons it seems because the controller of the stupid console it was developed for doesn't have enough keys for that. :O I really regret I bought it. "

Well, a bad game is a bad game - that's a platform agnostic problem.

"on consoles (auto-regeneration of the player to fullhealth in secs, arrows telling you where to go, shimmering items so you can distinguish them from the background easier on low-res screens, respawning enemies, ...)"

See, and I think a lot of that stuff was added because that's what players want.

For example, players didn't want the goofy floating and rotating guns/pickups anymore so developers laid them on the ground. Then they weren't visible enough, so they added some shimmer to the material. It's not really a console issue, it's a design issue.

That's also an issue with environments becoming much more dense with detail so individual items are harder to pick out with your eye. This works fine in games like Fallout3 where it fits the game design but in something like Gears of War you need that shimmer because you don't want to miss those grenades as you're passing through the area.

Personally, I'm all for HUD indicators that tell me where the next objective is. I don't have to go there right away but when I'm ready to move ahead, I don't have to run around looking for an area I haven't been to yet. Besides, most games give you a config option to shut that off if it really bothers you.

And auto-regeneration, while a point of contention for many shooter fans, is a good thing IMO. Fuck health packs. :) Anyone complaining that it makes games too easy needs to go to the next difficulty level.

Play Gears of War 2 on Insane and tell me how easy auto-regen makes it. :) 

We added an auto-regen to RMQ and everybody seemed to like it, one of the few features that wasn't bitched and moaned about.

The way we did it may have been better (only on less than 25 health, damage bonus while active, screen tint also) but it is a genuine gameplay +

I'm thinking of a new gameplay mode which removes the ability to quicksave. Quicksave was only ever a developer function that got passed over into the regular game. The idea is to replace quicksave with resurrect artifacts (hello Nehahra) but just make this a mode that can be turned on by the player.

Being able to save the game constantly removes most of the challenge, oft-times resulting in abusively difficult gameplay becoming a standard.

These are design advances that get made as games in general progress - like Willem says, medkits become recharge.

HOW some of these features is implemented is terrible. In general I don't like health recharge or quicktime events in modern games because they're introduced in a lowest-common denominator way, the intentions of the game designer marginalized. Or just the designer not being very good at their job. 

Quicktime events = good idea
Health regen = good idea

Implementation of the above in 90% of games = bad

But that's just my opinion. 

"HOW some of these features is implemented is terrible. In general I don't like health recharge or quicktime events in modern games because they're introduced in a lowest-common denominator way, the intentions of the game designer marginalized. Or just the designer not being very good at their job."

Can you give examples? Most of what I see is that you stop getting hit for a few seconds and your health recharges. Are there other implementations? 

But generally I find that the recharge rates are aimed at someone with a low skill quota. Granted, skill settings should fix it.

Been a while since I played any console shooter now, probably the last was Halo a few years ago.

Other implementations should exist . . . 

Left4Dead - the revivial by team-mate, also mentioned in a Star Wars game over on the OtherPcGames thread.

L4D has an inverted health system (fitting the survival theme) of pills and adrenaline shots that give a temporary health boost.

It's not recharge, but if we call it 'non-Quake1 health system' with Quake1 being pretty much a standard then it makes more sense.

So we have a few different recognisable health mechanics - 'Halo recharge' for example. 

Recollection of a vampire health recharge - killing enemies to recover your health. Been in a few games I think. 

Get shot once, escape to safety, slowly bleed to death :)
Requires different tactics all together, either plan your attack carefully so as not to get hit at all (hmm - realism much?), or make sure you have plenty of bandages to stop the bleeding. Make sure you have decent armour, or whatever.
Stalker IMO is a great game! "Realism survival horror" genre. 

Atleast Crysis has a semi-believable explanation for how the players health can re-charge so easily. The suit idea has been used in many games, but in few I think it is implemented as well as in Crysis. 

"But generally I find that the recharge rates are aimed at someone with a low skill quota. Granted, skill settings should fix it."

It gets tricky. If you don't have health packs then the regen has to happen quickly enough that it's not boring for the player - i.e. they have to sit and hide for 30 seconds while their health recharges. It has to take a few seconds, max, or it won't work. IMO. 

Tends to leave the player staring at a health pack until their health has risen to around 20 or so from whatever it was, before they grab it. 

What do you mean? You have to look at a health pack to regen? 

No, what happens is it's 1 health per second when rising until it reaches 25. Whilst rising Rage is active, which causes the player to deal 125% damage.

But because it's relatively slow, players are occassionally faced with a health item that they don't want to pick up just yet.

It the flaw in the design, but so far doesn't seem a bad one. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60E3ZN20100115 

Whilst rising Rage is active, which causes the player to deal 125% damage.

150%... 

And the various rates are all skill dependant.