And since PCs are general purpose computing devices designed around the data entry mechanics of a typewriter paired with a 50 year old design used to specify tracking objects on a display for measurements … it is no wonder they are not up to the standards of a device specifically created and optimized for the singular purpose of gaming.
This might apply if the kind of game being played hadn't been designed around a keyboard and mouse in terms of controls.
PC games have had decades to adapt to the control devices available - which is why games designed specifically for that platform work very, very well.
My point about tablet games was about the hardware driving the game, and about how the vast majority of games available have their roots in PC game design. If the developers making games for tablets bothered to focus on tablet controls exclusively, they might do a much better job. That said, I can't think of a single touch-screen interface that wouldn't work just as well with mouse/keyboard.
That's because the touch-screen is actually the absence of traditional control devices. The primary reason touch-screen is a great solution for tablets and smartphones is not that it's NECESSARILY a better control device in any way, it's because it removes the need for other control devices. That said, obviously a touch-screen is more intuitive for pointing at things.
It's key to think about these things a bit before trying to use the argument against me
As for what's objectively "better" - that's a dead-end debate. I've heard people stubbornly insist that mouse/keyboard is always better - and I've heard people claim they're better at first person shooters with a console controller. So, what's there to say in such situations?
As for console controllers - I'd argue they're better for games designed around the console platform.
Of course, they might not be better if the person using the controller isn't used to them - and they might not be better if the game is easy to adapt to PC controls.
As for Diablo being a "clickfest" - I've heard this from countless people before. These are the people who don't understand the genre, and they don't understand the core of the design.
I'm glad that removing the clicking from the combat has taught these people what the game is really about, which is character progression and loot whoring. In short, it's the ultimate power fantasy boiled down to the fun bits. The "clicking" was never really the heart of the fun - it was just how you measured your performance.
Blizzard, however, are so good at moment-to-moment gameplay, and they've managed to make the actual combat so fun that you tend to forget what the real driving force behind the design is.
