|
On June 15 2010 08:03 Cpadolf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 07:58 7mk wrote:
well what do you mean by PC shooters though?
Only non console shooters I can think of are Crysis 1 and Half Life 2 I mean FPSs for PC in general are just a lot better than FPSs for consoles, due to controls. This is true for non exclusive games as well, except when they fuck the PC version up due to laziness (hello MW2). Just an opinion of course but I really don't understand people who like FPSs for consoles better than for PC.
True but I still think there's a bit too much elitism.
As soon as youve gotten used to console controls playing FPS on it can be a lot of fun, youre simply just not as fast and accurate as with a PC, but it's not like we're all intending to become progamers.
That being said, Half Life 1 was the best FPS experience ever.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 15 2010 08:05 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:00 Bosu wrote:On June 15 2010 07:58 7mk wrote:
well what do you mean by PC shooters though?
Only non console shooters I can think of are Crysis 1 and Half Life 2 Quake, counterstrike, team fortress, Unreal Tournament, Battlefield, Tribes, RTCW I was thinking about the present though and about single player games. None of these are single player games and all of them are really really old (not that I dont like playing some of them, even now, but still) Also TF's and UT's and BF's sequels are all console games too.
Nah, I think Idea has a pretty good definition of console vs PC FPS games. It's about what system the games were initially designed for, not what system they eventually come to. Bioshock, for example, is not a PC FPS game. CoD and CoD2 came out for the Xbox, but both were PC games that got ported over.
It's not just about accuracy and reaction times. It's also about the type of gameplay they can throw at you. Like, you're never really caught off guard that much playing MW2. In Fear or Doom 3, you are.
I just thought of a bunch of other PC FPS games now. Prey, Far Cry, Undying, one of the Riddick games, Quake Wars, Painkiller, STALKER.
|
On June 15 2010 08:07 faction123 wrote:
Is that really it for bioware at e3 or do they have more scheduled this week? i've looked around and can't find anything. No ME3 or DA2?
I'm sure they have plenty to share throughout the week. =p
|
the star wars shit woulda been cooler if the sith had won
but it looked outstanding nonetheless
and any star wars lore buffs know if the force-blast and blocking light-saber with hand was just invented there? the force-blast didn't bother me "as" much because you could play it off as a force push but I was pretty surprised when she blocked the light saber with her hands
|
On June 15 2010 08:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:05 7mk wrote:On June 15 2010 08:00 Bosu wrote:On June 15 2010 07:58 7mk wrote:
well what do you mean by PC shooters though?
Only non console shooters I can think of are Crysis 1 and Half Life 2 Quake, counterstrike, team fortress, Unreal Tournament, Battlefield, Tribes, RTCW I was thinking about the present though and about single player games. None of these are single player games and all of them are really really old (not that I dont like playing some of them, even now, but still) Also TF's and UT's and BF's sequels are all console games too. Nah, I think Idea has a pretty good definition of console vs PC FPS games. It's about what system the games were initially designed for, not what system they eventually come to. Bioshock, for example, is not a PC FPS game. CoD and CoD2 came out for the Xbox, but both were PC games that got ported over.
I dont really see where that contradicts my statement though.
OK for TF2 maybe, but I for example intentionally didn't mention counterstrike cause that game was clearly a pc game, Battlefield Bad Company and the latest UT however are clearly real console games.
|
On June 15 2010 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
the star wars shit woulda been cooler if the sith had won
but it looked outstanding nonetheless
and any star wars lore buffs know if the force-blast and blocking light-saber with hand was just invented there? the force-blast didn't bother me "as" much because you could play it off as a force push but I was pretty surprised when she blocked the light saber with her hands
Well in the last trailer "Deceived" the Empire/Sith did win.
This trailer was called "Hope" and the Republic/Jedi won.
As for the dark side, the Revan cameo was enough to keep me happy.
I too was puzzled by the hand-block on the lightsaber.
My only guess is that she had hand-pieces made of lightsaber resistant material like Cortosis, Mandalorian Iron, Phrik, or Zillo Beast Skin.
Wow, that was nerdy.
|
im not trying to sound like some elitist saying that "all shooters are better on the PC." If a shooter is designed right it can still be really fun on a console, it just has to be slower paced and less precise (this is why I think cover-based shooters have gotten so popular, they dont rely nearly as much on twitch reflexes). The problem is that shooters on PCs can be really awesome but can be basically impossible to make (fun IE playable) on a console.
time will tell about crysis 2, but I still stand by Crysis 1 being the last FPS on the PC to maintain 100% creative integrity (basically saying "this is the game we want to make and it will only work on the PC so it's only going to be on the PC"), where as every other game I can think of had to make sacrifices to make it more playable on the consoles.
|
P.S. what is so fast about counterstrike.
You die about as fast as you do in MW and moving is obviously extremely slow compared to something like Quake.
|
On June 15 2010 08:09 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:03 Cpadolf wrote:On June 15 2010 07:58 7mk wrote:
well what do you mean by PC shooters though?
Only non console shooters I can think of are Crysis 1 and Half Life 2 I mean FPSs for PC in general are just a lot better than FPSs for consoles, due to controls. This is true for non exclusive games as well, except when they fuck the PC version up due to laziness (hello MW2). Just an opinion of course but I really don't understand people who like FPSs for consoles better than for PC. True but I still think there's a bit too much elitism. As soon as youve gotten used to console controls playing FPS on it can be a lot of fun, youre simply just not as fast and accurate as with a PC, but it's not like we're all intending to become progamers. That being said, Half Life 1 was the best FPS experience ever.
I'm not saying console FPSs can't be good at all, I loved Goldeneye (and still do, but mostly due to nostalgia), and I think Halo for example is a good game. But I do think that PC is a vastly superior platform for the genre.
|
On June 15 2010 08:15 7mk wrote:
P.S. what is so fast about counterstrike.
You die about as fast as you do in MW and moving is obviously extremely slow compared to something like Quake.
playing MW on a console I feel like im in a tank or something. extremely slow cursor movement and limited peripheral vision due to small resolution.
in CS on highest resolution I feel so so so much more like I'm actually there and the keyboard/mouse are just extensions of my sensory organs.
|
On June 15 2010 08:15 Ideas wrote:
im not trying to sound like some elitist saying that "all shooters are better on the PC." If a shooter is designed right it can still be really fun on a console, it just has to be slower paced and less precise (this is why I think cover-based shooters have gotten so popular, they dont rely nearly as much on twitch reflexes). The problem is that shooters on PCs can be really awesome but can be basically impossible to make (fun IE playable) on a console.
time will tell about crysis 2, but I still stand by Crysis 1 being the last FPS on the PC to maintain 100% creative integrity (basically saying "this is the game we want to make and it will only work on the PC so it's only going to be on the PC"), where as every other game I can think of had to make sacrifices to make it more playable on the consoles.
well, not much to disagree with there...(except I still see nothing particularly fast about CS)
have hope for Half life 3 yo :p
|
As for Medal of Honor, there was actually another 8 players playing. They couldn't fit them all on the stage. So it's like, 24 man games.
|
On June 15 2010 08:18 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:15 Ideas wrote:
im not trying to sound like some elitist saying that "all shooters are better on the PC." If a shooter is designed right it can still be really fun on a console, it just has to be slower paced and less precise (this is why I think cover-based shooters have gotten so popular, they dont rely nearly as much on twitch reflexes). The problem is that shooters on PCs can be really awesome but can be basically impossible to make (fun IE playable) on a console.
time will tell about crysis 2, but I still stand by Crysis 1 being the last FPS on the PC to maintain 100% creative integrity (basically saying "this is the game we want to make and it will only work on the PC so it's only going to be on the PC"), where as every other game I can think of had to make sacrifices to make it more playable on the consoles. well, not much to disagree with there...(except I still see nothing particularly fast about CS) have hope for Half life 3 yo :p
A psuedo-leak says that Valve will announce that they bought the Duke Nukem Forever source and will be finishing the game.
This leak came from 4chan's /v/ board though, so it's legitimacy is in high doubt.
I want this to be true ):
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Valve already confirmed that the Portal 2 surprise is Portal related. That doesn't rule out Episode 3 at E3, but it does rule out Episode 3 at the Portal 2 event.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 15 2010 08:14 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:09 Jibba wrote:On June 15 2010 08:05 7mk wrote:On June 15 2010 08:00 Bosu wrote:On June 15 2010 07:58 7mk wrote:
well what do you mean by PC shooters though?
Only non console shooters I can think of are Crysis 1 and Half Life 2 Quake, counterstrike, team fortress, Unreal Tournament, Battlefield, Tribes, RTCW I was thinking about the present though and about single player games. None of these are single player games and all of them are really really old (not that I dont like playing some of them, even now, but still) Also TF's and UT's and BF's sequels are all console games too. Nah, I think Idea has a pretty good definition of console vs PC FPS games. It's about what system the games were initially designed for, not what system they eventually come to. Bioshock, for example, is not a PC FPS game. CoD and CoD2 came out for the Xbox, but both were PC games that got ported over. I dont really see where that contradicts my statement though. OK for TF2 maybe, but I for example intentionally didn't mention counterstrike cause that game was clearly a pc game, Battlefield Bad Company and the latest UT however are clearly real console games.
I haven't played BC2, but UT3 was not a console game. Like, it's impossible to get the full potential out of the game using a controller. By that I mean the jumping, strafing, shock combos, rocket jumps, etc. It has to be played much slower, the way Halo and MW are.
|
On June 15 2010 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
the star wars shit woulda been cooler if the sith had won
but it looked outstanding nonetheless
and any star wars lore buffs know if the force-blast and blocking light-saber with hand was just invented there? the force-blast didn't bother me "as" much because you could play it off as a force push but I was pretty surprised when she blocked the light saber with her hands
It would of been cooler if the sith guy killed the jedi. Then the black marine dude blew himself and the sith lord up with that granade. Star wars PLO style!
|
On June 15 2010 08:14 Ryhn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
the star wars shit woulda been cooler if the sith had won
but it looked outstanding nonetheless
and any star wars lore buffs know if the force-blast and blocking light-saber with hand was just invented there? the force-blast didn't bother me "as" much because you could play it off as a force push but I was pretty surprised when she blocked the light saber with her hands Well in the last trailer "Deceived" the Empire/Sith did win. This trailer was called "Hope" and the Republic/Jedi won. As for the dark side, the Revan cameo was enough to keep me happy. I too was puzzled by the hand-block on the lightsaber. My only guess is that she had hand-pieces made of lightsaber resistant material like Cortosis, Mandalorian Iron, Phrik, or Zillo Beast Skin. Wow, that was nerdy.
did I miss the revan cameo, where was it? maybe i tabbed out too early
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 15 2010 08:15 7mk wrote:
P.S. what is so fast about counterstrike.
You die about as fast as you do in MW and moving is obviously extremely slow compared to something like Quake.
Valve has slowed CS down quite a bit over the years, even from the original version of 1.6.
The main reason it's slower is simply because it's a tactical team game. No such console equivalent really exists, where one side is defending a specific base. It's played slowly because you're at a disadvantage if you go too quickly, not because there's a physical limit.
|
On June 15 2010 08:27 InToTheWannaB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
the star wars shit woulda been cooler if the sith had won
but it looked outstanding nonetheless
and any star wars lore buffs know if the force-blast and blocking light-saber with hand was just invented there? the force-blast didn't bother me "as" much because you could play it off as a force push but I was pretty surprised when she blocked the light saber with her hands It would of been cooler if the sith guy killed the jedi. Then the black marine dude blew himself and the sith lord up with that granade. Star wars PLO style!
yea that would have been a better ending too
and wouldn't that make Revan like over 300 years old?
and you'd think Revan would be the badass lead sith
|
On June 15 2010 08:30 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 08:14 Ryhn wrote:On June 15 2010 08:12 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
the star wars shit woulda been cooler if the sith had won
but it looked outstanding nonetheless
and any star wars lore buffs know if the force-blast and blocking light-saber with hand was just invented there? the force-blast didn't bother me "as" much because you could play it off as a force push but I was pretty surprised when she blocked the light saber with her hands Well in the last trailer "Deceived" the Empire/Sith did win. This trailer was called "Hope" and the Republic/Jedi won. As for the dark side, the Revan cameo was enough to keep me happy. I too was puzzled by the hand-block on the lightsaber. My only guess is that she had hand-pieces made of lightsaber resistant material like Cortosis, Mandalorian Iron, Phrik, or Zillo Beast Skin. Wow, that was nerdy. did I miss the revan cameo, where was it? maybe i tabbed out too early
When it appeared the commandos had lost, and the leader was being held for decapitation the Sith whose blade ignited to kill him was Revan's. Revan was the one wearing the steel and bronze facemask.
http://www.swtor.com/media/trailers/hope-cinematic-trailer
A link to the trailer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
