On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
TL;DR 60" > any PC monitor.
They wont have 60fps for MW3, because its still using the same outdated engine as MW2 and MW, and that was limited at 30fps. I do get 120fps on my 120hz monitor, and i can definitely tell the difference between 60>120.
It's being advertised as having 60 FPS.
“I don’t really know. I mean we really revamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there. You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I’ve done that before; I’ve seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will. Not sure I’ve seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I’d be a little scared at this point. In June if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn’t on the console and running at 60. And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away.”
Time will tell. In terms of viewing pleasure, of course people are going to have their own preference, but I prefer my 600hz (blah blah sub field refresh I know) to any 120hz or 240hz tv/monitor. The motion looks odd to me. To each their own. Out of curiosity, what GPU(s) do you use?
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
It's definitely not totally subjective, if he feels more comfortable on a console that's fine. But there are definitely pros and cons for both sides that are NOT subjective but fact.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
Hahahahaha the latter indeed, I play on both (RTS and CS/quake on computer) and MW/BF series on console, its all subjective to feel, its like the xbox 360/ps3 debate.. I own both, products are pretty similar though i hate the ps3 controller... my fucking thumb is perfect where the xbox has it (left side) but ps3 its like crooked...
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
It's definitely not totally subjective, if he feels more comfortable on a console that's fine. But there are definitely pros and cons for both sides that are NOT subjective but fact.
Well this conversation was never about which method made you the best player possible. I started the discussion a few pages back when I expressed my dislike for shooters on PC. Because of the topic, which hardware do I and a few others prefer to play on, it's 100% subjective. You're delving into a different question.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
Hahahahaha the latter indeed, I play on both (RTS and CS/quake on computer) and MW/BF series on console, its all subjective to feel, its like the xbox 360/ps3 debate.. I own both, products are pretty similar though i hate the ps3 controller... my fucking thumb is perfect where the xbox has it (left side) but ps3 its like crooked...
I'm the opposite. The PS3 controller fits like a glove. The Xbox triggers bother the shit out of me though. Feels like they take a full second to push in. I know they don't literally, just feels weeeeird.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
Hahahahaha the latter indeed, I play on both (RTS and CS/quake on computer) and MW/BF series on console, its all subjective to feel, its like the xbox 360/ps3 debate.. I own both, products are pretty similar though i hate the ps3 controller... my fucking thumb is perfect where the xbox has it (left side) but ps3 its like crooked...
I'm the opposite. The PS3 controller fits like a glove. The Xbox triggers bother the shit out of me though. Feels like they take a full second to push in. I know they don't literally, just feels weeeeird.
guess thats subjective, but i didnt mention the triggers, and I have a custom controller with refitted triggers, that being said having hold your left hand out like ur holding a controller, its naturally pointed north, on ps3 they have it cranked 90degrees to the right
trigger might be an issue, I dont use regular controller so i wouldnt know
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
Hahahahaha the latter indeed, I play on both (RTS and CS/quake on computer) and MW/BF series on console, its all subjective to feel, its like the xbox 360/ps3 debate.. I own both, products are pretty similar though i hate the ps3 controller... my fucking thumb is perfect where the xbox has it (left side) but ps3 its like crooked...
I'm the opposite. The PS3 controller fits like a glove. The Xbox triggers bother the shit out of me though. Feels like they take a full second to push in. I know they don't literally, just feels weeeeird.
guess thats subjective, but i didnt mention the triggers, and I have a custom controller with refitted triggers, that being said having hold your left hand out like ur holding a controller, its naturally pointed north, on ps3 they have it cranked 90degrees to the right
trigger might be an issue, I dont use regular controller so i wouldnt know
Ah shit. A custom controller would be a hell of a solution. How much does something like that run? I haven't used my 360 in quite a while because most of the games I play are also available on PS3. I would like the chance to use it more.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
facepalm... I don't even know where to begin with this post.
You could begin with "As long as you're having fun any gaming platform is awesome".
Or, there's a chance you could be a dick about something that is totally subjective. I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the latter.
Hahahahaha the latter indeed, I play on both (RTS and CS/quake on computer) and MW/BF series on console, its all subjective to feel, its like the xbox 360/ps3 debate.. I own both, products are pretty similar though i hate the ps3 controller... my fucking thumb is perfect where the xbox has it (left side) but ps3 its like crooked...
I'm the opposite. The PS3 controller fits like a glove. The Xbox triggers bother the shit out of me though. Feels like they take a full second to push in. I know they don't literally, just feels weeeeird.
guess thats subjective, but i didnt mention the triggers, and I have a custom controller with refitted triggers, that being said having hold your left hand out like ur holding a controller, its naturally pointed north, on ps3 they have it cranked 90degrees to the right
trigger might be an issue, I dont use regular controller so i wouldnt know
Ah shit. A custom controller would be a hell of a solution. How much does something like that run? I haven't used my 360 in quite a while because most of the games I play are also available on PS3. I would like the chance to use it more.
I settled for a Razer Onza instead for about half the price, but I had quite a time finding one without manufacturing faults. The first one I bought was good, but my brother's dog ate the cord. I could probably repair it if I put some effort into it, but he gave me the money to replace it so I went out and bought another. The right stick was all rattly and squeaky, so I returned it for a replacement. The next one had an issue with the left stick panning. It wouldn't pan all the way North (tested by pressing it all the way North while in the properties panel on PC) and it would pan even less North when I clicked the stick in. This made it impossible to sprint without binding the left MFB to LS click, which I didn't want to do because I like having the MFBs available for being able to melee and jump without removing my thumb from the RS. I returned that one for another replacement, and this one seems solid so far, just like my first one, but I haven't played much on it yet. I'm just glad my local store has been so understanding about my need for repeated returns.
I'm glad Battlefield 3 will give more attention to PC gamers. I've played the beta a couple of times and am thoroughly impressed by the game. I'd say it is my second favorite multiplayer FPS to Counter Strike.
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
The worst thing about this post for me is the Screen comment. I find it funny, each year people are buying bigger TV's, and each year they are sitting further away from them. My friends 40" HD plasma looks so crap compared to my 20" computer screen, simply because we have to sit so far away from it.
And the mouse should only feel twitchy if you have a dirty rollerball or parkinsons. To me its like someone saying, Would you rather drive a transit van, or a bugatti veyron. Nearly every person would pick the veyron. I guess every now and again someone would say the van.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
TL;DR 60" > any PC monitor.
They wont have 60fps for MW3, because its still using the same outdated engine as MW2 and MW, and that was limited at 30fps. I do get 120fps on my 120hz monitor, and i can definitely tell the difference between 60>120.
It's being advertised as having 60 FPS.
“I don’t really know. I mean we really revamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there. You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I’ve done that before; I’ve seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will. Not sure I’ve seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I’d be a little scared at this point. In June if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn’t on the console and running at 60. And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away.”
Time will tell. In terms of viewing pleasure, of course people are going to have their own preference, but I prefer my 600hz (blah blah sub field refresh I know) to any 120hz or 240hz tv/monitor. The motion looks odd to me. To each their own. Out of curiosity, what GPU(s) do you use?
Hmm, last i heard they were still using the old engine, but if its been revamped good luck to them, i wont be playing it, but im sure there will be many people will enjoy it, which is ultimately what you need to do I run 2x580s in sli, on an AW2310 monitor. Sometimes it drops below 120, but not too often
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
The worst thing about this post for me is the Screen comment. I find it funny, each year people are buying bigger TV's, and each year they are sitting further away from them. My friends 40" HD plasma looks so crap compared to my 20" computer screen, simply because we have to sit so far away from it.
And the mouse should only feel twitchy if you have a dirty rollerball or parkinsons. To me its like someone saying, Would you rather drive a transit van, or a bugatti veyron. Nearly every person would pick the veyron. I guess every now and again someone would say the van.
When I play MW2, which I do every day, I sit roughly 3 feet away from my 50" television. I do it with every game actually. Being able to see the tiniest movement in the pixels works wonders on shooters. I feel like if I don't have to move my head to see elements of the game, I'm not close enough. So your reasoning with screens does not apply to me. As for the mouse, I find more sensitivity to be a negative thing. Shifting the position of your hand slightly to get more comfortable causes you to go from pointing ahead, to staring at the sky spinning in circles at 500 miles per hour. Maybe that's a little extreme, but yeah....
If I were a pro PC shooter player, I could see how it would be an awesome benefit. Although, MLG has shitty Black Ops on consoles, and I'm speculating with no information whatsoever, that they will pick up MW3 at some point. Even if they don't, I will be near the top of the leaderboards from day one. Although, to PC players, this will be like me being king of the retards. Oh well, I couldn't be happier with my console shooters at this point.
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
TL;DR 60" > any PC monitor.
They wont have 60fps for MW3, because its still using the same outdated engine as MW2 and MW, and that was limited at 30fps. I do get 120fps on my 120hz monitor, and i can definitely tell the difference between 60>120.
It's being advertised as having 60 FPS.
“I don’t really know. I mean we really revamped this engine. We put a whole new audio system in and it is as competitive as anybody out there. You can go out and name your engine and call it whatever you want, right. You know, I’ve done that before; I’ve seen that trick and the bottom line is, this game will run at 60 frames a second. Not sure any of our competitors will. Not sure I’ve seen any of our competitors on the console especially running at 60 frames a second and I’d be a little scared at this point. In June if I was looking forward to a particular game that wasn’t on the console and running at 60. And I think 60 is our competitive edge and you just don’t throw that away.”
Time will tell. In terms of viewing pleasure, of course people are going to have their own preference, but I prefer my 600hz (blah blah sub field refresh I know) to any 120hz or 240hz tv/monitor. The motion looks odd to me. To each their own. Out of curiosity, what GPU(s) do you use?
Hmm, last i heard they were still using the old engine, but if its been revamped good luck to them, i wont be playing it, but im sure there will be many people will enjoy it, which is ultimately what you need to do I run 2x580s in sli, on an AW2310 monitor. Sometimes it drops below 120, but not too often
I see why you prefer PC. That's pretty fuckin' baller.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
TL;DR 60" > any PC monitor.
More like GL have fun playing on a 60" tv which has huge input latency. Reason i prefer monitors is because input lag is so much lower, and there's really no benefit to playing on a 50" when you gotta move back so much more to see the whole screen, while i can just move the monitor closer and it'll pretty much be the same. Playing on a bigger screen is more of a "omg this tv is so big looool!" situation than a practical matter.
On October 19 2011 00:17 Serejai wrote: Real gamers spend the $30 or so required to wire up their computer to the TV in the living room and have the best of both worlds :o
Yeah... if you want a screen resolution of 25 DPI (which you don't)...
Also, any g-card that's gonna be capable of running BF3 well at all is going to have a miniHDMI port... a connection costing far less than $30.
What? I don't think you understand how gaming on a large TV works... my picture is better quality on my 60" Plasma than it is on my 24" monitor. DPI has absolutely nothing at all to do with it unless you, for whatever reason, view your TV from a foot away as you do computer monitors.
Agreed. Some of these last few posts are hilariously undereducated... I play all of my games + commentate on a 42 inch 1080p TV that's about 2-3ft away from where I sit and DPI is the least of my concerns. If I had an even bigger TV, I'd sit farther away as well.
As far as playing on xbox vs PC, if you're not a very hardcore gamer who enjoys being a couch potato and all of the other things that come with console games, that's probably the best for you. For people like me who play exclusively to smash everyone else in the server, the fact that I can't even 180 instantly on a console means there's no way I'm playing anything on a console. I've even picked up an XIM3 (kb+ms adapter for xbox) and you're still limited to however fast the highest sensitivity in the game is so no matter how hard you flick, there's still delay. Shame, really :<
EDIT: Shit. I just contributed to a fucking console vs pc war *leaves thread for another week*
You do realise theres a handful of games that actually run at 1080p right? (Consoles)
You do realize that graphics are the least of my concern right? Framerate/responsiveness/my ability to kill the fuck out of everything are the only things I care about
If i can make every game look more like this, I would: [img]http://www.esreality.com/files/inlineimages/2009/69551-gjafiken.jpg[ /img]
So you're telling me you'd rather play at 30fps on a 60'' TV then 120fps on a 24'' monitor? Each to their own i guess
120fps would be if you're using a 120hz+ monitor and you have a baller ass GPU. You can attain 60FPS (supposedly) on MW3 for consoles. If you can tell the difference between 60 and 120 without having both side by side, then you are my hero.
TL;DR 60" > any PC monitor.
More like GL have fun playing on a 60" tv which has huge input latency. Reason i prefer monitors is because input lag is so much lower, and there's really no benefit to playing on a 50" when you gotta move back so much more to see the whole screen, while i can just move the monitor closer and it'll pretty much be the same. Playing on a bigger screen is more of a "omg this tv is so big looool!" situation than a practical matter.
But... if all players on a console, or at least most, are experiencing similar display lag, wouldn't everyone still be on even footing? O.o
Same would hold true for PC monitors I would imagine. Unless I'm missing something. I guess if you were running a PS3 on a nice PC monitor, it would be kinda nice to have a reaction time boost.
LOL @ people who think there is some sort of "subjective" difference to mouse input versus an analog stick. Mice are 100x more lethal - that's a fact. Cross-platform play for Quake 3 on Dreamcast was hilarious, as will be cross-platform play in CS:GO. People talking about smoother aiming etc. are crazy.
That being said, if you prefer the feel of console shooters over PC, power to you. But better input? lol
On October 18 2011 09:42 ayaz2810 wrote: Im really upset about the console version of the game. The controls are bad, the graphics are worse. It sucks down to the most fundamental things (24 players?! Ha!). The PC version shows a lot more promise imo. Since I can't stand playing shooters on PC, it looks like I'm stuck with MW3. It's a shame really. You PC players are going to have a glorious fall/winter.
Can I ask why you don't like shooters on PC? I mean its clearly superior in all aspects for the FPS genre. I can understand people saying they don't want to spend money on a gaming PC (Well actually I can't seeing as the price of an xbox, HDD, HD Screen + xbox live membership for 6 years will be the same as high end gaming PC), but I have never seen anyone saying that they prefer shooters on the xbox?
Just curious.
Guy said it a couple posts after you asked. Controller FEELS SO MUCH BETTER. WASD and a mouse just doesn't feel good to me. I played a boatload of CS back in the day, and even then something felt off to me. Mouse and keyboard feel way too... twitchy. Of course you can lower the sensitivity, but then you're on par with a console controller anyway. Not to mention a 50" plasma tv > a 17/19/22/etc inch monitor. It goes against what a lot of gamers believe in, but I will take a shooter on console over PC 100% of the time. RTS games, RPGs, and some other genres though.... absolutely PC all the way.
The worst thing about this post for me is the Screen comment. I find it funny, each year people are buying bigger TV's, and each year they are sitting further away from them. My friends 40" HD plasma looks so crap compared to my 20" computer screen, simply because we have to sit so far away from it.
And the mouse should only feel twitchy if you have a dirty rollerball or parkinsons. To me its like someone saying, Would you rather drive a transit van, or a bugatti veyron. Nearly every person would pick the veyron. I guess every now and again someone would say the van.
When I play MW2, which I do every day, I sit roughly 3 feet away from my 50" television. I do it with every game actually. Being able to see the tiniest movement in the pixels works wonders on shooters. I feel like if I don't have to move my head to see elements of the game, I'm not close enough. So your reasoning with screens does not apply to me. As for the mouse, I find more sensitivity to be a negative thing. Shifting the position of your hand slightly to get more comfortable causes you to go from pointing ahead, to staring at the sky spinning in circles at 500 miles per hour. Maybe that's a little extreme, but yeah....
If I were a pro PC shooter player, I could see how it would be an awesome benefit. Although, MLG has shitty Black Ops on consoles, and I'm speculating with no information whatsoever, that they will pick up MW3 at some point. Even if they don't, I will be near the top of the leaderboards from day one. Although, to PC players, this will be like me being king of the retards. Oh well, I couldn't be happier with my console shooters at this point.
EPT
I run 2x580s in sli, on an AW2310 monitor. Sometimes it drops below 120, but not too often 
