On July 26 2010 03:47 THE_oldy wrote: To say using thumb sticks to aim takes skill out of aiming in a FPS is just ignorant.
Despite being a predominately PC player, my favorite ever competitive FPS is halo 1 on xbox. People who say there is no depth to any console FPSs really do not know what they are talking about (or missing out on).
Halo 1 on xbox has a ridiculous skill cap when it comes to aiming, even the best of the best can't get near it. You wont find anyone "hard to distinguish from from an aim bot" on halo, and believe me, it is not for lack of skill. Thumb stick aiming still has the possibility of those same aim bot-ish snap shots, but they are much harder. You push thumb stick in exactly the correct direction and pull the trigger at the exact right time as the cross hair passes over the target. Like someone mentioned earlier, its like the difference between 0.50secs and 0.49secs, especially when playing on a high sensitivity, which most competitive players do.
You're totally missing the point.
Everybody agrees with you that it's hard to aim on a console. But it's an artificially imposed difficulty which to many people is unwarranted because a better solution exists.
To add to the many analogies already out there, it's really hard to play starcraft using your feet. Nobody will disagree. But it's a pointless endeavor when hands exist. Starcraft is a lot easier with hands.
You could even go so far as to create a professional league you had to play with your feet. You could even argue it's more 'skilled' than the league which allows hands. But to me, it's a waste of time. In the same way that 'competitive' Halo is a waste of time.
No, you... but seriously, your the one missing the point.
Just to make it clear, my argument in not "It's harder to aim in with a thumb stick therefore console FPS are more skilful."
The part you quoted wasn't making this argument, I was just explaining how there is a lot of skill to thumb sticks. The difficulty in using them does not provide any kind of skill cap, or 'limitation' as others were saying, it just more difficult to achieve the same tasks. Purely the existence of this difficulty IS NOT my argument, though its existence IS significant to my argument. It is important you can make a distinction between the two, because were going in circles with this particular point.
On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote: Notwithstanding, I do not believe a retarded control scheme allows you to create new, interesting game styles. The grenade and melee tactics still exist with keyboard and mouse. You say that they would 'melt away' by increased accuracy from plain shooting though you don't provide any good reason.
Why are you going in circles when clearly I understand what you are saying. I spent one line saying that my quote was accurate and the rest of the paragraph explaining that the control scheme does not create better game play. You even quote it! They are connected by 'notwithstanding'. You are quoting out of context.
Notwithstanding: prep. In spite of: The teams played on, notwithstanding the rain. adv. All the same; nevertheless: We proceeded, notwithstanding. conj. In spite of the fact that; although.
Let me explain the role of auto aim in console shooters: Aiming with a thumb stick is so hard you need some kind of aim assist. PC only FPS players might scoff at the idea, thinking somehow it takes away from the skill of aiming. This isn't true of course because even with an appropriate amount of auto aim its harder to aim with a thumbstick than a mouse. I say "appropriate" because auto aim is something that can be adjusted. This is one area where thumbstick shooters have an advantage over mouse shooters. Developers can increase and decrease the influence of the auto aim however they want. You can individually balance how hard it is aim with each gun.
This is how a weapon like the halo sniper rile, a 100% accurate one headshot kill gun, can exists in a balanced state amongst pistols, SMGs, grenades, melees ect. The sniper rifle is forced, or at least weighted towards its niche of a long range weapon by an adjustment of the auto aim when using it: When it is scoped it has a low amount of auto aim to assist aiming at targets at long distance, how ever when it is not scoped it has absolutely none. So it still has the potential to insta kill at close range via a no scope headshot, but these are the type of kills that make it into frag videos.
The central weapon of the game, the pistol, takes two hits anywhere to take down a players sheild, and one shot to the head to kill them. "Pistol" is a misleading name, as its role is more of an all purpose rifle. It is the only gun that can be considered 'solid' in every situation. So your bread and butter kill is via a pistol headshot, yet a no scope headshot with the sniper is frag vid worthy.
On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote: Increased accuracy would also affect grenade and melee aiming. If anything, these tactics would become even more developed.
No, because these elements don't gain their strengths from good aiming. Melee's are about positioning, timing and understanding the flow of the fight. Same with grenades, in all their uses, its about knowing where and when to throw them. Actually aiming them is the easy part.
Not already knowing this really shows that you don't understand nature of these game elements, their depth, or the dynamic way they interact with each other. The difficulty in shooting each gun is delicately balanced with these elements, and every other gun. Take out that delicate balance and you ruin the game, a la halo PC.
Again you pluck a quote. Where's the rest of the paragraph?
(Personally, it feels like the splash damage of these abilities are what make them good on the console because hitting stuff is just so hard. However, as long as closer impacts do more damage, they will still be good if you increase accuracy, see rockets in Quake.)
You clearly know a lot more than me about Halo's dynamics. I'm not arguing that. But I play Quake. My intuition is that grenades would be similar to Quake grenades/rockets. When used defensively, it's about spatial control. When used offensively it's about leading and predicting. And the reason why they work is because of splash damage. But look at the possibilities when the aiming scheme is accurate! Check out the air rocket juggling by Voo in that video. Or my favourite one linked below.
I'm not saying Halo isn't balanced. Nor am I saying it's not fun. Rock, paper, scissors is balanced and fun but it doesn't make it a deep game. Nor very fun to watch. At the end of the day, I can't be impressed by an 'amazing' kill in Halo because an average player could pull them off in Quake. And I don't see why anybody would bother spending time 'competing' in a baby version of a game. if you want to play, play with the big boys.
You're exactly right about grenade mechanics in halo being the same idea as rockets in Quake. However to say that an average player in Quake could pull off a Halo frag movie makes no sense at all. You must be watching Halo frag videos like the person is using a mouse. Why? Of course it's not impressive if you don't remember that they are using a controller. That quote means absolutely nothing unless you're implying that an average Quake player could pick up a controller and win MLG Halo competitions (which I'm sure you're not), so why include it? Basically all you said was, "I don't play Halo so I don't understand what is so great about their frag videos", when others could say the exact same thing about your Quake videos. The reason people spend time competing in Halo is because to people who aren't completely close-minded playing FPS with a controller can be fun, skill intensive, and competitive. It's better if you just ignore the console fanboys who make dumb claims like "consoles take more skill", and just remember that it isn't a matter of more or less skill, just different skill sets.
Its the same argument as saying WoW arena doesn't take skill.
Hardcore gamers can turn anything into an intense competition of skill, no matter what the game's mechanics are.
The problem arises when a game exists in both formats. Games like Dragon Age get dumbed-down in control and strategy in the PC version in order to just make it playable on consoles (imagine if casters in DA:O had as many spells as Baldur's Gate Wizards and had to deal with that kind of interface with a console controller! Ouch!). Playing a Vanguard in Mass Effect 2 on the PC was a piece of cake. Charge in and start hammering out shotgun blasts in slow-motion with easy aiming of the mouse. It would have been quite a lot more difficult to spin around and blast shit like that on a console controller.
I think the complaints of PC versions getting dumbed-down to satisfy console owners is a very valid one.
halo 3 is defenetly the most competitive game ever on console. and i found it almost as enjoyable to watch as broodwar and sc2beta tournament espn and MLGPRO made halo3 so huge. console pro gamers makes tons more money than pc pro gamers well. atleast halo pro gamer
On July 30 2010 01:56 rza wrote: halo 3 is defenetly the most competitive game ever on console. and i found it almost as enjoyable to watch as broodwar and sc2beta tournament espn and MLGPRO made halo3 so huge. console pro gamers makes tons more money than pc pro gamers well. atleast halo pro gamer
maybe the most people play it but theres no way its the most competitive. and plus its hard to follow fps when its not 1v1, (from a spectators pov.)
On July 30 2010 01:41 Runnin wrote: You're exactly right about grenade mechanics in halo being the same idea as rockets in Quake. However to say that an average player in Quake could pull off a Halo frag movie makes no sense at all. You must be watching Halo frag videos like the person is using a mouse. Why? Of course it's not impressive if you don't remember that they are using a controller. That quote means absolutely nothing unless you're implying that an average Quake player could pick up a controller and win MLG Halo competitions (which I'm sure you're not), so why include it? Basically all you said was, "I don't play Halo so I don't understand what is so great about their frag videos", when others could say the exact same thing about your Quake videos. The reason people spend time competing in Halo is because to people who aren't completely close-minded playing FPS with a controller can be fun, skill intensive, and competitive. It's better if you just ignore the console fanboys who make dumb claims like "consoles take more skill", and just remember that it isn't a matter of more or less skill, just different skill sets.
You have a good point. Here's the problem:
On July 30 2010 01:54 Bibdy wrote: The problem arises when a game exists in both formats.
It would be relatively easy, and has been done in the past, for players to compete in the same game with different controllers. You don't even need to buy a PC! (http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/6918/Play-Halo-on-Xbox-with-a-Keyboard-Mouse/). And actually, I do suspect a group of decent PC fps players could win MLG Halo competitions with it. That's speculation but not exactly far fetched.
This is the dumbest shit ever to be arguing about. It's not like a game is an imposed challenge which when beaten will place you in the highest echelons of society, boo hoo who gives a crap if games are dumbed down for consoles and it "takes less for console gamers to beat the game"? (FPS for one aren't dumbed down). If you ever played MW2 on a console you can compare stabbing (or crouching if you use the default control setting) to taking your hand off your mouse to help you macro in starcraft, it's awkward and a lot of people simply resort to shooting at really close ranges instead of stabbing (or staying in place instead of drop-shotting), a PC gamer probably thinks they're a bunch of newbies but it's just the controller. Does this mean that consoles should be using a mouse and a keyboard? No way, the controller is enough, and console FPS players are perfectly happy with it. You place PC players vs console gamers and what the hell do you expect? Strategically they will be the about the same, tactically PC players don't have to take their hand off their mouse to stab, they don't have to clench their mouse real hard to crouch (you have to press the same stick you use to aim for a second while trying to keep it steady), etc. Also, comparing people that play FPS in consoles to people that played SC in the N64 is god damned stupid. Nobody ever liked SC on the N64, It's also an RTS and that's just impossible to implement in a console without keyboard or mouse.
On July 27 2010 05:17 THE_oldy wrote: Imagine some hypothetical system that can tell exactly were you want to aim, by perfectly detecting were your eyes are looking (or by reading your brain waves or something, take your pick). So when you see a player you could look at there head, press a button and "boom, headshot". Imagine Q3 with this control system. This would be broken, it wouldn't work as a game.
I think it would work as a game to be honest... at the highest level everyone has pretty perfect aim and it's all about strategy and tactics
On July 27 2010 05:17 THE_oldy wrote: Imagine some hypothetical system that can tell exactly were you want to aim, by perfectly detecting were your eyes are looking (or by reading your brain waves or something, take your pick). So when you see a player you could look at there head, press a button and "boom, headshot". Imagine Q3 with this control system. This would be broken, it wouldn't work as a game.
I think it would work as a game to be honest... at the highest level everyone has pretty perfect aim and it's all about strategy and tactics
Not to mention people tend to have different awareness and reaction times. Why do you think special forces in the army only accept people who can 1. notice 2. properly identify (ie: friend or foe) 3. shoot (or not in case of friend) their target in below 0.7 seconds (and take into account, that moving/aiming real gun is harder than a slight move of your wrist)? Not anyone can join them. The same thing would work for games, there are things that can't be achieved with practice, some people have it and some don't, those who have it would reach the top, others couldn't even dream about competing on the highest levels.
A word about Halo controls being intentionally sloppier.
Why on earth would you plan an FPS game that is based on well... FPS-ing... and then argue that that isn't the core of the game and the game relies on OTHER factors to make it good. Auto-aim and auto-targeting are for people I am not controling, aka A.I. team-mates which don't have any analog-aiming system going for them. NOT for the character I am trying to primarily shoot from first person in the first person shooter game I am playing. (logical right?) I could easily set up a choose your own adventure game where you just decide which rooms the main character enters and which places he stands from to shoot people down. Unrealistic and I could not easily setup I know...
Goldeneye 007... N64, you had auto-aim... BUT YOU COULD TURN IT OFF IN MULTIPLAYER!!!Why... oh why... did nintendo think that having the auto-aim option toggleable was a good idea...Because it WASand allowed the console to be more competitive among multiple players.
Why do "next-gen" games not account for competition? It's not like they aren't competing for your sales already....
I had millions of thought going through my head as I read your posts about the issue being discussed...but they all fell out after the marathon read and became jumbled into a soup of console vs pc anger. I hope you all realise that I actually am more informed than every living soul on here and my oppinion matters more than all of yours who pretty much state exactly what I am stating now but in slightly more rude or unobvious manner.
On July 26 2010 03:47 THE_oldy wrote: To say using thumb sticks to aim takes skill out of aiming in a FPS is just ignorant.
Despite being a predominately PC player, my favorite ever competitive FPS is halo 1 on xbox. People who say there is no depth to any console FPSs really do not know what they are talking about (or missing out on).
Halo 1 on xbox has a ridiculous skill cap when it comes to aiming, even the best of the best can't get near it. You wont find anyone "hard to distinguish from from an aim bot" on halo, and believe me, it is not for lack of skill. Thumb stick aiming still has the possibility of those same aim bot-ish snap shots, but they are much harder. You push thumb stick in exactly the correct direction and pull the trigger at the exact right time as the cross hair passes over the target. Like someone mentioned earlier, its like the difference between 0.50secs and 0.49secs, especially when playing on a high sensitivity, which most competitive players do.
You're totally missing the point.
Everybody agrees with you that it's hard to aim on a console. But it's an artificially imposed difficulty which to many people is unwarranted because a better solution exists.
To add to the many analogies already out there, it's really hard to play starcraft using your feet. Nobody will disagree. But it's a pointless endeavor when hands exist. Starcraft is a lot easier with hands.
You could even go so far as to create a professional league you had to play with your feet. You could even argue it's more 'skilled' than the league which allows hands. But to me, it's a waste of time. In the same way that 'competitive' Halo is a waste of time.
No, you... but seriously, your the one missing the point.
Just to make it clear, my argument in not "It's harder to aim in with a thumb stick therefore console FPS are more skilful."
The part you quoted wasn't making this argument, I was just explaining how there is a lot of skill to thumb sticks. The difficulty in using them does not provide any kind of skill cap, or 'limitation' as others were saying, it just more difficult to achieve the same tasks. Purely the existence of this difficulty IS NOT my argument, though its existence IS significant to my argument. It is important you can make a distinction between the two, because were going in circles with this particular point.
On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote: Notwithstanding, I do not believe a retarded control scheme allows you to create new, interesting game styles. The grenade and melee tactics still exist with keyboard and mouse. You say that they would 'melt away' by increased accuracy from plain shooting though you don't provide any good reason.
Why are you going in circles when clearly I understand what you are saying. I spent one line saying that my quote was accurate and the rest of the paragraph explaining that the control scheme does not create better game play. You even quote it! They are connected by 'notwithstanding'. You are quoting out of context.
My whole post was written to you, and you should already know what you said! I quote the relevant parts of your post so you know when they relate most to what I'm talking about at the time. I'm going to the effort of walking through your reply line by line for you, not trying to take you out of contex. Anyone else should viewing the post should know 'contex' from reading previews posts.
I took extra time explaining making the distinction of exactly what my argument *wasn't*, because it is a bit of a common red herring is this debate. Perhaps this was more for the benefit of other readers than your self.
I don't quote every line in your posts because its not always needed, and they're not all relevant to the argument your making. The last part of that paragraph was just speculation on how you thought halo mechanics might work, which is what i was addressing at the time anyway.
On July 30 2010 00:51 theSAiNT wrote: You clearly know a lot more than me about Halo's dynamics. I'm not arguing that. But I play Quake. My intuition is that grenades would be similar to Quake grenades/rockets. When used defensively, it's about spatial control. When used offensively it's about leading and predicting. And the reason why they work is because of splash damage. But look at the possibilities when the aiming scheme is accurate! Check out the air rocket juggling by Voo in that video. Or my favourite one linked below.
I'm sure we both know much more about our respective games than either could explain here. From your description i'm guessing that rockets could possibly have at least as much to em as grenades. The area control from grenades in halo is as much an offensive tool as a defensive. I can think of ways that rockets would be similar to how grenades work in halo, but i can also think of many dynamics of grenades that just wouldn't work with a rocket. I sure you can think of the same for rockets. I'm sure we can agree that rockets wouldn't work at the speed of halo, and equally grenades wouldn't work at the speed of quake.
Watching that get quake video... Looks really fun actually. I can just tell i wouldn't 100% appreciate it though, having played barely any of it. Rockets are defiantly more of a "gun", than a supplementary to gun play like grenades. As a low grav scoutzknivez CSS player, the bunny hopping and rail gunning impress me. Enough in fact to want to try it, does q3 cost money? (and i wonder if servers are still active in Australia..). Also did i see spawn killing? Spawn traps were a big part of halo too, particularly in 2v2. When your teammate was on their spawn timer you had to know were to go to get him what spawn. You also had to know how to block/force em when your enemies are on spawn. This of course took advantaged map knowledge, but it was game changing.
When people say things like this...
On July 27 2010 02:02 son1dow wrote: I am sorry to point this out to those Halo\GoW fanboys, but if you think that there are impressive tactics\strategy in a game of Halo compared to what we see on a Quake Live duel which has been developing and evolving to what it is now for 14 years or so, you're just clueless. And this "it limits individual skill to reward teamwork" argument is just stupid, because surprise surprise, when get your individual skill on par with everybody else you still get to deal with teamwork on a Quake TDM 4v4 match.
... slander of halo notwithstanding, i know exactly what he means. How you can be playing a game for so long, know so much about it, and yet still learn more. I personally appreciate how deep FPSs can get, even with deceptively simple set pieces.
Also, when he talks about this limiting of individual skill it sounds like he's talking about halo 2. I could talk all day about the differences between halo and halo 2, suffice to say halo 1 > halo 2. Halo 2 is actually a good example of a lot of things that can be done wrong in a console FPS when compared to halo 1.
On July 30 2010 00:51 theSAiNT wrote: I'm not saying Halo isn't balanced. Nor am I saying it's not fun. Rock, paper, scissors is balanced and fun but it doesn't make it a deep game. Nor very fun to watch. At the end of the day, I can't be impressed by an 'amazing' kill in Halo because an average player could pull them off in Quake. And I don't see why anybody would bother spending time 'competing' in a baby version of a game. if you want to play, play with the big boys
Believe me, halo's balance is a little more deep than rock paper scissors. Can you at least admit that in light of the fact that you don't really know much about halo that it could be more deep than you think, perhaps maybe even the same league as quake? Halo videos might not look like much, but you have to understand it to appreciate most of it. I'm sure i miss a lot of the subtle brilliance going on in q3 frag vids too. That, and there are a lot of bad halo vids out there, I'll see if i can find you a good one, and explain what to look for in it.
On July 24 2010 04:11 ZlaSHeR wrote: Let me know when a console player can do this
Lol really? I'm huge on CS but that is a random shot... I've seen complete noobs get shots like that. Watch some Halo3 tournament play and you can see the same thing, or youtube and you can see noobs get lucky shots.
are you serious kid? hahah. that is not random, that is what is called muscle memory. Years of playing the game trains you to hit shots like that consistantly.
Im sorry but ive seen halo played at top level watching mlg streams and halo is to slow paced. sorry but ive never seen any nice shots like that in any console game lmao.
On July 30 2010 01:56 rza wrote: halo 3 is defenetly the most competitive game ever on console. and i found it almost as enjoyable to watch as broodwar and sc2beta tournament espn and MLGPRO made halo3 so huge. console pro gamers makes tons more money than pc pro gamers well. atleast halo pro gamer
maybe the most people play it but theres no way its the most competitive. and plus its hard to follow fps when its not 1v1, (from a spectators pov.)
^This. Though compared to halo1, halo 3 is more popular, far more accessible, and better for watching, halo 1 is more fun to play, and better for competitive play. Team play is were halo really shines (which is unfortunate for spectators) but halo 3 just doesn't allow individual skill to shine through to the same extent.
Lol really? I'm huge on CS but that is a random shot... I've seen complete noobs get shots like that. Watch some Halo3 tournament play and you can see the same thing, or youtube and you can see noobs get lucky shots.
are you serious kid? hahah. that is not random, that is what is called muscle memory. Years of playing the game trains you to hit shots like that consistantly.
Im sorry but ive seen halo played at top level watching mlg streams and halo is to slow paced. sorry but ive never seen any nice shots like that in any console game lmao.
Console might seem visibly slower when you look at the screen, but if you could see a video of their hands you would see other wise. Playing at a high level your thumbs are twitching about as fast as any mouse hand.
At least in MW and MW2, the autoaim in multiplayer is much different from the aim assist in singleplayer, in multiplayer it is barely noticeable and doesn't help that much.
On July 27 2010 05:17 THE_oldy wrote: Imagine some hypothetical system that can tell exactly were you want to aim, by perfectly detecting were your eyes are looking (or by reading your brain waves or something, take your pick). So when you see a player you could look at there head, press a button and "boom, headshot". Imagine Q3 with this control system. This would be broken, it wouldn't work as a game.
I think it would work as a game to be honest... at the highest level everyone has pretty perfect aim and it's all about strategy and tactics
Really? I must say i don't know that much about q3. But looking at quake frag videos i see rain gun shots that are impressive, but how could these type of perfect aim shots be normal if they make it to a frag vid.
However i do think a game could be made around such a control system. It would have to be a completely different flavor of game though me thinks.
On July 27 2010 05:17 THE_oldy wrote: Imagine some hypothetical system that can tell exactly were you want to aim, by perfectly detecting were your eyes are looking (or by reading your brain waves or something, take your pick). So when you see a player you could look at there head, press a button and "boom, headshot". Imagine Q3 with this control system. This would be broken, it wouldn't work as a game.
I think it would work as a game to be honest... at the highest level everyone has pretty perfect aim and it's all about strategy and tactics
Really? I must say i don't know that much about q3. But looking at quake frag videos i see rain gun shots that are impressive, but how could these type of perfect aim shots be normal if they make it to a frag vid.
However i do think a game could be made around such a control system. It would have to be a completely different flavor of game though me thinks.
To the guy who said an average Quake player could probably win those top tier Halo tournaments: keep dreaming. Being good at one FPS game doesn't mean you are going to do well at another. Both games have too many intricacies and levels of depth to just assume it's as easy as switching games. If that was the case we'd have seen them flocking to Halo for all the money out there.
On July 30 2010 01:54 Bibdy wrote: Its the same argument as saying WoW arena doesn't take skill.
Hardcore gamers can turn anything into an intense competition of skill, no matter what the game's mechanics are.
Disproven by counterexample: If I make a game that let's 2 players generate a random number, higher number wins, and a group of people become obsessed with this game, does it mean it's an intense competition of skill?
EPT
