On July 24 2010 04:04 FragKrag wrote: Sometimes the controls may be optimized for console play so much as well. I remember trying to play Dead Space on PC and the game was very awkward and sluggish for some reason :/
could be just a bad pc port, saints row 2 (and gta 4 i think) simply have awful pc ports since they dont bother optimizing the fucking engine and making the coding just work poorly on the pc in general.
edit: one thing i do agree heavily with the article though, is that games (for the most part), should be designed with the pc in mind, with them trickling down to consoles afterwards. Pc simply has so much greater potential in terms of both hardware and software that it seems like it would be easier to code for the pc then convert it to work for consoles than the other way around, much like how its soo easy to code for unix (for mac and linux), then convert to windows based systems, versus coding for windows then converting to unix.
Actually, coding for consoles is much easier than for PC. You only have to put in one set resolution/refresh rate and you're making everything under specific hardware configuration and optimize it towards it. What you put as PC potential (it IS potential) - flexibility and wide range of available hardware/software - actually makes coding things harder as you have to take more variables into account.
In my opinion, there are games that are better played on a PC (FPS and strategy games for the most part) and those better played on consoles (arcade style games, fighting games etc.).
Halo series should never even be released for consoles in the first place (but marketing takes precedence I guess, and it wouldn't be such a hit were it released for PC), I tried to play it on a PC and it was rather horrible, constantly felt like I would be under water.
A part of thing I mean when talking about FPS games.
PC:
Console:
Overall complexity and the level of dynamics are two completely separate worlds in both cases. In my opinion, the PC FPS games are not only more hardcore, they're just way more dynamic and spectator friendly than the boring and unclear console games.
this shouldn't be a surprise or anything, mouse>controller but i still like to play fps on console just because it feels better. and theres always the trigger on the 360 to fire
On July 24 2010 04:12 Ace wrote: You are kidding yourself if you think it's "easier to code for the PC than for console". It's not that simple because there are numerous things to take into account for both machines. At the end of the day you'd sound a bit more believable if you knew that a console is literally just a dedicated graphics hog of a computer.
It's probably easier in the sense that for the most part, PCs are more of an open platform. Don't need to consult Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo in general if you want to make a PC game :>
yeah, sorry if that wasnt clear, but this is largely what i meant, i realize that coding for either platform is very challenging and requires a lot of hard work, but if you think about it, pc games have to optimize for a vast variety of hardware and whatnot, while consoles are all standardized (one xbox 360 wont behave largely differently from another one), and like you said, a console is basically a glorified pc with a different input, so you really just have to adjust for that. thats all i really meant by that comment.
edit: i suck at being clear, basically, since all the hard work is already done for optimizing across the board for pc's, you just put in the specific hardware configuration for the console, adjust for input, and conform to whatever standards microsoft/sony/nintendo/whatever already put in place seems like an easier process (in the long run) than the other way around.
On July 24 2010 04:04 FragKrag wrote: Sometimes the controls may be optimized for console play so much as well. I remember trying to play Dead Space on PC and the game was very awkward and sluggish for some reason :/
could be just a bad pc port, saints row 2 (and gta 4 i think) simply have awful pc ports since they dont bother optimizing the fucking engine and making the coding just work poorly on the pc in general.
edit: one thing i do agree heavily with the article though, is that games (for the most part), should be designed with the pc in mind, with them trickling down to consoles afterwards. Pc simply has so much greater potential in terms of both hardware and software that it seems like it would be easier to code for the pc then convert it to work for consoles than the other way around, much like how its soo easy to code for unix (for mac and linux), then convert to windows based systems, versus coding for windows then converting to unix.
Actually, coding for consoles is much easier than for PC. You only have to put in one set resolution/refresh rate and you're making everything under specific hardware configuration and optimize it towards it. What you put as PC potential (it IS potential) - flexibility and wide range of available hardware/software - actually makes coding things harder as you have to take more variables into account.
In my opinion, there are games that are better played on a PC (FPS and strategy games for the most part) and those better played on consoles (arcade style games, fighting games etc.).
Halo series should never even be released for consoles in the first place (but marketing takes precedence I guess, and it wouldn't be such a hit were it released for PC), I tried to play it on a PC and it was rather horrible, constantly felt like I would be under water.
To be honest, fighting games could be played on any platform. If you're remotely serious about playing them, you won't be using a controller anyway, but a fight stick instead. Those are typically USB compatible and as such there is no real reason why fighting games should be on console. Playing them with a controller is about equally ineffective as playing them on a keyboard.
On July 24 2010 03:59 Abenson wrote: Well... It's only logical that in terms of control, keyboard > controllers And therefore it's also logical that PC gamers are better than console gamers
If you beat Wayne Gretzky in hockey one on one by using a hockey stick while he was using a 2x4 with a salmon tied to the bottom, would you be the better player??
If Babe Ruth had only ever learned to play baseball with his dick, and was much worse at it than any random noob with a bat, he would be a weak player. And, "if I had any sense, I would be playing the game correctly, and then I'd be owning you!" is pathetic.
On July 24 2010 03:59 Abenson wrote: Well... It's only logical that in terms of control, keyboard > controllers And therefore it's also logical that PC gamers are better than console gamers
If you beat Wayne Gretzky in hockey one on one by using a hockey stick while he was using a 2x4 with a salmon tied to the bottom, would you be the better player??
DarQraven(and some other misguided posters) it seems like you just want to argue that PC > Console when from a programming standpoint it doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. Controllers/fighting sticks/keyboards/mice - all of them are just input devices that could be used for both systems. The "problem" with Console gaming is that it's usually directed to casual gamers whereas PC gamers are usually more hardcore. The reason you also find fighting games on consoles more is because it supports arcade style gaming - multiple people can play the game comfortably watching a television and everyone can get a chance to play quickly. This just can't happen with a PC because they currently are not designed for this kind of environment.
So...anyone know where I can get a keyboard+Mouse setup for an xbox 360? : P
But seriously.
Its like someone going into a fight with a chainsaw while the other guy uses his bare fists. Why don't people think that console gamers that have had time with the PC would do just as well?
I used to play counterstrike for a really long time, but I got bored of it. I didn't have an extremely expensive computer so I guess thats why I was never able to play competitively, you need 60 frames to really compete.
And since I didn't have 1500 bucks to buy a great gaming computer...I bought a 360 instead. : D
On July 24 2010 03:59 Abenson wrote: Well... It's only logical that in terms of control, keyboard > controllers And therefore it's also logical that PC gamers are better than console gamers
If you beat Wayne Gretzky in hockey one on one by using a hockey stick while he was using a 2x4 with a salmon tied to the bottom, would you be the better player??
If Babe Ruth had only ever learned to play baseball with his dick, and was much worse at it than any random noob with a bat, he would be a weak player. And, "if I had any sense, I would be playing the game correctly, and then I'd be owning you!" is pathetic.
This much is true. Having the mouselook freedom that a KBAM setup allows you, a mouse player can see his surroundings much better than a controller player.
Upon exiting a door into a left-to-right hallway, - a mouse player can check both sides very quickly and react accordingly. - a controller player will pick a side and hope the opponent doesn't come from the other side. This can be remedied by having a very high look sensitivity, at the cost of being able to aim properly.
In this situation, a controller player will learn that the best way to enter a hallway is to rush in and hope for the best, which, in most decent shooters, is just plain stupid. My five years of experience playing with good situational awareness versus their 5 years of playing with blinds on will result in a better tactical sense.
So yeah, being gimped by a bad controller does impact your skills over prolonged periods of play. Would any of the current pro BW players have developed their micro skills if they had been playing on laptop touchpads instead?
if i played quake against a console gamer. ANY console gamer, make him the best console quake player ever. i would win, and i'm not even that good. the flexibility is just not there for high levels of play. that awesome flick shot that you get...you can only get on pc, because on console you can't flick. you just go at the same speed, over and over. and then games like cod adapt to this inconvenience by making it a primarily camping game. soooo boring.
the worst is that most console gamers i talk to don't know how great pc gaming is. they just tell me cod is the best game ever made, and that jesus must have programmed it. they tell me it's better than quake, cs, tf2, basically some of the best multiplayer fps games ever made.
On July 24 2010 04:40 Ace wrote: DarQraven(and some other misguided posters) it seems like you just want to argue that PC > Console when from a programming standpoint it doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. Controllers/fighting sticks/keyboards/mice - all of them are just input devices that could be used for both systems. The "problem" with Console gaming is that it's usually directed to casual gamers whereas PC gamers are usually more hardcore. The reason you also find fighting games on consoles more is because it supports arcade style gaming - multiple people can play the game comfortably watching a television and everyone can get a chance to play quickly. This just can't happen with a PC because they currently are not designed for this kind of environment.
I believe you, in fact, are misguided. This discussion is about control schemes, and the article is, too. The platform itself has relatively little to do with it, but since MS won't allow KBAM setup on their console, it makes it as simple as PC = keyboard/mouse and console = controller.
No one here is under the impression that the mere presence of a console in your home will decrease your ingame performance. In other words, your post doesn't contradict *anyone* in this thread.
On July 24 2010 04:16 barbsq wrote: i think i am kinda biased in the sense that i played gta for console with a bunch of buddies drinking beers in a dorm room while we took turns going on rampages, doing random vehicle stunts/explosions and just dicking around in general, while i would be more inclined to play a pc version if i was the only one playing it.
There's probably some nostalgia built in as well. Playing games with digital input like the original Super Mario Bros on an emulator is just not the same without the controller for me.
Also Manit0u, the Halo CE video you posted is from the PC version.
Actually the arguments about being easier to code for the consoles is wrong. Although the pc hardware differs, really your just coding in c or c++ and using direct x 9/10/11, the OS and drivers usually deal with the difference in the hardware, at the end of the day a c compiled exe is going to be read the same on any pc. The consoles on the other hand have stupid political thing, such as the ps3 having 8 cores, this means that Sony basically force programmers to do multi threading, in a time when no one used multi-threading for games, also the consoles tend to be closed end machines that don't just run what you tell them to, they are designed to do a specific task.
On July 24 2010 03:59 Abenson wrote: Well... It's only logical that in terms of control, keyboard > controllers And therefore it's also logical that PC gamers are better than console gamers
If you beat Wayne Gretzky in hockey one on one by using a hockey stick while he was using a 2x4 with a salmon tied to the bottom, would you be the better player??
If Babe Ruth had only ever learned to play baseball with his dick, and was much worse at it than any random noob with a bat, he would be a weak player.
What are you even trying to say/prove?
And, "if I had any sense, I would be playing the game correctly, and then I'd be owning you!" is pathetic.
No one's making excuses, or saying that one version is correct or anything. I'm just saying it's beyond stupid to compare because PC>Console conversions operate differently because of the hardware you use.
A tiny stick for the thumb that you can move 1cm vs a mouse held in the hand that you can move as far as your table allows. Guess which is more accurate.
I never understood why console manufacturers stuck with the silly pads. Yeah, it was cool on the SNES where you didn't need any digital input or more than 6 buttons, since everything was pretty simple and in 2d anyway. But those same pads for 3d shooters with actual physics and tons of special commands? Are you serious? That's like driving your car while sitting in the rear seat using wooden sticks to control the wheel and pedals. Consoles should have made the switch to keyboard/mouse years ago, especially since the advent of online services like Xbox Live, which would have allowed chatting, forums or even, dare I say it, social networking. *shudder*.
The fact that most PC single player games are horrible ports of console games nowadays, with butchered controls, silly "features" like autoaiming, horrendous camera control and messed up menus isn't exactly the best development either.
of course people got crushed, I was one of them. You cant play FPS on 56k. The ping was like 500. Dreamcast was ahead of its time, unfortunately it was released before broadband was available basically EVERYWHERE.
I seriously cant believe you brought up Q3 on DC. -_-
On July 24 2010 05:07 Sadist wrote: Q3 on dreamcast had HORRIBLE ping.
of course people got crushed, I was one of them. You cant play FPS on 56k. The ping was like 500. Dreamcast was ahead of its time, unfortunately it was released before broadband was available basically EVERYWHERE.
I seriously cant believe you brought up Q3 on DC. -_-
Okay, name another crossplatform game that didn't introduce nerfs to the mouse players.
EPT
