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.
I have included the videos AFTER I wrote the post. I don't have much experience with playing FPS with a controller (always found it atrocious and unbearable to try it out for any extended periods of time). I have made it through Halo 1 on a PC and tried some PvP there, which was rather craptastic. The way Halo engine is designed, they should put big robots instead of humans/superhumans/aliens as playable characters and it would make much more sense and be awesome, as it is, it sucks. In my opinion 'standard' FPS games should not be released for consoles at all, 'tactical' ones work much better there and aren't as horrible on PCs too (vide: Rainbow Six: Vegas).
What I mean by standard and tactical?
Standard: - free movement without wall-hugging etc. - not much cover (bar the usual walls) - speed is of essence - usually long range combat
Tactical: - cover to cover movement - a lot of cover everywhere - speed isn't as much of a factor as positioning - close range combat
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.
Compared to halo, quake/ut/ect are definatly visibly faster. Small player models dart there way around the map at high speeds, yet skilled players manage to aim at them. Its not easy but its doable. Halo has big player models with slow acceleration, yet it is still hard to aim. Again, its doable, but hard. So if we say for the sake of argument that physical aiming skill is exactly even between halo vs q3, then the fast speed makes for a more deep and skillful game right? um... well... why?
Have you ever considered that the reason q3-esc games are at such blistering visible speeds is because they have to be? This is because, relatively speaking, the mouse is so easy to aim with. You have to make it hard somehow, so you make everyone small and fast.
Halo doesn't have this constraint. It has slower, bigger players, which opens up possibilities for different game play mechanics. For example melee attacks are a fundamental part of halo combat. Even though generally melees will make up a minority of your kills there is a lot to be said for the threat of a melee attack, which is how they manage to be a core element of gameplay. It's really hard to explain unless you already play halo and know what I'm talking about. This game mechanic just doesn't work that well with fast move speed and high acceleration (and i wish developers would stop trying to shoe horn it into FPS it doesn't belong)
Grenades are an even more fundamental part of halo. Grenades define halo, they are what give combat in halo its flavor and depth. I couldn't possibly hope to explain all the intricacies of halo grenades here if you don't already know, but they are all about predicting the opponent, denying areas, and forcing movements. Again these game elements don't work with faster, twitchier movement (not that developers haven't tried.)
So even though halo might look slower than q3, there is plenty going on. Particularly in competitive matches you have to make non stop split second decisions.
Of course underlying all this is still shooting and aiming. You always have the opportunity in halo to bust out a few good shots and win from a disadvantages position, and i think this is key element of any good competitive FPS.
However add a mouse to halo and you completely break it. That opportunity to win by a few good shots becomes the bread and butter of the game rather than a trump card, and all of the depth that comes from the other aspects of the game melts away. Compared to playing halo on xbox, playing halo on PC feels bad, and i do come from a PC FPS background. The only thing that saves halo PC from being terrible is actually the lag in online play. Compensating for the lag provides a challenge to the otherwise too easy to aim guns, but really, halo 1 was not balanced for a mouse (or online play really).
The point I'm trying to make is that using a console for a competitive FPS is very doable. Aiming is natively more difficult, but this can be a good thing that allows for different game mechanics than are balance-able with a mouse. However the game absolutely has to be build from the ground up to take advantage of this; i can not think of one example of an FPS built for both PC and console that was better on console.
The problem I have with this is that I think it is only more difficult to hit a large slow moving target because of physical handicaps imposed by the equipment instead of someones mental ability. Humans can keep up with a smaller faster moving target if the equipment allows them to manipulate the environment properly. I personally think games are all about mental strength. Sure both activities are quite difficult, but the PC I feel frees you to truly test that strength on the game and not on overcoming the limitations of a small range of motion.
I am sure you can argue that there is mental strength in lining up the joystick and hitting shoot as you said above, but I feel that the PC model makes for much more strategy and dynamic play by not requiring you to focus so much on just moving the cursor around the screen.
For example: I think you should be able to make a 180 turn while jumping as fast as possible if you feel the situation warrants it instead of having to die knowing your opponent is behind you but having to concede to the fact that he got behind you and therefore has got you because he has so much time to kill you.
Guys this thread is funny as heck, Now I've been alive to have first played pong and pac man and have an Atari and a Commodore 64 and played Quest in the arcade and stood in line to play street fighter1,2,turbo,alpha and play Doom or Wolfenstien with the ARROW KEYS on a Key board which nearly everyone did to start off with.
So I never liked fps games, not my thing, and I thought dumb as hell, but my friends were all hardcore quake players and they come up to me on day in this revelation. So they were at this internet cafe, not likes the ones we have, but it was like 8 dollars and hour and the first of its kind in Toronto. And so they were on lan, and suddenly they start getting owned so hard core, it was like there was this bot and it was a killer, just crazy reflexes and unbelievable movements. So they searched around the internet cafe and wow, they found this kid who was actually using a MOUSE to play the fps game!!!! So they were like WTF, holy crap, you can do that with a mouse? So after nearly throwing up trying to get use to the mouse, the next day, they were owning like they never owned before. I can't say when this really was, maybe early 90's or so,mmm 95/6 or so.
ANYWAYS, this entire who is better console or PC player never came up, cause we thought, Damn every year either the PC or the Console got better and we got better games and we thought we were all blessed with all the technological advances that society had bestowed upon us, keeping in mind that pac man was truly an exciting game for me growing up and my favorite was space invaders.
Things is, a nerd/geek was a nerd/geek back then, but then something changed!!! Omg, the regular jock normal kids liked to play console games too, but that's all they liked, so thus with I think the game Tekken, where it was more about pressing a combination of buttons and shit like that than real skill as in Street Fighter (probably the first real video game rivalry-cause we were just happy to have Mortal combat as well) that there was no longer this geek/nerd unity, but rather the lower forms of life began to take over console gaming and PC gaming the nerds/geeks reigned surpreme. The reality is, the average console gamer doesn't even know you exist, they don't care about who is better the PC gamer or the Console gamer, cause the PC gamer doesn't really matter, they just wanna have fun and play their game and play with their buddies and bet on each game.
It doesn't mean that they are less skillful, but they don't care about better setting or resolution or fps or sensitivity, they just wanna put in the disk, load it up and play and enjoy themselves. they don't go around saying, 'Hi I'm a console gamer' The just say what game they play and if they are asked who is better console or pc, they'd be like, huh? If an FPS was never released on a console then they'd probably never bother to play and FPS game. Simple.
So guys, I'll tell ya, a Street Fighter pro fighter, he damn good with his joystick and 6 buttons and would rock you with your keyboard and mouse or whatever the hell you used, but OF COURSE, FPS is better with a mouse and keyboard,l of course Street fighter is better with a joy stick and of course console players really don't even know that PC gamers care this much.
Seriously, for those you who can't get over this, please do. Esports globally ain't ever gonna grow with such an attitude like that, but of course SC2 owns all you nerds anyway ^^*
Also that GOW2 video from the same post is just dumb. The guy who posted that must have trawled youtube looking for the worse representation he could find. The people in the video were obviously messing around, or it was the first time they had ever played. I've only ever played/got good at GOW1, but from what i've seen GOW2 is very similar. GOW is actually a really deep game, very tactical, though you couldn't tell by watching it. It didn't think 3PSs were a good genre for competitive play, or a good genre at all until i played that game, not that i had played much of them. It is the only game I've ever played that had a cover system i liked.
Kind of irrelevant from the topic, but for my own curiosity's sake, can you explain a bit of the complexities? I remember watching it at WSVG or something and thinking that it looked like two teams playing aim_map, and just running at eachother.
Clearly the current system of consoles could be made in a way to play SC2 just like the PC's. Sure maybe they won't be ultra graphics, but all you really need is a usb keyboard (check) usb mouse (check) and a disc (haven't gotten mine yet) oh wow I can play SC2 just like I could on the PC! Just make the bundle, make it like $80-90, and Blizzard now has their newest RTS on all consoles minus Nintendo. Sure some idiot will say "I want to play SC using Project Natal... but everyone is on fair grounds with hardware now.
Heck I know a few friends who bought PS3 SSF4 TE arcade sticks to use them on their PC's. Thats the benefit of USB and eventually developers will make use of them to duplicate the experience both ways. Then we actually have an equal comparison to make when games are played the same both ways.
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.
Compared to halo, quake/ut/ect are definatly visibly faster. Small player models dart there way around the map at high speeds, yet skilled players manage to aim at them. Its not easy but its doable. Halo has big player models with slow acceleration, yet it is still hard to aim. Again, its doable, but hard. So if we say for the sake of argument that physical aiming skill is exactly even between halo vs q3, then the fast speed makes for a more deep and skillful game right? um... well... why?
Have you ever considered that the reason q3-esc games are at such blistering visible speeds is because they have to be? This is because, relatively speaking, the mouse is so easy to aim with. You have to make it hard somehow, so you make everyone small and fast.
Halo doesn't have this constraint. It has slower, bigger players, which opens up possibilities for different game play mechanics. For example melee attacks are a fundamental part of halo combat. Even though generally melees will make up a minority of your kills there is a lot to be said for the threat of a melee attack, which is how they manage to be a core element of gameplay. It's really hard to explain unless you already play halo and know what I'm talking about. This game mechanic just doesn't work that well with fast move speed and high acceleration (and i wish developers would stop trying to shoe horn it into FPS it doesn't belong)
Grenades are an even more fundamental part of halo. Grenades define halo, they are what give combat in halo its flavor and depth. I couldn't possibly hope to explain all the intricacies of halo grenades here if you don't already know, but they are all about predicting the opponent, denying areas, and forcing movements. Again these game elements don't work with faster, twitchier movement (not that developers haven't tried.)
So even though halo might look slower than q3, there is plenty going on. Particularly in competitive matches you have to make non stop split second decisions.
Of course underlying all this is still shooting and aiming. You always have the opportunity in halo to bust out a few good shots and win from a disadvantages position, and i think this is key element of any good competitive FPS.
However add a mouse to halo and you completely break it. That opportunity to win by a few good shots becomes the bread and butter of the game rather than a trump card, and all of the depth that comes from the other aspects of the game melts away. Compared to playing halo on xbox, playing halo on PC feels bad, and i do come from a PC FPS background. The only thing that saves halo PC from being terrible is actually the lag in online play. Compensating for the lag provides a challenge to the otherwise too easy to aim guns, but really, halo 1 was not balanced for a mouse (or online play really).
The point I'm trying to make is that using a console for a competitive FPS is very doable. Aiming is natively more difficult, but this can be a good thing that allows for different game mechanics than are balance-able with a mouse. However the game absolutely has to be build from the ground up to take advantage of this; i can not think of one example of an FPS built for both PC and console that was better on console.
The problem I have with this is that I think it is only more difficult to hit a large slow moving target because of physical handicaps imposed by the equipment instead of someones mental ability. Humans can keep up with a smaller faster moving target if the equipment allows them to manipulate the environment properly. I personally think games are all about mental strength. Sure both activities are quite difficult, but the PC I feel frees you to truly test that strength on the game and not on overcoming the limitations of a small range of motion.
I am sure you can argue that there is mental strength in lining up the joystick and hitting shoot as you said above, but I feel that the PC model makes for much more strategy and dynamic play by not requiring you to focus so much on just moving the cursor around the screen.
For example: I think you should be able to make a 180 turn while jumping as fast as possible if you feel the situation warrants it instead of having to die knowing your opponent is behind you but having to concede to the fact that he got behind you and therefore has got you because he has so much time to kill you.
hmm i think this is what he meant:
back when halo 2 was still alive on xbox live i would join competitive mlg games. now when you reach a certain level you will find players done honing the mechanics. much like starcraft. at lower levels the "battles" would consist of who can aim accurately, get a good gun, and aim the fastest. tactic doesnt really play a big role since everyone is nubs and you have people that cant handle the concept of moving AND aiming AND shooting.at higher level of plays it is different. now its all about tactic and getting the power weapons and being able to bring the reticule to the body the fastest.
whats my point? well in pc if you kill someone that was behind you in fps its not that big of a deal. you just turn around and fight with you being at a slight disadvantage. NOW in console games if you can kill someone and get another kill on a guy that was behind you that was BIG deal. and its a big thing because it takes awhile to turn around/aim and many just concede at that point. you have to outmanuever your opponent and use every tricks in the book to stay alive because of the limitations presented in console games.
example: i just killed a guy but i noticed on my radar there is someone is behind me and shooting at me (my shield flickering from his shots). i run behind a wall and watch my radar and my screen for any movement (also pray the enemy doesnt have any grenades) as the radar blips closer, i jump up over the enemy has he turns the corner on me and i assasinate him from the back.
now i could have just tried to turn around and resume another firefight but i would have lost. because the time that it takes for me to turn around, asses the situation, and my low shield/health puts me in a bad position. in pc i can turn around on the whim and fight with only being a "shot" behind which is no biggy.
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.
All fps console games have auto aim and in GoW you can just run around spamming the b button or w/e and you will be jumping from wall to wall having perfect cover because the game does it for you. PC games don't hold your hand like that and there is much less or no ai interaction when you play a game like CS or quake.
Of course your average PC FPS player will beat you average console FPS player, mouse and keyboard are just better and more precise when it comes to FPS, but that doesn't necessarily means that one side is more skilled than the other.
You could argue that PC player are more "hardcore" because greater control means skill plays a higher roll while in a console the limitation of the controller is just artificial and unnecessary, but then again, couldn't you say the same thing about the unit limit selection in BW?, it is an artificial limitation that makes the game harder, yet i doubt many SC players consider it unnecesary.
Both types of platforms present different challenges when it comes to FPS and therefore require different sets of skilles, while in the PC aiming represents and almost infinite skill cieling as it depends only on player skill, in the consoles the limitations in this aspect makes other such as positioning more crucial.
I have no doubt that a mouse and a keyboard are quite simply better when it comes to FPS games, but saying you're more skilled than others players because you beat them while having superior control over the game is just retarded.
The only genres that I buy for my console are fighting games, sports, and RPG. I only have 1 FPS on my console, which is Bad Company 2. Everyone knows that console FPS has auto aim, but surprisingly, Bad Company 2 does not have auto aim, so it does take skill compared to other console FPS titles. I would have gotten it for my PC, but I don't want to buy a whole new computer just for 1 game.
Reading some of these posts is laughable really. I agree that PC FPS games takes more skill, but it all comes down to preference. Not everyone is coordinated or feels comfortable playing a FPS on a mouse and keyboard. To look down on console players is just stupid. But hey, this is the internet, and people like to believe their e-peen is very large.
On July 24 2010 03:39 theSAiNT wrote: I've always been an elitist PC gamer snob and I've always believed this to be true so it's hardly news to me. If I remember correctly, they made Q3 for the Dreamcast compatible with the PC version and as expected, the console gamers were massacred. It's not the fault of console gamers but the game pad is just a far inferior precision input device for these types of games. Nevertheless, it's sad that Microsoft shelved this project. It might have given PC development a shot in the arm.
The problem with PC development not being nearly as big as console development in terms of sheer numbers is really quite simply. Firstly computers change 'current hardware' every 2-6 months depending on what type of component and how the market is currently performing. Secondly with the advent of 64-bit computing developers in the PC market effectively have to code almost three times the amount of raw-code to produce the same thing as before and ensure compatibility on both 32 and 64 bit systems. Third, and finally most average individuals have not the skills nor the desire to pursue keeping a computer up-to-date and running at all times and would much rather put up with dated graphics and buy a console because - for them, the graphics aren't a big deal.
Personally for me none of those reasons attribute to my preference to PC gaming, quite simply, I can afford to maintain my computer so why not, and also I grew up using a computer from a very young age (7), I didn't even own my first console until believe it or not Nintendo 64 came out, seven years after I had used my first computer. As such I simply have a preference to PCs to the point that I play considerably poorer at even the same games on consoles (I get dominated by my friend in Modern Warfare 1 for the PS3, but when we play MW2 on the PC, he can't even come close to my play level). I attribute this purely to the fact that a mouse at 3500 DPI will always be miles ahead of a cumbersome, inaccurate, analog stick.
The control sets of console games are completely inferior, the capability of their systems are inferior, and overpriced by PC standards (by the time you get all the accessories and 4 controllers you are getting into the 500+ range for a box that has worse stats than a $500 computer). It is really sad that console gaming is so huge, especially with all the FPS genres. I can understand if you want to play mario kart or madden or something in front of your TV, but lets face it, as far as FPS goes, it should be on a PC. Hell, you can emulate nearly every console game from previous systems and get USB controllers.... I will never buy another console tbh.
On July 27 2010 02:49 Wr3k wrote: The control sets of console games are completely inferior, the capability of their systems are inferior, and consoles are getting so expensive lately you might as well buy a PC. It is really sad that console gaming is so huge, especially with all the FPS genres. I can understand if you want to play mario kart or madden or something in front of your TV, but lets face it, as far as FPS goes, it should be on a PC.
Three cheers for Wr3k for saying it like it is. Within half a second I can make a pin-point accurate head shot with my mouse anywhere on the screen. Why? Because modern gaming mice are not only insanely fast but perfectly accurate. In console games whenever I do play them you know what I find my-self doing? SQUINTING! The graphics are so bad, the color depth to low, and the screen elements so squashed and far away on a console game I have to squint to see anything that is going, especially to aim for a head shot. Time and again in Modern Warfare 1 on the PS3 I'm looking RIGHT AT someone and I can't see them because they are 'camoflauged' in other words, the game engine is so dated it makes no distinction at all between a players camo, and the surrounding area. Sure they should be difficult to see, but not impossible, especially when you are aiming down a sniper scope.
Besides when have you ever seen a video this classic when it comes to console gaming?
On July 26 2010 23:53 theSAiNT wrote: 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.
Perfectly put, thanks. Playing FPS with anything other than a mouse must be the biggest waste of time we have ever invented, after softcore porn.
The console controllers are very nice for many kinds of games, I love Fight Night Round 4 on my PS3, but for fps: WTFLOL.
On July 27 2010 02:49 Wr3k wrote: The control sets of console games are completely inferior, the capability of their systems are inferior, and consoles are getting so expensive lately you might as well buy a PC. It is really sad that console gaming is so huge, especially with all the FPS genres. I can understand if you want to play mario kart or madden or something in front of your TV, but lets face it, as far as FPS goes, it should be on a PC.
Pic very related.
Three cheers for Wr3k for saying it like it is. Within half a second I can make a pin-point accurate head shot with my mouse anywhere on the screen. Why? Because modern gaming mice are not only insanely fast but perfectly accurate. In console games whenever I do play them you know what I find my-self doing? SQUINTING! The graphics are so bad, the color depth to low, and the screen elements so squashed and far away on a console game I have to squint to see anything that is going, especially to aim for a head shot. Time and again in Modern Warfare 1 on the PS3 I'm looking RIGHT AT someone and I can't see them because they are 'camoflauged' in other words, the game engine is so dated it makes no distinction at all between a players camo, and the surrounding area. Sure they should be difficult to see, but not impossible, especially when you are aiming down a sniper scope.
If you get an HDMI cable, over a regular RGB, console games look sooooo much better. Blew my mind how much of a difference a $5 cable made to the quality of the picture. I don't need to squint at all anymore.
Generally I've been very unimpressed by my console gaming experience with the exception of platformers and 3rd-person action-adventure games like God of War and Dante's Inferno. Consoles are excellent for games like that, but when it comes to FPS I just don't consider getting it on my XBox. The experience just sucks.
And there's no such thing as a strategy game on a console.
On July 27 2010 03:00 RayBani wrote: you can get mouse for PS3 called FragFX wich dominates gamepad players
300 for the console, 60 bucks every time a game comes out, and then all the perhipherals, you're into about 900-1200 dollars for any serious console gamer. A gaming PC which could handle the same graphics as the console, and in some cases better graphics, costs this much....... I mean its great if you can ONLY afford a console and one game I suppose, but in reality people act like computer are 3500 bucks and console are only 400, when its more like 1200-2000 for a computer and 400-1200 for a (full peripherals/game collection) console. I mean one of the best games I've played on PC in the past few months is Alien Swarm is it is FREE. I'm not trying to argue that one is BETTER than the other, only that PC is better for me, and that in terms of monetary cost, many people seem to be unaware for a little bit more than their console they can get a quality PC.
EPT
lol![[image loading]](http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu61/Genzou_Fotos/PC_Gaming_Master_Race.jpg)
