EPTConsole Gamers Get Killed against PC Gamers - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sva
United States747 Posts
| ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Ghad
Norway2551 Posts
I do however HATE that games are dumbed down for consoles, and this spills over into PC gaming. FPS games and strategy games are empty shells on consoles, when they don't need to at all. Just use the proper fscking controllers. | ||
|
JrK
United States283 Posts
On July 27 2010 03:26 OneFierceZealot wrote: why are you guys hating on consoles so much? consoles are 1/3 the cost of a pc and are just easy as fuck to use. hmm why spend 12 hours downloading a game to my pc when i can just pop in a game right out of the box onto my 360. The only 2 things a mouse has over a controller is its moves faster and is more accurate. OK. cool thats good for WANTING TO BE THE BEST THATS EVA BEEN. but controllers have these awesome things called "triggers" so that you actually feel like shooting instead of pointing and clicking. and to be honest it feels more natural to move around worlds with a controller rather than the awkward as fuck w/a/s/d keys. just my thoughts. Those are mighty exaggerations. I personally like the freedom involved. It may be 1/3 of the cost (assuming you dont know how to build your own, because otherwise a pc would be far cheaper), but I can do 10x as much with it. I'm an IT guy so I guess I am biased as I like to take charge and do things my way, and not let a console guide me into thinking I'm good. | ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
So yes, if you put a team of console controller users against a team of mouse & keyboard users, of course the mouse users are going to win. It's easier to get to "X" level of skill with that setup. I also prefer the social aspect of the console, but that may just be because the majority of my friends play games on consoles. | ||
|
SC2Phoenix
Canada2814 Posts
| ||
|
St0rmRush
Brazil448 Posts
On July 27 2010 03:43 yakitate304 wrote: I'd say that it's easier to be good when gaming on the PC. I play Modern Warfare 2 on the 360, and recently played it on my friend's PC... It's just so much easier, I was pretty much dominant in the games I played. Sniping was a joke. I like the challenge and precision/dexterity required by using the dual analog system. I have about 4 Prestiges on my 360 account so I've obviously logged some serious minutes on it, and yet I sat down at the PC version for the first time and had some of the most dominant rounds I've ever played. Point & Click just seems way to easy. Also, I feel that the console style is a much more organic, instinctive style of play. Even in "hectic" situations, I always felt calm/safe when I was playing the PC version - there was no sense of panic/difficulty even when stuff was exploding around me or bullets were flying past my head. I never really felt like I was in the game, I always felt that I was just clicking something like playing one of those Flash reflex games. Even after some 12+ days spent playing MW2 on the console, I still get pulled into the game, and I think a lot of it has to do with the controls. Shooting a gun and hitting someone 50 yards away isn't supposed to be easy, and headshotting a prone opponent from 200 yards with a sniper isn't supposed to be easy. I feel like the PC gives too much of a crutch, which takes my head out of the game because I never feel like I'm in danger of have anything difficult to do. With the console I need to focus not just on finding a good spot/vantage point/route, but also on having precise aim. It's much more realistic, IMO. So yes, if you put a team of console controller users against a team of mouse & keyboard users, of course the mouse users are going to win. It's easier to get to "X" level of skill with that setup. I also prefer the social aspect of the console, but that may just be because the majority of my friends play games on consoles. Just raise the difficult when playing with mouse+keyboard and your problem is solved. =D | ||
|
Yeidan
Canada8 Posts
On July 27 2010 03:32 TiNk3R wrote: Those are mighty exaggerations. I personally like the freedom involved. It may be 1/3 of the cost (assuming you dont know how to build your own, because otherwise a pc would be far cheaper), but I can do 10x as much with it. I'm an IT guy so I guess I am biased as I like to take charge and do things my way, and not let a console guide me into thinking I'm good. And you aren't exaggerating when you say that ? Even considering a few extra gadgets for your xbox360/ps3, you'll get in the 350-400$ range maximum. I've been building "gaming pcs" for over 10 years and never came close to that for a pc that could run games on high settings smoothly(which is close enough to a console's default quality settings usually). Let's be honest, a gaming PC setup is rarely under 900-1000$ (The PC, monitor and accessories). I only play consoles when I have a few friends over. A LAN party is fun but certainly not as simple and straight forward as this : Give controller to friend, put NHL2010 in console, play. Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way. | ||
|
MiyaviTeddy
Canada697 Posts
On July 27 2010 03:44 SC2Phoenix wrote: Omg the reaction time on the AWP shot is absrud.... That's PC for you. Console, no. As much as consoles are getting popular and more super convenient in the things they do and have, keyboard and mouse combo is just so accurate and flexible compared to a gamepad controller. You can flick the mouse and be able to move to a point extremely fast (and controlled too) and make shots that are almost godlike. You flick a gamepad stick and you get like something but not as controlled or anything close to a mouse. | ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
On July 27 2010 03:51 St0rmRush wrote: Just raise the difficult when playing with mouse+keyboard and your problem is solved. =D It's hard to raise the difficulty when playing against other people online. I suppose I could tell them "play better", or maybe wear an eyepatch to reduce my vision... | ||
|
JrK
United States283 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote: And you aren't exaggerating when you say that ? Even considering a few extra gadgets for your xbox360/ps3, you'll get in the 350-400$ range maximum. I've been building "gaming pcs" for over 10 years and never came close to that for a pc that could run games on high settings smoothly(which is close enough to a console's default quality settings usually). Let's be honest, a gaming PC setup is rarely under 900-1000$ (The PC, monitor and accessories). I only play consoles when I have a few friends over. A LAN party is fun but certainly not as simple and straight forward as this : Give controller to friend, put NHL2010 in console, play. Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way. No not really. With shopping around, and finding some really good deals I could build one that was pretty decent for ~$500. Are you going to want better? Yes! Which is why I love pc gaming. If I want to boost my $500 system I can go get a killer video card. edit: yeah if you add in monitor then it'll be much higher, but then you'd have to add in TV price to the console price. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote: And you aren't exaggerating when you say that ? Even considering a few extra gadgets for your xbox360/ps3, you'll get in the 350-400$ range maximum. I've been building "gaming pcs" for over 10 years and never came close to that for a pc that could run games on high settings smoothly(which is close enough to a console's default quality settings usually). Let's be honest, a gaming PC setup is rarely under 900-1000$ (The PC, monitor and accessories). I only play consoles when I have a few friends over. A LAN party is fun but certainly not as simple and straight forward as this : Give controller to friend, put NHL2010 in console, play. Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way. I think he means that if you build your own, it should be far less than 3x the cost of a console. And if you are including the price of a monitor shouldn't you include the price of a TV? Decent TV $$$$ > Monitor $$. Also, a PC lets you do stuff besides game. That said, I think consoles have a place. It is faaar easier to just grab a controller and have some fun if friends are over rather than lug a bunch of pc's/laptops and set up a LAN. PC for competitive gaming and console for party time IMO. | ||
|
Runnin
208 Posts
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. I've posted this like 8 times now but you must not have read the rest of the thread. Sports have all sorts of "artificially imposed difficulties" yet are very successful despite a lot of them having the same premise (get the ball/puck into the goal/zone). Starcraft, as another person mentioned, has the artificially imposed difficulty of 12 unit grouping caps. How can you willfully ignore "artificially imposed difficulty" in games you do enjoy while hating on the same thing in console games? Half of this community posts about how MBS and infinite group sizes in SC2 as reasons the game is worse than BW, yet all it is is the removal of artificial difficulties. BTW there's a professional soccer league where you have to play with a stick and on ice skates and only get 6 players. Some people think it's more skilled than the league without the ice. Hockey is a monumental waste of time. | ||
|
son1dow
Lithuania322 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:05 yakitate304 wrote: It's hard to raise the difficulty when playing against other people online. I suppose I could tell them "play better", or maybe wear an eyepatch to reduce my vision... How about a harder game then. On July 27 2010 04:34 Runnin wrote: I've posted this like 8 times now but you must not have read the rest of the thread. Sports have all sorts of "artificially imposed difficulties" yet are very successful despite a lot of them having the same premise (get the ball/puck into the goal/zone). Starcraft, as another person mentioned, has the artificially imposed difficulty of 12 unit grouping caps. How can you willfully ignore "artificially imposed difficulty" in games you do enjoy while hating on the same thing in console games? Half of this community posts about how MBS and infinite group sizes in SC2 as reasons the game is worse than BW, yet all it is is the removal of artificial difficulties. BTW there's a professional soccer league where you have to play with a stick and on ice skates and only get 6 players. Some people think it's more skilled than the league without the ice. Hockey is a monumental waste of time. Your comparisons are silly, in sports they do "kick" the ball with their asses. It's hard enough to kick it with your feet, which also is skillfull enough and also a 100 times more impressive. | ||
|
Yeidan
Canada8 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:12 ZeaL. wrote: I think he means that if you build your own, it should be far less than 3x the cost of a console. And if you are including the price of a monitor shouldn't you include the price of a TV? Decent TV $$$$ > Monitor $$. Also, a PC lets you do stuff besides game. That said, I think consoles have a place. It is faaar easier to just grab a controller and have some fun if friends are over rather than lug a bunch of pc's/laptops and set up a LAN. PC for competitive gaming and console for party time IMO. If that's what he meant specifically I misunderstood. I still stand by my point that buying a gaming PC is a much bigger investment than a console. Who doesn't already have a somewhat-good TV in his house to plug a console into ? A TV can also do more than play games and usually every house has one for its "Watch TV and movies" nature. A console plugs right into it. A computer monitor usually is invested when looking to buy that gaming rig, for every gaming PC I've build for friends, they wanted to have a monitor to go with it (that isn't statistically relevant, but buying a monitor with your PC isn't too uncommon.) Also, not to get into a debate to see who can make the cheapest gaming PC, but if you aren't pirating your OS liscenses, I can't see how you can get a PC at 500$ when just windows and your average video card is easily 350-400$ by itself. On this note, off I am to play some NHL2010 with some friends up until 10 and then gamestop midnight launch here I come. :D | ||
|
JrK
United States283 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:54 Yeidan wrote: If that's what he meant specifically I misunderstood. I still stand by my point that buying a gaming PC is a much bigger investment than a console. Who doesn't already have a somewhat-good TV in his house to plug a console into ? A TV can also do more than play games and usually every house has one for its "Watch TV and movies" nature. A console plugs right into it. A computer monitor usually is invested when looking to buy that gaming rig, for every gaming PC I've build for friends, they wanted to have a monitor to go with it (that isn't statistically relevant, but buying a monitor with your PC isn't too uncommon.) Also, not to get into a debate to see who can make the cheapest gaming PC, but if you aren't pirating your OS liscenses, I can't see how you can get a PC at 500$ when just windows and your average video card is easily 350-400$ by itself. On this note, off I am to play some NHL2010 with some friends up until 10 and then gamestop midnight launch here I come. :D Correct with a non pirated copy of Xp for example, and a monitor it will be higher. (Although you can get monitors off craigslist for $10/free... yay for 17" crts!!) For fun I made up a pc on newegg and my total was $447ish with two rebates. Would I want to play on it? No, but it'll handle medium settings just fine (sc2). When it comes to getting an xbox/ps I just hesitate because it's ultimately limited. Eventually you will have to buy everything all over again. With a pc you can just upgrade pieces as you go. But I'm also open to the idea that I haven't been in the console world much, and there might be tons of stuff I'm missing out on. If I see an advantage I'd go get one right now. (Assuming the wife is on board.....). edit: 17" not 17' lolz | ||
|
THE_oldy
Australia97 Posts
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. No, you... but seriously, your the one missing the point. I'm not saying console FPSs are more skillful purely because its harder aim with a thumb stick. It's about the game that can be built around this fact which is my point. Go back and read my post properly: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=138038¤tpage=6#105 Just to clarify I'm not saying either PC or console is better or more skillful of whatever; really it's the games made for them that matter. Both systems allow for different competitive game play elements, and I'm trying to point out what console has to offer. This "Q3 is a good game - Q3 on console is bad game - therefore console FPSs are bad" fallacy is getting in the way. On July 27 2010 00:19 Ruthless wrote: 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. When you play FPSs enough you stop thinking about the controls, and only think about what you want to do rather than how to do it. When you want to turn left you just think "turn left" as apposed to "move my mouse hand 1.5 inches to the west". This is true of PC FPSs and its true of console FPSs. If you feel that you have to think about the controls more when playing console FPSs it means you are bad at them. Not having a go, its just the truth. One of my mates, who only plays FPSs on console actually tried to make the exact argument your using, but in reverse. He said "the mouse just doesn't have the same feel as a console, it doesn't give the same control to fully let you do what you want". Unbelievable right?, and yes i did call him an idiot for trying to argue such a thing, but it goes to show how much preference can factor into it. If you haven't played a lot with both mouse and controller i can imagine it would be jarring to swap between them. On July 27 2010 00:19 Ruthless wrote: 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. 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. There are "physical handicaps" or difficulties of varying amounts with any control systems. We both agree that mouse and controller have different difficulty levels to perform the same task. But if it was simply so that the lower the difficulty the better, then my hypothetical system (with zero difficulty) would be the best, and this is just not true. These has to be some difficulty to the controls, and the developers have to know this difficulty, and build the game around it. It's not that one difficulty is better than another, its just that different things are possible with different difficulties. This is the main point i was trying to get across in my first post. I really want to address the posts after Ruthless', particularly about 180deg turns, halo 2, and GoW, but I have to sleep! I will post more tomorrow. Edit: Wow, a whole new page of posts made it up in the time it took me to write this, i hope my post is still relevant because cbf reading until tommorow. Sleeptime... | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote: Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way. Well that's kind of the point. I love my 360 for action-adventure games, platformers and stuff, but when it comes to FPS and strategy games, I just don't think they can compete. The experience is horribly diluted by the simple fact that its the controller holding me back. So irritating to have to play FPS games on easy-normal settings on the console when I can blitz through the same game on hard-insane on the PC. An example of this is my experience with Borderlands about a month ago. I got it through Gamefly on my XBox and played around for a bit, aiming was a nightmare and even the beginning area was pretty tough. I got some epic rifle after the first major mission, but still didn't feel that powerful. I didn't hang on to it for too long and sent it back. About a week later I bought that big 2K games pack on Steam for ~$80 with Civilization IV, Bioshock 1/2, Borderlands, etc. and tried it out on the PC. Oh my GOD it made a huge difference and the game is damn-near trivial now that I can kite those dog things around and quickly switch weapon, zoom in and snipe some guy on a tower in a split second. That kind of differential frustrates me to no end. I'd much rather stick to action-adventure platformy-type games, than FPSs on my XBox. I can usually only get over it if the game is a console-exclusive title, like Halo. But, that game would suck on PCs anyway. The sluggishness of movement and low gravity would make multiplayer just painful to play. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
Fumble
156 Posts
I think recently with the arrival of halo and COD, there has been a bit of rivalry as this is not the first time i've heard of the epic PC gamer vs console gamer fight. The fact that COD on xbox live is full of 13 year old kids that think they are so 1337 at games doesn't help the case. | ||
| ||
