Console Gamers Get Killed against PC Gamers

On July 24 2010 03:50 Zapperkhan wrote:
Sounds pretty bullshit that they researched this, since they have games that are live now that do cross platform play. Mainly being Shadowrun. Sounds ridiculous that this was semi recent.

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 :/

On July 24 2010 03:59 barbsq wrote:

based on some of the comments on that article, it seems that several of the articles have very questionable research behind them. Regardless, this is not surprising at all, pc simply has more freedom in terms of controls, especially in the first person. The only situation i think that consoles have somewhat of an edge might be in a 3rd person game, but that simply comes down to control style and user interface setup (imo, gta plays better on console than it does on pc)

On July 24 2010 04:09 Zapperkhan wrote:

Yea real shady. As if Voodoo really needs to convert console peasants to switch or something. As the OP mentions, they've had this experiment with the Dreamcast as well. They even have little dongles to plug your mouse and keyboard in to disguise it as a controller on your console.

I do kinda see what you mean with 3rd person games. Without autoaim though most still are a pain and wayyy better on the PC. I played the crap outta Vice City on the PC. 3rd person games don't require as much precision either or at least it feels that way to me.

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

I've heard from reliable sources

On July 24 2010 04:06 barbsq wrote:


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.

On July 24 2010 04:24 FragKrag wrote:


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 :>

On July 24 2010 04:27 Manit0u wrote:


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.

On July 24 2010 04:23 Hawk wrote:


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??

On July 24 2010 04:23 Hawk wrote:


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??

On July 24 2010 04:32 Severedevil wrote:

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 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.

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.

On July 24 2010 04:32 Severedevil wrote:

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 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. -_-

On July 24 2010 05:42 Ranix wrote:
It's all about control really- PC gamers will probably always straight up beat console games with a mouse and keyboard than a controller.

I would love to see some Korean pros try out StarCraft 64 for fun though.

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 :/

On July 24 2010 05:45 DarQraven wrote:


That would actually be pretty cool
I'd imagine that many of the units would completely change and the strategies would have to, as well.
Can't just use vultures the way they do now if you can't micro them.

On July 24 2010 05:09 DarQraven wrote:

Okay, name another crossplatform game that didn't introduce nerfs to the mouse players.

On July 24 2010 04:03 travis wrote:
I've always felt like pc gamers were just more hardcore than console gamers in general. Console gamers sit on their couch and eat potato chips and drink beer. PC gamers sit right in front of their monitor and don't move for 12 hours and tweak their drivers and game settings and pee into bottles.

+ Show Spoiler +

On July 24 2010 06:10 larjarse wrote:
I am loling at that gears of war 1v1 video. I'm sorry, it just looks boring and pathetic.. .Two dudes standing feet from eachother in game.. Its just really lame and slow paced. I really appreciate the quick and dynamic aspect of pc games. I am a PC gamer. My broish friends play MW2 and Deadliest Warrior. I don't even own an up to date console platform anymore, and I own them. They take MW2 pretty seriously too, but the only advantage they have over me is knowing the maps better.

On July 24 2010 06:20 Zapperkhan wrote:

It wasn't crossplatform, but UT3 for PS3 had kbm support without gimping them.

On July 24 2010 06:26 afg-warrior wrote:


but the arcade gamers of back in the day...way more hardcore..who would go to arcades and get good at fighters were even more hardcore...the way they use to like line their quarters of who was next. back then there was no xbox live or playstation network so these guys who would play street fighter, tekken, virtua fighter, dead or alive, mortal kombat would get together at arcades...much more social and hardcore

On July 24 2010 06:37 Bibdy wrote:
Man, these movies take me back to my UT days.

So much high octane insanity.

On July 24 2010 04:11 ZlaSHeR wrote:
Let me know when a console player can do this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diPonkYH0iU

On July 24 2010 07:08 GreEny K wrote:


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.

On July 24 2010 06:40 travis wrote:


well, i agree, arcade gamers are hardcore too lol. also given the nature of arcade games they have to be serious or they waste their money

On July 24 2010 06:34 DarQraven wrote:


It also had 10% reduced gamespeed compared to the PC version and still featured autoaim for controllers. Also, there were options to make controller-only servers and basically EVERYONE used them.
(Ex-avid UT player)

By the way, the reason I am actively discussing this is not because I want recognition for playing on the master platform or something. I don't need the e-peen.
Thing is, an initiative like this would open console player's eyes to the reality of the situation: PC isn't as stupid as many of them think it is. If, somehow, more console players started demanding KBAM support in their games, then game developers would be more free to make fast-paced shooter games again.

The last high profile one was UT3, and it released in 2007. Quake Live is a rehash of a ten year old game (although admittedly still the gold standard of arena shooters), and besides that there's only small indie projects like Nexuiz and Warsow. Personally I got VERY bored with modern FPS's because they simply offer no challenge anymore. Positioning and formation is only one aspect of the genre, yet that's what all the modern games are focusing on. Everything relating to aim and movement skills, as well as map control is completely removed.

The rise of the consoles has had a terrible, terrible (c) effect on FPS games in general, and I'd love to see that change.

On July 24 2010 07:04 Kashll wrote:


No joke, UT2004 for lief

On July 24 2010 04:23 Hawk wrote:


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??

On July 24 2010 07:11 Saturnize wrote:


So then buying a game would also be wasting money?

On July 24 2010 07:28 Manit0u wrote:
To tell a guy from an Aim Bot, you should first meet some people who are at least trying to be competetive in Q3, watch how they play once or twice over their shoulder and go nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uymAmt4Muc

On July 24 2010 07:27 travis wrote:


im talking about people who play a game to be competitive
i don't know what you are talking about
when you buy a game you own it
when you go to an arcade and put 2 quarters in you play until you have to put quarters in again

On July 24 2010 07:46 kainzero wrote:
i'm tired of hearing that "if pc gamers could use a keyboard + mouse they would murder console gamers."

well you can't.
just like you can't bring a women's basketball to a men's basketball game so it's easier to make your shots.

and comparisons across consoles, games, genres?
why not compare jai alai and lacrosse with golf and baseball?

i feel like the only people who feel that they are "better gamers" are people who aren't that good at their own game and need something to brag about, like a street fighter player calling tekken a button masher. chances are, the street fighter player is mediocre and just wants to show off at something.

if you're so good at q3 for pc, play q3 for pc instead of saying you'd kick ass on the DC if you had your pc controls.

On July 24 2010 07:46 kainzero wrote:

if you're so good at q3 for pc, play q3 for pc instead of saying you'd kick ass on the DC if you had your pc controls.

On July 24 2010 08:08 Mykill wrote:
RTS is almost impossible on consoles to be any good. its difficult to get the whole game going. your APM is like 10 because of the scrolling selecting and stuffs

Remember starcraft for N64?

Also needing two joysticks to control your shot instead the sweep of the mouse gives PC games a good edge in FPS shooting.

On July 24 2010 04:45 TLOBrian wrote:
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 08:25 johnnyspazz wrote:

do they play without crosshairs or is that just the result of capturing the fppov?

On July 24 2010 08:25 johnnyspazz wrote:

do they play without crosshairs or is that just the result of capturing the fppov?

On July 24 2010 08:24 Bibdy wrote:


Yeah, that certainly hasn't stopped a lot developers from trying, and failing horribly, to bring some kind of RTS experience (usually combined with an FPS or 3PS) to consoles.

It doesn't even have to be as awesomely balanced and intricate as Starcraft, it just has to have good gameplay and intuitive controls to sell well on consoles, but not a single one has even come close. The control systems are just a giant clusterfuck and you spend more time sitting there struggling with the controller to do what it is you want to do than witnessing the result and forming strategies.

Anyone played the Overlord games, or Brutal Legend on a console? Good fucking god...they're simple as hell AND their controls suck. You just don't get any more disasterous than that from a strategy standpoint.

On July 24 2010 07:46 kainzero wrote:
i'm tired of hearing that "if pc gamers could use a keyboard + mouse they would murder console gamers."

well you can't.
just like you can't bring a women's basketball to a men's basketball game so it's easier to make your shots.

and comparisons across consoles, games, genres?
why not compare jai alai and lacrosse with golf and baseball?

i feel like the only people who feel that they are "better gamers" are people who aren't that good at their own game and need something to brag about, like a street fighter player calling tekken a button masher. chances are, the street fighter player is mediocre and just wants to show off at something.

if you're so good at q3 for pc, play q3 for pc instead of saying you'd kick ass on the DC if you had your pc controls.

On July 24 2010 07:08 GreEny K wrote:


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.

On July 24 2010 08:49 Jibba wrote:

You're right on that shot, but I'm just going to leave this right here.

+ Show Spoiler +

On July 24 2010 09:03 SubtleArt wrote:
A mouse is way easier to aim with than a keyboard

On July 24 2010 08:44 Jibba wrote:
The complaint is that console FPS games are more popular when the skill ceiling, accuracy and precision are much lower. It's like wheel chair basketball getting better ratings than the NBA.

On July 24 2010 10:22 Runnin wrote:
If you were really skilled you'd use the Xbox 360 controller in your computer's USB slot to play CS and Quake, just jack the sensitivity up to where you can turn at mouse speed. You'd have to have supreme control to manage moving the thumbsticks enough to not spin wildly around in circles.

On July 24 2010 07:08 GreEny K wrote:


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.

On July 24 2010 08:49 Jibba wrote:
You're right on that shot, but I'm just going to leave this right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rvzb_UYVnA

On July 25 2010 07:09 ZlaSHeR wrote:


That was walle lol, considered one of the best awpers of all time, less luck than you think, especially in a pressure situation like that.

On July 24 2010 08:44 Mykill wrote:


Halo Wars lolol
my friend its like. its crap. its for the gamer who wants to say they play RTS and sounds smart

On July 25 2010 14:50 Jibba wrote:

Oh, you're right. I had watched it in window mode and didn't see the arm come out so I thought he was just taking a wallshot and got someone about to peek out. Guess that's why you need to go full screen. D:

Perhaps skill ceiling was the wrong term to use, because sticks are harder to use. Performance ceiling is better. You can't perform at the same level as PC gamers without a mouse. People do it because at that level, you're not just playing for fun. You're playing to be the best, but when your skill gets watered down by the mechanics, it's hard to say that. You could make a similar argument between BW and WC3.

On July 25 2010 07:03 Duban wrote:

Actually that would be physically impossible to do. Modern console joysticks can sense only 8 directions at 3 different levels. They can only sense up, down, left, right and 1 position in-between each of them. They can only sense that they're being held lightly, moderately, or all the way down. Even worse you actually have to move the joystick just to get it to stop moving so you can't just go a set speed, wind up at your position, and then stop.

A mouse on the other hand can move in at any angle, depending on how you move it, at any speed, and as soon as you stop moving the cursor stops moving. It's not about elitism or not, mice are just better tools than joysticks in every way. There's a reason joysticks went from standard to absolutely no computer support 10 years ago.

Oh yeah, I remember MW2. I just grabbed the fastest firing gun I could with the largest spray, pointed it in the enemies direction and something usually died.

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.

On July 24 2010 10:03 Ciryandor wrote:
And all those 360 degree trickshots are just BLEH on the consoles. TRY DOING THAT ON THE PC... people will laugh.

On July 24 2010 04:03 travis wrote:
I've always felt like pc gamers were just more hardcore than console gamers in general. Console gamers sit on their couch and eat potato chips and drink beer. PC gamers sit right in front of their monitor and don't move for 12 hours and tweak their drivers and game settings and pee into bottles.

+ Show Spoiler +

On July 24 2010 08:39 Obscure wrote:


They simply turn the HUD and crosshair off for the video.

On the topic of CPMA and what you will never see console gamers doing, my personal favorite

On July 26 2010 03:47 THE_oldy wrote:

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.

On July 26 2010 04:58 Jibba wrote:
I prefer badminton over football. I guess they're pretty equal sports.

Saying it's just personal preference is the easy way out. They're both first person shooters, and they share all the same basic rules. The differences are the control schemes, and then the way the engine is built around the control schemes.

On July 26 2010 05:13 Jibba wrote:
Yes, I did play both. Halo 1 was a mess on PC (aside from the fact that FPS was totally fucked up without console commands) because of how easy pistol kills were. Of course it was a problem on console as well, just not as bad.

Like I said before, it's a performance ceiling. You could connect a kb/mouse to Halo and break the game. You can't simply mesh basketball and football like that.

On July 26 2010 04:13 Manit0u wrote:
My question is: Why would you play Halo 1 on X-Box when you can play it on a PC (without emulators)?

On July 26 2010 05:23 Saturnize wrote:


Not everyone had a supercomputer when halo first came out. Its different today, I have a shitty computer in my house capable of running halo 1 on low-mid settings perfectly. Consoles were/are more convenient.

On July 26 2010 04:23 Jibba wrote:
What? MW1/2 are both console shooters ported to PC, and its felt in the mouse mechanics. Bioshock may not be competitive, but it's another console shooter that happens to be on PC. There, the mouse mechanics are simply atrocious.

On July 26 2010 04:23 Jibba wrote:
And I really don't think we're talking about the same degree of quickness and snapshot here. I've watched Halo frag movies and they really don't compare. The freedom of the mouse also allows you to be more aggressive, because the snap shots are easier to hit.

On July 26 2010 04:23 Jibba wrote:
Everything you just described goes on in Q3 and CS. If you treat Q3 like a mindless shooter and have the best aim/movement in the world, you'll still get destroyed. Players like Cooller slowed the game down many years ago to give themselves the highest % of success in each altercation and better map control. It just happens to be that today, players are so good that they can still do those things while traveling at extremely fast speeds. It's not a coincidence that powerups are usually refreshed within a second or two after popping. This is a fundamental aspect of map control. A similar shift and later readjustment happened in CS.

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

On July 26 2010 04:23 Jibba wrote:
The vo0 video just happens to be him playing regular CPMA which is why he can run around like that.

On July 24 2010 04:11 ZlaSHeR wrote:
Let me know when a console player can do this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diPonkYH0iU

On July 24 2010 04:27 Manit0u wrote:


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.



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.

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.

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.

On July 26 2010 13:54 THE_oldy wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.rahulsood.com/2010/07/console-gamers-get-killed-against-pc.html

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. + Show Spoiler +

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.

On July 27 2010 02:55 SichuanPanda wrote:


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.

On July 27 2010 03:00 RayBani wrote:
you can get mouse for PS3 called FragFX wich dominates gamepad players

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.

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.

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.

On July 27 2010 03:44 SC2Phoenix wrote:
Omg the reaction time on the AWP shot is absrud....

On July 27 2010 03:51 St0rmRush wrote:

Just raise the difficult when playing with mouse+keyboard and your problem is solved. =D

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote:


Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way.

On July 27 2010 12:24 Ace wrote:
For all the arguing and bullshitting that most hardcore PC gamers (and Console gamers) do at the end of the day the console gaming industry is just bigger than the PC gaming industry. A lot of that does have to do with it having a more storied and successful history but it also has to do with accessibility, price, social gaming, and "plug and play" aspects. Remember that most people are not good with computers and struggle with basic installations and dread reading system specs. Consoles are literally just specialized gaming computers with the advantage of innately supporting 4 players with no knowledge of having to configure internet settings and the enjoyment of a couch. This goes a long way into why Console games are a bigger market.

On July 27 2010 01:02 MightyAtom wrote:
STREET FIGHTER 4 TURBO !!


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.

On July 27 2010 13:58 NIJ wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzGDt-W3bgw

You clearly haven't played on GGPO where there are actually good players that sometimes PREFER keyboard. Fighting game is a really bad example these days as gap between pad/stick/kb player is barely existent these days.

I still prefer sticks though.

On July 27 2010 15:29 Drakan wrote:
is somebody really defending that keyboard is better than controls for Fighting games ??? rofl...
Why there isn´t an arcade FPS game with buttons and joystick
Why every fighting arcade game have buttons and joystick.

those guys were smart.

On July 27 2010 12:24 Ace wrote:

Give the new generation of players, the ones growing up with the internet some time now that computing is pretty much mainstream now. PC gaming will maybe at some point get to that level but the idea that a mouse and keyboard are better than a controller pad is just absurd if you think that applies too all games and all settings the respective platforms don't exactly have the same user base.

*I know this is kind of out of left field but I was trying to give a decent summary response of my thoughts based on reading the entire thread

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.

On July 27 2010 05:17 THE_oldy wrote:

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&currentpage=6#105

On July 27 2010 14:10 Fumble wrote:

I dont follow the pro scene for SF4 too hard but I do go on many forums and read many guides. Everybody says stick is superior and I agree. Diago, justin wong and every tournament player i have ever seen undoubtedly uses stick. I dont think keyboard or pad is comparable to stick at all in fighting games.

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 :/

On July 28 2010 01:21 DefMatrixUltra wrote:


This is the reason I only ever played about 15 minutes of Bioshock. There's a two-tier joystick-style acceleration that makes the game unplayable and unenjoyable (literally unenjoyable, as in I can't derive any joy from playing). Maybe if I had just bought an xbox controller like 2K tested the game with...

On July 28 2010 00:39 theSAiNT wrote:


Well the part I quoted does indeed say that.

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.

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.

On July 29 2010 16:42 THE_oldy wrote:


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.

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.



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.

(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.)

On July 27 2010 04:06 JrK wrote:



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.

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

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.

On July 30 2010 01:54 Bibdy wrote:
The problem arises when a game exists in both formats.

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.

On July 30 2010 03:29 pheus wrote:


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 30 2010 00:51 theSAiNT wrote:


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.

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.

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.

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

On July 24 2010 07:08 GreEny K wrote:


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.

On July 30 2010 02:16 OneFierceZealot wrote:


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 04:35 men1kmati wrote:


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 03:29 pheus wrote:


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 30 2010 04:48 THE_oldy wrote:


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 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.

On July 30 2010 06:08 Pedo.Bear wrote:
Starcraft Original > Starcraft N64

nuff said.