|
On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:
[quote]
Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that.
I think it is important to include the game design in discussion of the games merits on various platforms. I had played Halo casually before, but had yet to see professional Halo played(or COD for that matter). Halo seemed a lot better compared to COD for a number of reasons related to the game mechanics.
The skill the players were demonstrating were not really related to aiming, but rather to game awareness and team-work, so it made it a very enjoyable game to watch. There was constant suspense with the CTF mechanic. The players would nearly cap, but get picked off at the last minute, only to have a heroic team-mate grab the flag and cap, literally milliseconds before getting killed himself, it was an amazing level of skill for a team shooter. The players would wait for their team-mates to get into position rather then blindly grabbing the flag, and all the players had clearly defined roles.
The console did not seem to be a major handicap, and the slower paced weapon mechanics seemed much better optimized to the console environment.
|
United States22883 Posts
I agree. Halo has its own niche that it does very well, and downplays the console limitations and emphasizes teamwork and awareness.
I just don't see it on BO at all. For all the headaches PCs seem to give MLG, the PC players still play a better competitive game than the PS3 players do.
|
3 targets, any location in sight but you dont know exactly where and with that test I cant promise you PC gets them first just as I cant promise you the console player gets them first. It depends on the skill of the person playing and there skill with the game they are playing. I am sure you would hit it first but for example I have spent years playing both PC shooters and console shooters and I cant say which one I would hit the targets with first it would depend on which targets I spot first.
How do you not know exactly where when it's in sight?
|
On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:21 Slakter wrote:
[quote]
Better precision. Which is pretty much everything in FPS. Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that.
I have 0 knowledge on the topic of the viability of competitive FPS games, but isn't letting someone use a mouse and keyboard akin to letting you have MBS and automine and the ability to select more than 12 units at once? ie. the things that BW didnt have but sc2 does which a lot of former BW players say makes the game boring and easy? Thus by the players using controllers in halo and BO, the plays that these players make are all the more impressive to the fans as they are inherently more difficult to make.
As I said before I have no knowledge on the topic so please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On July 05 2011 12:23 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I think it is important to include the game design in discussion of the games merits on various platforms. I had played Halo casually before, but had yet to see professional Halo played(or COD for that matter). Halo seemed a lot better compared to COD for a number of reasons related to the game mechanics. The skill the players were demonstrating were not really related to aiming, but rather to game awareness and team-work, so it made it a very enjoyable game to watch. There was constant suspense with the CTF mechanic. The players would nearly cap, but get picked off at the last minute, only to have a heroic team-mate grab the flag and cap, literally milliseconds before getting killed himself, it was an amazing level of skill for a team shooter. The players would wait for their team-mates to get into position rather then blindly grabbing the flag, and all the players had clearly defined roles. The console did not seem to be a major handicap, and the slower paced weapon mechanics seemed much better optimized to the console environment.
Halo is better because Halo has a decicated professional fanbase and following that COD doenst have. There are LANs players set up which will not on PAR with the player houses that SC has yet are on the way to being a serious scene. The limit to Halo is that its not as proffitable as SC so it doenst have the team houses and 10 hour a day practice schedules but with the ones it has the skill level is far higher and I dont see the console as the reason that it isnt at the level of a PC shooter.
|
On July 05 2011 12:23 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I think it is important to include the game design in discussion of the games merits on various platforms. I had played Halo casually before, but had yet to see professional Halo played(or COD for that matter). Halo seemed a lot better compared to COD for a number of reasons related to the game mechanics. The skill the players were demonstrating were not really related to aiming, but rather to game awareness and team-work, so it made it a very enjoyable game to watch. There was constant suspense with the CTF mechanic. The players would nearly cap, but get picked off at the last minute, only to have a heroic team-mate grab the flag and cap, literally milliseconds before getting killed himself, it was an amazing level of skill for a team shooter. The players would wait for their team-mates to get into position rather then blindly grabbing the flag, and all the players had clearly defined roles. The console did not seem to be a major handicap, and the slower paced weapon mechanics seemed much better optimized to the console environment.
This pretty much exactly, Halo doesn't claim to be an FPS that relies heavily on shooting skill. Rather teamwork, map awareness, and map movement. It downplays the aiming and speed limitations that a console has and puts the spotlight on team based gameplay. It's great fun at a competitive level.
|
On July 05 2011 12:29 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I have 0 knowledge on the topic of the viability of competitive FPS games, but isn't letting someone use a mouse and keyboard akin to letting you have MBS and automine and the ability to select more than 12 units at once? ie. the things that BW didnt have but sc2 does which a lot of former BW players say makes the game boring and easy? Thus by the players using controllers in halo and BO, the plays that these players make are all the more impressive to the fans as they are inherently more difficult to make. As I said before I have no knowledge on the topic so please correct me if I'm wrong.
The game doesn't actually aim for you.
|
I thought that consoles might be able to compete, until I saw competetive CS 1.6 play first hand. It's not even close haha
In console FPS they give you aim-assist. In PC FPS they make the guns inaccurate on purpose to make it more difficult.
|
On July 05 2011 12:29 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I have 0 knowledge on the topic of the viability of competitive FPS games, but isn't letting someone use a mouse and keyboard akin to letting you have MBS and automine and the ability to select more than 12 units at once? ie. the things that BW didnt have but sc2 does which a lot of former BW players say makes the game boring and easy? Thus by the players using controllers in halo and BO, the plays that these players make are all the more impressive to the fans as they are inherently more difficult to make. As I said before I have no knowledge on the topic so please correct me if I'm wrong.
In a Starcraft 2 context, it's more like a console player is limited to 60 actions per minute, while the person with the mouse and keyboard can do 120.
|
|
|
On July 05 2011 12:33 Butigroove wrote:
I thought that consoles might be able to compete, until I saw competetive CS 1.6 play first hand. It's not even close haha
In console FPS they give you aim-assist. In PC FPS they make the guns inaccurate on purpose to make it more difficult.
False. MLG turns this off for competitive Halo.
|
On July 05 2011 12:29 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I have 0 knowledge on the topic of the viability of competitive FPS games, but isn't letting someone use a mouse and keyboard akin to letting you have MBS and automine and the ability to select more than 12 units at once? ie. the things that BW didnt have but sc2 does which a lot of former BW players say makes the game boring and easy? Thus by the players using controllers in halo and BO, the plays that these players make are all the more impressive to the fans as they are inherently more difficult to make. As I said before I have no knowledge on the topic so please correct me if I'm wrong.
It's more like Womens Basketball vs Mens, sure the rules might be the same but the men are faster and more athletic which is more entertaining to watch.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 05 2011 12:29 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I have 0 knowledge on the topic of the viability of competitive FPS games, but isn't letting someone use a mouse and keyboard akin to letting you have MBS and automine and the ability to select more than 12 units at once? ie. the things that BW didnt have but sc2 does which a lot of former BW players say makes the game boring and easy? Thus by the players using controllers in halo and BO, the plays that these players make are all the more impressive to the fans as they are inherently more difficult to make. As I said before I have no knowledge on the topic so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Aiming is a finesse talent, macro isn't. It'd be more akin to if every unit in SC2 had a turn radius/delay and you had to try and micro them. Watching it would be terrible, even if doing it well were more "impressive."
|
On July 05 2011 12:29 CrumpetGuvnor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2011 12:17 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 12:13 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 12:07 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 11:59 DoomsVille wrote:On July 05 2011 11:53 Jibba wrote:On July 05 2011 10:12 Mojar wrote:On July 05 2011 09:30 Adreme wrote:On July 05 2011 09:27 MoonfireSpam wrote:On July 05 2011 09:23 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
Seems like its easier precision not better precision which doenst strike me as better or worse just different. Its like you could play SC2 with a Madcatz TE stick and if everyone did it it would be a level playing field, competitive and entertaining but it seems weird to use a worse tool for the job. That's why people including myself think console FPS is silly. To me the controller is the better tool for the job. Ive used both and aiming in PC shooters is laughably easy just as it is in console shooters. Once you figure out sensitivity for both you have basically locked yourself in to a mass amount of headshots. I am sure it is odd for a PC gamer and difficult even to use a console controller because it is different and it takes time to adjust to just like going from xbox to ps3 takes a few mins even for an experienced gamer. You cant argue this. A mouse has a much higher skill cap and level of control over a controller, there is no debating that, its a fact of the technical aspects of the device. This is the main reason why fps not on PC will never be appealing to me because it has a much lower skill set. It actually might have a higher skillcap because the controller is a such a handicap, but the performance cap is much, much lower. It's like taking a perfectly able person and making them play wheelchair basketball. It might be difficult to do, but at the end of the day you're still just in a wheelchair and can't dunk the ball. EDIT: Everyone should agree that PS3 BlackOps is awful competitive gaming. Halo at least brings a certain refinement because the players have been at it for so long, but PS3 BO is an ugly looking game and the players aren't very good. Even the format/maps they use are terrible. All new games are unrefined though. Remember SC2 at release? It was a 1 base all-in cheese fest. Hell 1 base zerg was pretty common too. Activisions bigass tournament should add refinement... Not if they still use a terrible format, and while little brother PC version consistently puts out much better play. When you watch PS3 BO, the basic aiming mechanics are not very good, even for a console game. That's just a weak playerbase, whereas you tune into the PC MW1 community and it's actually somewhat enjoyable. The theory that aiming on a PC is better is again more of an opnion than a fact because as this thread has shown there are several detractors to that opinion and you cant proove to them that they are eitehr right or wrong. How is it not a fact? If you set up 3 targets in PC BO and PS3 BO, the PC player will easily get them all first. It's the reason Sony will never allow mouse/keyboard enabled for FPS games because the competitive advantage would be too large. It may be harder to hit things using a controller, but there is no debate that aiming on a PC is better - faster and more accurate. To me, PS3 BO feels like CSS and CGS. It was a game that never should've been used, but it was new and shiny so sponsors wanted to push it. There's hardly an organic scene to begin with. At least MW1 had that. I have 0 knowledge on the topic of the viability of competitive FPS games, but isn't letting someone use a mouse and keyboard akin to letting you have MBS and automine and the ability to select more than 12 units at once? ie. the things that BW didnt have but sc2 does which a lot of former BW players say makes the game boring and easy? Thus by the players using controllers in halo and BO, the plays that these players make are all the more impressive to the fans as they are inherently more difficult to make. As I said before I have no knowledge on the topic so please correct me if I'm wrong.
consoles have a lot of aim help. it's just not the same as PC FPS. i play ut99 still in instagib leagues and there is no way games can hit the precision of high level PC fps IMO. i'm pretty afraid to post this though because INC fps v console shitfest. i guess i'm biased as i've never played very competitive console FPS gaming, and have been on the PC side for a long time.
at the end it's still console vs console and pc vs pc so there can be high level play in both. PC FPS games are pretty dead unless something amazing comes out. most of the games still being played are old (not a bad thing)
|
United States22883 Posts
It doesn't need to be a console FPS vs. PC FPS argument. They both can co-exist and provide different interesting aspects.
My issue is that the you've got two versions of the exact same game, and they're using the worse one. Not only that, but the advertising potential is lower since you can't market peripherals and video cards for the PS3.
|
WOW THAT FUCKING MUSIC IS SO ANNOYING WOW WTF!!!!
|
Holy crap awesome sotg lineup announced so far! Tyler Artosis day9 JP.
I suspected Day9 would be returning as it was so late and he was doing his daily.
|
Haha well put everyone. Point understood
|
ARTOSIS FOR HOST??????????????
WOW!! AWESOME!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
