EPTOn January 26 2011 01:25 RumTalk wrote:
All i gotta say is, this video is why PC gaming will always be better! Counter strike 1.6 defines PC ownage and why console will never be able to touch PC's.
Console Gamers Get Killed against PC Gamers - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
All i gotta say is, this video is why PC gaming will always be better! Counter strike 1.6 defines PC ownage and why console will never be able to touch PC's. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
For the OP, the mouse/keyboard combo is obviously significantly better for precise play, but I think the fps offers more realistic game play since it adds an element of learning to aim with two joystiqs instead of a single mouse pointer. | ||
|
VeNoM HaZ Skill
United States1528 Posts
As far as sports comparisons go, its like dropping the best player in a Peewee hockey league in a rink with Ovechkin or Crosby. Of course he's going to get smashed because he in a completely different group. That is exactly why there are different leagues, so they can both play the sport they love with people their age. As long as everyone's having a good time, who cares? So why would you drop this topic onto a PC gaming site? Just to cause angry arguments? | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:50 VeNoM HaZ Skill wrote: As far as I'm concerned this whole argument is PC elitists vs. anyone else who thinks different. And given the "I have an IQ of 200, so I'm NEVER Wrong!!!" Outlook of a PC gamer (not trolling, you know there is truth there), this will never get anywhere. As far as sports comparisons go, its like dropping the best player in a Peewee hockey league in a rink with Ovechkin or Crosby. Of course he's going to get smashed because he in a completely different group. That is exactly why there are different leagues, so they can both play the sport they love with people their age. As long as everyone's having a good time, who cares? So why would you drop this topic onto a PC gaming site? Just to cause angry arguments? there's console elitists just as there are PC elitists, you shouldn't try to act like one side is the victim and one side is the villain in this "argument" | ||
|
SonicTitan
United States249 Posts
In many ways, video game design and the industry that has grown up around it mirrors the film industry. As the tech grew, and our means to manipulate it broadened, we began creating bigger and flashier experiences. Compare, for example, M for Murder with a Bourne or Transformers movie, if only in purely technical terms. Yes, I understand that the aims and goals of the two movies are completely different, but from a technical standpoint, M and Transformers might as well be 10,000 years apart. And by and large, those big, flashy experiences are what sell, regardless of the actual content of the film. Now compare Atari Adventure to Crysis. See what I mean? Unfortunately, while the film industry has figured out how to make ever increasing budgets, crew sizes and production schedules profitable, the game industry hasn't. Or rather, it CAN'T. Part of it has to do with the cost of the finished product. A movie makes most of its money from twenty dollar dvd sales. A game with a similar (or larger these days) budget is now trying to sell a comparable amount of units at sixty dollars or more. Another problem is that because margins are razor thin, it becomes impossible for an independent studio to sell an untested idea to a publisher in the hopes of getting a distribution deal. I want you to go back and look at the top selling games for 2010. no less than seven of them were sequels, and those that weren't were remakes of older games or repackagings of the depressingly popular casual Wii titles "sports" and "fitness." The fiscal realities of making triple-A games is strangling the creativity out of what is and always will be a creativity-driven enterprise. Enter PC gaming, Steam, digital distribution and the indie developer revolution. I've heard a lot over the years about the death of PC gaming, and in a world ruled by triple-A titles that sell many times more units on consoles than they do on PCs, I would believe it. But the climate is shifting away from triple-A games: No more Call of Dutys, no more Bioshocks, no more Halos, maybe even no more World of Warcrafts. This is all simple economics. It's just not a profitable way of doing things, if it ever was. While we lament the move towards social and casual games on outlets like Facebook, we should also look at it as an opportunity. For every ten Farmvilles we get a Minecraft. For every Wii Sports Resort we get a League of Legends. An A.I. War. A Braid. The creative (and financial) freedom that PC gaming offers a developer with a good idea and no pitch is going to save gaming. Which brings me back to my point. By and large, even if PC gamers don't recognize it, consoles represent the last bastion of a business model that is killing the game industry. It's not about one group being more "hardcore" than the other (though by simply looking at ease of use, we can say that PC gamers are a smaller but more enthusiastic group than console users). It's about what the restrictions that consoles place on developers and gamers represent. | ||
|
alurlol
England197 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:57 white_horse wrote: yes I agree PC vs console is pretty pointless because its based on personal preference but the only thing I will never understand from this argument is when console gamers say that it is easier to aim a gun in an FPS where there are two buttons for up-down and left-right, when a mouse is obviously so much easier. Most console gamers have never even heard of counter-strike let alone aimed with a mouse, this is partly the reason why, the other being that the majority if not all FPS games on console have some form of aim-assist adding to their belief that it's easier to aim on console, even though aim-assist is = to cheating from the pov of looking at both platforms as equal. Anyone with a brain will accept that PC gaming will always take presidence over consoles when it comes to FPS and strategy games, this is most abundantly reflected in e-sports itself with the big money being found on the PC platform as opposed to the console one. | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:16 Ownos wrote: Elitist much? You act as if you need to sacrifice one for the other. So your price point is based on the bare minimum computer specs. Yet no where near the capability of an Xbox. Cool fine you don't care about graphics, but don't delude yourself thinking it's even on the same level. Last gen graphics? Really? The hardware isn't "6 years old" it's different kind of hardware it brings the cost down by specializing the machine. They are making crysis 2 for consoles and that game looks better than the first game that fried so many PCs. And PC games are being brought up in price too and before was only slightly cheaper ($50 brand new vs $60 brand new). Except now part of that doesn't go to royalties and the developers get to pocket it themselves. And the cost of a TV? Most people already have a TV. Are you really factoring in broken equipment too? OK motherboard fries, OK new CPU, ram, and board $200+. Show me a PC set up that can run at the specs as an Xbox. None of this "I play at lowest settings" nonsense. "The Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005, in the United States and Canada" - wikipedia. I'm impressed if it somehow managed to have hardware that's newer than 6 years old when it came out 6 years ago, that would be genius. The card in it is basically a modified radeon r520 series in terms of power, and when you cosnider the fact that nvidia's 8800 came out around the same time as the xbox360 and is a much superior card to any of the r520 series. I mean just look at this: ![[image loading]](http://img.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/68551/Crysis%20drool_qjpreviewth.jpg) That's a 3 year old pc game. Nothing even on the ps3 comes close to that. And yes the new crisis will be on the ps3 and xbox, but i can assure you now the pc version will be better as soon as it comes out, optimization on a bespoke card or not, the performance of the xenos card compared to todays Fermi cards is just laughable at best. | ||
|
VeNoM HaZ Skill
United States1528 Posts
On January 26 2011 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: there's console elitists just as there are PC elitists, you shouldn't try to act like one side is the victim and one side is the villain in this "argument" Look at the banner on the site, now back at this post, now back at the banner. The banner will never change from StarCraft to Halo, but if you do enough hard drugs and hallucinogens, it may look like it says Halo. Look at what you're typing on, now look back at this post - You're on TL, a site devoted to a PC game. Now you see my point. + Show Spoiler + On January 26 2011 06:05 UdderChaos wrote: "The Xbox 360 was released on November 22, 2005, in the United States and Canada" - wikipedia. I'm impressed if it somehow managed to have hardware that's newer than 6 years old when it came out 6 years ago, that would be genius. The card in it is basically a modified radeon r520 series in terms of power, and when you cosnider the fact that nvidia's 8800 came out around the same time as the xbox360 and is a much superior card to any of the r520 series. I mean just look at this: That's a 3 year old pc game. Nothing even on the ps3 comes close to that. And yes the new crisis will be on the ps3 and xbox, but i can assure you now the pc version will be better as soon as it comes out, optimization on a bespoke card or not, the performance of the xenos card compared to todays Fermi cards is just laughable at best. I like what you're saying but comparing a graphics card that costs more that 3 xbox's to an xbox isnt the best way to make a point. Especially how the cost will go higher when you realize you need a PC to put the graphics card in. | ||
|
mardi
United States1164 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 26 2011 06:10 VeNoM HaZ Skill wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 26 2011 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: there's console elitists just as there are PC elitists, you shouldn't try to act like one side is the victim and one side is the villain in this "argument" Look at the banner on the site, now back at this post, now back at the banner. The banner will never change from StarCraft to Halo, but if you do enough hard drugs and hallucinogens, it may look like it says Halo. Look at what you're typing on, now look back at this post - You're on TL, a site devoted to a PC game. Now you see my point. no I don't see your point, it would help if you didn't make it 100% fluff and completely ignore the mode I made to your original post the fact that this is a PC gaming site is entirely irrelevant to the claim that in the PC vs console argument, PC gamers are always the elitists and console gamers are just regular people, which is just absurd and biased old spice commercial is amazing, but using it as your argument form doesn't qualify as justification for the argument itself being valid or not | ||
|
white_horse
1019 Posts
On January 26 2011 06:05 alurlol wrote: Most console gamers have never even heard of counter-strike let alone aimed with a mouse, this is partly the reason why, the other being that the majority if not all FPS games on console have some form of aim-assist adding to their belief that it's easier to aim on console, even though aim-assist is = to cheating from the pov of looking at both platforms as equal. Anyone with a brain will accept that PC gaming will always take presidence over consoles when it comes to FPS and strategy games, this is most abundantly reflected in e-sports itself with the big money being found on the PC platform as opposed to the console one. I forgot about that. I remember loling hard in another forum when someone tried to justify it. Oh and another point on the FPS topic, I don't think I'll ever understand why console gamers think playing 6v6 is more exciting than playing on the PC where you can get some superbly exciting gameplay in 32v32. | ||
|
VeNoM HaZ Skill
United States1528 Posts
On January 26 2011 06:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote: no I don't see your point, it would help if you didn't make it 100% fluff and completely ignore the mode I made to your original post the fact that this is a PC gaming site is entirely irrelevant to the claim that in the PC vs console argument, PC gamers are always the elitists and console gamers are just regular people, which is just absurd and biased old spice commercial is amazing, but using it as your argument form doesn't qualify as justification for the argument itself being valid or not At no point did I say that console elitists don't exist,they do, but not really on this site. Its like a rousing game of find the whites in China. Besides I was talking about a thread on this site, not general population. So the fact the it is a PC site becomes all the more relevant. I said the argument was stupid. You started arguing about that. Calm down. | ||
|
gulati
United States2241 Posts
Console is always superior in terms of ease-of-accessibility (you don't need to worry about hardware differences between players). PC gaming, in today's age and time, is more aimed towards those who prefer mouse/keyboard precision, which can be implied that they favor the accuracy advantage over a controller. (The blatant truth of what happened when CS came out on XBOX vs 1.6 on PC) Console gaming, in today's age and time, is more aimed towards those who prefer to play on home entertainment TV's, which can be implied that they favor the liveliness of having friends around to play with during gaming. Just my opinions. I think both are going to stay forever, but in terms of "corporate progaming", console gets the upper hand due to backing by Microsoft and MLG. When speaking about overall progaming, meaning multiple games spead out over years of technological differences (SC2, CS1.6, WC3, LoL, COD4), PC has a much wider spectrum; it is just not as publicly revealed, until of very recent. Final thoughts: I personally play both PC and Console. I started PC gaming strictly during CS 5.2.0 (yes, when the M4 had a fucking scope), and never looked back. I switched to Console gaming during COD4 (my freshman year in college), and then went back to PC during my WoW days. Finally, went Console again for MW2 / Black Ops, and now I spend my time between my Black Ops/LoL on PC strictly for the graphical advantage that my computer has over my PS3. Conclusion: PS3/360 gives me a happy and comforting feeling. It sort of reminds me of my youth days of Sega and Nintendo, because I still have to revert to using my big TV and sitting with my friends. I like that feeling  But PC definitely gives me that feeling that I am in full control of every single aspect of my game; if I want to toggle off Vsync to get more FPS, or lower GFX to get more FPS, I will see my opponent faster than he sees me, etc. All these things give PC gaming an edge in my opinion; it is just the dog fight between Microsoft's gigantic backing due to XBOX Live vs PC, which has... Steam.  | ||
|
rza
Canada384 Posts
Yes, PC Gamer vs Console gamer, The pc gamer will have advantage since with the same amount of practice, he will do better, Aiming wise BUT pc gamer arent better than Console gamer Halo pros are practicing as much as CS pros.. Someone said on this thread that Console FPS has Lower skill cap, thats just wrong man Halo is as far as i know the only real Competitive FPS on console, and U cant get to the skill cap. also the team play involved in halo is so much higher than usual FPS, makes the game insanly cool to watch | ||
|
Hveen
Netherlands16 Posts
And as for an old FPS love I had for so longg... I want to show what I mean with mouse speed showing this movie! UT99 foreverrr, I could never play ut 2007 on my ps3 like this because of the joystick messing things up, and people play different then this. I know the game changed, but people would like to flak more and use easier weapons to use. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On January 26 2011 06:40 rza wrote: Someone said on this thread that Console FPS has Lower skill cap, thats just wrong man I'm not sure if you meant me, but I basically said: As long as there is assisted aiming (aimbots) in console games it lowers the skillcap. If you're capable of doing shot X and your opponent isnt you're better. But if the aimbot takes care of the shot and therefore enables players who normally wouldnt be able to do shot X to do it it negates the advantage you have. What is wrong with my viewpoint aside from "that's just wrong man"? Of course this doesnt consider strategy / tactic difficulty. Which imho are game dependant and not platform depending. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
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. One of the best FPS's of all time, imo. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
Defaulted
United Kingdom30 Posts
On January 26 2011 04:40 Ruthless wrote: pc gamers are real gamers, the best way to show this would be to have pc gamers go to console gaming and have console gamers go to pc. I used to play CoD on the ps3 casually, when playing that I had a friend who also played, he was under the impression that he was a mega gamer or something. to be fair to him, he wasn't bad at the game, however, whenever he came around to my house and tried to play cs or CoD on the pc, he would try and press "W" with his forefinger and ctrl with his thumb. Trying to change weapon/reload/jump with what ever hand he could. Now I'm not saying all console gamers are this bad at PC games, just thought it was a funny example. | ||
| ||
