This is one argument that makes absolutely no sense. Wether mouse or controller, if you hit what you're aiming at, it's accurate.
Using a mouse gives no benefit over a controller when it comes to aiming. In both cases, you either hit what you shoot at, or you miss. Accuracy isn't in the device, it's in the player.
'Accuracy' is a pretty poor explanation for the actual problem with controllers. They don't provide as much control over one's aim or movement. With joysticks there's a necessary upper limit to the speed with which one can turn and aim, whereas with a mouse there isn't. One of the most frustrating things about console shooters is knowing an opponent is there but being too sluggish to turn and face them before being killed. Circle-strafing is a lot less effective on PC.
In both console games and PC games, your turn speed is limited by the sensitivity setting. The mouse is just as restricted as a controller in terms of turning and looking speed. Sometimes, even the highest sensitivity can be too slow in both machines. Once you've gotten used to the highest sensitivity, you'll still find that sometimes, you just can't turn fast enough.
I'll concede movement, however. While it's still preference, pressing a button on a keyboard to suddenly switch directions is much faster than moving the analog stick to the other side of the controller. Pressing the button happens instantaneously. That's one reason why you'll never see people dancing back and forth on a console shooter. It just doesn't work.
However, in terms of general movement such as running around a map or going over obstacles, they're tied.
I don't understand why there has to be any such divides between gamers. Shouldn't we all be united in our grand hobby? United against the likes of Jack Thompson, that anti-video game legislation in California, and all other such bullshit? PC vs Console, Hardcore vs Casual, who cares? The love of the game should unite us, the finicky details shouldn't divide us.
What wasted potential?
In any event, for as long as I've been gaming, I've had the luxury of at least sampling at most of the platforms available, with a few exceptions (never tried the Neo Geo, the N-Gage, the Saturn or that Panasonic thing, nor have I had the chance to try the PS3 yet) and you know what? I've never found that any one is better than any other... EVER. Even back to the NES/Master System days. 'Course I was very young then.
And besides that, whose the real enemy? The guy who likes to game on a different platform than you or likes to play a different kind of game than you, or the the guy who wants to restrict your ability to play games altogether? Answer me that?
The DEVELOPER that thought it's a good idea to continue promoting an extremely dated console at the same time as promoting their state of the art OS.
The same developer that thought it's a good idea to design and ship Kinect on USB 2.0 ... which, having 1/10 of the bandwidth of USB 3.0, can't do the concept of "3D camera" justice.
This developer that made Gears of War 3 WORK as a truly multi-platform game, saw mediocre PC gamers PWNFACE THE BEST console gamers, and decided that rather than IMPROVE the controller, they should continue with the segregation.
One idiot in one state of one country trying to write a moronic law is a problem for that state's citizens.
Microsoft is everybody's problem.
(I'm only using them as an example, they're not any worse than anyone else)
If we adopt the attitude of "not my problem" than we are truly lost. Hell, I'm 29 years old, any anti-gaming laws wouldn't really effect me short of banning them all together, nor are any being proposed where I live that I know of, but do I shrug my shoulders and say "not my problem?" NO! Why? Because I believe that video games deserve better than that.
And anyway, if you believe that the developer is the problem, shouldn't you be focusing your attention on them instead of lashing out at your fellow gamers?
Right right ... so where were you when there was campaigning against the idiot in MY country, eh?
Michael Atkinson resigned. Mission complete.
I repeat. It's my problem when it's HERE.
Microsoft is a business partner of mine and I certainly tell them everything I don't like about what they do.
As for "lashing out," I do not make these threads, it's usually ignorance that starts them, and I'm just doing the educating.
I mean, if I were "lashing out," I'd address -Samurai- directly with a challenge ... play BLOPS or somesuch with a controller on a PC and see how well you do.
I spoke against Atkinson every time a thread about him came up here.
Not sure what else I could've done.
And anyway, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't be divided as gamers. We should be united by our common interest. And maybe together we can work out all these problems that you mention, 'cause they sure aren't going to get solved by flaming each other on Internet forums.
Yeah, I wish there were more good ole fashioned Mac vs PC threads! Now those are fun!
What's more annoying is how so many people keep blabbering about 'OMG PC elitistz are so obnoxious!' I mean, look at this thread: how many people are claiming the PC's superiority, and how many are complaining about the objectionable nature of PC gamers?
Can you point out a single PC elitist in this rather flammable thread, people?
Well I'm sometimes upset if great games are console exclusives... leaving this aside people have the right to play what they like so if you like PC go for it, if you like XBOX, go for it, if you like PS, go for it... if you like all of'em again, go for it... it's your money sonny... don't let others tell you what to buy for yourself.
I prefer a controller in my hand. It's what I grew up with and to be honest...I prefer to keep my machines separate. Having my computer hold ANOTHER distraction for me as I try to work is the last thing I need. I love my PS3 even though I have more PS2 titles for it than anything else.
Elitists suck no matter what side they are on. If I have fun with my games, that's what's important. If you have fun with yours (whether or PC, Xbox, PS3, Wii...whatever the fuck you own) then you have been treated properly as a customer by the company you purchased your system and games from and they deserve your returning business.
The games I enjoy playing are more easily controlled with a mouse and keyboard than a controller.
There are some games I would find unplayable on a PC though, such as racing games (No analogue stick for turning, so you either turn at maximum sharpness or not turn at all) or 3rd person action games.
In a way. I'm sick of the bullshit arguments as to why certain platforms are better and make it my duty to get the idea across of the actual reasons for why people choose certain platforms.
Really, it boils down to these three things:
[li]Manufacturer Loyalty - Decides between Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft as to which console is bought[/li]
[li]Knowledge of building a PC - Decides whether a person is capable of building a PC and whether they understand and are aware of the actual costs[/li]
[li]Time and effort - Decides whether a person will choose between a console or PC, provided they have the knowledge to build one.[/li]
Once people just accept these reasons as genuine reasons and all the other reasons as benefits and extra incentives, we will see a massive drop in the threads. You can list extra reasons why your platform is better than another platform till dawn, but every other platform can do that too. It doesn't win the argument or even change the balance of it.
So yes, I'm sick of the threads, but I utilise them to try and end the platform war.
When a sequel comes out, almost 90% of the time they will say its ?Dumbed Down for Console Gamers? like if their all stupid or something. Or it means the controller, which in some cases is just wrong since the controls of the first game worked with controller; it was developer?s choice to change things.
Maybe you're just blinded by your console fanthom. Let me help you:
Test1: Pick your xbox/ps controller. Now, tell me, how many keys can you see?
Now I want you to look at your keyboard. How many keys are there?
Test2a: I want you to buy/borrow any version of the Sims for the PC and play it. Now, I want you to buy/borrow the same game for the PS3/360, and play it.
Ask yourself: why did it suck on consoles? Could it not suck if it was better ported?
Test2b: Buy/borrow any version of GTA IV for your console and play it. Now, I want you to buy/borrow the same game for the PC, and play it.
Ask yourself: why did it suck on consoles? Could it not suck if it was better ported?
Last test: play ANY other game on both your console and the PC. All those three games are graphically superior on the PC, right?
It should be pretty obvious at this point that the only reason good gaming exists is because of the PC as a platform (the only exception I see to this is the Nintendo DS).
I'd like to ask all those console-fans: 2) do you think genius games like World of Warcraft could ever exist if there was no PC gaming? Is there a console-exclusive game that could not be perfectly handled by a PC and maybe even improved?
Now that PC gaming kinda is dying/etc, all I see in store shelves are War FPSs and God of War rip-offs. Are you happy?
It's not that I expect every gamer to buy a decent PC; but please DO NOT compare consoles to PCs, it's too pathetic...
Gamers in general (not only PC gamers, because consoles are slowly killing gaming) have every right to get mad everytime something like Crysis 2 happens. It's simply too wrong to support this PC-titles massacre and glorifying the act of mind-numbing consumers with shit, while whining about people complaining about it; I'll ask you to just do one at a time.
Well at least you recognise you're causing problems
Also I might just add a few things to this:
Roughgalaxy said:
PC Pros:
Can be graphically superior in every way
Mouse Aiming Mods
Customisability (not just mods; controls, skins, etc.)
Easy text chat
Can multitask with music n shtuff
Dedicated servers
Steam
Free updates for games that count
PC Cons:
Ludicrously expensive to reach top end (You already pretty much need a computer for every day life, not much of a leap to upgrade to something that can play games well)
Constantly have to upgrade hardware (Only if you feel like being constantly superior)
Occasionally overly complicate controls (Huh? You can edit your controls to suit your needs, over-complication can't really happen)
Compatibility issues
LANing instead of spit screen for local multiplayer (can be a plus)
Yeah, I really think consoles are causing PC games problems (note to self: sarcasm sucks over the net)
Lets knock these out ...
Pro's ...
Yay, graphics! 'cos I am a Magpie...
You can aim better? So what? In PC vs 360 ('cos that is most likley to happen) mouse would OWN the 360 pad from one end of the map to the other and back ... how often does mouse VS pad happen? Not very so it doesn't matter.
Never even had the desire to mod a game in my life. (yes, this one is just opinion so I will go halfsies on you with this one). Customisability = mods .. stop trying to +1 the pro pile ...
Music while playing games is distracting, doing anything else besides game is distracting. 360 lets you play your own music over the games (if I remember right), PS3 is kind of screwed in this one but I don't play music while gaming anyway, so it doesn't bother me. (I could always play it through my Ipod thingy anyway)
Dedicated servers? What did MW2 not have that pissed you guys off but the consoles did ... I forget.
Water vapour? I don't follow this one. If you mean you can download games PSN and XBL, I am not up to date with all the steam features so ...
Cons ...
Who needs top end stuff all the time? 6 months later your £300 graphics card is out of date. I doubt many people in the world always have top of the range stuff all the time.
Relates to number 1 I feel.
Controls I can kind of get, I can get lucky sometimes and type without looking but controls more complicated than wasd to move, space to jump, shift to crouch, R to reload, right click to aim, scroll to change weapon and left click to fire and I am boned. I have to start looking at the keyboard, which is a no no.
I assume this means "can my PC run it" which is one of my main gripe with PC's, constantly having to check if you can run it and upgrading if you can't. That £10 cheaper PC game just became £40 or £50 more 'cos you now have to buy a new PC part.
LANing. I watched the day[9] daily 100, if you have not seen that go do it! Seriously, it just awesome to watch, it's like an hour long movie that touches you.
Anyway, in it he talks about LAN parties and him and his friends would go to each others houses and LAN and it sounded like hard work! Unplugging all your stuff, hauling it over to a mates house, hooking it all back up, getting all the settings right etc etc etc for like one night of gaming ... just sounds like ALOT of work.
With a console it's buy a few pads and enjoy, on the PS3 I think it's 7 or 8 people can play on one machine (I don't know if a game can support that yet though).
My main gipe, the big mutha of all my gripes is problem solving on the PC! Dear god, I sometimes think PC's hate games ... for instance I have no idea how to make killing floor run on my PC, there is a thing that tells you how to change your ports and stuff on your router but it makes no sense!
it happens on both sides, all the time, i really try to keep my eyes open for it overall and i do notice it equally from both sides sometimes.
but what i seem to see more of, is when your average "pc game elitist" goes in for the snarky comment, he goes in hard and without a doubt in his mind that he is right and you are wrong, quite possibly the most stubborn person on the planet.
Granted, pure console players make some..very uneducated assumptions and call outs sometimes, and for someone who is as stubborn and elitist as they are on the pc, they take much greater offense to it than you meant to give off, and generally after that point they aren't open for opinion on the matter, they will do whatever they can on the high pedestal from which they are trying to be on to knock down any preferences you might have.
overall, i've played dozens of games on both consoles and pc's, and really there are the SMALLEST of differences, just because you are "bad" at something, doesn't make it "bad" in general nor does it make it "stupid/uncomprehending to use on such platform"
overall i think pure console gamers should become more educated before they make the call outs they try to do sometimes..It doesn't annoy me, but golly jee that elitist is about to come at you like a raging bull, and from the pc side, sometimes just because you guys aren't the end all be all of something, such as using a controller or got a ported game, doesn't make it bad nor do you need to go trying to burn console gamers at the stake.
I mean seriously? I am sick of people saying "They can't comprehend a person playing such and such genre on Consoles.?
Frankly it?s getting repetitive and annoying, since it comes up very often. Even though it?s not hard to comprehend at all. Now, while on most sites, its 360 vs. PS3, I noticed on Escapist it?s mainly, PC vs. Consoles in general.
While every side on their bad sides, I notice it?s lately PC gamers who are the ones who are aggressors. Trying a lot of the time to make them out to be superior beings and overall more intelligent than their Console brethren. When a sequel comes out, almost 90% of the time they will say its ?Dumbed Down for Console Gamers? like if their all stupid or something. Or it means the controller, which in some cases is just wrong since the controls of the first game worked with controller; it was developer?s choice to change things.
Now don?t get me wrong, I play PC Games all the time (even making my own Fallout: New Vegas Quest in GECK) and this isn?t all PC Gamers, just the vocal minority (or here sort of the Vocal Majority.)
Dumbed down just means the graphics arent as good not that the game is any less difficult or complicated.
I'm not neccesarily one for the 'shiny' graphics and dont krank them up to max at all. But it does get kind of annoying when a game doesnt look as good on my computer when they are catering for a different market. That wouldnt really make me write in a forum about it or give out though.
Most games stores in my area either have a full/half shelf for all their pc titles with one rack taken up by world of warcraft and a couple of recent releases. I can understand why they do it though as the console market is way bigger then the pc market will ever be and they are out to make as much profit as they can so I can't really blame them now can I.
The thing I find funny in thread after thread is people going on about how PC gamers are being asses by pointing out their superior controls and hardware... when generally, the thread's opening post posed just that question. This thread, obviously, is something of an exception, in that it merely attacks those PC gamers for doing what they do, essentially trolling them into doing it again.
Yes, console vs. PC gaming all comes down to preference, but claiming a console is superior to a top-end gaming PC is like claiming that top-end gaming PC is superior to a game developer's $100,000 pre-alpha test machine.
This is one argument that makes absolutely no sense. Wether mouse or controller, if you hit what you're aiming at, it's accurate.
Using a mouse gives no benefit over a controller when it comes to aiming. In both cases, you either hit what you shoot at, or you miss. Accuracy isn't in the device, it's in the player.
Gonna have to disagree about a mouse not being more accurate but I can tell from personal experience that it is although it does depend on the game your playing on.
For example on any source based game (CS:S, Team Fortress 2 ect.) I am alot more accurate on the PC version than the console version (I've owned the 360 copy of the orange box and PC version) the reason is because the mouse can pick up smaller movements than a controller because there is no 'dead zone'(A dead zone is an area of none reactive space on a controllers analouge stick about the size of a pin head on a ps3 controller and slightly larger than the area of a the tip of a ball point pen) on a mouse and this is also another reason why 'pro' CS:S players disable smoother mouse movments in the control panel.
Now you might say that you cant compare TF2 on xbox and PC because they are on different platforms, in this case I present a cross platform game called shadow run, I own 2 copies, 1 on PC and 1 on xbox and the friends who I play with say there's a noticable difference in how well I play depending on the paltform, no prizes for guessing which platform I do the best on.
Although that said, I'll now bring in dead space on the PC, I've played it on a console at a friends house and I got it on sale a few weeks ago on steam and the PC versions aiming is very clunky and 'jutters' at times where as on console I didn't have a problem with aiming (and I would say that dead space is a very good port from console to PC).
Listen up, people. No matter what you argue, be it processing power, graphical quality, control accuracy, pro/con lists, whatever. IT'S ALL FUCKING POINTLESS. You know why? Because all choices, whether they be console or PC (or both in my case, and in the same room), come down to personal preference more than anything else.
Incorrect. There are mechanical considerations that go into interface design.
Hiding behind a fake screen of subjective logic won't change that.
You can sit there and argue that the mouse is more accurate for FPS games. It's more accurate FOR YOU. You can tell me that PCS are more functional, but that won't get me to throw away my xbox.
A trackball is better than a mouse (by virtue of not having to periodically lift the unit to continue using it), but requires a person to practice with it.
Other than that, it's virtually identical in function. This is an instance where you could make an argument for preference, simply because trackballs are not as common.
However, a mouse is functionally different from an analog stick. With an analog stick, you generally push the direction, and it works on Unit Vector Logic (you choose a direction, but the distance is based on how long you hold it).
A mouse, however physically moves the cursor as you move it, scaled to some factor (usually a factor of the resolution) You can move it a specific direction AND distance, rather than just at a vector. You can also change DISTANCES very quickly (an analog stick changes directions quickly, but not distances).
About shooters:
A good console game will take advantage of instances where simple Vector controls are appropriate. Shooters revolve around pointing a cursor at objects, so there is always a set distance from the center of the screen from object to the next.
Try as you might, you cannot change that without changing genres entirely (the closest example of such a crossover is the shooting-segments in SD Snatcher...look it up if you want to see old-school Hideo Kojima).
A mouse can conceivably cross multiple scattered points on a screen in a very short time.
An analog stick cannot hope to achieve the same thing unless the points are all along the same path.
The Introduction in Halo (when you calibrate the controls) is a great way to test this.
Because of this limitation, console shooters are generally slowed down to adjust for this.
There is no way someone could keep up in a game like, say, Tribes 2 on a controller vs a mouse. The speed in which your targets (and especially yourself) are moving vs the amount of leading you must do to be accurate is simply too much for a vector system.
Therefore:
This isn't a matter of "preference"; it's empirical evidence, and it can be proved with action. If one required a direct comparison of the two, and how there is different design philosophy requirements for each, you need not look any further than Shadowrun (2006).
It was an experiment of console and PC multiplayer crossing over to play with each other, and the PC players DOMINATED those on the console, simply because they could make their actions more quickly (and more accurately) by virtue of controls better suited to the genre.
Now, console controls aren't strictly inferior across all genres; they're more intuitive and responsive for the genres involving driving, flying, etc, where your mind is used to using Vector Logic to control your character/vehicle.
In short, they're useful where they are appropriate.
However, the problem the PC gamers have with the controls is due to market choices; most AAA PC games are actually ported titles from consoles (especially Xbox 360). However, when the games were ported, the design logic remains for CONSOLES. Interfaces, enemy placement/reaction, pacing, etc, it can ALL provide an inferior experience on a PC simply due to the mistranslation.
Of course, the opposite is true as well; players of the PC version of Mass Effect 1 were treated to simple minigames for hacking objects, Xbox players were stuck with Quick Time Events (which are one of the worst cop-outs in game design ever, in my opinion).
See. Rational, polite, and neutral-toned.
It's possible for this topic to be discussed civilly; it's the users who choose whether or not that happens.
Another big thing, especially to the guy I quoted. YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE DOES NOT WORK FOR EVERYONE, NOR IS IT AUTOMATICALLY BETTER FOR EVERYONE JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT! A great example of this is hitler. He preferred there would be no jews in the world and that they all be dead. Look at how that fucking turned out, then try to tell me your preference is automatically better and anyone who disagrees is inferior.
If your really sick of it I have an idea for you, DON'T MAKE THREADS ASKING PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT IT, Jeez
And also the reason people say console games are dumbed down is because they use mechanics like magnetism and friction to make up for the controller, And Im not saying that to try to piss people off, thats just a fact
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
