Poll: FPS: Which console?

[TheFacelessOne]

LET THE ULTIMATE PC COLOSSUS RISE ABOVE ALL THE LOWLY CONSOLE PEASANTS!!!!!!!

*Eh-em*

I'd just take the Xbox 360 since it is the one i'm most comfortable with.

 

[Chunko]

xbox, but the wii has a few killer railshooters

 

[Ryuk2]

PC over everything, but if my PC dies and they stop making them - XBox361.

 

[Treblaine]

Sony pissed me off when they announced the $600 price and I realized that they would never make money off of it so they thought they could screw me with that ridiculous price.

I'm just saying In that scenario (because the Wii has done it as well, and the Xbox has always had stuff go wrong with it) that having people have to snap shit on to something that needs improvement instead of just doing 2 more weeks of testing and figuring it out before the consumer picks it up. I just dont understand how stuff like this leaks through the cracks of any company that's trying to sell a system (especially a system they were selling for $600) If I were to buy something like that I would want it to work the first time.

Its expensive and obnoxious most of the time and is not to mention a time vampire (sending stuff back etc. etc.)

(I was using the PS3 as an example no harm intended, but snap on shit is the Wii's bread and butter and the RROD plus other failures (AWFUL venting system) is the 360s major flaws.)

Im going to have to go with my custom PC

Yeah, I agree that all too often these "Sega-like snap ons" are expensive and obnoxious but I'd have to say for this generation the PS3 fares far better than the other consoles.

For the PS3; charging the wireless controller is easy with a simple mini-USB cable (360's play charge kit), hard drive upgrade is easy with non-proprietary off the shelf components (360's HDDs are 4x normal HDD cost), reliability is actually above average for similarly priced electronic devices (no need for cooling device), and the console itself is not really lacking any important feature needing a substitute peripheral (360's wifi or HD-DVD peripheral).

I mean the base cost of an Xbox 360 Arcade may be only £140 but with all the peripherals needed to reach it's expected capability it comes to over £350 and that's not including the cost of XBL Gold membership year after year.

I also prefer a custom built PC even though I also have an Xbox 360 and PS3, and if the OP insists on excluding PC then I have to say PS3 is the best platform for FPS games and overall a better console than Xbox 360.

 

[WINDOWCLEAN2]

For just the downright gaming and community the 360 has to take the crown.
For graphics its the PS3
For Modding its the PC

Against the 360 is the Pay for XBL
Against the PS3 is hard to program engines
Against the PC is downloads and harder control scheme for beginners

so really the whole 'which is better'debate will never be sorted until Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all realise they could make so much money and cut down on costs by making one console that utilises all the pros of the seperate expertise the comapnies have

 

[brainfreeze215]

I'm led to believe that xbox360 is the best console for shooting. I'm not very well informed since I don't play fps games or own an xbox.

I would go with PC for keyboard and mouse, but I'm not sure what you mean by your michael phelps metaphor.

 

[omega 616]

Only noobs own a PS3 and don't use these snap on concave triggers.

What about if you don't need the attachments? I have played for many hours on my ps3, which I got about a month after release and not once has my finger moved from the trigger, even after playing motorstorm for 6 hours (almost) nonstop.

Am I still a noob for not buying two pieces of unnecessary plastic?

On topic, I prefer the ps3, the 360s controller seems heavy and the triggers seem worse to me (I have slipped off them a number of times).

I haven't played online much, (damn mobile Internet) so I can't really say anything about that. Although, I have heard a few bad things with the 360 community, but don't my word on it.

As for graphics who gives a crap? There better than pacman, you can tell what your meant to shoot at and what your meant to hide behind, what more do you want?

 

[YoUnG205]

I'm gonna Chose Xbox360. but only becuase PC is not there.

 

[Nomanslander]

PC. Keyboard and Mouse > all.
In my opinion.

This thread is pointless since obviously nothing comes close to FPS on PC...where it originally started...>>

But if I'd have to choose I'd pick PS3 since everyone is going to say 360 with Halo in mind...and that game just doesn't cross me right...=/

Plus 2010 is seeming more and more like the year the PS3 is going to make the impact all the fanbois have been waiting for...0o

 

[Treblaine]

Only noobs own a PS3 and don't use these snap on concave triggers.

What about if you don't need the attachments? I have played for many hours on my ps3, which I got about a month after release and not once has my finger moved from the trigger, even after playing motorstorm for 6 hours (almost) nonstop.

Am I still a noob for not buying two pieces of unnecessary plastic?

On topic, I prefer the ps3, the 360s controller seems heavy and the triggers seem worse to me (I have slipped off them a number of times).

I haven't played online much, (damn mobile Internet) so I can't really say anything about that. Although, I have heard a few bad things with the 360 community, but don't my word on it.

As for graphics who gives a crap? There better than pacman, you can tell what your meant to shoot at and what your meant to hide behind, what more do you want?

Ok, using the word "noobs" is harsh but how about "not-elite".

Thing is, no one can complain about the PS3's convex triggers if there are cheap snap-on triggers that do such a wonderful job.

And I don't think the problem ever was that anyone's finger ever "slipping right off" the Ps3's old convex triggers, simply that their finger slips at all, even a small amount and you loose control and it becomes hard to get a very precise movement and I found this particularly relevant in Medal of Honor: Airborne.

MOH:A had an interesting system for precision aiming with the sniper rifle as in you hold down the analogue trigger a PRECISE amount - just a hair's breadth away from firing the shot - where on this "hair trigger" then all the shakes go away and you can precisely aim then fire the shot by fully depressing the trigger. But I found with the concave triggers my finger would too often slip just a millimetre and I'd fluff the shot, yet it was 100% solved when I got the snap-ons concave triggers as I was no longer applying a force on a slight slope. The extra length of the trigger also acted as like a lever for even more precise control by faring how high up or down I applied the pressure with my finger.

Now Motorstorm is a great game but it is not a game about precise acceleration/braking, more holding the trigger down and knowing when to release it to slam on the breaks for the corners. More "racing-sim" like titles (GT5P) then an good concave analogue trigger helps so much.

I don't want to sound like a shill but I really suggest you give these concave triggers a go if you ever have the chance.

Graphics aren't the ONLY thing that matters or even just the most important factors but it IS still an important factor. I don't just mean prettiness-level but graphics can have a direct effect on the gameplay and direct enjoyment from the game.

A good example I can think of is COD4 and the

A new FPS CONS:
360- Evil D-Pad

I don't understand...?

I played GTA4 on both the 360 and PS3 and I have to say just using the D pad on the 360 for such simple things as pressing Down to zoom out on the mini-map becomes a pain as all to often it registers it as a side movement so changes weapon/radio-station.

See it's too easy to press the "down quarter" of the d-pad but at an angle that the D-pad actually moves to the right or left, registering a "right d-pad" or "Left d-pad" input. In fact the 360's d-pad is more an analogue stick that is pretending to be a d-pad.

I'm not saying it's unusable but the d-pad on the PS3's controller just WORKS and with no fuss and clear input. It is just a better design with more sensitive and easier to discern buttons and there is no "wrong way" you can hit a button of the d-pad and have it register as anything other than the one you pressed.

 

[TK421]

360. It just seems like the 360 was made for FPS.

 

[Dys]

I only have a PS3, so I choose that.

And not all PS3 games have a install. And it isn't that long, imo.

Sometimes it is, my first load of assasins creed was something of letdown.

If I couldn't buy a game on PC I likely wouldn't, however if it was of such stellar gameplay that I was otherwise inclined (and the devs refused to port it for some reason). I suppose the xbox 360 if it's singleplayer (the controller is far superior, my hands were actually sore last night from grasping the sixxaxis controllers for too long, for multiplayer though, it has to be the ps3 as none of my friends have xbox live (possibly because of the constant unplayable lag, obscene fees and horrendous intercontinental matchmaking) and I can't imagine multiplayer being anywhere near as much fun without friends

 

[omega 616]

Ok, using the word "noobs" is harsh but how about "not-elite".

Thing is, no one can complain about the PS3's convex triggers if there are cheap snap-on triggers that do such a wonderful job.

And I don't think the problem ever was that anyone's finger ever "slipping right off" the Ps3's old convex triggers, simply that their finger slips at all, even a small amount and you loose control and it becomes hard to get a very precise movement and I found this particularly relevant in Medal of Honor: Airborne.

MOH:A had an interesting system for precision aiming with the sniper rifle as in you hold down the analogue trigger a PRECISE amount - just a hair's breadth away from firing the shot - where on this "hair trigger" then all the shakes go away and you can precisely aim then fire the shot by fully depressing the trigger. But I found with the concave triggers my finger would too often slip just a millimetre and I'd fluff the shot, yet it was 100% solved when I got the snap-ons concave triggers as I was no longer applying a force on a slight slope. The extra length of the trigger also acted as like a lever for even more precise control by faring how high up or down I applied the pressure with my finger.

Now Motorstorm is a great game but it is not a game about precise acceleration/braking, more holding the trigger down and knowing when to release it to slam on the breaks for the corners. More "racing-sim" like titles (GT5P) then an good concave analogue trigger helps so much.

I don't want to sound like a shill but I really suggest you give these concave triggers a go if you ever have the chance.

Graphics aren't the ONLY thing that matters or even just the most important factors but it IS still an important factor. I don't just mean prettiness-level but graphics can have a direct effect on the gameplay and direct enjoyment from the game.

A good example I can think of is COD4 and the

And the what?

If I can do exactly what you do in games without the clip on triggers, how does it make you elite for having them? My brother has the triggers for his ps3 so when I went round and played on it, it felt so uncomfortable maybe I/you need time to get used to them, I don't know but it just felt weird and messed up my ability, until I took them off.

I have never played that game although I can see how they could help in that situation.

In most, if not all racing games I tend to only brake at really hard corners, so the rest of the time I am either holding R2 down all the way or about half way, it's not like I am trying to balance it at a certain point, like I can only make this turn if I am going exactly 50 mph.

I have played everything from some tank game on the Atari to crysis and I can say I have never got more or less enjoyment out of a game due to the graphics. The gameplay has never been or ever will have anything to do with gameplay in my eyes, atleast.

 

[DrDeath3191]

The 360 is the best at the moment. I've enjoyed First-person Wii games, but there really aren't enough to justify the controller quite yet.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

The 360 controller. The thumbstick placement and triggers make it feel more natural, followed by the Wii, what with the controller being a pointer, and then the PS3. The PS3 controller as something to play FPS games with, feel incredibly awkward. Again, stick placement. I generally don't have any problems with the triggers.

 

[Treblaine]

Ok, using the word "noobs" is harsh but how about "not-elite".

Thing is, no one can complain about the PS3's convex triggers if there are cheap snap-on triggers that do such a wonderful job.

And I don't think the problem ever was that anyone's finger ever "slipping right off" the Ps3's old convex triggers, simply that their finger slips at all, even a small amount and you loose control and it becomes hard to get a very precise movement and I found this particularly relevant in Medal of Honor: Airborne.

MOH:A had an interesting system for precision aiming with the sniper rifle as in you hold down the analogue trigger a PRECISE amount - just a hair's breadth away from firing the shot - where on this "hair trigger" then all the shakes go away and you can precisely aim then fire the shot by fully depressing the trigger. But I found with the concave triggers my finger would too often slip just a millimetre and I'd fluff the shot, yet it was 100% solved when I got the snap-ons concave triggers as I was no longer applying a force on a slight slope. The extra length of the trigger also acted as like a lever for even more precise control by faring how high up or down I applied the pressure with my finger.

Now Motorstorm is a great game but it is not a game about precise acceleration/braking, more holding the trigger down and knowing when to release it to slam on the breaks for the corners. More "racing-sim" like titles (GT5P) then an good concave analogue trigger helps so much.

I don't want to sound like a shill but I really suggest you give these concave triggers a go if you ever have the chance.

Graphics aren't the ONLY thing that matters or even just the most important factors but it IS still an important factor. I don't just mean prettiness-level but graphics can have a direct effect on the gameplay and direct enjoyment from the game.

A good example I can think of is COD4 and the

And the what?

If I can do exactly what you do in games without the clip on triggers, how does it make you elite for having them? My brother has the triggers for his ps3 so when I went round and played on it, it felt so uncomfortable maybe I/you need time to get used to them, I don't know but it just felt weird and messed up my ability, until I took them off.

I have never played that game although I can see how they could help in that situation.

In most, if not all racing games I tend to only brake at really hard corners, so the rest of the time I am either holding R2 down all the way or about half way, it's not like I am trying to balance it at a certain point, like I can only make this turn if I am going exactly 50 mph.

I have played everything from some tank game on the Atari to crysis and I can say I have never got more or less enjoyment out of a game due to the graphics. The gameplay has never been or ever will have anything to do with gameplay in my eyes, atleast.

Hmm, sorry about that, I meant to say COD4 and the ghillie suit how a more realistic graphics engine allows for a different style of gameplay where you have to work hard to discern a target from a complex background. The lighting engine comes up again, in the dark it is really pitch black, you have to use night-vision-goggles.

But the way I see it is the developers know what they are doing, they aren't going to spend hundreds and hundreds of hours rendering a complex graphical environment unless it will add something to the game. And many graphical features of modern games simply cannot be substituted and I think the single biggest area from increased model detail is facial animation and gestures. A classic example that comes to mind is "Elite" that came out in 1984, one of the first games to render in true 3D, a huge graphical feat of the time that revolutionised what a game could be, expanding beyond the idea of a short 2 dimensional game with a set number of lives but to recreate an entire galaxy.

This is not a "wow factor" or some mere superfluous glitter to make it look prettier, I'm talking about real depth, similar to what we see in TF2, a game in the online multiplayer genre that was once notorious for lacking character, the facial animations and even mannerisms really characterise each class to make the classes to feel far more personal and, well, interesting. The likes of CS or UT had enemies who might as well be playing robots or emotionless cyborgs.

But escaping from the "graphics" dimension since so many modern games simply would not work on older engines, how important is it that a game looks good, more realistic, more Crysis than Doom?

Well it can't do any harm and making a game "look better" and being more pleasing to the eye usually can add to the game.

Now we are into a complex area of what looks good and what doesn't, like art, is it so terrible to be more impressed in a game by an arching fluidly moving lighting bolt, with depth, volume, casting it's own light and shadows and sending up sparks and fire on impact... rather than just a blue sprite. I'm not even talking about that 90's buzz-word "realism", more advanced graphics can create more abstract worlds and more artistic creativity on the part of the developers.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

When is that last time a shooter relyed on the D-pad? The 360's still the best control-wise.

360. Then PS3. Then Wii.

The Wii CAN do shooters, though. *looks at Metroid Prime Trilogy*