Poll: FPS: Which console?
- Thread starter Chiefmon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow, you really like graphics, I seriously couldn't care less about them. I hear people say how bad Haze's graphics were, I never even noticed.Treblaine said:
If you have ever played FFX you will remember the thunder planes, I saw nothing wrong with that lightening effect and that was on ps2. Besides some resident evil animations and a few square elbows there was nothing wrong with FFX gameplay graphics in my eyes.
I am no computer expert but I know there is only a finite amount of space on a cd, I would prefer the devs to fill more of the cd with gameplay and story aspects, than making it like MW2, short as hell but looks stunning.
If you take crysis, does the super realistic graphics make the game that so much more better than, as you picked, doom (not the first, the newest). If you took the graphics from crysis and put them in doom the game would be improved, but if you left the graphics as they were and added new features or longer story, the game would be further improved.
I have never played TF2 but from what I assume it's an online multi-player shooter only so you don't need facial expressions, it's not like your ever going to really see them, unless your really bored and are looking for them. Does it really matter that there face moves when they do something? Do they need to have a personality? Do you need to relate or feel connected to the character? No 'cos there about to be blown to pieces. If there was a story to it then I would understand.
Only a n00b buy PS3 trigger covers (waste of money). R1/L1 FTW. The way the PS controller is shaped, it's awkward to use R2/L2 as the main triggers. 360's controller is the best designed controller, even my brother a PC-elitist, uses a 360 controller on his PC.Treblaine said:Only noobs own a PS3 and don't use these snap on concave triggers:Chiefmon said:
The wider frontal area overall makes them slightly superior to the 360 triggers for control. It also means when you you put down the PS3 controller on a table you are less likely to activate the L2 or R2 triggers.
No idea of how to implement concave tops for the analogue sticks so 360 retains the edge in that area.
I don't like the analog sticks on the PS3, and the Wii has some of the shittiest multiplayer I've ever seen (I was so excited for SSBB online, and then......fail) So the 360 is my choice. Yes I own all three and my choice is based on actual experience.
Some games leave you no choice, you have to use R2 to fire. But as I've already mentioned in a previous post about Medal of Honor Airborne, an analogue rigger can be preferable in the way it is used, though usually a simple "digital" button is usually best for say firing a gun in a game.rockingnic said:Only a n00b buy PS3 trigger covers (waste of money). R1/L1 FTW. The way the PS controller is shaped, it's awkward to use R2/L2 as the main triggers. 360's controller is the best designed controller, even my brother a PC-elitist, uses a 360 controller on his PC.Treblaine said:Only noobs own a PS3 and don't use these snap on concave triggers:Chiefmon said:
The wider frontal area overall makes them slightly superior to the 360 triggers for control. It also means when you you put down the PS3 controller on a table you are less likely to activate the L2 or R2 triggers.
No idea of how to implement concave tops for the analogue sticks so 360 retains the edge in that area.
But analogue trigger will always have some use where you have a variable output. A gun is either fired or not fired, but a grenade can be tossed at a continuous range of velocities depending on the arc you want. Also, the triggers of some firearms (Steyr AUG) are two staged, small pull for easy single shot, fully depress for full auto. Though not many games even take advantage of this, the potential is there.
I too use an xbox 360 wired gamepad on PC though I haven't been all that impressed with it, as although the overall feel is good it lacks a lot of features for the price (compare/contrast to the 'Saitek PS2700 Rumble Pad' that sells at a similar price). But my comparisons are with the PS3 controller which although not quite as hand filling, it is far from small, while the buttons are generally better from the D-pad to the triggers to the face buttons and then there is the six-axis functionality where although many games don't use it to much purpose, several do to great results. I'm actually trying to figure out how to use my PS3 gamepad on PC though finding stable drivers for Vista 64 is a pain.
I don't think it's noobish to spend pocket change on the one time purchase of a peripheral that improves the performance of a console. I mean it's like buying a HDTV yet never shelling out for a HDMI cable and just running over composite video.
360, as I'm used to it, I like the camera controlling (mostly), and the controller fits perfectly into my hands. But I'd rather have it on PC.
Anything but the wii lol.
Personally its the 360, because I hate the playstation controls and I'm to used to the Xbox
Personally its the 360, because I hate the playstation controls and I'm to used to the Xbox
I would proably perfer the 360. I don't really have a problem with the D-pad and I just perfer the online gameplay over the Graphics.
I would pick PC because there is no such thing as a console gamer, if your gaming consists mostly on a console you are not a gamer i am sorry :x
Well, TF2 does depend a lot on personality, it's too hard to explain so I suggest that you try out the game on a friend's computer or watch some videos of gameplay on youtube.omega 616 said:
If the lightning in FFX was fine with you well, fine, but excuse me and millions of other people if they have a bit of ambition for something a bit better, a bit more interesting, advance things a bit. Easiest example I can come up with is with one to demonstrate High Dynamic Range rendering:
Now there is nothing particularly wrong with the latter sans-HDR screenshot, but I know which version looks like a more interesting game world to be in, a game that has a bit more depth and life to it. A game I'd rather play and obviously the developers thought it would improve the game or they wouldn't have included it.
I'm not sure about what you mean that it would be "preferable" to fill a disk with "gameplay and story" rather than... graphics? Well if there were no graphics there would be no game, there would be no story. Graphics DO facilitate the telling of a story and the more detail you can put into a game the more you can do with it, you can manipulate the mood of a level with subtle use of lighting, the many little details to flesh out a world. A good game should not just tell the story through a string of cut-scenes but flesh it out through the actual gameplay.
And I'd say graphics in the sense of a game that looks very pretty such as the stylistic Killzone 2 or the naturalistic Crysis (Jungle) DO enhance the game and can in and of them self make the game enjoyable and worth playing. I mean does an artist's painting have to have a "meaning" for it to simply be nice to look at or for a game to explore, travel through, fighting and immerse yourself in.
Obviously, realism is not in and of itself interesting, if Crysis was set in the boring place where I live and it was a shopping simulator = pointless. But games can create these really interesting places to be in, a futuristic warzone, a lush tropical paradise, fighting against impossible odds.
I am not saying this like a child, like you provide loads of evidence and I just say "NO! It's this", It honestly looks to me like somebody just cranked up the brightness. I bet it took a few guys days (or weeks) to come up with that technology but thats all it looks like to me. I am not computer literate by the way.Treblaine said:Well, TF2 does depend a lot on personality, it's too hard to explain so I suggest that you try out the game on a friend's computer or watch some videos of gameplay on youtube.
If the lightning in FFX was fine with you well, fine, but excuse me and millions of other people if they have a bit of ambition for something a bit better, a bit more interesting, advance things a bit. Easiest example I can come up with is with one to demonstrate High Dynamic Range rendering:
Now there is nothing particularly wrong with the latter sans-HDR screenshot, but I know which version looks like a more interesting game world to be in, a game that has a bit more depth and life to it. A game I'd rather play and obviously the developers thought it would improve the game or they wouldn't have included it.
I'm not sure about what you mean that it would be "preferable" to fill a disk with "gameplay and story" rather than... graphics? Well if there were no graphics there would be no game, there would be no story. Graphics DO facilitate the telling of a story and the more detail you can put into a game the more you can do with it, you can manipulate the mood of a level with subtle use of lighting, the many little details to flesh out a world. A good game should not just tell the story through a string of cut-scenes but flesh it out through the actual gameplay.
And I'd say graphics in the sense of a game that looks very pretty such as the stylistic Killzone 2 or the naturalistic Crysis (Jungle) DO enhance the game and can in and of them self make the game enjoyable and worth playing. I mean does an artist's painting have to have a "meaning" for it to simply be nice to look at or for a game to explore, travel through, fighting and immerse yourself in.
Obviously, realism is not in and of itself interesting, if Crysis was set in the boring place where I live and it was a shopping simulator = pointless. But games can create these really interesting places to be in, a futuristic warzone, a lush tropical paradise, fighting against impossible odds.
When you play a game do you look at things like that? Did you play farcry, get up to that point and say "wow, look how awesome that HDR rendering looks"? I bet you don't, I bet if they hadn't included that the game wouldn't have been ruined a single bit, I bet you wouldn't have even complained that they never put it in or have said this game could use HDR rendering.
I am not having a go at you, your entitled to you opinion and preferences, I just can't see a difference other than it seems one is a damn site brighter than the other. It doesn't look more inviting, or deep, or interesting just brighter.
I wasn't saying cut graphics out completely, I am saying graphics look good enough, maybe even to good. Just take a step back in graphics and use the extra space to make games longer, more interesting, add new features and generally improve the game. It will be much better than getting the lighting just right, or making that leaf look wet in a rain forest, or the steam from a cold New York manhole cover since you hardly notice them small details anyway.
The thing about subtle lighting is, it's subtle, are you going to be paying attention to a subtle change in lighting or on the story being told (in a cut scene) or whats round the corner (in an fps gameplay section)? Is the game going to be ruined 'cos it never got a tiny bit brighter or darker? Or that the candle doesn't flicker quite right?
The thing about an artists drawing is it doesn't have to do anything else besides look pretty, unless your one of those pompous art critics who add meaning to nothing in pictures.
Games can create interesting places to be but that doesn't meant that the graphics should be super realistic to the minutest detail, when no body is going to care enough about it to stop and stare at it. When they could cut a few things out, still make it look good and whatever, but make it long and have an interesting story, with new gameplay features and items.
I just think games need to stop with the graphic updates and just concentrate on gaming, it looks pretty enough, work on the stuff that actually matters now.
To cut short a long and likely fruitless debate: yes.omega 616 said:
Not "Wow that's some nice HDR" but simply "Wow, this game is amazing". I did say this was a small example, don't make a big deal out of it, all these little details add up and HDR is one of the most basic.
I also wouldn't worry about better graphics compromising gameplay, the rather long and incredibly detailed Crysis fits into a 5.8GB file [http://www.direct2drive.co.uk/6801/product/Buy-Crysis-UK-Download] and with 50GB Blu-ray for PS3 and PC's ability to easily install from multiple DVDs, graphics are not the reason games are getting shorter.
Making it have good innovative and original gameplay with interesting story are mostly independent issues, left down to the creativity and skill of the development team.
Wut?
Crysis's gameplay got horribly buttfucked in the second half of the game.
"Hey, you know that really awesome game where you shanked other people using your really badass suit?"
"YEAH THAT SHIT WAS AWESOME?"
"Yeah, the rest of the game is just a very bland shooter that is just there to be really cool looking."
"....god damnit Crytek...god damnit."
It's like they learned nothing from Far Cry 1.