[QUOTE=Protocol7;35497917]I wasn't aware this is the Mass Debate section[/QUOTE]
Because you seriously need to have "be polite" specified in the rules in order to be polite ?
You really need to learn some proper etiquette.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35498156]Because you seriously need to have "be polite" specified in the rules in order to be polite ?
You really need to learn some proper etiquette.[/QUOTE]
It's an internet forum, there aren't any serious expectations for "etiquette".
[QUOTE=Protocol7;35498219]It's an internet forum, there aren't any serious expectations for "etiquette".[/QUOTE]
Actually yes there is, hence the presence of rules and the fact you can be banned for flaming which is pretty much just insulting someone a lot.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35498300]Actually yes there is, hence the presence of rules and the fact you can be banned for flaming which is pretty much just insulting someone a lot.[/QUOTE]
Okay well someone made a stupid uninformed claim and I told them they were stupid, I'm sorry if that offends you because I'm not being polite
okay get over it already wow
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;35493638]I don't get it why everyone has such a boner over PC-only titles. This some kind of fucked-up revenge feeling because of console exclusives? I'd like platform to be a non-issue. We all want to play videogames.[/QUOTE]
I have a boner over PC titles because in the past, games that had emphasis on PC (perhaps not PC-only, but definitely emphasis on PC) were the ones that I had the best time playing, those being titles such as Starcraft, Diablo, Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Heroes of Might and Magic III, etc etc
I generally like FPS and strategy games, which seem to be best done on PC, so I love to hear when a developer says that their FPS/strategy/etc game shall have emphasis on PC.
I think that the PC interface (mouse/keyboard) is more effective than controllers, which allows PC games to get more depth in certain genres that require fast actions/thinking like RTS/FPS (Starcraft, Quake, etc). Some people don't play games for "depth" I'll admit, but I like to get more out of my games than just a quick buzz that lasts less than 30 minutes, I like to actually think about how to solve problems that are thrown at me (like thinking about where your opponent is in Quake and how to control the map, or what strategies to use against an opponent in Starcraft).
Also, this is all coming from someone who owns a few consoles, so it's not like I never play console games to compare.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35497661]It generally means better controls, better graphics, better UI, better game overall.[/QUOTE]
That's a load of shit and you know it. The game being PC only has no impact at all on the actual quality of the game compared to a multi-platform game. It's quality is affected by how lazy the developers are or how well they know their tools.
Better controls? My arse. The control scheme for a game depends entirely on how well thought out a development team designed it. If they really thought it out, you'd be able to rebind keys, use gamepads, change gamepad buttons, etc. And most do. There is nothing about PC only titles that suddenly mean "better" controls.
Better graphics. Questionable. While it is true that modern graphics hardware can do some incredible things in real time. The quality of the graphics will, again, depend on how much effort the developer puts in and what engine they use. Then there is style. A style can make even "simple" graphics really, really nice to look at (see: Okami, Borderlands). And with enough effort from the developer, a console game can look really damn good (Uncharted in general looks great).
Better UI, again, is utter shit. A UI is up to the developer bothering to do research into UX, to see what their users want the in game menus and HUDs to show, and how they think it should feel to use. Nothing to do with the platform at all as I have seen some amazing UIs, and some shoddy UIs on both PC and consoles.
Better game overall? You're fucking kidding right? Do I even need to explain this one?
[QUOTE=G-Guy;35498622]I like to actually think about how to solve problems that are thrown at me (like thinking about where your opponent is in Quake and how to control the map)[/QUOTE]
that's silly, quake is easily done on a console, it was not a sophisticated game by any means.
especially compared to GoldenEye.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35498733]that's silly, quake is easily done on a console, it was not a sophisticated game by any means.
especially compared to GoldenEye.[/QUOTE]
not only that but you can't say that strategic planning goes out the window solely because a game is on the console
[QUOTE=thisispain;35498733]that's silly, quake is easily done on a console, it was not a sophisticated game by any means.
especially compared to GoldenEye.[/QUOTE]
The only thing you'd lose in a console Quake game is a bit of the pacing as the controls would be a bit clunkier. But otherwise it would play near enough the exact same.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;35493944]I think "better controls" depends on genre, not every kind of game responds well to digital movement input. I actually like "one button to rule them all" syndrome tho, it keeps all the actions I need close to my WASD keys and I execute actions more quickly, making combat more fluid, fast-paced and fun as long as no functions interfere.
And the only console I own is a trusty Gameboy Color, I'm a full-fledged PC gamer otherwise.[/QUOTE]
If you've ever played ME3 you will utterly and utterly despise the one button to rule them all syndrome. And that's not by far the worst offender.
The thing is, there's still a difference in handling and enemy movement in games that were originaly designed with analog sticks in mind and games which are based on WASD+mouse.
It's minor gripes, minor things but it's still big enough that a lot of people can tell the difference and get somewhat frustrated by it.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35498766]The only thing you'd lose in a console Quake game is a bit of the pacing as the controls would be a bit clunkier. But otherwise it would play near enough the exact same.[/QUOTE]
not even just a bit, a lot more. the N64 controller wasn't good for shooters even in the slightest.
I can not play shooters on consoles period, it's just so clunky
[QUOTE=thisispain;35498733]that's silly, quake is easily done on a console, it was not a sophisticated game by any means.
especially compared to GoldenEye.[/QUOTE]
Actually quake III was ported to the xbox 360 and it's really not as dynamic as the PC version because how slow the controls are with a controller compared to a mouse and keyboard.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35498807]not even just a bit, a lot more. the N64 controller wasn't good for shooters even in the slightest.[/QUOTE]
Yeah now that I think about it the game would slow to a snails pace compared to PC matches. Without copious amounts of sticky-aim.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35498857]Actually quake III was ported to the xbox 360 and it's really not as dynamic as the PC version because how slow the controls are with a controller compared to a mouse and keyboard.[/QUOTE]
pah i'd still divide and conquer.
i wreck at quake 3, PS2, or PC.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35498682]That's a load of shit and you know it. The game being PC only has no impact at all on the actual quality of the game compared to a multi-platform game. It's quality is affected by how lazy the developers are or how well they know their tools.
Better controls? My arse. The control scheme for a game depends entirely on how well thought out a development team designed it. If they really thought it out, you'd be able to rebind keys, use gamepads, change gamepad buttons, etc. And most do. There is nothing about PC only titles that suddenly mean "better" controls.
Better graphics. Questionable. While it is true that modern graphics hardware can do some incredible things in real time. The quality of the graphics will, again, depend on how much effort the developer puts in and what engine they use. Then there is style. A style can make even "simple" graphics really, really nice to look at (see: Okami, Borderlands). And with enough effort from the developer, a console game can look really damn good (Uncharted in general looks great).
Better UI, again, is utter shit. A UI is up to the developer bothering to do research into UX, to see what their users want the in game menus and HUDs to show, and how they think it should feel to use. Nothing to do with the platform at all as I have seen some amazing UIs, and some shoddy UIs on both PC and consoles.
Better game overall? You're fucking kidding right? Do I even need to explain this one?[/QUOTE]
I know it's all up to the developer which is why I said GENERALLY.
But I also know that if the game is also supposed to be on consoles chances are it will first be a console title then have a port from console to PC which usually results in graphics that are worse than if the game was made for PC only (mainly because of the fact our current gen for consoles is from 2005 while the PC has been constantly evolving for a lot of time now, which means the developers have immensely less constraints when it comes to games that are PC only), controls that are actually optimized for a keyboard and mouse (you can't program aiming the same way if you're using an analog stick or a mouse as one allows for much better precision aiming than the other, yet a lot of developers end up not changing the aiming system at all from the console version to the PC one), a UI that's really poorly optimized for a mouse use (which usually means small text or line-based menus that are a pain to click on or menus that can only be went through using odd keyboard shortcuts) and a better game overall as the developers are generally forced to make a game much slower on a lot of levels in order to make it playable at all with a controller, especially with first person shooters.
I know some games managed to stay good regardless of the existence of console versions, like Battlefield 3, but those are still rare and generally if a console version of the game exists it means it was the priority and that the PC version is a bad port.
It's about damn time they return to their roots.
And if it's anything related to Gears of War I'm done with this company.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35498733]that's silly, quake is easily done on a console, it was not a sophisticated game by any means.[/QUOTE]
If you compare single-player perhaps.
I'm talking about Quake multiplayer though (Quakeworld).
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxpIyAFv6Lo[/media]
You have to consider that while they're bunnyhopping and fighting each other, each has to time the items down to the second and predict the enemy in order to control the map.
Video would be better with commentating, unfortunately couldn't find a Quakeworld vid with one, so here's a Quake Live duel with the winner commentating the replay, talking about what goes through his mind and etc.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58[/media]
I never played an UT game.
Here's to hoping it's something with new optimized tech.
Maybe a open world survival game :O
I imagine the unreal engine could do that quite well.
Unreal Remake, please.
[QUOTE=G-Guy;35499482]If you compare single-player perhaps.
I'm talking about Quake multiplayer though (Quakeworld).
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxpIyAFv6Lo[/media]
You have to consider that while they're bunnyhopping and fighting each other, each has to time the items down to the second and predict the enemy in order to control the map.
Video would be better with commentating, unfortunately couldn't find a Quakeworld vid with one, so here's a Quake Live duel with the winner commentating the replay, talking about what goes through his mind and etc.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58[/media][/QUOTE]
It's still quite a simple game and would work well on any platform. It is just the loss of pace that would happen when playing it on anything that uses analogue sticks for aiming.
It'll blow ass, just watch.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35500106]It's still quite a simple game and would work well on any platform. It is just the loss of pace that would happen when playing it on anything that uses analogue sticks for aiming.[/QUOTE]
Well I've tried quake 3 on xbox and it's really slow and dull when you play with a controller rather than a keyboard and mouse.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35500106]It's still quite a simple game and would work well on any platform. It is just the loss of pace that would happen when playing it on anything that uses analogue sticks for aiming.[/QUOTE]
The maps would have to be redesigned since a lot of the map features actually only work fairly well if you can execute various rocket jumps and similar things which a person with a controller can't do with the same degree of precision.
Obviously the premise of the game itself is simple. No one is arguing that. No one is also claiming that PC games are more or less complex than console games. There's just different control schemes which play out differently in animations, map designs, overall flow and similar.
And a game designed for consoles first will feel like a console game because of this.
There's also UI differences. Compare a PC RPG designed inventory to a console designed one. A console inventory tends to be easy to cycle with while offering little information. A pc centric on the other hand tends to usually be grid based.
Then there's UI screen estate differences. Consoles on average tend to have larger UI's because the player is so much further away from the screen.
And you could continue on.
And that's just control and design differences. After that you have to consider graphical differences. Again console players stand further away from the screen (without bigger resulutions) so you're close in texture mips don't have to have as much detail. Which is really glarring on a PC. That's not even mentioning that a console game forces lower resolutions due to limited memory and devs tend to use the downsampled console textures for the pc port afterwards as well.
Unreal Tournament 2013
Jazz Jackrabbit 3.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvyIZ8wLHAg[/media]
Do it, this game is starting to show it age, remaster the soundtrack GRACEFULLY, up the graphics, leave everything the same.
[QUOTE=G-Guy;35498622]
I think that the PC interface (mouse/keyboard) is more effective than controllers, which allows PC games to get more depth in certain genres that require fast actions/thinking like RTS/FPS (Starcraft, Quake, etc). Some people don't play games for "depth" I'll admit, but I like to get more out of my games than just a quick buzz that lasts less than 30 minutes, I like to actually think about how to solve problems that are thrown at me (like thinking about where your opponent is in Quake and how to control the map, or what strategies to use against an opponent in Starcraft).
[/QUOTE]
I don't know man, I kind of prefer sitting back with a controller in my hand chilling compared with having to use a keyboard and mouse. Then again that's just my opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.