Until you just mute the players who are shitcocking all the time, which are not nearly as common as Scott makes out. We can forgive him for that, though, he's not played enough to really know. Or have even located the mute option.
Until you just mute the players who are shitcocking all the time, which are not nearly as common as Scott makes out. We can forgive him for that, though, he's not played enough to really know. Or have even located the mute option.
Gotta agree there. As I'e said before, I played Black Ops online with my friend when he came over. We played for 5+ hours (not straight), and only had one bad experience wherein one person kept calling the game "N-word Ops" (paraphrased) because "It's Black and there are so many 'N-words' here" (again, paraphrased). We muted him after the first game and enjoyed the game for another few hours.
I always found the Nicest and the worst players played on PCs. You can find people who are very willing to help you learn the game, they will spend time with you training you, explaining things to you, and may end up on your friends list willing to answer any other questions you have. You also have the kids who join a game and Yell swears, BLARE sound boards, shoot a swastika in the wall, and hacks until everyone leaves the server or a mod bans them.
Console games seem to have both, but they are very rare. It's usually just a younger kid playing with you who you don't find fascinating and you don't with to have a meaningful discussion with, so you never talk to them. You are then playing with tons of people... yet there is very little interaction, no real plans become established, and while you fight on the same side connections between you two are not made. Finally after your done playing that game you both go your separate ways.
The glorious PC gaming master race hasits shitcockers, too.We would all do well to remember that.
Yeah, it's really just a case of equal opportunity shitcocking. The sort of person who will shitcock on a console is exactly the same sort of person who would shitcock on PC - it's nothing to do with platform choice.
Buy a kit "Gaming" PC, either plug in all the cables or get someone to do it for you, install game(a few mouse clicks, or use steam)(or get someone to do it for you), go forth and shitcock. Barrier to entry, zero.
Console, buy console, plug in the cables(or get someone to do it for you), set it up with your TV, if you have to(or get someone to do it for you), put game in tray, download update if necessary, sign up for whatever service you need to(PSN or Xbox Live gold), go forth and shitcock. Barrier to entry, zero.
You can make the argument "Oh, but you have to be more tech savvy to use a PC" - no, not really. Either someone can do it for you, or you can easily do it yourself. My mother is hopeless with computers, but she can plug the nessassary cables into a computer and install programs. I have no doubt, if she wanted, she could easily get onto a server on a game, or sign up to steam and buy games. It's no more complex than signing up to facebook and filling out your page, and how many deadshits do you know who can and have done that?
Thinking about it, most people have a PC that will at least play Left 4 Dead if they buy it this year and most people need to have a computer.
Netbook. This negates all of that. I needed a computer for school. I didn't want to make my dad spend a lot of money. I got a netbook. It runs most everything that I need it to do. I'm going to have to use the lab computers, but just because we can't get all the software they have for free, at least I don't think...Either way, I can't very well do modern gaming on this thing, but it suits my other purposes. I'm not the only one that thinks this way.
You're ignoring price. A PC is a lot more expensive than a console, especially if you buy a pre-made "gaming" PC.
True, but also consider many people will go in stages of "Big upgrades" - for example, they'll buy a pretty good computer for the current year level - down here, around the 900 odd dollar mark, and then they won't replace that for a few years. 3 or 4 years down the line, they replace it with another $900 computer.
However, this is irrelevant - If you're a poor sucker who has to scrape together cash for a computer, or you're some spoilt brat of a kid, if you're gonna shitcock, you're gonna shitcock. Price is not the sole deciding factor on platform.
Yeah I mean it says nothing particularly new, but it's interesting to know the ways they were assisting with console aiming and the ways they needed to alter various gameplay mechanics because of the increased abilities and things a PC gamer is able to do that a console game isn't.
The guy basically says the same thing I've always said.
Same things I always say in response, Coupled with the usual implications that your gaming and FPS skills, along with your adaptability, are weak.
Hey, I kinda like this. Easier than fucking about with long repeated arguments. Motion to do this more often.
It was certainly interesting - I skimmed the bit about the difference between K+M and Controller(Same shit, Different mouthpiece, whatever - Heard it all before, it's still irrelevant at it's core) - but the tweaking for the different control system bit that starts about halfway down is actually quite fascinating. I'm way more interested in how they modify the gameplay to re-balance for a new input scheme.
Coupled with the usual implications that your gaming and FPS skills, along with your adaptability, are weak.
For console controller, it's a physical limitation.
I'm way more interested in how they modify the gameplay to re-balance for a new input scheme.
Notice how almost every modification boils down to "the PC gamers are way more fast and precise in their aiming: we need to gimp them somehow." That is telling.
Wait... what? How is this irrelevant? This is literally the game designer of a game saying here is what we have to do to make them game work for console player, and here is what we have to do for computer players. This is about as primary a primary source you can get, it could not possibly be any more relevant.
The controls are the direct access you have to the game; how could they be irrelevant?
It came up in argument a while ago, and the part of the argument which isn't the usual "It's okay, we're really the elite ones" that will get this reposted, oh, fuckin' everywhere reinforces it - At what point is the game modified enough that it's not a valid comparison? I've bought it up before - If you're modifying the game to suit different inputs, then you are not playing the same game - Just as 56 inch, 900 CC drivers are not allowed in professional golf because it fundamentally changes the game(From an overall test of skill along the entire course, into "Who can most accurately put the ball on the green with this massive club in a single shot"), and being a good shot with a rifle doesn't make you a competitive knife-thrower. This article shows that, once you get past the usual bollocks - they're modifying the PC version enough that it creates different tactics, and the input scheme alone brings up tactics which were not present in the original game, Ie, now the best move for the heavy is to stay in the air as much as possible, and the sniper rifle needs to be changed so that it's not just an overpowered death machine. I'm interested to see how they fix the Tank charge, since they don't mention that at all, just the problem with it.
Wait... what? How is this irrelevant? This is literally the game designer of a game saying here is what we have to do to make them game work for console player, and here is what we have to do for computer players. This is about as primary a primary source you can get, it could not possibly be any more relevant.
Welcome to reading comprehension 201. I very specifically said what I skimmed - The explanation of how K+M and Controllers are different, and as I've said before, that's irrelevant, because it's not a valid comparison, because (read somewhere else in this post where I come up with an analogy to roughly describe it three or four times.)
For console controller, it's a physical limitation.
Then have a tablespoon of cement and harden up, princess. Adapt, or bitch out. I chose to adapt. You chose to bitch out. Hardly anyone else's fault.
Notice how almost every modification boils down to "the PC gamers are way more fast and precise in their aiming: we need to gimp them somehow." That is telling.
It is telling. Of your inability to actually comprehend what you read. At the very top of this guy's statement, in the third sentence -
However, since the input mechanism has changed I have found some challenges in getting the game to a balanced state.
I assume, Rym, You do know what Balancing a game means, so feel free to skip the rest of this line if you must - Balancing a game, which is clearly exampled in the article after about halfway, is not Gimping anybody - If you hold your statement up to the actual words of this guy, essentially what you're saying is "PC gamers were way more fast and precise in their aiming, we need to gimp them, because skilled PC gamers are not good enough to deal with how fast a mouse and keyboard can input commands in the hands of skilled PC gamers." If you're still reading this far - I'd be surprised, considering the opening line of this paragraph - then you'll notice two things 1)That (Probably) isn't what you were trying to say, because 2)That's utterly fucking nonsensical, and I know that you're not that stupid, though I think that a little more thought could have gone into that one.
Game balance - As you don't need me explaining to you but I'm going to anyway - is about making sure one weapon isn't some insta-gibbing, infinite ammo death machine for that iteration of the game, and that any unexpected emergent tactics are not utterly game-breaking. Not about Gimping, unless you consider, for a random example that springs to mind, that poker is Gimped against certain players, because they're not allowed to look at all the cards in sequence before they're dealt, or able to pick what cards they want by name as the game goes along.
This has been my stance, of late - Are they the same game? No. They play differently, and the gameplay is often balanced differently, though there are rare exceptions that work out(or fail horribly.) Is comparing two different games of the genre, on different platforms, and in your own case, inevitably from different time periods, Valid? Most likely not. So, I think, the most logical opinion would be that they are simply different. You may enjoy one more than the other, cool, whatever. Doesn't make you superior, except at that single thing. Given a week of solid practice to get back into the groove, you'd most likely beat me at, ass-pulled example, Counterstrike. But given a fortnight of solid practice, I'd be surprised if you could beat me on a console FPS.
Quite simply - The point is moot, the vast majority of the skill doesn't transfer. It's like saying that someone is fucking terrible at building sandcastles, because they can't surf - while it makes more sense on the surface, I simply think it's equally nonsensical.
You again miss the point. Must I use a simpler example?
Console controllers are a valid controller (as opposed to a mouse/keyboard) for some games, just as paddle controllers were in the Atari days (as opposed to a joystick). The paddle offered much finer control than the joystick, but the joystick had an additional (albeit nongranular) axis. Games were designed for one or the other.
For a game where a single axis of fine control was required, the paddle was objectively a better controller. It provided a level of precision that allowed for gameplay patently impossible with the joystick (which had nine possible states total). You could make a game like Kaboom or Night Driver and have it use the joystick controller, but these games would have had to be greatly simplified and slowed down due to the severe limitations of the joystick.
These games could only exist with the precision control of the paddle. To make an analogous game with the limited joystick would be to effectively make a much different game which by physical limitation could not include precision analog control as a player skill test.
Do you disagree with this?
The paddle allowed for objectively more precise analog control. If games that tested precise analog control were "ported" to use joysticks, said test would quite literally have to be dumbed down in order for game to work. Joystick games could test many other skills, such as tactics, planning, coordination, teamwork. But they physically could not test precise analog control. If versus kaboom were made, and allowed players to use either a paddle or a joystick, players using the former would have an enormous advantage unless they were somehow gimped.
Console controllers are a valid controller (as opposed to a mouse/keyboard) for some games, just aspaddlecontrollers were in the Atari days (as opposed to a joystick). The paddle offered much finer control than the joystick, but the joystick had an additional (albeit nongranular) axis. Games were designed for one or the other.
This! A thousand times this!
Back around 1997-99, my dad was working at Hasbro Interactive as a graphics designer for presentations. Harbro Interactive, at that time, was given by ATARI the right to make a new PONG game. One of the times when Dad took us to work with him (always awesome because we would always walk out with a free toy or video game) the dev team borrowed us to play test a game. They would often do this and we would never protest because, hell, we could sit around all day, play video games, get free toys, pizza, and sodas: A little kid's dream.
Anyway, to the point, at one point they were working on a new PONG game and they asked one of us to play with a Paddle controller and one with a joystick. I guess they were trying to decide which one they were going to bundle with the game. THE PADDLE WAS SO MUCH BETTER IN EVERY WAY! Even as a little kid I recognized how much better I could play with the paddle as opposed to the joystick. I'm not sure if anything ever came out of it, but I'm gonna go look.
First, If you're going to continue, You really need to actually get my position right rather than constructing strawmen. I expect better of you, really, unless you'd rather suggest I revise my opinion.
You again miss the point. Must I use a simpler example?
So, therefore my answer to this question is - No, Because I don't need to bother with your arguing about what you WISH I said. So, Now either try repeating what you just said, because it's obviously that everyone else is stupid and needs it explained slowly, your fucking highness, or fold like a cheap suit and slink off without another word, again. It's a con-flip as to which of your usual tactics you'll use.
As for Scott? Well, like I said, He knows what I'll say, I know what he's gonna say, so I see no worth in saying it - we just disagree. Easy, simple, done.
This! A thousand times this!
Back around 1997-99, my dad was working at Hasbro Interactive as a graphics designer for presentations. Harbro Interactive, at that time, was given by ATARI the right to make a new PONG game. One of the times when Dad took us to work with him (always awesome because we would always walk out with a free toy or video game) the dev team borrowed us to play test a game. They would often do this and we would never protest because, hell, we could sit around all day, play video games, get free toys, pizza, and sodas: A little kid's dream.
Anyway, to the point, at one point they were working on a new PONG game and they asked one of us to play with a Paddle controller and one with a joystick. I guess they were trying to decide which one they were going to bundle with the game. THE PADDLE WAS SO MUCH BETTER IN EVERY WAY! Even as a little kid I recognized how much better I could play with the paddle as opposed to the joystick. I'm not sure if anything ever came out of it, but I'm gonna go look.
And then you went and had arguments over long chain letters with your friends about how either the paddle or the joystick was superior, surely?
Thats some good trolling there. I especially like the parts where its not half-life in the picture and how the pc game is about 10 years older than the Xbox game.
Comments
You also have the kids who join a game and Yell swears, BLARE sound boards, shoot a swastika in the wall, and hacks until everyone leaves the server or a mod bans them.
Console games seem to have both, but they are very rare. It's usually just a younger kid playing with you who you don't find fascinating and you don't with to have a meaningful discussion with, so you never talk to them. You are then playing with tons of people... yet there is very little interaction, no real plans become established, and while you fight on the same side connections between you two are not made. Finally after your done playing that game you both go your separate ways.
Console, buy console, plug in the cables(or get someone to do it for you), set it up with your TV, if you have to(or get someone to do it for you), put game in tray, download update if necessary, sign up for whatever service you need to(PSN or Xbox Live gold), go forth and shitcock. Barrier to entry, zero.
You can make the argument "Oh, but you have to be more tech savvy to use a PC" - no, not really. Either someone can do it for you, or you can easily do it yourself. My mother is hopeless with computers, but she can plug the nessassary cables into a computer and install programs. I have no doubt, if she wanted, she could easily get onto a server on a game, or sign up to steam and buy games. It's no more complex than signing up to facebook and filling out your page, and how many deadshits do you know who can and have done that?
This negates all of that. I needed a computer for school. I didn't want to make my dad spend a lot of money. I got a netbook. It runs most everything that I need it to do. I'm going to have to use the lab computers, but just because we can't get all the software they have for free, at least I don't think...Either way, I can't very well do modern gaming on this thing, but it suits my other purposes. I'm not the only one that thinks this way.
However, this is irrelevant - If you're a poor sucker who has to scrape together cash for a computer, or you're some spoilt brat of a kid, if you're gonna shitcock, you're gonna shitcock. Price is not the sole deciding factor on platform.
EDIT: Can't say I disagree, though.
Hey, I kinda like this. Easier than fucking about with long repeated arguments. Motion to do this more often.
It was certainly interesting - I skimmed the bit about the difference between K+M and Controller(Same shit, Different mouthpiece, whatever - Heard it all before, it's still irrelevant at it's core) - but the tweaking for the different control system bit that starts about halfway down is actually quite fascinating. I'm way more interested in how they modify the gameplay to re-balance for a new input scheme.
If you're still reading this far - I'd be surprised, considering the opening line of this paragraph - then you'll notice two things 1)That (Probably) isn't what you were trying to say, because 2)That's utterly fucking nonsensical, and I know that you're not that stupid, though I think that a little more thought could have gone into that one.
Game balance - As you don't need me explaining to you but I'm going to anyway - is about making sure one weapon isn't some insta-gibbing, infinite ammo death machine for that iteration of the game, and that any unexpected emergent tactics are not utterly game-breaking. Not about Gimping, unless you consider, for a random example that springs to mind, that poker is Gimped against certain players, because they're not allowed to look at all the cards in sequence before they're dealt, or able to pick what cards they want by name as the game goes along.
This has been my stance, of late - Are they the same game? No. They play differently, and the gameplay is often balanced differently, though there are rare exceptions that work out(or fail horribly.) Is comparing two different games of the genre, on different platforms, and in your own case, inevitably from different time periods, Valid? Most likely not.
So, I think, the most logical opinion would be that they are simply different. You may enjoy one more than the other, cool, whatever. Doesn't make you superior, except at that single thing. Given a week of solid practice to get back into the groove, you'd most likely beat me at, ass-pulled example, Counterstrike. But given a fortnight of solid practice, I'd be surprised if you could beat me on a console FPS.
Quite simply - The point is moot, the vast majority of the skill doesn't transfer. It's like saying that someone is fucking terrible at building sandcastles, because they can't surf - while it makes more sense on the surface, I simply think it's equally nonsensical.
You again miss the point. Must I use a simpler example?
Console controllers are a valid controller (as opposed to a mouse/keyboard) for some games, just as paddle controllers were in the Atari days (as opposed to a joystick). The paddle offered much finer control than the joystick, but the joystick had an additional (albeit nongranular) axis. Games were designed for one or the other.
For a game where a single axis of fine control was required, the paddle was objectively a better controller. It provided a level of precision that allowed for gameplay patently impossible with the joystick (which had nine possible states total). You could make a game like Kaboom or Night Driver and have it use the joystick controller, but these games would have had to be greatly simplified and slowed down due to the severe limitations of the joystick.
These games could only exist with the precision control of the paddle. To make an analogous game with the limited joystick would be to effectively make a much different game which by physical limitation could not include precision analog control as a player skill test.
Do you disagree with this?
The paddle allowed for objectively more precise analog control. If games that tested precise analog control were "ported" to use joysticks, said test would quite literally have to be dumbed down in order for game to work. Joystick games could test many other skills, such as tactics, planning, coordination, teamwork. But they physically could not test precise analog control. If versus kaboom were made, and allowed players to use either a paddle or a joystick, players using the former would have an enormous advantage unless they were somehow gimped.
Do you disagree with this?
Back around 1997-99, my dad was working at Hasbro Interactive as a graphics designer for presentations. Harbro Interactive, at that time, was given by ATARI the right to make a new PONG game. One of the times when Dad took us to work with him (always awesome because we would always walk out with a free toy or video game) the dev team borrowed us to play test a game. They would often do this and we would never protest because, hell, we could sit around all day, play video games, get free toys, pizza, and sodas: A little kid's dream.
Anyway, to the point, at one point they were working on a new PONG game and they asked one of us to play with a Paddle controller and one with a joystick. I guess they were trying to decide which one they were going to bundle with the game. THE PADDLE WAS SO MUCH BETTER IN EVERY WAY! Even as a little kid I recognized how much better I could play with the paddle as opposed to the joystick. I'm not sure if anything ever came out of it, but I'm gonna go look.
As for Scott? Well, like I said, He knows what I'll say, I know what he's gonna say, so I see no worth in saying it - we just disagree. Easy, simple, done. And then you went and had arguments over long chain letters with your friends about how either the paddle or the joystick was superior, surely?