59 replies to this topic

[otaku_4_life]

PS3 has lower frame rates on a lot of games that XBOX has.

Which doesn't make sense to me at all (though I agree). For example, GoW3 looks fucking INCREDIBLE and runs just fine. I'd almost blame that on dev laziness in porting.

[way2lazy2care]

Oh I meant Consoles vs Pc's, the controls are the only reason people say racing, fighting and other games play better on them. But wouldn't it be better to just plug a game pad on the PC and play them there?

That's not true. The pads are good for them, but the largest competitive reason where consoles have an advantage is equivalent hardware dedicated to running a single application. This gives both a huge advantage to developers in game optimization as well as removing hardware differences on the competitive scene at a relatively low price.

The reason I prefer consoles is because I would rather play a game lounging on a couch than sitting in a desk chair.

On halos competitiveness. Halo is played competitively in a handful of leagues, and they consistently have similar finalists. That indicates that there is a skill difference and that that skill difference correlates to better gameplay/victory, which is essentially exactly what it means to be a competitive game at the core level.

Just because you use different skills does not make it more or less competitive than any other game. It's like arguing about whether soccer, rugby, or american football are more competitive. They are just different.

[CakeCom]

On halos competitiveness. Halo is played competitively in a handful of leagues, and they consistently have similar finalists. That indicates that there is a skill difference and that that skill difference correlates to better gameplay/victory, which is essentially exactly what it means to be a competitive game at the core level.

I still don't agree to this, but that is a well stated argument that tbh I can't respond to. It's true that there is obviously a skill gap.

On the topic of consoles vs. pcs

I'd say it's only a specific games thing for me. I lounge on my couch even with my gaming laptop when I play a game of SC or TF2 so being comfortable isn't a biggie for me. I like games like GTAIV, CoD (not competitively, for the love of god not competitively), Street Fighter, Resident Evil series, Silent Hill series etc. better on console usually because of controls, sometimes because of hardware. GTAIV seems to have always run perfectly on my xbox but I experience spikes on my PC. CoD I just like to abuse the fuck out of the poorly made aim-assist that allows me to autoaim through walls and get kills without looking at where I'm shooting. Halo isn't as bad as CoD in this regard, but it does still have aim-assist which imo takes away from the competitive value... but again Way2lazy has given a reasonable argument to that.

[way2lazy2care]

I still don't agree to this, but that is a well stated argument that tbh I can't respond to. It's true that there is obviously a skill gap.

On the topic of consoles vs. pcs

I'd say it's only a specific games thing for me. I lounge on my couch even with my gaming laptop when I play a game of SC or TF2 so being comfortable isn't a biggie for me. I like games like GTAIV, CoD (not competitively, for the love of god not competitively), Street Fighter, Resident Evil series, Silent Hill series etc. better on console usually because of controls, sometimes because of hardware. GTAIV seems to have always run perfectly on my xbox but I experience spikes on my PC. CoD I just like to abuse the fuck out of the poorly made aim-assist that allows me to autoaim through walls and get kills without looking at where I'm shooting. Halo isn't as bad as CoD in this regard, but it does still have aim-assist which imo takes away from the competitive value... but again Way2lazy has given a reasonable argument to that.

It's just a different skillset. The play in halo has a strong meta game focus rather than the primary focus being just on a player's ability to kill someone. That's obviously a huge part of it, but the separation between the best players and ok players is decided more on map control/awareness, taking full advantage of power weapons, and smart countering of both of those things. Those are important in other games two, but I think it's just a shift in priority of what's important to a skilled player/team.

[ThrashTitan]

That's obviously a huge part of it, but the separation between the best players and ok players is decided more on map control/awareness

This seems to also separate the Battlefield players.

[Ghostwhisp]

I don't really care. A console is something to play when friends come over and when you need gaming to be social IRL. It's just inconvenient to set up a mini LAN-party whenever my friends want to play a game. This is why I don't really mind the Wii as much as some do, because it's probably the best to play with friends, especially non-gamers. This is the only edge i give to consoles.

Every competitive game out there save Halo and Street Fighter, are PC games. CounterStrike Quake Live, Starcraft 2, League of Legends, etc etc. The reason, is the ability to control and react faster than on the console. There's a reason there was only ever like 2 RTS's ever ported to consoles, and a reason they failed miserably. There's just nothing that you can do to make a joystick, control, aim, and be as accurate as a mouse. It simply puts all console play a rung below PC play on the competitive ladder. You can master anything. Hell, there's a reason people held world records in the original Donkey Kong. Anything can be competitive. The thing is, when you put the free range of motion of a mouse, combined with personalized mouse sensitivity, and the solid WASD motion, you end up with the ability to aim anywhere with lightening quick precision. No matter what, it will always take you a certain amount of time to move your cross-hair from the middle of your screen to the corner where your enemy is on a console. Joysticks have a set speed, and thus limit the capability to react as fast as you can think. That's why it becomes so important to aim for the place the enemy is most likely to be before you even round a corner. Still, reacting, is something that is just simpler to do on a PC than a console, thus making the range and skill differential HUGE. PC's win. Also try playing with a Keyboard and mouse peripheral for a PS3. There's a few out there, and i guarantee you will rape every game of CoD you play.

[way2lazy2care]

There's a reason there was only ever like 2 RTS's ever ported to consoles, and a reason they failed miserably. There's just nothing that you can do to make a joystick, control, aim, and be as accurate as a mouse.

That is so not the reason that console rts's suck. The mouse works well for RTS's because it lets you interact with the GUI while also carrying out it's more obvious functions. This is VERY difficult with a controller. You also have like 50 keys vs the 7 you have on a console. They keyboard is a much more decisive factor in RTS success on PC than the mouse.

I still think tactic based RTS's can work well on consoles compared with resource based RTS's. Full Spectrum Warrior was an absolute blast, and I could see that being extended to something competitive.

As far as FPS's are concerned, right analogue isn't horrible, but the left analogue stick kicks the ass of wasd as far as movement is concerned. Head shots are more difficult, but you can easily hit and track the body and you have a huge range of movement. It dictates a different playstyle.

Input does not dictate competitiveness, game design does. Is chess more or less competitive than golf or soccer or rugby? Or better, chess and checkers have almost identical inputs, but checkers is immeasurably less competitive than chess.

[Ghostwhisp]

I didn't say that console shooters weren't competitive, I was pointing out, that the margin of skill is more easily determined on a PC. The time it takes to aim and move is directly correlated with how fast you can think and move. That's it, as soon as your mouse hand hits that spot, it's bingo. On any shooter on a console, you have your reaction time, your finger moving time, plus the delay on the drag speed of the cross hair based on the game design. If you walk into a room of 3 enemies in a shooter, on a PC you could technically pinpoint all three heads, click three times, and get three kills. On a console, providing your opponents aren't derps, the time it takes for your cross hair to hit all 3 heads, would be significantly slower than on a pc, and therefore though your thought and movement speed may be the same, your actual reflected performance isn't. I definitely agree that is' possible to be amazing and competitive on consoles, I just simply think that on a PC that smidgen of difference between the two circumstances I listed there, actually make a big difference in extremely high level play.

[CakeCom]

its worth pointing out that there are shooters on pc that aren't good for competition as well.

Yeah, there's a shitload of them. Other than Halo though, there's not one shooter that's even close to competitive imo. I still think Halo could be argued, not going to bother though.

On another note though, I think RTS could work on console with a new type of controller- similar to the kinnect.

It'd be a really new way to play these games, so it'd take some time getting used to. But with voice recognition and motion controls you could do it. Maybe if you made the shape of a box with your fingers or something you can select that area of the screen. Anyways, I think it could work. But to date, haven't seen a spectacular RTS on console.

[Ghostwhisp]

On another note though, I think RTS could work on console with a new type of controller- similar to the kinnect.

[lolcrica90]

some speculation about the specs
http://kotaku.com/#!5794567/we-may-hav...-of-wii-2-specs

also bomberman is pretty hardcore, not the new futuristic robotic tripe. but the hardcore hardcore bomberman.

[way2lazy2care]

If you walk into a room of 3 enemies in a shooter, on a PC you could technically pinpoint all three heads, click three times, and get three kills.

I'd counter by saying that that hurts strategy a lot, and I find strategy much more compelling from a competition standpoint than pure physical ability. If you run into a room full of 3 people with similar skill you should die, and the strategically competitive way to handle that situation should be to not run into the room with 3 enemies, but to wait for a situation where you have advantage.

My gripes with resource gathering RTS's is similar. I would be very interested to see a more tactical RTS. I would actually be very interested in an RTS that was more like you giving orders and watching what happened rather than being able to directly control units. The AI in it would have to be pretty awesome, but I think it would have great potential.

[CakeCom]

positioning is SO much more valuable simply BECAUSE of the limitation added by the controller.

This makes it less competitive imo.

Basically what you're saying is, all you have to do is be in the right place at the right time and you should always get a kill (as a pro)... which is exactly what competitive console FPS is. Don't you see a problem with that? PC FPS you have to be in the right place AND you have to know how to shoot AND you have to fine tune your shots with timing, knowledge of your weapon (most likely) etc.

Again, Halo is kind of an exception to this because the autoaim isn't rediculous and tbh I myself have a hard time getting kills myself most of the time and I consider myself pretty good at CS 1.6 & TF2. Black Ops / MW2 I can pray and spray straight ahead and pretty good chance of getting a 1:1 kd ratio if I'm equipped with a silencer.

[way2lazy2care]

This makes it less competitive imo.

Basically what you're saying is, all you have to do is be in the right place at the right time and you should always get a kill (as a pro)... which is exactly what competitive console FPS is. Don't you see a problem with that? PC FPS you have to be in the right place AND you have to know how to shoot AND you have to fine tune your shots with timing, knowledge of your weapon (most likely) etc.

You still have to be a competent shot in console fps's too. It's just a matter of skill priority.

Halo would look something like this:
-Map Awareness/Control
-General Positioning (things like keeping your back to a wall rather than overall map positioning, but highly dependent on map awareness)
-Power Weapon/vehicle Awareness/Control
-Aim

Where something like CS would look like:
-Aim
-Map Awareness/Control
-General Positioning

And quake would probably look like:
-Aim
-General Positioning/Movement
-Map Awareness/Control
-Power Weapon/vehicle Awareness/Control

[snow]

I had posted about this sometime ago think it was called hd wii or something. I thought it was pretty awesome hope to see twilight princess in hd. Also im glad that its not just an HD Wii as was my understanding way back when.

[x_byakugan_x]

It's Wii-U.
I expect it to also be an amazing emulation machine as the Wii is. It's going to be all of nintendo's shit in 1.