Industry Stays Flat For November But PC Skyrockets
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
If you want an arcade style experience then sure controllers are just fine but you can only ever go so far down the sim path with the limitations of the controller. So it also depends I suppose on how you like your FPS, and if you've been playing FPS since wolfenstein 3D as I have then you (probably) tend to prefer the speed, manoeuvrability, and precision of the mouse and keyboard setup which allows for more finesse and makes games like counterstrike and even fast paced traditional shooters like UT the great games that they are.SonicWaffle said:Never understood that claim either. Maybe I'm just incredibly cack-handed (which, OK, I am) but I've always found using a mouse to be terribly imprecise. Especially once they start clogging up with dirt or your mousemat is too small for the wide sweeps you've been making with the mouse.Richard Allen said:
I find FPS much easier on consoles, presumably because there's some sort of auto-aim tweaking going on to make up for the general imprecision of a thumbstick. Plus, triggers! How can you play an FPS without a trigger, man? Just feels wrong to me
Like any control system though you have to learn it, so its no surprise at all that you struggle with the mouse. I struggle just as much with the controller. Also you have to have the right equipment for the job, a decent gaming mouse with a nice straight accel and no prediction etc plus the right sensitivity and mouse mat size makes a large difference. For counterstrike you'd want a minimum of 10" per 360 i.e. you move the mouse 10" to turn around 360 degrees in game, many players play at much higher, some even at 20" per 180, and this is why some gaming mouse mats are absolutely huge.
Consoles are easier? Whaaa?SonicWaffle said:I've never really understood allure of PC gaming, personally, apart from an RTS or point-and-click that just doesn't work on console. Consoles are so much easier; put the disc in, play with a controller moulded to your hand rather than fiddly keyboard & mouse set-up, and that's all apart from the occasional patch.
As far as I'm concerned, my PC is just a magic box that makes porn happen
This coming from someone who considered the Gameboy, PS One and PS2 as his preferred systems until the mid 2000's. And consoles are actually harder today.
Put disc in?
I don't even use discs anymore! Steam!
Exactly. You have seedboxes which inflate the numbers a little bit, the fact that even in different torrent sites you are using the same trackers etc.Frizzle said:
Mods count quite a lot actually.Crono1973 said:
Hence why any game with a console and mod support get's a free pass for small issues with things like UI, because they are instantly fixed.
It also makes games but more seriously though while there are downsides to PC gaming a controller isn't one of them since you can use controllers for PC and a TV and couch or play in Bed. So comfort in that sense is not a con against it.SonicWaffle said:I've never really understood allure of PC gaming, personally, apart from an RTS or point-and-click that just doesn't work on console. Consoles are so much easier; put the disc in, play with a controller moulded to your hand rather than fiddly keyboard & mouse set-up, and that's all apart from the occasional patch.Absolutionis said:
As far as I'm concerned, my PC is just a magic box that makes porn happen
Speaking from experience here so take this as you will and with a grain of salt but I have been gaming for roughly 16 years and spent 10 of those dedicated to consoles and only played 6 years on PC as well. I can tell you from my personal experience and given the technical specs of a mouse it is more precise and I use a desk as a mouse mat and have never had trouble with dust on my mouse. Yes like everything new it did take time but I can same from my experience and given the tech of a mouse.SonicWaffle said:Never understood that claim either. Maybe I'm just incredibly cack-handed (which, OK, I am) but I've always found using a mouse to be terribly imprecise. Especially once they start clogging up with dirt or your mousemat is too small for the wide sweeps you've been making with the mouse.
I find FPS much easier on consoles, presumably because there's some sort of auto-aim tweaking going on to make up for the general imprecision of a thumbstick. Plus, triggers! How can you play an FPS without a trigger, man? Just feels wrong to me
Anyway that being said there is no problem in having a preference but that is just why I think a mouse should be considered "better" for FPS than an analogue stick when it comes to aiming movement however, is a different story.
You guys are way too hung up on the AAA thing. You know why there aren't more AAA exclusives for the PC? Because AAA games are more than an order of magnitude more expensive to make than they were 12 years ago. That's the same reason there are only a handful of exclusives for each console as well.
If PC is thriving due to indie games, then PC gaming is thriving. It doesn't matter that our only AAA exclusives were MMOs and the Witcher 2.
If PC is thriving due to indie games, then PC gaming is thriving. It doesn't matter that our only AAA exclusives were MMOs and the Witcher 2.
Bad enough that Spore is on there...lets not admit to Duke Nukem also...SonicWaffle said:Might need to update the image at the bottom rightDVS BSTrD said:
Playing Bethesda games and saying "Mod's don't count" is like playing Team Fortress 2 and saying "Multiplayer doesn't count".Crono1973 said:
Why on earth are you playing their games if you don't think Mods count. (Period instead of question mark because its Rhetorical)
No, but I would call the PS3 version a port of the 360 version, because by definition, it was developed for the 360's architecture first, and modified to run on the PS3 later.Bhaalspawn said:
Within the very same franchise you cite: in last year's iteration of Black Ops, players of the PS3 and PC versions reported critical bugs, and couldn't even access the online servers on launch.
These problems weren't limited to specific hardware configuration, but were universal.
Activision did not anticipate such a strong response from the PC and PS3 markets for the game(showing that Activision considered them secondary markets at best), and failed to provide an appropriate number of servers to handle the load.
The 360 version of Black Ops had *none* of these problems. Why? Because it was the native version the game was developed for; NOT PC.
The FPS might have been born on PC, but most shooters are created and marketed to consoles these days. Which do you think is more relevant to this year's sales reports?
A "port", means translating a game from its native system to another system.
There's nothing inherently wrong about that, but I find it odd how people claim something to be "PC-Gaming" when the games in question were developed primarily for consoles. It IS important because the PC versions are doing little/nothing to distinguish themselves from the console experience; so it might as well be a console game you can play on your PC.
(so rarely is the opposite true; due to the differences in available processing power, or interface/controls. If you're doing a multi-platform launch, it only makes sense to develop on the most stable platform first, and port to the others)
And when the experience proves to be significantly different, it's usually for the worse due to consequences of sloppy translation.
-Bugs/glitches (numerous games. Black Ops, Skyrim, Fallout 3, GTA4...not just relegated to the whims of varied PC hardware either)
-Leftover interface design (Skyrim's interface, anyone?)
-Skewed Gameplay Balancing (Mass Effect 2 is far easier with a mouse than I think it was intended to be)
Also, there are potential secondary consequences of ports; if a publisher considers your market to be secondary, chances are, you will get second-rate treatment. Not because they hate you, but because they're a business that wants to minimize their marginal cost.
Well, I did say I was pretty cackhanded...Keava said:
Oh, I do, but it doesn't usually seem to make much difference. Plus it's a pain in the arse to clean once all the fuzz has gotten caught up in the rollers.Keava said:
I think I need aim assist to be able to hit anything - I'm a committed gamer, but I never claimed to be good at itKeava said:
It's pretty tiresome seeing all these people bash Skyrim. "Oh it was ported so poorly, oh it's so buggy, oh the graphics are so bad." Look we get it, you're a contrarian hipster who cannot like what other people like, but stop telling us about it.
Skyrim must have been developed for a console, there is no other logical explanation for those awful controls and menu.SonicWaffle said:I seem to recall being told that Skyrim was developed for the Xbox? Possibly whoever told me was lying, of course.Andy Chalk said:
Don't know about Battlefield 3, I've only played on my flatmate's PS3 and the bloody awkward controller kept getting me killed, so maybe it is better on PC
Well, there is another explanation, but probably wrong. Maybe every developer was high during the development of the controls and menu.
Also, didn't Ubisoft say something like the PC market isn't worth their trouble?
Looks like that their games aren't worth buying, not the other way around.
The first one I played a lot was Goldeneye 64, though I'd pissed about with FPS games on my PC before that. I get what people are saying about precision in the mouse, which I concede (I never said it wasn't more precise, just that I was less precise with it) but how are keyboards faster? With a console, all the buttons are within thumb distance, in a shape which is designed to sit in the hand. With a keyboard, there are so many buttons to hit and they're very spread out, I'd have thought that made them harder to use.Continuity said:
See, I didn't even understand most of thatContinuity said:
My PC is a budget job, I bought it for about four hundred quid just so I had a way to browse the internet. High-end gaming rig, it aint!
Well, I don't use it myself, but I've heard plenty of people whinge about problems with Steam. DRM, something about having to be permanently online, having problems in other countries blah blah blah. I dunno, not my field.ElPatron said:
But consoles are certainly easier for the non-techies like myself. My experience in playing on PC has been;
Insert game
Install game
Attempt to get game to run
Encounter problem due to age of game, shittiness of computer, or alignment of the planets
Go online for solution
Get confused as all hell by the technobabble
Go and have a sandwich instead
Whereas with a console, I know whatever game I'm trying to play is going to work, because it was designed specifically for the hardware I'm using. I'm not a console-over-PC fanboy, in fact I don't really care either way, I'm just saying that I find consoles much easier to use.
It all works fine on my 360 ;-)BiH-Kira said:
Someone is always saying that something isn't worth the trouble. I swear, one of these days we'll see an announcement from EA or someone that video games aren't worth the trouble, and that they're going into dildo manufacturing instead.BiH-Kira said:
This guy is entirely right. Disagreeing with the majority always, always stems from being contrary and attempting to seem cool rather than any legitimate grievance.GodEmperor47 said:
Me, I love Skyrim to death. Have barely encountered any bugs either (though I did see a dragon flying backwards yesterday, which was hilarious) but from what I've heard of other people, they've got reason to be at least a little narked at the game. Granted, it doesn't deserve the bashing some people give it, but it's not utterly perfect either.
If it is a fact that Skyrim was shoehorned for the PC, I reserve the right to complain about it all I want, and you can sit there and listen, or leave. I'm not saying I don't like Skyrim, no, I fucking love that game, preordered it on STEAM, in fact, and have absolutely no regrets (DESPITE running 15 frames on average); but liking something doesn't mean you have to ignore it's problems, and pretend and wish on a star that your game is perfect, because that is blatant, ignorant fanboyism.GodEmperor47 said:
Skyrim is a terrible port. So was Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas (granted, to a much lesser extent). We can't just excuse shitty ports, and act like they're fine, because then they'd keep happening. Face the facts, Skyrim is a horrible port.