FA+
Shop
[Games] On Consoles and FPS
16 years ago
In trying to find people to play World at War with me, I found out first-hand that a lot of World at War players play the game on PS3 and 360. This disturbs me.
I understand the usefulness of consoles to some gamers, really I do. For people who have, say, $200-300 to spare on a gaming system but not $1000-2000, a console is not just a smart choice, it's the only choice. Half a decade ago, I used to make the argument that every household should already have a decent computer, and a graphics card costs the same as a console. Today I won't make that same argument, because with the exception of PC gaming, there aren't many compelling reasons to own a desktop over a laptop. So, consoles win the price battle.
And then some genre are just better-suited for consoles or console controllers. Games which involve a single shared view for several players, such as Smash Bros, make more sense on a single large screen--and even if you hooked a computer up to a TV, there would still be the complications of dealing with 4 different controllers at once. Games which deal with button combos, such as fighters, are better with console controllers because it's easier to have muscle memory for a smaller shape you wrap your hand around than a larger flat surface with a uniform button pattern over the whole thing (and fighters tend to use a shared view, as I already discussed). And games which utilize multiple analog inputs, such as racing titles, are far better suited for analog controllers--you can get these for PC of course, but the standard console controller has that right out of the box.
Not a single category I just listed applies to FPS. Not a damned one. In fact, if anything, they make FPS ill-suited for the platform. Shared screens? Many FPS run at 600p on consoles, and if you're doing 3 or 4 player stuff, that means you get 533x300 to work with. That's approximately the same resolution as an iPhone, half of standard-def. And hey, people can see your screen too. Multiple analog inputs? Yes, your fire and jump or crouch buttons really benefit from being analog. Oh wait, they don't. Your walking is analog too, so you're able to carefully pick the particular rate at which you slow-motion walk. Brilliant. And your aiming suffers because you're using a control stick.
Yes, that's my main beef with FPS on consoles: the control stick. This is not a new complaint, but it is one that I'm going to emphasize because I hear 'A mouse isn't good for games' more than my tolerance level (one utterance per decade). If you use a mouse and get used to it, you will be a better FPS player. You can whip around in an instant, aim a single pixel to the side, or do anything in between. You are faster and more precise with your turning. Why do you think they have targeting systems and slight auto-aim in some console shooters? Why do you think PC versions of FPS are more fast-paced? Because everyone is a much better shot. Because in using your entire arm to give you 4 square FEET of potential workspace (realistically closer to 1 square foot) rather than just your thumb to give you 4 square INCHES of workspace, you're able to make much smaller or greater adjustments. Because in the grand scheme of things, being able to AIM down to the pixel is more important than being able to control how fast you walk down to the foot per second (although when I watch people play, they typically just walk at full speed 99% of the time anyway). And if you REALLY care about your movement speed that much, increasingly in games you're able to use a 360 controller, and some people use it just in their left hand, while using a mouse in their right (said people also sometimes use a Rockband drum pedal for crouching >_>).
If you don't want to or can't spend $1k on a gaming system, I'm not going to bite your head off, but if you try to otherwise defend FPS on consoles... well, may the best argument win.
I understand the usefulness of consoles to some gamers, really I do. For people who have, say, $200-300 to spare on a gaming system but not $1000-2000, a console is not just a smart choice, it's the only choice. Half a decade ago, I used to make the argument that every household should already have a decent computer, and a graphics card costs the same as a console. Today I won't make that same argument, because with the exception of PC gaming, there aren't many compelling reasons to own a desktop over a laptop. So, consoles win the price battle.
And then some genre are just better-suited for consoles or console controllers. Games which involve a single shared view for several players, such as Smash Bros, make more sense on a single large screen--and even if you hooked a computer up to a TV, there would still be the complications of dealing with 4 different controllers at once. Games which deal with button combos, such as fighters, are better with console controllers because it's easier to have muscle memory for a smaller shape you wrap your hand around than a larger flat surface with a uniform button pattern over the whole thing (and fighters tend to use a shared view, as I already discussed). And games which utilize multiple analog inputs, such as racing titles, are far better suited for analog controllers--you can get these for PC of course, but the standard console controller has that right out of the box.
Not a single category I just listed applies to FPS. Not a damned one. In fact, if anything, they make FPS ill-suited for the platform. Shared screens? Many FPS run at 600p on consoles, and if you're doing 3 or 4 player stuff, that means you get 533x300 to work with. That's approximately the same resolution as an iPhone, half of standard-def. And hey, people can see your screen too. Multiple analog inputs? Yes, your fire and jump or crouch buttons really benefit from being analog. Oh wait, they don't. Your walking is analog too, so you're able to carefully pick the particular rate at which you slow-motion walk. Brilliant. And your aiming suffers because you're using a control stick.
Yes, that's my main beef with FPS on consoles: the control stick. This is not a new complaint, but it is one that I'm going to emphasize because I hear 'A mouse isn't good for games' more than my tolerance level (one utterance per decade). If you use a mouse and get used to it, you will be a better FPS player. You can whip around in an instant, aim a single pixel to the side, or do anything in between. You are faster and more precise with your turning. Why do you think they have targeting systems and slight auto-aim in some console shooters? Why do you think PC versions of FPS are more fast-paced? Because everyone is a much better shot. Because in using your entire arm to give you 4 square FEET of potential workspace (realistically closer to 1 square foot) rather than just your thumb to give you 4 square INCHES of workspace, you're able to make much smaller or greater adjustments. Because in the grand scheme of things, being able to AIM down to the pixel is more important than being able to control how fast you walk down to the foot per second (although when I watch people play, they typically just walk at full speed 99% of the time anyway). And if you REALLY care about your movement speed that much, increasingly in games you're able to use a 360 controller, and some people use it just in their left hand, while using a mouse in their right (said people also sometimes use a Rockband drum pedal for crouching >_>).
If you don't want to or can't spend $1k on a gaming system, I'm not going to bite your head off, but if you try to otherwise defend FPS on consoles... well, may the best argument win.
A 360 game, or any console game for that matter, has varying levels of 'sensitivity' for it's look command on the stick. A mouse? No. you don't really need that. How fast you turn is directly dependent upon how fast you move the mouse. And a mouse also comes with the wonderful option of having two buttons! So you can move, shoot, and even do something else!
I will honestly say, however. I don't play many FPS on a computer. Either because A) Motion sickness happens in games too fast paced, or B) It's just because I am -horrible- at them.
If there's one thing I've learned in the time i've played halo 3....there is no honor system. it's win, no matter what. *Shakes his head* Which makes me a stick in the mud, since I wouldn't shoot someone who was being fired upon already.
Thats... The strangest "honour" system I have ever heard of lol xD
Well for me I play to win because I enjoy winning, its fun and a lot of the time -funny- especially when you have been getting raped by the other team all round only to pull it back and do stuff like that to them for a change.
I suppose other reasons may include being a sore loser, and a perfectionist. If I am to play with others, I prefer a close-knit team and actual strategic and tactical maneuvers, if possible. Then again, the only FPS games i've played thus far is TF2, Halo 3, and....I think unreal tournament 2000. Might of played counter strike way back when, but that one was a pain.
If you've got the hardware to try it, you could always get a cracked version of World at War, but I don't know how that works as far as online play--which is where you'd get the tactical stuff. Still, you could see if you like the feel of the game, and maybe do some Googling to see if the stuff I mentioned would be interesting to you.
I tend to just ... Well play the game, giving me a 3-4:1 KtD ratio isn't that bad for HC SnD :P
Free for alls are fun, you get good at it, then you get reeeaaly good at it, to the point of getting the dogs 3-5 times in a round lol :P
and since I live in a location where there is pretty much NO jobs.....makes matters worse
I have always liked using a mouse more for fps gaming but with some games like halo I love the fun feel of using the controller and joysticks :B
I guess I have noticed that consoles often seem to be more... sociable then computer rigs, in the fact that a lot of the games are based around group activity or playing in somewhere like the living room not hidden away in a dark seedy corner of the house lol.
The PC doesn't really have anything in place to allow for multiple people to play games on one system and home theater setup, which in practical use does make it less social, but if the extent of your social gaming is to play games with people who live with you (as everyone but Nintendo seems to believe, hence the heavy focus on Online play over local split screen) then you just have several computers in the same area. That's what Sepf and I have, and we're able to play games with each other just as socially as if we were in our living room.
My issue is that computers have so much potential yet when something goes wrong very few of us are actually properly educated in fixing it :/
I can see the advantage, but, that's still sort of strange.
<3
The only FPS on computer that I got into playing was Unreal Tournament and no one would play it with me :(
Also, the computer games I would buy never seemed to work quite right.
I will say, I would always get a strategy game for PC :)
Also I never cared about loading and graphics. If a game is good you won't need high end graphics to enjoy it in my opinion. :P
However, on a Linked system, or on a Net System, they might have their own screens as well.
And your aiming suffers because you're using a control stick.
If one learns the controls right, they can most likely master it. Like with a keyboard, anything is easier after you practice enough. I still have a hard time doing FPS on keyboard as easily as on a controller, but I bet you would say the same thing in reverse >.O
slight auto-aim in some console shooters
Some PC games have these as well though.. just for those that might not have as good reaction time I thinks >.>
The accuracy of the mouse is indeed nice, but for some reason, I'm just better at movement on a controller. Not to mention that with how the controllers are set up now-a-days, each button can/is combined with others to make for fast switching. (Hold LB to open inventory, press A,B,X, or Y once for light, twice for heavy, 3 times for special in that catagory, etc). Alot easier then having to skim over a keyboard in the middle of a battle to get some self defense or med packs. Though, in the PC's defense, having a good memory of a keyboard would rebound that.
I think, in the long-run, it all depends on what your more well suited and trained with o.O *shrug*
~N~
True, but if we're talking independent systems and screens, it's really not terribly different than PC gaming in that respect. I guess I really shouldn't bash consoles for giving you the OPTION, as low-resolution and cheat-prone as it is, to have multiple people gaming on one setup. In any case, that doesn't really help much with FPS stuff.
If one learns the controls right, they can most likely master it. Like with a keyboard, anything is easier after you practice enough. I still have a hard time doing FPS on keyboard as easily as on a controller, but I bet you would say the same thing in reverse >.O
Indeed. I tried Halo 2 some years back and I was just miserable. I could hardly move and turn halfway decent, to say nothing of being able to hit people with a gun. I just don't think there's any way that a thumb stick can be as effective as a mouse when it comes to aiming. See my supplementary reasoning in a prior comment; if a joystick or thumb stick were better for that sort of input, A) competitive PC gamers would all use them, and B) general computer users would also use them. And the mapping is just more natural; when you hold a gun and are adjusting your aim, you're adjusting the placement of your arms and not the rate at which your arms are moving. This is especially noticeable when you're doing precision aiming. The PC gamer just moves his hand very slowly, like someone aiming a real weapon. The console gamer has to tilt his thumb until the movement registers, then quickly move back so it only adjusts a small amount.
Some PC games have these as well though
The only PC game in recent memory that has this on by default is Section 8. In that case, it's not just an automatic correction as much as it is a feature which only kicks in during certain circumstances and for a limited period of time. It was probably kept in because they made it a feature rather than an assist, and as a result they couldn't just strip it out of the PC version without changing the balancing.
I'm not arguing whether someone is better or worse with a mouse or controller, but rather, what they COULD be better using.
And actually, I was going to make the point of button combinations being used for shooters, but I wasn't sure how common that was. With most FPS these days, they add some degree of realism by limiting the number of weapons you can carry. Often, it's just two ranged weapons and a few grenades or things of that nature. Switching between that many weapons is trivial on the PC, not requiring you to move your hand--at most, your finger darts up to a key between 1 and 4, or more realistically, you just push the 'last used weapon' key (especially when you only have 2 weapons).
Really when you look at it the key/button comparison is about even on the 360 and PC. In the right hand we've got a mouse with, ideally, two primary buttons, two side buttons, and a wheel that can click, and you've got a thumb stick, 4 buttons and 2 triggers. In the left hand we've got WASD for movement, Q and E (leaning, or previous weapon and use), Shift and Ctrl (sprint and crouch), spacebar (jump), R and F (reload and flashlight or grenade) and with slight movement Z and X (for things like prone, use medpak, change firing mode, toggle voice chat, bring up the radial menu for battle commands, etc. You guys have a thumbstick, two triggers, and in theory 8 (but more realistically 4) directions on the D-pad. We're able to pull off the same number of commands with the same amount of finger movement, give or take. And all those nice number keys 1-4 are right up there and easy to press~
2)Mastering Controls: That's your problem, you tried Halo 2. While I liked the Halo series, it wasn't a prime game (least not in my opinion, yet I liked Army of Two and outside of my cousin, practically noone else did ._.) Find a good game you like, and I bet you'd have the reason to master it, and could :) While you do make a good point about using your arm to aim, I have a feeling that digital artists and people that do art are rather good with the analogue sticks AND mouse both, for their used to doing fine-tuned motor skills with their hands and fingers alone. Again, while playing Army of Two while completely high off my ass and drunk as a skunk, I was popping head-shots on a controller faster then my cousin could even move around the map. Then again, I know a controller pretty good. Used to be good at Keyboards back in the day of Doom1 on PC, and controllers were a bitch then, but I adapted, as anyone would with time :) What I dont get, is if it's so much better for PC then Controller, why do they make controller adapters for PC but not mouse/keyboard adapters for consuls?
3)Auto Aim: I believe every Unreal Tournament game I've played had a feature for auto-aim, I just took it off cause it takes out the purpose for it. Same with any 360 FPS game I got :)
4) Weapon stocks: Yeah, I cant remember the last game outside of the Unreal Tournament series that gave you more then 4-5 weapons at a time. Now it seems the norm to have 1 close-range, 1 medium-range, 1 long-range/special, and explosives for a game, which is nice. Least we GET a choice still, lol. That is true about having everything nice and open on the board, I wont argue that. I've noticed though that combo buttons have been more popular as well. OverLord 2 has holding 1 shoulder button (L1 I think) to bring up your minion list, then hit a Y for all browns, B for all reds, A for all greens, and X for all blues, while tapping the L1 will select all colors. Then, hit that button a second time to get that color minion while their on a mount. Hit it one last time to select only the minions that are NOT on mounts. Hit it once more to go to selecting all of the minions of that color.So 3 options PER button, and that's while holding down another button. Hold down just the trigger instead of the L1, and the Y, B, A, X will result in a melee attack, magic attack, etc.
Down side: Takes longer to memorize the proper commands.
Plus side: Makes for extremely fast selecting when memorized.
~N~
I dunno about that artist theory. I mean, everyone gets pretty good dexterity with their fingers through regular activities that we do growing up. We all learn to write and draw, many of us learn to play instruments of some sort, many learn to type well... and I'm not sure that the motions would even apply to those used when you're using a thumb stick. When you're gripping an implement between your thumb and any other finger, your range of motion is constrained how far away from your hand you hold said implement. When you're using a thumb stick, that's the only dimension that the controller doesn't register (unless it's a PS3 and the thumb stick clicks in).
Allow me to answer your question with two others. First, where in your living room with up to 3 other players do you each propose to comfortably and conveniently hold your 12-18"-long keyboard and 9x9" mousing surface? Second, turning the question around, if the thumb stick is so good for both rapid and fine positional control on a 2D surface (as a sphere's surface is 2D), why do we not use thumb sticks instead of mice for our general computer use?
Simply put, some games control better with the analog inputs and the particular layout of console controllers, so they make that option available to PC gamers. Consoles, which have long used compact controllers with analog sticks for the sake of simplicity/familiarity/size, would not have terribly many customers willing to try a (to them) novel input style which needs new and awkward hardware which they aren't used to using in that manner and which is only better for a select few genre.
From what I've seen, auto-aim is enabled more often in consoles than PC games. That right there says something, I'd think. Sure, you can disable it, but clearly the developers see the need to make the option, sometimes enable it, and sometimes hard code it to on. This rarely happens on the PC.
You act as if such things can't be done, or aren't done, on the PC. In some games, weapons are broken down into groups (say, 1-4) and you press the number once to pick the first weapon in that group, and if you press it again it selects the next one, etc. Although between the scroll wheel, Previously Used Weapon button, and number keys it's quite easy and quick to pick weapons. But yeah, generally not a big issue because with the exception of titles like UT3, you've typically got just a few weapons.
PCs also have convenient way of doing selection stuff. Combos and chains such. Usually it's less of "L1 + X" and more of "double click" on a unit to select all of his type on the screen, or "Ctrl+Click" to add to a selection, or "Ctrl+A" to select all units on screen, and a second "Ctrl+A" to select all units, or maybe "Ctrl+double click" on a unit to select all of his type on the screen... some of these I may have made up or mixed up, but the point still stands. We've got plenty of modifiers (Ctrl, Shift, Alt) and clicks (Left, Right, Middle) and keys that can be stuck together to do all sorts of crazy things, too. If combo buttons for unit selection and thumb sticks for accurate 2D positioning were all that you talk it up to be, RTS would be big on consoles, but I've rarely heard anything but complaint about that mixture of genre and platform.
Still though, not my point. My point is that, for the FPS genre, consoles are not the ideal way to play at present. With FPS, the most important thing is a reasonable amount of movement accuracy, and a high degree of aiming accuracy. While you may be, at best, able to button combo out Weapon #9 slightly faster than a PC gamer, before you've even fully brought it to bear he will have put a bullet in your head with whatever weapon he already had out--made even easier by the fact that you had to stop moving momentarily to move your thumb down to the D-Pad to change weapons.
Honestly, you could easily put 2 keyboards on the livingroom table, and have 2 or 3 others on the couch behind it, then 1 to the right, and 1 to the left. How many people would WANT to do that though, is a different story o.O As for the mouse thing, ya got me on that one.
But yeah, you make good points later on, I confess defeat :c
~N~
~N~
Now Jump & run, driving games, and all the other rubble, the consoles have won our heart, oddly enough.
I dont even come CLOSE to the firepower i need for those big games T_T, i barely run WoW in its LOWEST mode
*sighs* i used to have a nice gaming rig too, 3.2GHz, 2 gig ram, 500 gig HD, and duel 512Mb Video cards >_<, i could Kick Ass with that.
but a little cat hair in the fan motor of the CPU fan burnt out the CPU and somehow caused an arc from the power unit or something and fried the WHOLE damn thing into a charred mess
FUCK YOU MICROSOFT
There 2 things I like to say.
1. Consoles are in my eyes good tailored for arcade games, while simulations and specialy FPS games are best placed and used on the PC.. for FPS comes also the fact that they often get tons of user made maps, with as easy to add on a PC game while more difficult on a console. The control reaosn are exapliend by Twile, I agree with him there.
2. A console is not cheaper in buying the a decent PC. At last not on my point. Why? because I need to buy a TV with it. And sinces the todays genration consoles are all HD. And HDTVs in a good size do cost here still 600€ and much more. Adding the console Price onto it with is also 200 to 300 € I end up with 1000+€ just like a decent PC..... And then the console games cost usual 20% more then there PC enctouners. So using a console turns for me out to be actuay more expensiv. Plus it has less abilitys then a PC.. for example I could not write my school exams text on a console, while I can on a PC. (that shows that PCs have naturral far more use to me as consoles, but im not your typcial gamer....)
The second point is one I used to make some years back. Like, almost to the letter. But in fairness, you can just use a computer display for consoles and sit closer to it.
And to add to your argument about which games are better for PC or console, stratagy games and simulations belong on the PC ONLY! I've tried ports of say The Sims or say Civilization that get put on consoles, after I play them on PCs, and they suck, so hard. They cut out so many things, you lose almost all control and custimizability of things. Hell, in the one Sims game I ever got for a console, it won't even let you build your own house. (One of my favorite parts x9~) But ne'who, strat and sims belong on PC and only on PC.
That actually sounds fun, like Time Crisis style.
As for the mouse/keyboard verses a controller, I prefer the controller. I just have not had the same length of time with the mouse and keyboard. On that same note I have tried and can hold my own with a keyboard and mouse, but I am better and more accurate. My friends are all avid mouse and keyboard players with skill using them that I can not match, but put a controller in my hands and I can stand toe to toe with any of them. You may feel that a mouse and keyboard are more accurate than a controller but in the hands of someone comfortable and skilled with it it can be just as good, even without using the blasphemous auto aim.
Being able to aim down to a pixel with a keyboard and mouse, while impressive, is not practical. I may not be the best gamer in the world or know the best gamers in the world, but I have never seen anyone aim down to the pixel in the middle of a game.
I am not saying that controller is THE way to go, or that mouse and keyboard are not. What I am saying is that while you can say that some or even most people would be, you can not say that everyone would be better with a keyboard and mouse.
Please don't take any of this as being being rude or hateful, it was not intended to be. If any of this sounds rude I am indeed sorry for it.
P.S. You are totally setting yourself up to have someone kick your butt using a controller. :p
P.S.S. I also wanna say that I find most of your tech/gaming journals to be really informative and helpful. :D
And yes, being able to aim down to a pixel is practical. Perhaps you're just not looking at the right kinds of games. When you're sniping at someone who is exceedingly far away, every pixel counts. I do it on a daily basis. In World at War alone I've racked up approximately 20,000 kills, a quarter of which are headshots. I know precision aiming.
People are welcome to try and kick my ass with a controller. If nothing else it would give me someone to play with.
And thank you, I'm glad that people get some use out of my journals. Sometimes it feels like I talk too much for my own good.
Building a decent gaming rig can get expensive, partially because the high-end graphics of PC gaming simply get more and more advanced, and along with that it gets harder to stay ahead of the technology that these gaming industries are developing. Usually it's better to have a desktop over a laptop, and a laptop can sometimes perform better than a console depending on what it was made for, but consoles really are the cheap way out.
You really can make anything look better on a PC than you can on a TV, unless of course you're using a high-def. Even then, though, consoles have their limits in rendering as well... it kind of caters to both sides of the market, though.
Now before I ramble myself into a hole, I'll let this one go. But I do have to agree with Deven above me; your tech journals and the occasional rant are very insightful, very informative, and offer up some objective discussion in contrast to those who simply pick out what they don't like and make a complaint about it. ^^
Thanks also, nice that some people enjoy reading them.
For stuff like sniping, a mouse is truly needed. Though for a while, I used a trackball, and life was wonderful. Effectively unlimited movement with a flick of your thumb. You just need to stop the ball at the right moment
And I heavily recommend a good trackball - one with the ball in the center is virtually useless, but one with the ball to the left, so you can flick it with your thumb, is awesome.
It's like what mice are to controllers - get the hand of it, and you'll find you get a lot better in general. The control is a lot finer, with the capability for quick, violent movement too - you can turn sensitivity right down, and when you need quick action, just flick the ball so it spins quickly.
When every unit has a hotkey, and you get 8-20 buttons TOTAL, it just doesn't work. :<
too bad halo had to come along and queer up any new FPS game
Oh wait, yeah I can. Goldeneye...on the N64. In 1998. Online gameplay has pretty much eliminated the whole screen sharing problem. As for graphics, I couldn't care less how many pixels are in the muzzle of my AK-47, so long as it shoots when and where I tell it to.
Generally if the controller set-up is awkward because I have to click a stick to crouch or something else I'd do on a regular basis, I go into the handy-dandy options menu and change the controller set-up. Did it with TF2 and RE5 on 360.
<_< Funny how first you complain that guns are too accurate, now you want your AK-48 to shoot straight.
I said nothing about it being awkward. Just less optimal.
Price being obvious, but still a problem. Any computer, laptop or desktop, that is worth it's salt as a gaming computer costs well over $1,000, plus any mice, keyboards, or any other peripherals you might need. Never played a real PC FPS so I'm really not sure what all one needs. Either way, even the most powerful PS3 cost only $600 when it was brand new.
The other issue I can think of is the confusion of the server concept. I'm sure it works itself out, but it is quite the turn-off to people considering PC gaming. Most if not all console games are pick-up and play. And alot of the ones I've played have the option to disable the annoying auto-aim 'feature' (it's more of an annoyance is most cases).
(Admittedly, the updates for TF2 haven't all been good, and a friend of mine would love to play the vanilla game again).
But I will admit that Army of 2 is damn fun (played on a 360 with a friend who rented the game).
Now if only we were out of the dark ages of dialup, I'd try my hand at WaW against you. :P
Oh, don't I know it, dialup is just horrible gone worse. D: But our county is getting wifi within the next year, soooo, maybe a turnaround soon!