Apparently, you - and your friend - have a very high opinion of your very poor console-playing abilities. Go back and read the thread, please, and pay close attention to the numerous testamonies from people who say that they can play console FPS’s quite well.
That’s because those are the wrong games to play. Highly popular formula-driven games, like most twitch-based hyped-up shooters and ultra-light-“strategy” games attract all the immature people who behave like that (Also the reason those games are so popular; They take almost no skill to master. A bit of reflexes, the ability to put a mouse in the right place fairly quick, MAYBE a basic understanding of a 2-step tech tree for RTS games).
With more complex games, it drops off dramatically. Detailed strategy and sim games are best. Never seen anyone throwing around “fag” in Steel Beasts, for example. Had an argument with a CO because he was an idiot and lost our entire Bradley platoon, then decided it was my fault for not sacrificing my Abrams to avenge his death. We demoted him 
Not all. Arcanum was turn-based, and it was quite good. Not sure what Fallout 3 will be. Hope it’s turn-based, they’ve always done good with it. If I’m remembering right, wasn’t Fallout Tactics done by a different team? I remember hearing that the original Fallout team (Which is supposed to be back for 3! Woohoo!) was pretty annoyed by this other team’s work on Tactics…
But non-turn-based RPGs can be good, too. Deus Ex, for example (Boy I can’t wait for 2). Great game, I thought. There’s also Morrowind, which was okay, but not quite as good as I’d hoped for.
Though I’ve got to agree with the earlier comment. The truely good RPGs are in no way connected to computers.
Um… Guess that’s it for now. I’m going to go play some more Medieval (Which is just about reason enough for having a PC 
)
Grendel, should that technically be the gayest hijack in history?
Did you ever play the second Gabriel Night game, the FMV werewolf one? Although there’s nothing overt, the sexual tension between Gabriel and the (male) alpha werewolf is thick enough to stop a bullet. Good game on a number of levels. One of the best uses of FMV I’ve ever seen.
No, and I had planned to get around to that whole series… but my videogame time would get sucked up by the latest and greatest. I’ve liked the adventure games I’ve played, but they always seem to drift to the bottom of my “gotta play” list.
I enjoy playing both console and PC games, but it seems to me that the positions of the two have shifted from when I was a kid. Back then the newest ideas and most inventive stuff was always on PC games- remember Infiltrator, that predates any of the Metal Gear games. Now the new and innovative stuff is on consoles and the PC game manufacturers are pumping out slight variations on the same five games.
Compare the “hardcore gamer” response to innovation in the two camps, on consoles the innovative developers like Sega have rabid fanboys drooling over games with pastel colors and little to no violence while on PC gaming websites the “hardcore” ignore and belittle truly innovative games like The Sims and can’t wait to find out more information about the latest derivitive, testosterone laden “blow shit up” game that is months away from release.
BTW, Phoenix Dragon, I actually did play Arcanum, and it was definitely a good game.
Yeah, and three of them are Warcraft.
I take it you don’t play Counterstrike, 'cuz I can tell you, if you DO twitch, you’re gonna miss. The game requires you to actually keep calm while being fired at.
The problem is that not many people know this, and they’re usually the ones that either, A: have a 3-20 kill/death ratio, or B: are hacking.
well at least one of us is having trouble reading what was written, I never said you cant excell at console fps games, what I said was that the control system sucks ass, stinky nasty puss oozing syphiletic ass.
I think its great that you or I or anyone can kick ass at a gamepad/console fps, but as I said before, if you try and play a game like tribes2 with anything other than a mouse keyboard combo your’e going to get your ass handed to you time and time again.
so in summary, halo = great game
halos control system = shit
of course thats only my opinion so your more than free to take it or leave it.
Actually, I would use Counterstrike (At least, when I played it) as a perfect example of a twitch-shooter. No accuracy penalty for moving or jumping or spinning around (Appart from possibly inherant weapon inacuracy depending on the gun, though constant regardless of circumstance and unlikely to make any difference whatsoever at they typically close ranges), hitpoint-based damage, incredibly high-speed running (And high-jumping) those mysterious auto-sorting ammo magazines, and other such stuff. Unless it’s changed a LOT from when I played, all you have to do is put the pointer on the target and press a button (Sometimes repeatedly, as a helmet seems to make it take about a half dozen 9mm bullets to the face to kill someone). And if the non-hacking people who know “twitching doesn’t work” are dying so much more than they kill anyone else, well, I have to question the accuracy of the statement…
Ammusingly, that quote is almost the exact same line I’ve heard from every CS player I’ve talked to since the game first came out, including the same people who I was playing against (And who were obviously not taking their own advice…). In any case, it’s definatly on the “light” end of games. There isn’t much thinking involved.
There are only two FPS games that I don’t consider twitch-based, and that was Flashpoint and Ghost Recon, both of which have their own set of problems (And which the designers state they never had a “sim” in mind, they’re happy with movie-grade realism). Three if you count Army Ops, and same story there. They also don’t seem nearly as popular as the latest hyped-up shooter.
I’d love something like an infantry sim, but nobody seems interested in doing it seriously…
Um… Okay, I better stop the hijack now
Please don’t forget Rogue Spear, another Tom Clancy game. Among fps’ers looking for realism no game has ever come close - not even Ghost Recon has matched it. The next incarnation, Raven Shield, will be worthy of buying a new, faster comp.
Agreed RS:UO fully patched was the best one yet, though Red Storm has been going downhill lately, judging by Ghost Recon and the various expansions for RS.
But it was still fairly twitch-based. Granted, it took a bit more thinking than most, but as long as you knew not to change basic movement direction (IE, if moving foreward, stay moving foreward), than it was still a reaction thing… Ghost Recon countered this by having a HUGE inacuracy if you turned more than a degree or two, and you had to wait to reaim. Personally, I’d like something in-between… Overall, RS definatly had more realism and detail to it than GR, especially the tactical pre-planned element (I actually made full-watch plans to beat missions only using the AI, hold/move-out, and go-codes. Even the recon missions!).
I’d love for Raven Shield to be good, but lately, I’ve just lost confidence in Red Storm. I expect it’ll probably be much along the same path as GR, or even worse, Sum of All Fears (It’s like RS gone horribly, horribly wrong…). I’ll still try it out as soon as a demo comes out, of course
The Might and Magic series is also turn-based, as was the really nice Wizardry 8.
While I do lament the loss of turn-based combat in many of the newer RPGs, it’s not totally gone, and the “pseudo real-time” stuff is fine with me. The ability to pause, change commands, and un-pause works fine for me, and I’m one who can’t play true RTS games because I can’t pay attention to that many things at once. I could play Starcraft in a second if I was allowed to pause it.
I also prefer the real-time stuff in many ways. Sure, console games allow you turn-based strategy, but imo this is completely offset by their insistence on making you fight random battles incessantly, and to fight enemies whose abilities are far below yours. Turn-based sucks ass when you’re fighting the slimes for the umpty-jillionth time and have to go through 8,000 menus to reach a foregone conclusion. I’d rather just have the characters walk up, hit em a couple times, and be done with it in a few seconds.
In Final Fantasy Tactics, random encounters are matched to the level of your most powerful character- making random battles interesting but very hard toward the end of the game. (You have to pay attention to every battle in that game.) Front Mission 3 and Vandal Hearts 2 had no random battles, in FM3 you could set up training battles and in VH2 you had to specify that you wanted to fight when returning to an old area. In the Lunar and Chrono Trigger series random battles can be avoided because you can see enemies on the map.
The save point thing is a pain in the butt in console RPGs, but several games have avoided that. In the Lunar games you could save anywhere, in Final Fantasy Tactics you could save anywhere but in the middle of a fight, in Front Mission 3 you could save at any point including in the middle of a fight.
Actually there is an accuracy penalty for moving/jumping in counterstrike. Reflexes are a big part of the game, but strategy and teamwork are bigger parts. Above all for any FPS knowing the map is the main thing you have to do. Honestly I stopped playing counterstrike because it slowed down my reflexes. I like the twitchy games like pong.
Also for War3 and games like it there is a ton of skill involved. At the high skill levels you might find the rare person who wins games based mostly on clicking, but it is mostly knowing what to do and when to do it. Reflexes are a part of it only in the sense that anyone who has played the game long enough will gain those reflexes.
Of course when I talk about both of these games I am not talking about simply finding some random people on the internet and playing against them. The immaturity dissapears when you have actually skilled people playing.
The real problem with non twitchy games is that they are usually based on whoever can put more time into the game than anything else. That makes them rather annoying as multiplayer games.
Critical1…
It ain’t me with the reading comprehension problem, buckaroo, because you just reasserted something which I just told you was wrong.
But let’s try a different tactic instead of just screaming “Duck season!” “Rabbit season!” back and forth… why, pray tell, do you think a console’s control system “sucks ass”? I will grant that I consider the mouse/keyboard setup to be superior, but that doesn’t automatically mean that any alternative can’t have any merit.
Pheonix Dragon…
That one I know is wrong. All guns - rifles especially - have a much wider area of spray while running or jumping, and won’t always go where the crosshairs are pointed on the first shot (when you’re standing still or crouching, at least the very first shot will go towards the crosshairs).
Further, if you’re just waving your gun back and forth, you won’t hit shit (unless you’re really lucky). The ultimate result is this: If your first shot hits the target, he’s most likely going to be dead. If you spend the precious moments trying to trail your gunfire over to the target, you’re likely going to be dead.
Just because it requires quick accuracy and precision doesn’t mean it’s a “twitcher”.
Granted, an annoyance in games (I would prefer ultra-realism in a game, myself), but that hardly makes the game a “twitcher”.
And there you go, contradicting your own comment. You’re simplifying the game to a ridiculous level… saying what to do as if it’s that easy. I’ve been playing the game for years now… it’s not as simple as “put the pointer on the target and press a button”.
I had this written last night, but the hamster took a nap while I tried to send it.
Why do some people think that consoles can’t have good fps controls? What controls do we need?
- look around: mouse/joystick
- move: WASD/ (c-buttons/other stick, depending on system)
- shoot: mouse/trigger
- use: key/button
- select weapon: (various keys/mousewheel)/button or combination of buttons
- jump, duck, aim, etc: other buttons or combinations of buttons
- options: esc/start
What are we missing? Text chat - which is only really viable when using a keyboard anyway.
I feel that the controls of a Perfect Dark or Turok are perfectly usefulfor getting the job done. The only difference I feel between consoles and computers is having my whole wrist moving around on the PC and just using my thumbs and forefingers on the console controllers.
Well, it’s good to know they’ve added that, but… How fast does it adjust? Is it something like Rogue Spear where you have to wait for it to settle, or is it (My guess) just an instant change, so you can stop moving and instantly be at full accuracy?
And hyper-fast running around definatly does make a game more twitchy. Everything goes faster, so high-speed reaction is more important than tactics (Especially when you want to cover a doorway, but by the time someone shows up, they’ve already run up beside you…). It also makes standing still to shoot someone asking for being shot, yourself. It’s much easier to shoot someone who’s standing still than one who’s running at about 30MPH, especially if there’s latency involved. Unless they changed the net code, you also have to lead a moving target by their latency to you, which makes matters even worse (The only shooter I’ve ever found that didn’t use such an idiotic hit-verification setup, was the Rogue Spear series.).
Warcraft 3 (And almost all RTS games like it, like the other -craft games, C&C, etc) is a pretty light-tactics game. It isn’t quite as bad as the earlier -craft games at least, which are pretty much just build-up-and-swarm, so things may be improving a bit. There still isn’t much advantage to tactics, unless one person is completely incompetent, only minor stuff. Especially with the restrictive maps that chanell everything along certain routes, the main tactics I could see in W3 were simply building the right types of units, and knowing when to heal someone or call down a special effect (Which if the other person is doing as well, doesn’t really give you any advantage). Or targeting certain units first, hoping he doesn’t do the same. Compare this to serious strategy games, like Medieval or Steel Beasts (A sim, not a tactical game, but the tactical element is better than most tactic/strategy games I’ve seen), where tactics can make a HUGE difference. In Medieval I’ve seen 300-man units kill similar quality 2000-man units with only 40 losses, simply because of tactics (Flanking, wedge attacks, and pressing certain units into routing while screening with another unit). Or a single platoon in Steel Beasts pick away and kill a similar-quality armored battalion without taking a scratch! You pitch two groups of similar-quality units in Warcraft together, and you’ll probably get similar casualties on each side. The support units in it add a little more tactics than previous games, so I hope that trend keeps up. A diversified army should be more potent than a simple hoard of similar units (glares at Zerg…).
You mean taking time to learn the details and tactics of a well-detailed game? To me, that’s always made games better. That way, it’s not a matter of who’s luckier, or who knows how to take advantage of design flaws in the game, but who is actually better at it. And it’s really good if you play with someone of a similarly high skill level. But then, I like games that require some skill and thinking to win…
I just rented Robotech for Xbox. What blows my fricking mind about consoles is that since the controls suck so bad they have to aim for you. WTF is up with auto-aim?
Please don’t compare a bottom of the line PC game with a top of the line console game.
You should be comparing Halo with Jedi Knight 2 droooool
Max res w/ 70+ fps while fighting off 20 storm troopers and a force trooper with a light saber.
The number of times I nearly peed my self in joy playing that game.
Then I hit the swamp level and watched my frame rate hit 2 
Pheonix…
It’s rather complicated to explain, but actually ingeniously done (and, speaking as someone who shoots guns a lot, pretty accurate). Different types of guns adjust to “stability” at different rates: Pistols are the most unstable of all, being most accurate only when you’re crouching. SMG’s are always inaccurate, but their accuracy doesn’t get much worse when you’re running, jumping, or shooting, making them good for people who have trouble adjusting. Rifles are most accurate, but when you’re running or jumping around, the M-4 (for example) will spray all over the place.
Furthermore, the amount that a gun’s accuracy decreases when firing is worse if you’re standing, better if you’re crouching. And they all take a couple moments to reach “best accuracy” after you stop moving.
That’s why you listen for footsteps, and start shooting at the door to kill them before they can even get through. Anyone who’s played de_aztec will know how pathetic a door is if you want it to provide cover… 
CRorex…
Fair 'nough.
Well… to be honest… I consider Halo to be the superior FPS, But that’s because I consider JK2 to be a TPS (Third-Person Shooter). Admit it, how many people use the lightsaber less than 3/4 of the time? And how much easier is it to use the 'saber in 3rd-Person mode?
Let me ask you something. Have you ever played War3? Because you seem suprisingly ignorant about what it actually takes to win at the game.