Why don’t console games give you a list of servers with maps to join, when you’re wanting to play online? CoD4:MW and BF:BC don’t do this, and it’s the most annoying thing ever, especially the latter game, which has some amazing maps, and some awful ones, and the game seems to entirely disregard your “preferred map” and put you on whatever it feels like.
PC games have had this ability from the get go. Why are console gamers not allowed to pick their server?
Because…there’s…no…difference? I don’t think I get what you’re asking, though.
Yea, I agree, TC. The most console gamers can do is attempt to “skip” a map that they do not like. I’d much rather have a list of servers and be able to choose one with a particular map, game mode, AND number of maximum allowable players.
But…you have custom games. I really don’t see this as a problem.
Gears of War had what you’re describing. It sucked ass.
The SOCOM series on PS2 (and presumably the new one on PS3) gave you those options and I liked it a LOT better. One of my most hated things about playing COD4 online with the 360 is that I sometimes don’t want to play a map or I don’t like the people in the game, so I leave and search for a new game. It then puts me back in the SAME GAME I JUST LEFT. Talk about irritating. I’ve had it do that three and four times in a row.
I prefer my old days with SOCOM where I’d just go to a room, decide which map I wanted to play, see if the people are roughly on my skill level, and join when I wanted to.
Custom games, dude. Get a party together. There are options (and websites!)
The kind of person who considers a keyboard a controller probably would want endless configuration options.
Um. Custom games. Really.
Battlefield: Bad Company doesn’t have custom games, to the best of my knowledge, in the way that COD4 does. All you can do is tell it your preferred map and hope it selects it, which is invariably doesn’t. Besides, how are custom games a solution to the problem, anyway? I have to faff about trying to get a party together instead of just giving me a list of servers?
You can’t even do that most of the time. COD4 has a nasty habit of putting you straight into a game, or keep joining you to a lobby you’ve just left. BF:BC always puts you straight into the game (no lobbies), so you have to wait ages to join, then exit, then try to rejoin, and hope you don’t get put back in the same game!
Do you not have friends? With the magic of the Internets, you can get a party together in seconds, you know.
In games like CoD4, you can’t earn XP in custom games. I rarely played custom games for this reason, unless it was me and a few friends practicing no-scoping.
This is true. Go into matchmaking as a party, then. Hell, you’re nuts if you don’t.
Yes, but then we run into the problems of playing random maps again. Not that this is a real issue for me, as I’m not too picky, but you can’t pick your host, either. Also, the maximum allowable players for consoles (in CoD4 anyways) is much less than the PC counterpart.
Meh.
You run into lag issues wen you have more folks. It’s better with less people in it.
Was this thread made solely to incite LOUNE? I mean seriously. We have an honorary Forum Console Gaming Defender. Why would you title a post like this?
That said, I agree that console games’ Matchmaking system is much less transparent than PC games’, which makes it less complicated and prevents joining custom gametypes that others have set up. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that, with some notable exceptions, most every online console game doesn’t have dedicated servers - the server is whomever started the game, and it will only last as long as the game holds their interest, then be passed to another player. This prevents things like impromptu communities popping up from favorite servers, map rotations, or game tweaks/mutators.
On the plus side, it’s much less daunting to just jump in and Matchmake, and the vast majority of console players like things to Just Work. In a system where folks can choose which servers to join, they usually end up filling a select few servers to capacity, while the rest languish.
Play something like TF2 or UT on a comp, with hundreds of speed, map, and game balance options, and you find that being able to filter servers for exactly the game you want is invaluable. I think the solution would lie in console Matchmaking becoming more robust, so people can make custom games easily and join them with a single option toggle.
I hear the same thing about having so many keys to customize my controls in keyboards from the PC folk. Personally I just find it an excuse for game developers to not think about sensible interfaces. I think there’s such a thing as too many options. I think it is probably true that console gaming is erring on the side of caution here but what you describe to me requires a manual of its own and, frankly, that’s ridiculous.
Do High-Definition consoles exist yet? I remember playing a Star Wars-based shooter on a console and not liking it because the television image was so much fuzzier than similar games I could play at 1200x1024 on my computer.
HD gaming is pretty awesome, and started with the Xbox console last generation, which went up to 720p. Today’s consoles, the Wii notwithstanding, can render most games in 1920x1080 on a similarly hi-def TV.
Yeah, I have friends. Unfortunately, they’re too cool to play online computer games.
But that kind of misses the point, as I’ve already said one of the games mentioned in the OP has no facility for party gaming, not that having to mess around getting a group of friends together is any way a solution for the problem described in the OP. When I want to play, I want to play now, and I want to play what I want, not have to negotiate with a group of people as to what map we should play etc. Which is precisely what the route every single online PC game takes allows me to do.
All the options described by Robin Goodfellow can be hidden or set to defaults, usually, and many games have a “Quick Game” facility (Half Life did, for instance), which joins you to a random server.
This is ridiculous. You’ll go “meh” to anything that puts PC gaming a notch above consoles, regardless of how blatantly better it is, right?
More players: “meh” better graphics: “meh”. If PC’s gave you a blow job after each game of COD4 you’d probably go “meh” too.
Well, actually, I might be a little scared if that were to be the case. Imagine a crash at the most inopportune moment?!
when it comes to online gaming, consoles are, as usual, playing catchup to PC games. They’re getting better though and I wouldn’t be surprised if future games have a more PC like server surfing interface.
Also this:
Is incorrect.
Current gen consoles DO NOT render games at 1080p. They render at 720p. The only place you can get 1080p rendered games is the PC 
Consoles hardware is just not powerful enough. Hell it struggles with some games at 720p as it is.
I haven’t played a PC game at 720p since… well at least 2003.