Indeed, but I wouldn’t say it’s really surprising, seeing as there are easier alternatives readily available, of course being consoles.
Oh, I understand. I was just trying to show the PC gamers that I’m not interested in bashing their platform of choice and will point out when the PC gets a point in its favor.
But I agree, they have representatives of some of the bigger console genres, but no where near the depth of the consoles in those genres.
I may be asking for trouble bringing this back from the dead, but I found numbers on MW2’s budget. It took between $40 and $50 million dollars to make. Almost unheard of for a video game.
Weird. I wonder what the budget was that they turned down then.
Edit: and where all that money went. It’s good, but not groundbreaking, and there’s only 4-5 hours worth of campaign content. How do you spend way, way more than other games and only get that?
Its possible that budget figure includes marketing.
And only 4-5 hours of campaign? Ugh. Oh, I’m sure its polished to a mirror shine, but I think back to how long it took me to beat doom or system shock… 4-5 hours of singleplayer 15 years ago meant it was the shareware demo.
True. however, i thought the point was that most FPS are designed for consoles and ported to the PC after that consideration, usually without gameplay differences.
Because that’s easier and cheaper than the reverse, yes. However, since people have been singing the praises of Mouse/Keyboard as control scheme the entire time, I think the assertion that there are NO gameplay differences is an obvious fallacy. A game… plays… differently with a different control scheme. No one would submit that the gameplay in the most recent Tony Hawk, where you actually stand on a plastic “skateboard” is the same as the previous entry in the series, even though I daresay that the actual acts performed inside the game are quite similar.
I’ve only skimmed this thread, so apologies if it’s been noted already, but the main reason I prefer consoles is 'cos I can play them in the living room from the sofa, rather than having to sit at a desk to use a PC.
A mouse and keyboard needs a flat surface, whereas a controller lends itself to sofa-based fragging.
It shows that you didn’t read the thread, because it has been pointed out that nothing is stopping you from doing that on a PC.
In fact I have such a setup at home.
I have a main PC where I do most of my gaming and work, and a “lite” Home Theater PC. Not only does the HTPC time shift and record 4 HD channels simultaneously, holds my DVD collection, streams netflix, hulu and youtube, and plays the downloaded German soaps my wife loves so much, it also plays games at a full 1080p (something consoles don’t do), and I’ve got a pair of wireless controllers so I can lay on the couch and enjoy some racing games/soccer.
Again, PC gaming’s superiority is in it’s flexibility and the options it afford gamers over what you’d typically find on a console.
Want to play with keyboard and mouse? You can. Want to play with a controller from your couch? You can. Want to play PC exclusives? You can. Want to play most games you’d find on the consoles? You can. Want to play HD video, edit your home movies and pictures, store and play your music collection, stream internet video, etc, etc? You can. Want to have the option of playing at high resolutions with image enhancing filters, higher resolution textures and less FPS drops/problems? You can. Want to be able to use mods and community made content in games? YOU CAN. Want to have options in terms of hardware and games vendors and media formats without having some corporation telling you what you can or cannot use, and from whom you can get it so that you aren’t stuck paying 10x market price for something like a hard drive? YOU CAN.
Something tells me I can keep that list going indefinitely.
False analogy. Using a mouse and keyboard, as compared to a controller, is nothing like using full-body control with a fake skateboard nor the difference between it an any conventional control scheme. I mean, seriously?
Perfectly good analogy that uses hyperbole to make a point.
A controller changes the gameplay experience, otherwise you wouldn’t have all these people waving their “Give me a mouse and keyboard or give me death” flags all over these threads. You wouldn’t seriously try to convince me that playing Street Fighter 4 on a keyboard is the same as playing with an arcade fighting stick, would you? No. Nor would you assert that playing a game with a wiimote is the same gameplay as using a Gamecube controller on the same system. So why are you trying to assert that changing the control scheme doesn’t change the game play?
The fact that your analogy depended on being hyperbolic pretty much invalidates it. I don’t believe input devices dependent on analog human motion is equitable to devices that rely primarily on discreet inputs and limited hand movement. Plus Tony Hawk Ride was designed and can only be played with the fakeboard, unlike many of the shooters we’ve discussed. But putting that aside…
I don’t even understand what–or even why–you’re arguing this. First, the core gameplay is practically identical. Nothing in Street Fighter IV itself changes whether you play on a keyboard or with an arcade fighting stick. What does change is your experience (I would’t use the word “gameplay”), which’s influence on a game is largely subjective (which is why I can prefer using gamepads to mouse and keyboard). People prefer different input devices, and there are very few games (imo) that are dependent on one in order to be properly experienced, such as Wii Sports–one of the few Wii games that is functionally dependent on that controller. But even if you could use any controller with that game, the gameplay would be identical, but your experience thereof would not.
Yes, certain controllers can enable the experience that certain games strive to deliver-I just don’t think it happens very often, especially in the case of the games we’ve discussed thus far (primarily shooters) in relation to mouse/keyboard and gaming pads. So again, a game’s gameplay can remain intact, but your experience thereof can change–a point I don’t think anyone here as contested, as evidenced by this thread.
I guess I just don’t differentiate between “gameplay” and “gameplay experience”. Sorry.
You can make a superior gaming PC for less than a console
PS3 costs $350, please tell me how you can build a rig that has a 3.2 GHz processor, 2.5" SATA hard drive and a 550 MHz graphics card for that.
A) Read the OP, and the thread.
B) Your requirements are arbitrary. I’m assuming you’re picking them to match the PS3 stats superficially, but who cares if the hard drive is 2.5" form factor, or if the processor is 3.2 ghz specifically if it performs better at a lower clock (I don’t know what the stats are on the ps3 processor, but the xbox’s 360’s “triple core 3 ghz processor”, while it sounds impressive, is outperformed by a single core athlon 64 2.4 ghz chip from ages ago)? As for being able to outdo a 7800GS graphics card, yes, you can do that very cheaply.
I feel gameplay refers to the in-game mechanics, which do not change. To say the controls change them is to say the way each person plays the game also changes the gameplay. I don’t believe it does–the way each person plays does change their experience of it though.
A subtle, but important distinction, imo.
Just about any monitor is fine for gaming. There are issues such as latency, but for most people that’s really nto going to come into play much (the unacceptably slower monitors now a days are expensive IPS 30" panels which you are probably not in the market for).
Consider a few things:
- How large do you want your monitor to be?
- What is your budget?
- What is your current PC build? The higher the resolution of your monitor, the more power you need to run games at that native resolution.
- the two main technologies for panels are TN and IPS. TN’s are fast, responsive but don’t have very good color reproduction and have bad viewing angles (color will oversaturate or desaturate and contrast will shift if you move from a narrow angle away from the center of the screen). IPS panels have excellent color reproduction, large viewing angles, better contrast, and usually sport higher pixel counts (but be careful, higher pixels = more power needed to run games), but tend to introduce a small amount of latency to your gaming, and the really slow ones will introduce ghosting to moving images. they also top out at 60Hz, where as some gaming TN panels can go to 120hz or higher (making motion appear super fluid and smooth - but this yet another feature that requires powerful hardware to fully appreciate).
It’s a spammer, dude.
Oh god damn it.