Video Games: The long wait until Fall games come out

[JonArryn]

Contrasting this with me is a perfect example of why ergonomics aren't a 1 size fits all thing, I find the 360 controller the least comfortable due to its size.

ArrynsKnight - I wasn't trying to argue that sitting at a computer is more comfortable for everyone, that would be ridiculous, what I'm saying is that there is no universal rule for ergonomics like that. And yes blisters. I don't get them anymore since I'm now weak and don't play for half as long as I used to, but I still get super sore and if I kept playing I'd get one. Softer skin blisters more easily when being rubbed like that.

I'm trash at using a controller and that's already killed my first attempt at playing demon souls, but I don't see how it could possibly be better than kb/mouse for 3rd person shooter. 3rd person action sure, but not shooter.

Okay, I understand you and you make some good points.

I agree that there is no universal rule for this. I guess it comes down to what you're used to and have been playing most.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte]

No, consoles suck they shit graphics :lol:

[Werthead]

First of all, the console games aren't ridiculously more expensive than pc games. Sure, they're more expensive, but usually it's a difference of about 20 bucks. Although int he long run it becomes more, but you often get additional things to the console games nowadays.

PC game RRP at launch: £30. Console game RRP at launch: £45-50. Paying more than 50% extra for an inferior version of the exact same game = 'ridiculously more expensive' in my book. Then take into account that at boxed retail, new PC games can be found for about £20 within two months of launch, whilst console ones will stay full price pretty much permanently until they are released as part of a specific budget range. And of course with Steam, you often find those new games at £15 or even £10 within six months of launch.

You also don't get 'additional things' on a console game to a PC one. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening. On the PC version you always have fully customisable controls and, of course, vastly superior visuals, but also often access to modding tools and mods (a pleasant but optional extra for some games, absolutely essential for others such as Bethesda games).

And I don't know why you're claiming you can't jump and spin mid air with a console control on a console? That isn't even hard to do on a console. I would say it is easier to navigate on a console, if it's fps games. If it's 3rd person platformers, the console and the controller is superior in every way. No way a keyboard and mouse can conted with a regular controller when it comes to platformers. You need the analogues for that.

Having done it on both and in some cases with the exact same game (GTA4, CoD4 and MW2), it is far easier and far more precise to do it on PC. Sorry, it's not even close. This is why console and PC games usually don't have the ability to play people across-platform: even medicore PC players will outclass the very best console players due to the superority of the control mechanism.

For beat 'em ups and some third-person platformers controllers may indeed be preferable: the Prince of Persia games were slightly wonky on the PC, though that might have been more down to the wonky camera angles than the actual controls. But there's not very many that come to mind.

[Fez]

PC game RRP at launch: £30. Console game RRP at launch: £45-50. Paying more than 50% extra for an inferior version of the exact same game = 'ridiculously more expensive' in my book. Then take into account that at boxed retail, new PC games can be found for about £20 within two months of launch, whilst console ones will stay full price pretty much permanently until they are released as part of a specific budget range. And of course with Steam, you often find those new games at £15 or even £10 within six months of launch.

That may be true in the UK, but not in the US. US console games are almost always $60, and US PC games are either $50 or $60, with $60 being much more common at this point.

And while new PC games may drop in price more quickly than new console games (although console games can have sudden drops as well), you're much more likely to find cheap used copies of console games since there's less DRM.

You also don't get 'additional things' on a console game to a PC one. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening. On the PC version you always have fully customisable controls and, of course, vastly superior visuals, but also often access to modding tools and mods (a pleasant but optional extra for some games, absolutely essential for others such as Bethesda games).

Well, there have been cases of games giving specific pre-order bonuses to console games, although usually PCs than have their own, different pre-order bonuses. And than it can also vary by where you pre-order the game. Also, with consoles you never need to worry about correcting installing the game, getting the right patches, installing the right patches, dealing with over-eager firewalls, or anything else, its all down automatically.

[Muttering Bill]

Having done it on both and in some cases with the exact same game (GTA4, CoD4 and MW2), it is far easier and far more precise to do it on PC. Sorry, it's not even close. This is why console and PC games usually don't have the ability to play people across-platform: even medicore PC players will outclass the very best console players due to the superority of the control mechanism.

So you just move the mouse over what you want to shoot and click? (I don't PC, so I'm assuming that's how it works.) Sounds pretty cheap to me. It isn't so much that the controls are superior, as that they simply take less skill to use. And then given extra's like mod's and console commands... basically, PC gamers are just a bunch of cheaters. :P

[Werthead]

And while new PC games may drop in price more quickly than new console games (although console games can have sudden drops as well), you're much more likely to find cheap used copies of console games since there's less DRM.

But the flipside of that is that the primary method of getting cheap console games is second-hand sales. You don't get this with PC games because of DRM, but then it's not as necessary: PC games drop in price to less than what you pay second-hand for console games anyway (based on the experience locally; if it is different in the USA I have no idea, but not from what I've seen online). So you still pay less money and get a brand-new game, and the game's creator gets a slice of that money as well, which is why the PC format is regarded as more profitable, especially on Steam where things like piracy are much harder to carry out.

Also, with consoles you never need to worry about correcting installing the game, getting the right patches, installing the right patches, dealing with over-eager firewalls, or anything else, its all down automatically.

Well, a lot of console games do automatically install the game (I haven't played a single PS3 game that did not require installation) and they do very frequently have patches. The new consoles will both have mandatory installs from the sound of it. With modern PC games, they do automatically install, automatically self-patch (and automatically patch when a new one comes out, unless you tell them not to) and automatically deal with everything else. It's not 2001 any more ;) The difference is that with the PC version, you have a lot more options. If you choose not to use them, fine.

So you just move the mouse over what you want to shoot and click? (I don't PC, so I'm assuming that's how it works.)

No. The mouse controls your character's entire body. Turn the mouse right and you turn right etc. The targetting recticle (or iron sights or whatever) remain at the centre of the screen, the same as using a controller.

And then given extra's like mod's and console commands... basically, PC gamers are just a bunch of cheaters.

Obviously mod and console commands are disabled in multiplayer, or are enabled for everyone (for example, back when StarCraft had cheat commands you could punch in a command you give yourself tons of resources, but everyone else would get them as well), so 'cheating' is not possible ;)

More to the point with mods, they can make iffy games (like Bethesda ones tend to be on release) playable, or by adding entire new campaigns to the game or upgrading the graphics right across the board, radically extend their lifespan. I recently played Mass Effect with a new texture pack installed and the game looked about twice as good as Mass Effect 3 :) Or with Skyrim you can disable the shitty UI and replace it with something that makes sense. Or the Nehrim mod which completely replaces Oblivion's campaign with a proper roleplaying game. Hell, the ASoIaF mod for Crusader Kings II by itself is ten times better than either of the official ASoIaF/GoT games.

Some mods are just bits of stupid fun, like the one that replaces Skyrim's dragons with My Little Ponies, or adds the Hulk or Optimus Prime as a playable character to GTA4, but there's a lot that have important utility to the game and can even become separate games in their own right (like DayZ, Counter-Strike or the various DotA things).

[TheEvilKing]

Er, no.

You use the mouse to turn around, which gives you real 360 degree movement. With a good sense of spatial awareness and the settings set to your comfort level, you can run, jump, spin in mid air and put a bullet through someone hundreds of feet away with relative ease. You cannot do that with a gamepad, the precision just isn't there. For speed, sure, you're limited to a binary choice of moving or not moving (though all games have a seperate speed control on the keyboard, and most people leave it defaulted to run unless there's a penalty for that) but that's not as important as being able to point in the right direction.

No this doesn't work, because I was talking about WASD, not the mouse.

The mouse corresponds to the right analogue button as the bit that controls what direction you're facing, and of course the mouse is more accurate and faster.

WASD corresponds with the analogue stick, which controls your movement, and obviously the stick provides greater control and more degrees of movement than the keyboard buttons.

What scientists obviously need to do is stop worrying about spaceships and evolution, and slam an analogue stick in the middle of a keyboard. Bam - gaming fixed.

[kungtotte]

The control schemes are completely different and have a different orthogonality, it doesn't make sense to compare how you move with analogue sticks to how you do it with kb+m because *how you do it* is fundamentally different.

A controller is orthogonal; you are moving with one stick and you are aiming with the other stick.

Keyboard and mouse is non-orthogonal; you move and aim jointly to provide even greater freedom and control.

, for example.

[Muttering Bill]

No. The mouse controls your character's entire body. Turn the mouse right and you turn right etc. The targetting recticle (or iron sights or whatever) remain at the centre of the screen, the same as using a controller.

I guess that makes more sense. Still seems like it'd be a pain. Unless you've got a trackball on your mouse.

, for example.

Maybe not. But the way those characters move looks rather unnatural, and a bit silly. Big jumps, multiple spins in midair, sprinting everywhere even wile going backwards. I suppose it depends on what type of a game you're going for; maybe you want it to be silly. I'd rather have characters move more realistically even if that means game will be a little slower, or the controls a little less precise. I don't find it very immersive when my oridary guy character is leaping around like a super-hero.

[paddington]

Trackballs are horrid for gaming.

[JonArryn]

PC game RRP at launch: £30. Console game RRP at launch: £45-50. Paying more than 50% extra for an inferior version of the exact same game = 'ridiculously more expensive' in my book. Then take into account that at boxed retail, new PC games can be found for about £20 within two months of launch, whilst console ones will stay full price pretty much permanently until they are released as part of a specific budget range. And of course with Steam, you often find those new games at £15 or even £10 within six months of launch.

You also don't get 'additional things' on a console game to a PC one. I don't think I've ever heard of that happening. On the PC version you always have fully customisable controls and, of course, vastly superior visuals, but also often access to modding tools and mods (a pleasant but optional extra for some games, absolutely essential for others such as Bethesda games).

Having done it on both and in some cases with the exact same game (GTA4, CoD4 and MW2), it is far easier and far more precise to do it on PC. Sorry, it's not even close. This is why console and PC games usually don't have the ability to play people across-platform: even medicore PC players will outclass the very best console players due to the superority of the control mechanism.

For beat 'em ups and some third-person platformers controllers may indeed be preferable: the Prince of Persia games were slightly wonky on the PC, though that might have been more down to the wonky camera angles than the actual controls. But there's not very many that come to mind.

When I said additional content, I was meaning that you can buy season passes pretty cheap nowadays, and get dlc's to a fair price. You also get pre-order bonuses, which can be a number of things, if you pre-order that is.

[Sad King Billy]

I guess that makes more sense. Still seems like it'd be a pain. Unless you've got a trackball on your mouse.

Maybe not. But the way those characters move looks rather unnatural, and a bit silly. Big jumps, multiple spins in midair, sprinting everywhere even wile going backwards. I suppose it depends on what type of a game you're going for; maybe you want it to be silly. I'd rather have characters move more realistically even if that means game will be a little slower, or the controls a little less precise. I don't find it very immersive when my oridary guy character is leaping around like a super-hero.

you're no fun :fencing:

A tip: stay far away from Saints Row 4 then. Games take themselves too seriously; it's all doom and gloom. Sillyness is a good thing.

[Alcibiades]

I thought 2DS was some kind of weird twitter joke at first. But it's an actual thing.

[kungtotte]

I don't really require Nintendo to be at the bleeding edge of innovation, but the marketing for the 2DS makes me furious. "A 3DS without 3D!". Also known as a fucking DS.

With the new form factor, it's basically a Gameboy Advance with DS internals. Which is a great idea, don't get me wrong, but this marketing...

[Alcibiades]

Haha, yeah, I thought this bit from Polygon was good:

DS games run on the DS, 3DS and 2DS; 3DS games run on the 3DS and the 2DS, but not the DS; and there are no 2DS games.

Wii U runs Wii and Wii U games, but to play Wii games you'll need to run the Wii on the Wii U. Wii doesn't run Wii U games. The GamePad is portable, but it's not mobile, and it's like a DS, but it doesn't play DS games.

[Muttering Bill]

Trackballs are horrid for gaming.

I wouldn't know, as I don't game on PC. But I'd assume they would be better than constantly having to reposition the mouse.

If you say they're worse, I'll believe you.

you're no fun :fencing:

A tip: stay far away from Saints Row 4 then. Games take themselves too seriously; it's all doom and gloom. Sillyness is a good thing.

I have nothing against sillyness. It's more about staying consistent. If a game is trying to be serious, something like that would be really out of place. But if, like in SR, the point is to be silly, then it's all good. I don't know how serious of a game Quake was meant to be, but characters moving like that in a CoD game would be really out of place.

I'm actually playing Saints Row 3 now, and enjoying it very much. :)

[Sad King Billy]

I wouldn't know, as I don't game on PC. But I'd assume they would be better than constantly having to reposition the mouse.

If you say they're worse, I'll believe you.

I have nothing against sillyness. It's more about staying consistent. If a game is trying to be serious, something like that would be really out of place. But if, like in SR, the point is to be silly, then it's all good. I don't know how serious of a game Quake was meant to be, but characters moving like that in a CoD game would be really out of place.

I'm actually playing Saints Row 3 now, and enjoying it very much. :)

you really weren't around during the quake/doom/unreal tournament era of gaming, were you :) ? Shooters for the longest time were about moving around at high-speed, dodging (and shooting) projectile weapons, not hitscan weapons. like 95% of modern shooters are about. I honestly miss that highspeed gaming.

[Alcibiades]

I don't think my old man reflexes can handle old school FPS speeds anymore. I did watch some gameplay vids for the Rise of the Triad remake, and it seems ludicrously fast to me now.

[paddington]

I wouldn't know, as I don't game on PC. But I'd assume they would be better than constantly having to reposition the mouse.

If you say they're worse, I'll believe you.

My mouse moves it's full range in about 3 inches.

[Sad King Billy]

holy balls

Saints Row 4 sold more than 1 million copies in it's first week; http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-28-saints-row-iv-sells-over-1-million-copies-in-first-week