FPSs Console VS PC: Fight!!

"I remember arguing against ECM in that thread. But you know ECM, he's an intelligent guy but he is so set in in jaded mentality that he thinks his opinions are fact.

The worst case of is was when he actually argued with me that Goldeneye and The World is not Enough were better than any PC FPS games. I'm sorry, but to think consoles are better at FPS games than the PC is quite ridiculous." QUOTE (FROM SOME GUY IN ANOTHER THREAD - you know who you are!)

Now there's a debate - FPSs on PC or Console.

Depends what you're looking for.

All for all multiplayer online FPSs with mouse control rule. THAT is if everyone has the same connection speeds ie over a LAN. Primarily because Mouse control and its hyper accuracy has elevated the game to a nigh on 'sport' status - because hand it to someone casually into games and they can't fathom using both hands truely independently - or manipulating the mouse with enough savvy.

One player games on a PC however are truely flawed - the 'hyper natural' advantage using a mouse for aiming gives a player means that developers have to develop AI that CHEATS in order to create a challenge for the player. In comparison games like Goldeneye reign in a player somewhat making for a 'more natural' one player game.

Both arguments will forever rage!!!!!!!!

There is no debate.

PC hands down. If you think consoles can hold a candle to the PC in this area, including Halo and Goldeneye, then you're dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nikorasu
One player games on a PC however are truely flawed - the 'hyper natural' advantage using a mouse for aiming gives a player means that developers have to develop AI that CHEATS in order to create a challenge for the player.

---

Well, that's the biggest load of BS I've read all week. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that good controll must be balanced off by cheap AI? Must I remind you that before polygons came along pretty much all games had natural feeling controll, and developers still managed to get challenge in there. Explain further how good controll = need for cheapness and is therefore a negative in a game.

I prefer most console FPS games over PC if, and only if, I get to use the left analog stick to aim and the right slick/buttons to move.

I do acknowledge that the mouse gives a very "free" feel to aiming that feels great. however, its too touchy for me. I actually have an easier time making percise and consistient shots on consoles than with a mouse. Plus, I hate dancing my fingers all over a keyboard.

I choose console FPS over PC in general. But I know that my opinion is far from fact.

Sensitive, opiniated, subject methinks...

Hell YEAH!!! The can of worms overfloweth and the contents of my post labelled BS. Its gonna be a long night.

How do I come to the conclusion Superior control must be balanced by cheap AI?

Quake 3 Arena anyone? PLaying on the latter difficulty levels - and you won't be killed by a bot who has collected armour, monitored respawn points of essential items or even tried to evade you.

INSTEAD within about 5 seconds he will have nailed you in the head by 3 Rail Gun shots.

Cheap AI - well show me a guy who can do the same (all three of you) and we'll talk cheap AI. That's not a challenge - certainly not one worth relishing anyway.

In contrast because the controls of Goldeye/Halo for example are far slower (ie more akin to what can be done in reality) AI doesn not have to resort to amplified head shots - positioning of enemies, evasion routines etc are better.

Let me get this straight.

You think that the increasing difficulty in the latter levels of QIII is cheap because the bots become more accurate and can take a hit?! You must suck at FPSs.

CAPTAIN VEGETABLE's brain has been placed on life support.

MY POINTS ARE BEING DEBATED and he posts

"There is no debate."

Explain your complete nonsensical statement or bury your head in the sand. I wish you'd do the latter and take your Brain Cell to a differnt post like "Xbox is better than PS2 because it just is".

Wanker

This shouldn't even be an argument. There is no reason every console shouldn't have a mouse and keyboard. Especially in the light of on-line plans. Who are the console makers kidding here? What the hell good is the internet without a mouse and keyboard? They are proven and tested and useful, nay, perfect input devices for that kind of environment. It just so happens they have proven themselves for gaming as well. And the console makers are afraid to release them because they'll seem too much like a PC?! That's short sighted, stupid, and mis-informed. Gamers know they're not on a PC because the games don't suck and they're actually in a comfortable room on a comfortable sofa. :p Just release the damn keyboards and mice already!

So a bot with vastly ramped up accuracy, higher intrinsic armour (ie NOT earned) is NOT cheap? Of course it is. It is also lazy programming.

Or do I not get their genius. The same genius that tells me that this debate we are having is non existant?

Do I suck at FPS? Well I gurn a little, sometimes pull a few odd expressions, but I rarely suck.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nikorasu
CAPTAIN VEGETABLE's brain has been placed on life support.

MY POINTS ARE BEING DEBATED and he posts

"There is no debate."

Explain your complete nonsensical statement or bury your head in the sand. I wish you'd do the latter and take your Brain Cell to a differnt post like "Xbox is better than PS2 because it just is".

Wanker

---

Eat my ass with a spoon, Slap-nuts.

The debate is a debate of preference, not substance. It doesn't take a genious to see that, Shafty.

There is no debate of substance. People may prefer console FPSs, but PC FPSs are better made. I wasn't stating my opinion, I was stating fact. But you, who must already have his head in the sand, conviently skipped over that.