PC Gaming Dying!!
 

http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-cont...gsince1985.png

LOL ITS TRUE!

sAD... :thumbsdown:

it will always be in the minority as pc gamers have to pay for a computer that costs between 800 to 1200 dollars every 5 years to stay current. ;)

consoles only have to 200-400 which is half that.

im not against the idea of console gaming but i rly cant understand console fps games,

how ppl aim with a console pad and/OR how ppl enjoy being assisted to aim (legit hax?) while aiming is the only thing that would make u feel satisfied with the game


i own a 360 controller (usb) for the games that u dont have to aim

Well for some FPS games I actually prefer to play on a console like the COD series. My keyboard setup is kind of odd for FPS games, and the button configuration was just so much easier using a controller, but I do give up my basic aiming skill by playing the console version. I can much easier control my mouse than a thumbstick.

Having such reliance on aiming is a pretty big turnoff for a lot of players. Having aim assist on consoles makes it much more strategic, much more about where you stand, what weapons you use, how you move around, what your teammates are doing, the choices you make, etc. It also lets you see everything the game has to offer without remaining pretty casual.

Not everyone is a hardcore gamer, raum ;)

I'm a PC gamer at heart but I can still enjoy modern warfare 2 on Xbox.

(although I think 3rd person games like assassins creed and prototype are much better suited to pad based games).

speaking of pc games dying any news on the next patch, so ff won't stay dead. :mrgreen:

How does the game holding your hand by aiming for you when the game is all about who "can mash their buttons first"...make for more strategic gameplay?

I'm baffled.

Every weapon is the same in CoD/etc. They're all hitscan projectile that kill people in ~half a second of direct fire, you have a backup pistol that's completely shit and unaccurate but that's okay it autoaims for you anyways, and you have melee weapons that can kill someone in one hit (????).

Yay 3 hitscan weapons, excellent! Oh I suppose you also get grenades too and maybe stupid overpowered bullshit if you score kill streaks. hurr kill 50 people press butan 2 win

Well you clearly haven't played the game :)

ADS snap aim assist is off for multiplayer, I was talking about single player.
Weapons are not the same, that's like saying all the guns are the same in CS. If you play for more than 5 minutes it's pretty clear there are differences - recoil rates, fire rates, clip size, reload time, damage, penetration.. etc
Melee weapons are super powerful in the majority of games (e.g. TF2) as it's really hard to get close to players so the risk/reward is present. Why would you ever use melee otherwise? It's a super fast chaotic game, you die and instant respawn and carry on fragging.

Killstreaks... are a tactical choice, you can only choose 3 killstreak rewards before you start the game. That means if you choose a tactical nuke which ends the game if you get 50 kills, you're giving up a different reward after 5,6,7 kills etc. I'd much prefer (for example), a placeable sentry gun earlier on, or a chopper to gun people down, it's more fun. Getting 50 kills in a row is practically impossible, not just for the fact that you'll die before you get there, but also because the map will end before you even get that high. Selecting a tactical nuke as a loadout is kinda stupid and I've never seen one whilst playing. Think the highest killstreak I've got is about 22 and i was completely dominating. The thing is, you need to know that you're going to get 50 straight kills BEFORE you start the game. If your argument is that the game is retarded because one in 1000000 times the game ends early then thats kinda a stupid argument :)

So yeah you might want to actually play the game before passing judgement :)

There's a difference between "current" and "playing games that perform as well or better as a console." Most people already have a computer to begin with. If it's a desktop, you can almost certainly upgrade that for that price range to what you would pay for a console. Check this out:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/fea...tra-budget_box

Not counting the OS, that's a $240 system that can run most modern games. Wasn't the PS3 $600 when it came out?

I'm with you completely on the gamepad issue. I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality where people using a gamepad for a FPS doesn't feel like a pain in the ass. I remember keyboard aiming well from games like Doom and Descent. It SUCKED and I thought I didn't really like FPSs that much until I finally aimed with a mouse on later games. Aiming with a gamepad feels like a throwback to that, yet everyone seems content with it.

I don't need perfect aim to enjoy a game though. I've played ones where all the guns were inaccurate at longer distances, but it was still fun to play. I just don't like having a crap control method.

It's not about being hardcore or if you have aim assistance on, it's that it's simply NOT AS FUN to play with. I could attach 50 pound weights to each of my wrists and probably still manage to play through a FPS with aim assistance. My aim and movements would be nice and sloppy, overcorrecting with lurching motions because my arms would be quivering after holding up the weights for a long time. That's what aiming with my thumb feels like to me.

People don't want to have to worry about getting perfect shots? I can understand that, that's why there's an easy difficulty on most games. Spray and pray, focus on other aspects of the game, that I get. People want to intentionally fuck up their control of the character, making the game more frustrating to play, then find some way to justify it? That I don't understand. I wouldn't want to play a RTS on a gamepad either for the exact same reasons, they're just even more obvious for that genre.

On hitscan weapons:

There is no way to make hitscan weapons more diversified than projectile weapons.

End of story.

I'm just gonna join in to bash on some killstreaks...
What's tactical about getting gunned down by an AI helicopter with perfect aim that can only be killed by classes with RPG weapons in a multiplayer PvP?
How about having someone automatically drop a primed grenade when they die?
(This is avoidable after you play enough)
How about dogs that insta-kill? They can be shot but they come at you from all sides and are AI controlled.
How about a carpet bombing that occurs without warning right on your character?

Sorry but I completely refuse to accept that there is anything tactical about killstreaks. The ONLY reason they are there is to increase the "fun" level for somebody who is already having a kill streak, while decreasing the fun level for everyone on the enemy team.
This is one of the main reasons CoD is a game for casual gamers who don't care so much about skill in games (and aiming)
I, for one, think that there's no point playing a videogame in which skill matters less than in a poker game.

Tell me something I don't know, captain obvious. ;\

The point I was making is that you guys are bad at this game.

That is all.

It's called balance. Killstreaks are tactical because depending on your objective, some killstreaks may be more useful than others. For example, if I'm playing Domination on Black Ops, it's better for me to have a Napalm strike or mortar team versus an rcxd or a spy plane because there are set control points. If I can set exactly where a napalm strike will hit, better chances of me killing an enemy going for an objective.

Also, if you have troubles avoiding a killstreak, you probably need to stop playing or practice more. It's all about reflex and strategy.

As far as something like a helicopter or huey are concerned, in most cases I can easily take both either in one life so I fail to see how I am at a disadvantage. Strella RPG has 2 shots. Plus, if you succeed at killing the enemy before they get said killstreaks, then you have nothing to worry about.

There are tactics in every aspect of gameplay in most FPS games today. Some may be more useful than others, but most of them have their place. Tactical insertion can be argued to be just as useful as claymores. It all depends on the class type you play and game type you play.

The good thing about the continuation of games like Call of Duty is each game progressively gets better. Some mistakes are bound to be made such as Martyrdom or One Man Army, but every new game that comes out seems to be better for the most part than the previous games.

Also, dogs can be knifed pretty easily. Just find a corner where you are likely to be safe or find some higher ground, setup a claymore and continue fuckin shit up till the dogs are gone.

I usually use spy planes in hardcore mode because there is no basic radar to begin with as opposed to regular core mode where I would normally choose anti spy plane instead. There is strategy involved in picking killstreaks. Obviously you can't control how well your teammates do, so it's really up to you to not simply rush into the enemy base every time you spawn. You have to look around corners and listen for footsteps and blah blah blah it goes on.

srry chilled but that aint gonna run anything modern. that might not even run ro2 on low. and thats a low end game by todays standards. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying the game is perfect, and yes getting 1-shotted in any game is largely pretty frustrating, especially if that thing is AI controlled.

(although, that is offset by instant respawn. Getting 1-shotted by an AWP in CS is way more annoying since you need to wait for the next round..)

What I said was that the choice of which killstreaks to choose was tactical, I didn't say anything about avoiding them. My main point really was that not everyone can simply use a tactical nuke if they hit 50 kills.

Quake has quad damage. Both players can duke it out over the quad damage before it even spawns, since map control over one area can be intense and quite difficult, yet obviously rewarding. If he gets it you have the option of either trying to fight an enemy with quad at a massive disadvantage, with the possible benefit of taking the quad for yourself; or you can try to escape for a few seconds, take more items from around the map, etc.

And I still feel this is more diverse than CoD. Where being able to counter someone else's killstreak is luck - did you choose the proper feats to counter it? Did anyone on your team take those feats? Do they have the killstreak necessary to use that counter? And you can't fight someone over their killstreak if they're camping in their little hole with 3 people defending them as they're about to get their plane/nuke/whatever sent out.

AMD Phenom II X4 965 - $130
GeForce GTX 560 - $190
Antec Nine Hundred Case - $100
GIGABYTE GA-78LMT-S2P Mobo - $65
G.SKILL 4GB DDR3 - $25
COOLER MASTER 550W PSU - $55
Western Digital 320GB SATA HDD - $40

Total:$605

Ah you're right, you would need to add a cheap GPU, I didn't look at it too closely. Point is, the cost of basically ANY pc except maybe a netbook + a game console is more than the cost of just building a budget gaming PC. I mean how much power do you need to run a game at 1280x720 (what most xbox games run at) with no antialiasing that's designed for a 5 year old graphics chipset?

You could shave about a $100 off of that by getting a slightly slower CPU and a little more lower end videocard and still have something much more powerful for gaming than a modern console.