Yes, but I think you chose the wrong words for your "better mindless shooters" post.

Yeah, probably wasn't as clear as it should have been.

You were mostly right, a bit off.

The ad banner at the bottom of the screen brings a good question to mind:

Call of Duty or GTA? As a series.

COD.

Cod4 - sublime
Cod3 - pretty bad
Cod2 - not available on ps2 or 3
Cod - PC exclusive nonsense

But then cod4 is so good, it makes the whole series good

David Cat wrote:Cod - PC exclusive nonsense

Believe it or not, the PC doesn't partake in the daft "exclusive" nonsense because unlike consoles, PCs have no central authority to negotiate exclusivity deals with. In the case of CoD, the series started on PC, did well, and so spread to consoles in later iterations. If it's released on PC only it's because that's what the developer wanted to do, not because they've negotiated into an "exclusive" deal.

Edit: for the record, I've never seen what's so great about CoD. Tries to walk the line between casual fun and realism and gets it wrong. (Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault do realism right. Takes a particular kind of person to actually enjoy that, though.)

Sentynel wrote:

David Cat wrote:Cod - PC exclusive nonsense

Believe it or not, the PC doesn't partake in the daft "exclusive" nonsense because unlike consoles, PCs have no central authority to negotiate exclusivity deals with. In the case of CoD, the series started on PC, did well, and so spread to consoles in later iterations. If it's released on PC only it's because that's what the developer wanted to do, not because they've negotiated into an "exclusive" deal.

Edit: for the record, I've never seen what's so great about CoD. Tries to walk the line between casual fun and realism and gets it wrong. (Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault do realism right. Takes a particular kind of person to actually enjoy that, though.)

In my opinion, a PC exclusive FPS is nonsense, no matter the reason for its exclusivity.

And I disagree with your realism comment. Cod4 is one of the most realistic games I've played.

FPS games are far better with a mouse and a keyboard than a gamepad. Far more precise.


Just because you haven't played anything more realistic doesn't make CoD4 realistic. Go play Operation Flashpoint or Armed Assault (find a demo or something; Operation Flashpoint is pretty old now so should run on almost anything) and then tell me CoD4 is realistic.

FPS are just better with console controls. I have a whole video on Youtube about this.

And I am not going to run around looking for demos for PC exclusives (that I would hate) just because you disagree with my opinion on what is realistic.

This is my 200th post, w00tness for me

They're really not. Looking around with a joystick is so clumsy compared to a mouse. I'll grant you some ambiguity over moving with a keyboard or a joystick, though keyboards are better for more complicated games with lots of hotkeys, but there's simply no competition between a mouse and a joystick for speed and precision. There's a reason shooters that are released on both platforms often have to be dumbed down (random example from memory: Splinter Cell slashed the health bar by a third on PC to compensate for mouse control) and multiplayer between PC and console is generally impossible, and that reason is that mice are better than gamepads.

There's an xbox version of Operation Flashpoint, though it had to be dumbed down a bit. Point is, if you can take anything other than a minor leg/arm wound and not die (and even that will incapacitate you), carry more than one or two weapons and a very limited amount of ammunition, run indefinitely without tiring, shoot accurately while moving or standing up, engage enemies at anything closer than a few hundred metres (the sort of range you'll only see them if they move or you're lucky), don't have to compensate for bullet flight time, wind shear and drop, are any more capable than an AI soldier, engage enemies without being in cover and hope to survive, can hope to defeat more than a handful of enemies single-handed, or hope to take on armour (much less air support) without a very advantageous position and a lot of heavy weaponry, it's not realistic. I probably missed some bits. Oh, and the map sizes are tens of kilometres across, you need a map and a compass to navigate, and can expect much more going on on the whole island than whatever happens to be your particular mission.
Yes, yes I do enjoy this. You can drive the whole selection of vehicles too. All with realistic stats.

I just know I'm going to enjoy World at War.

The mouse probably is more precise than an analogue stick (not really) (joysticks are those flying game things aren't they?), but I prefer the stick because the fast movement of the mouse disorientates me slightly, and I dislike having to pick the mouse up and put it back in the centre of the mousemat. Also, if I was trying to aim at a small target, I'd rather have the stick. The REAL killer of PC FPSs, for me, is the keyboard. I detest keyboard controls more than anything. With a console controller, I only need two fingers and two thumbs the operate the game, with a keyboard, I (supposedly) need all the fingers and thumb of my left hand for the keys AND two fingers on my other hand for the mouse buttons and wheel (also I can't touch type, so I need to look at the keyboard :P). This seems unnecessarily complicated compared to the console controller.

A joystick is a bigger version of the fiddly little analogue sticks on a console controller, yes (I couldn't remember the name at the time). The point of a mouse is that you can look around quickly as well as make small accurate corrections, or combine the two, far more quickly and precisely than with an analogue stick. You get used to picking the mouse up - turning up the sensitivity reduces the amount you have to do that, but makes precision aiming a little more fiddly if you're not used to a mouse.
Oh, yes, it's "complicated". Wouldn't want that in a game, would we.. after all, if it's not dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it won't sell. And using all five fingers on your hand at once! Terrifyingly difficult. Whoever would want to do that?
For the record, I have nothing against gamepads under the right circumstances (I played Psychonauts with my gamepad, for example). They just don't compare to a keyboard for almost anything other than platform games.

I said complicated COMPARED TO console controls. I mean, using three fingers to press four keys to move around, compared to using one thumb to push one stick in the direction you want to go. So, exactly. Who would want to do that?

I don't think the mouse is any more precise than the stick. Faster? possibly, but the sticks can move pretty fast as well (if you push them hard). Combining the two is easy with the stick, all you have to do is ease off the pressure on the stick to aim slower and more precisely. Certainly no harder than doing it with a mouse.

Making small corrections with a stick is fiddly because of the deadzone (and there has to be a deadzone or your view drifts when the stick's supposed to be centred). Any movement of a mouse produces movement on screen. There's a reason we use mice and not analogue sticks, and that reason is that mice are more precise. As I said before, games released on PC and on console generally have to be made harder on PC and you can't play matches between PC and console because of how much better mice are.

People who want all the other advantages a keyboard and associated PC offers. As I said earlier, I have no real preference for keyboard vs gamepad except for complicated games that need lots of hotkeys (where the clear advantage goes to the keyboard) and I found both very easy to get used to. The problem is looking with a gamepad.

Sentynel wrote:Any movement of a mouse produces movement on screen.

That is EXACTLY the reason that I think they're fiddly.

David Cat wrote:Cod4 - sublime
Cod3 - pretty bad
Cod2 - not available on ps2 or 3
Cod - PC exclusive nonsense

But then cod4 is so good, it makes the whole series good

Indeed, CoD4 was good.

And the 360 version of CoD3 did suck, but the PS2 one was enjoyable.

CoD2 is a 360 game, but CoD2: Big Red One is a PS2, I believe.

To the DC - Sentynel argument:

The mouse is quite precise actually. It allows you to make minute changes without totally ruining your aim. The joy stick is quite sensitive. Possibly too sensitive. Sometimes (though mind, not always,) I'm just a little off the target. I slightly move the joy stick.... it misses the target completely.

However, the movement of the mouse can get annoying at times. Sometimes you can widely miss, something at least the joy stick won't do.

The problem with console controllers is that your options are limited. Sometimes certain actions share one button, which is really annoying; you have to wait for the right time where the correct action is used.

The keyboard has a lot more options. If you can't operate them all, then .... ><

But really, this cannot actually be "won". It's based on how you play that decides which option you will favor. Personally for me, its both. Mouse and keyboard for precise, quick movement, console controller for reliability, such as that you won't press the melee button instead of the fire button. Plus the controller isn't likely to break as much as the keyboard and mouse. It tends to last longer...unless you use one more than the other. If the same time is used, then controllers will last longer, and thus won't use up your pocket.

David Cat wrote:

Sentynel wrote:Any movement of a mouse produces movement on screen.

That is EXACTLY the reason that I think they're fiddly.

Incapable of holding your hand still?

Oh, and the obvious point I missed: there's a reason most console games have some degree of autoaim/aim assist and most PC games don't.

Nero wrote:However, the movement of the mouse can get annoying at times. Sometimes you can widely miss, something at least the joy stick won't do.

Sounds like a lack of practise problem to me, not a problem with the mouse itself.

Nero wrote:Mouse and keyboard for precise, quick movement, console controller for reliability, such as that you won't press the melee button instead of the fire button. Plus the controller isn't likely to break as much as the keyboard and mouse. It tends to last longer...unless you use one more than the other. If the same time is used, then controllers will last longer, and thus won't use up your pocket.

Can't say I've ever had either problem myself. Never had a broken keyboard or mouse and don't miss buttons with any serious frequency any more than I do with a gamepad.

Sentynel wrote:

Nero wrote:However, the movement of the mouse can get annoying at times. Sometimes you can widely miss, something at least the joy stick won't do.

Sounds like a lack of practise problem to me, not a problem with the mouse itself.

Bleh. Maybe its just my mouse. And I can't quite say its from lack of practice tbh....

Sentynel wrote:

Nero wrote:Mouse and keyboard for precise, quick movement, console controller for reliability, such as that you won't press the melee button instead of the fire button. Plus the controller isn't likely to break as much as the keyboard and mouse. It tends to last longer...unless you use one more than the other. If the same time is used, then controllers will last longer, and thus won't use up your pocket.

Can't say I've ever had either problem myself. Never had a broken keyboard or mouse and don't miss buttons with any serious frequency any more than I do with a gamepad.

O_O

.... really? You're you got a quality keyboard & mouse.