vlad321 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
vlad321 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
vlad321 said:
Mendicate Bias said:
For those people arguing that because its harder to aim with a gamepad that makes it inferior well then theres the flip argument, its too easy to aim with a mouse.
For example every single major racing organization from F1 to Nascar introduced ABS systems to their cars and then subsequently banned them. The reason was the ABS systems made braking so easy, something that had previously taken a massive amount of skill to do, that the difference between the best and worse racers diminished greatly. Effectively the skill gap decreased because ABS systems made racing too easy.
I can argue that the learning curve involved with getting good with a gamepad actually increases the skill because KB & M is so user friendly and easy anyone can get good with it.
The fact also remains that a console user only plays against other players with gamepads and the same is true for PC players so putting the two systems head to head is pretty pointless.
Also for the autoaim argument. I think some of you need to go look up the difference between autoaim and magnetism, they are completely different concepts and your getting them mixed up. While some games do offer high autoaim and magnetism the games used in MLG and all professional FPS gaming tournaments offer very little or no autoaim. Just to give one example, but there are plenty more, Halo 3. The sniper has absolutely no autoaim or magnetism and the battlerifle has minimal autoaim at short distances but absolutely no magnetism what so ever. |
Yes and that's why they fixed games so that they are fast, fast enough to compensate for easy aiming. The side effect of that is that there is a lot less time to react, think, and re-think and ultimately it comes out to be harder than if it was slower. Meanwhile I can go pee and sing a song while MC does a 180 degree turn using an analog stick.
I also got my argument for aut-aim specifically against Halo and used this as a back up for my argument:
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Auto-Aim
|
I've already argued with you that speed doesn't equal skill so I'm not going to get into that argument again.
As for the auto-aim argument. I am almost positive that table is from Halo 2. The reason being it does not include very many weapons from Halo 3 but all the weapons from Halo 2. As most people know the auto-aim in Halo 2 was horrendous. I don't know if it was because it was Bungies first major online game and they didn't know how to tune the game for online play or what but for whatever reason Halo 2's onlines had a massive amount of autoaim and magnetism as well as a plethora of other problems. It has by far the weakest skill based multiplayer of the Halo games although it made up for it in other ways. However if you play Halo 3 you can instantly tell that the problems Halo 2 experienced with its online component were all rectified. If you don't believe me try to sweep snipe in Halo 2 then do the same thing in Halo 1 or 3 and see how different it is.
|
Because of what ou said s why I'm fairly sure that those are Halo 3 stats. 1 or 2 degrees is actually pretty mild, but not a problem where the reticule just sticks for a prolonged time.
As for speed, that's more or less the whole point. Unless you are all about strategym then don't worry the console FPSes half-ass that too. Go play Civ4 or Starcraft for strategy. I can assure you Starcraft requires hell of a lot more speed+strategy than any console FPS. Kinda sad really.
|
Its huge when your fighting over large distances and that was only for the sniper rifles, the other weapons had much higher degrees of change. Also the battlerifle, the primary skill based weapon is 3 and 6 degrees, very large. Also if its from Halo 3 then why is it missing every single new weapon introduced in Halo 3?
Its called a combination of teamwork, map control, weapon/power-up control and individual skill. I mean did you seriously just compare an RTS to a FPS? Come on Vlad I know your smart so stop with the stupid comparisons.
|
Well if you notice they also have a distance approximated to break off the helping hand, and for the sniper it's a smaller distance than a lot of he other weps.
Also the fact I can even compare an RTS to an FPS shows how poorly made the FPS is. Teamwork, map control, weapon (call them units), and individual skill (micro) are obviously apparent in Starcraft. I will be very hardpressed to make a comparison to Quake or UT. The best argument I can come up is that you can think quickly on your feet and micro well, but fuck you team, unit balances, etc. As I said, it's sad I can even compare the two, it just shows you how shitty console FPSes are.
|
So you think the only thing that matters is shooting? Thats like saying the only thing that matters in racing is accelerating, your completely ignoring the other 99 percent of what differentiates skilled players from noobs. I'm not asking this with any animosity but have you ever been to a major FPS tournament?
http://www.mlgpro.com/video?play=294158
Can you look at that video and tell me console shooters take no skill or console pro's suck? Their making tens of thousands of dollars playing video games, if console shooters were so noobish any random person could show up with his buddies and win himself $20,000. That never happens though because the skill gap between pro's and your average player is massive.
Essay Pro