This is just a pissing contest ... why you want to be in a pissing contest?

It isn't a pissing contest. It's a simple statement of fact. A mouse is faster and more precise then an analog stick and therefore the superior way to aim in shooters. This isn't subjective. You may prefer analog sticks because you have carpal tunnel syndrome or you like all the aim assist that console shooters provide but that's completely irrelevant to the fact that the mouse is the superior control scheme when it comes to shooters.

I'm really good at typing with the Windows on-screen keyboard.

Probably the best.

Hey Turd, your car driving is way over stating your point, its not that to console is to drive with you feet but more inline with driving an automatic transmission, its not asrebackwards like you would make it sound, console FPS do work but the FPS with mouse and keyborad is better. The console way is not "wrong" like you make out only deiffent.

there is no point to excersising the skill when 1, it's not tranferable in any way

Yes it is, in some areas more so than mouse and keyboard. Remote operated cameras are operated with analog joysticks not mouse and keyboards

This is just a pissing contest ... why you want to be in a pissing contest?

Like some have stated games are games, enjoy or don't , but to state which is right and which is wrong is, to me, showing a level of inmaturity that has long been the hallmark of the gaming communtiy.

To the console people. Can you jump sideways and spin at the same time?

I can. I'm very hard to hit and I'll have you in my sights very quickly. I am, on a good day, very accurate as well.

You have no chance to survive. Make your time.

Oh yeah I'm 64 this year.

This comment was edited on Dec 31, 2010, 15:38.

Beamer wrote on Dec 30, 2010, 12:47:
I love that guys that have spent >$500 for a graphics card are claiming there are no tangible benefits to having a faster system.

There is a very significant benefit to having an expensive computer: the games look a fuckload better. That's it. Nothing else. If you're game is running at a steady framerate to begin with, adding ambient occlusion or FSAA isn't magically going to make players better at the game.

TurdFergasun wrote on Dec 30, 2010, 14:55:
i don't think anyone is knocking the skill required to play a console fps. much like i wouldn't knock your ability to drive a car with your feet on the steering wheel and your hands on the gas and brake. what i'm debating is why bother. the spectacle of being good with an analogue stick where it's horribly inferior and impracticle doesn't provide any shock value like driving a car with your feet. i understand for sports games, and platformers, but for fps, and rts it just makes no sense. there is no point to excersising the skill when 1, it's not tranferable in any way, and 2, it's pointless to be the best at a horribly useless skill that will at the sharp end of the spectrum allow you to compete against the worst players with a keyboard and mouse.

the fps consoler's help dumb down the hobby by abondoning your choice, to receive instant gratification. you accept mediocrity because you're lazy. you use analog stick in fps, and strategy games because you're lazy, not because they're good in any way, but because they're full of simple shapes and colours. companies pander to this, and see how much easier it is with a consumer who doesn't want to think as long as they get the shiney objects they want, so the companies attempt to apply the same control schemes and logic to all areas of gaming. it's truly a waterfall of feces, and pc gamers are sitting in the pool savouring shower of love. it's no wonder pc gamers are sensitive to it, it's the main reason our hobby has been taken over and gang raped. lack of indipendent thought.

Fucking Outstanding!!! Amen!

i don't think anyone is knocking the skill required to play a console fps. much like i wouldn't knock your ability to drive a car with your feet on the steering wheel and your hands on the gas and brake. what i'm debating is why bother. the spectacle of being good with an analogue stick where it's horribly inferior and impracticle doesn't provide any shock value like driving a car with your feet. i understand for sports games, and platformers, but for fps, and rts it just makes no sense. there is no point to excersising the skill when 1, it's not tranferable in any way, and 2, it's pointless to be the best at a horribly useless skill that will at the sharp end of the spectrum allow you to compete against the worst players with a keyboard and mouse.

the fps consoler's help dumb down the hobby by abondoning your choice, to receive instant gratification. you accept mediocrity because you're lazy. you use analog stick in fps, and strategy games because you're lazy, not because they're good in any way, but because they're full of simple shapes and colours. companies pander to this, and see how much easier it is with a consumer who doesn't want to think as long as they get the shiney objects they want, so the companies attempt to apply the same control schemes and logic to all areas of gaming. it's truly a waterfall of feces, and pc gamers are sitting in the pool savouring shower of love. it's no wonder pc gamers are sensitive to it, it's the main reason our hobby has been taken over and gang raped. lack of indipendent thought.

I love that guys that have spent >$500 for a graphics card are claiming there are no tangible benefits to having a faster system.

There's a difference between a superficial benefit and a competitive benefit. A person playing at 2560x1600 doesn't have any real competitive advantage over someone playing at 1280x720. Sure, their game looks sharper but the difference isn't significant enough to really mean anything. The thing that matters most is framerate and any $100 videocard can run any console port at 60 FPS with little effort. More expensive cards can get higher framerates, yes, but once you go over 60, it doesn't really matter in most games.

As mentioned in previous posts, actually turning down the detail settings sometimes gives players a competitive advantage because they can more easily distinguish opponents from the environment. In this respect, the slight advantage of more expensive hardware is completely negated.

Since you've failed to address any of the rebuttals to your argument, I'll list them again:

1) The vast majority of "high-end" PC games are console ports.
2) A $100 videocard can easily run said console ports at 60 FPS.
3) Anything past 60 FPS isn't really noticeable in most modern games.
4) Any serious PC gamer will have at least a $100 videocard and will not be playing competitive multiplayer games on a $500 laptop with integrated graphics.
5) Increased resolution and AA (the two most intensive things for videocards) do not offer any meaningful competitive advantage.
6) Playing with low detail settings sometimes offers a competitive advantage, further negating the importance of expensive hardware.

This comment was edited on Dec 30, 2010, 13:29.

I love that guys that have spent >$500 for a graphics card are claiming there are no tangible benefits to having a faster system.

2- money spent on hardware has no direct relation to usage lol

Yeah, you're right, I have spent over $500 on single graphics cards to look at the box art.

Dumbass.

ah yes please school us on the moral philosophies of gaming integrity and honor

Sepharo wrote on Dec 29, 2010, 23:39:
The best players crank the settings down, not up.

I strongly, strongly disagree with the purpose of doing this. It destroys the game more than anything else does.

Removing foliage is a cheap ass cheat, if your system can handle the higher framerate with everything on (as in, the game being played the way it was MEANT to be played), then you should be doing that.

The simple fact players use this to cheat, and make them think they're superior for doing it is pretty friggen lame.

They're no better than aimbotters and wallhackers.

The only exception here is if your PC is struggling to find a smooth framerate, this is important for the enjoyment of the game.

I guess it's not surprising that this has turned into a PC vs Consoles debate, but that doesn't make it any less eye roll-inducing. At any rate, this at least proves to EA that it's worth it to continue making an effort to deliver good PC shooters to the PC.

What is wrong with the world?

Money makes a huge the diff. in PC gaming and consoles do not require skill??

lol no ipso facto here just bad logic and bad facts.

1- All platforms require skill.
2- money spent on hardware has no direct relation to usage lol
3- HD tv has a huge impact on consoles as does size of said tv (that's why kids say ..." HD baby" after taking out a foe at crazy range. Cost of tv is not a factor but size and quality are.
4- quality of pc hardware does have a huge impact but not the cost.
5- gaming on consoles and pc costs about the same. Simple math, factor in the higher price of games over the life span of the console, cost of hd tv not a factor just like pc monitor. A good pc that will play all games without a need to upgrade for the same life span will cost more initially but extra cost will be recovered buy saving 10$ per Major title over same time frame.
6- AS FOR HASTINGS, basic math people...,500 ticket rounds or 32player servers have no impact. time, demographic and alternatives explain the numbers not money or skill. We do not have the right data or environment to compare skill..and this should be beyond obvious to most.
7- it's not consoles or pc gamers that keep these stupid arguments going, it's ignorance on all sides.
8- it's all been said in ea forums, go read and if you have new facts not fuzzy politician math or logic post.

Once you get good with the controller you can do anything you could with the mouse and keyboard.

Well, no, not really. A mouse is inherently faster and more precise than an analog stick. No amount of personal skill can negate this fact. Watch some of the pro-player Q3 videos on Youtube and you'll see stuff that can only be done with mouse and keyboard.

The player with the high end system is going to see farther and clearly. I remember in BF2 if you didn't have a higher end graphics card you would continue to get shot from snipers you couldn't see because you cards draw distance wasn't good enough and the game would fog out the distance.

BF2 came out a while ago. These days, the vast majority of shooters are console ports. Do console ports even let you adjust draw distance anymore? In any case, as has been mentioned, a $100 videocard can run a console port at max details and a mostly consistent 60 FPS. More expensive cards can increase the resolution, AA and framerate but these things don't really offer much of a competitive advantage when you're already running at max details and 60 FPS.

This comment was edited on Dec 30, 2010, 03:52.

Too funny. I'm an old PC & Console player too and I don't give a rat's ass what you think about console games. I play them because they are fun just like PC games. While I'm playing the games I don't sit there and moan about how the PC version is so much better. If I wanted the PC version I'll buy it... if not I'll buy the console version. Or both even. I've spent far more time on the PS3 version of BFBC2 and it's a damn fun game. Once you get good with the controller you can do anything you could with the mouse and keyboard. The only thing different on the PC the graphics can be ramped up with better video cards and the maps are a different size. Several reasons for that.

Anyway no matter what you may think both platforms require skill and practice to pull off the fancy moves. And yes, hardware does give you a huge advantage on the PC. It always has and always will. The player with the high end system is going to see farther and clearly. I remember in BF2 if you didn't have a higher end graphics card you would continue to get shot from snipers you couldn't see because you cards draw distance wasn't good enough and the game would fog out the distance. It's why I bought a better card. You don't get that as much with consoles because it all comes down to the users monitor or TV. Oh, and eyesight of course.

Either way it's a waste of time to argue over it...

The bottom line is that, on PCs, greater money creates a pretty serious disadvantage

too bad that bottom line is entirely fictional.. but it did fit well in the 90s mentality of 56k modems

The bottom line is that, on PCs, greater money creates a pretty serious disadvantage

There is a correlation between the amount of money a person spends on games and the amount of time spent playing games. People with expensive hardware have expensive hardware because they use it often. Ipso facto, they are better gamers.

Oh please. I play shooters, since Doom. My setup is quite cheap and I never get killed because of it.

I run an i5 a bit OC'd and a GTX 460. My advantage and I'll put it against any display is a Superfine Pitch 34" Sony CRT.

Consoles are quite lame. I just watched a friend play Fallout NV on hardcore hard. He is fighting his way through places I waltzed through. He cannot dodge, he can barely aim, it's pitiful. I can jump sideways while spinning. I am very hard to hit and I am very accurate. He is not bad either I've seen him do well in Q2 but the console is just crippling.

I used to play a lot of Q3 but I'm an old man now and I generally just play Stalker.

Consoles do not only destroy good gameplay they are destroying the games. I hate em'. Die in fire (just ran across that) horrible crap boxes.

The best players crank the settings down, not up.