Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:And a lot of the time, simple is better.

I have to agree with this, to an extent.

Most of these newer games I get now I play through once and trade in. On the other hand, I downloaded Galaga onto my Wii two years ago and will still break it out and play it for hours.

You should think about renting.

Sensei always tole me less is more

ShumaGorath wrote:You should think about renting.

Yeah, that's not really a bad idea.

My main point was that in my experience the simpler games have more replay value.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You should think about renting.

Yeah, that's not really a bad idea.

My main point was that in my experience the simpler games have more replay value.

Certain games have more replay value, the ones with endless waves of bad guys tend to last more than those with a specific ending. Compare Call of Duty to Galaga, you can beat Call of Duty but you can't beat Galaga. Or can you beat Galaga by reaching an insane score which causes the game to crash?

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You should think about renting.

Yeah, that's not really a bad idea.

My main point was that in my experience the simpler games have more replay value.

Certain games have more replay value, the ones with endless waves of bad guys tend to last more than those with a specific ending. Compare Call of Duty to Galaga, you can beat Call of Duty but you can't beat Galaga. Or can you beat Galaga by reaching an insane score which causes the game to crash?

I played call of duty for hundreds of hours online. Galaga is worth all of an hour maybe to me. Different folks different strokes. I kinda dislike easy meaningless repetition against a simple machine which is what most "simple" games boil down to.

Personally I put a thousand or so hours into TF2, but I find games like Battlefield, CoD, and MoH to be mediocre... enjoyable for fourty to eighty hours maybe, if I push it... but then I kinda look elsewhere. Meanwhile if I had more time (And wasn't stuck in the finals rush weeks mental ennui for games) I'd be playing a lot of Homefront, which is similar to BF/CoD/MoH, yet has features that make it immensely more playable to me (especially after the recent patch which fixed the joining friends problem.

YMMV indeed.

Melissia wrote:Personally I put a thousand or so hours into TF2, but I find games like Battlefield, CoD, and MoH to be mediocre... enjoyable for fourty to eighty hours maybe, if I push it... but then I kinda look elsewhere. Meanwhile if I had more time (And wasn't stuck in the finals rush weeks mental ennui for games) I'd be playing a lot of Homefront, which is similar to BF/CoD/MoH, yet has features that make it immensely more playable to me (especially after the recent patch which fixed the joining friends problem.

YMMV indeed.

Features like the persistent leveling system and nothing else? It was called an online CoD clone by every review source that looked at it so I'm calling bs here. Then again you love the underdog without reason and have me on fake ignore so whatevs.

I don't particularly care what you call, Shuma. You're just here to troll anyway, claiming everything I say is a lie just because you feel like being a jerk.

Reviewers are and always have been full of themselves and very unreliable. Just because some douchebag with a blog or site to rant on disagrees with my taste in games doesn't mean that I'm lying about it... it just means that I have a different taste than them. Such a claim (That is, that I am lying) is intellectually dishonest. Par for the course for you.

Melissia wrote:I don't particularly care what you call, Shuma. You're just here to troll anyway, claiming everything I say is a lie just because you feel like being a jerk.

Reviewers are and always have been full of themselves and very unreliable. Just because some douchebag with a blog or site to rant on disagrees with my taste in games doesn't mean that I'm lying about it... it just means that I have a different taste than them. Such a claim (That is, that I am lying) is intellectually dishonest. Par for the course for you.

Well when you don't list the features that make it immeasurably more repayable for you and a list of "professionals" (I airquote because I would agree that game reviews are often questionable) strongly disagree it goes back to that same old situation where you never support what you say and you tend to work purely from personal preference rather then any form of objective reasoning. You then present your opinions as facts even when they fly in the face of common experience or simple fact checking. I wouldn't claim you were being intellectually dishonest if you weren't. But lets be frank, your computer isn't five years old and running new games. You didn't have me on ignore. Homefront has no unique features at all. Consoles are not peaking now with high prices nor are computer peaking now with low ones (they did that in 08). Most of your big entries in this thread have been pretty dishonest intellectually. You're certainly not alone, but you definitely react most viscerally when called on it.

[edit: delete]

I don't find CoD, MoH, or Battlefield that great. Sure, they all have their jaw dropping moments, but they are usually the same old "one and done" type games, where the multiplayer is the same cookie cutter copy paste every time. The Game Developers of CoD dont even bother to balance the game out post-production short of adding a few restriction timers.

/rant over

Anyway, I don't care if consoles are holding PCs back, or vice versa (though I can't see it this way), PCs are MUCH more of a hastle to deal with than a console is. Consoles are simply: Put disc in and go! Meanwhile, my PC tends to be:

1. Put in disc
2. Wait 2 hours to download
3. Create 3 different accounts on 3 different websites in order to log in
4. Realize that you need a new account to play, repeat step 3
5. (If the game is Dawn of War II) Attempt to get window's live to freaking work.
6. Window's live finally allows me to play the game!
7. Screw around with my router in order to play online
8. Play game to my enjoyment.

Sure, games like minecraft were simply:
1. Download
2. Create account
3. PLAY
and some games are that simple. But an Xbox/PS3 has fewer annoying things that can go wrong when you attempt to go online or play the game (though PS3 has that hacking issue right now...). For a simpleton like me, I'd rather have a game that is simple to play and is great, than one which is hard for me to even GET TO play that is great.

Xbox also has cheating issues . The first aimbots for Homefront were on its xbox port.

Melissia wrote:Xbox also has cheating issues . The first aimbots for Homefront were on its xbox port.

Since when has the PC not had those issues?

Melissia wrote:Xbox also has cheating issues . The first aimbots for Homefront were on its xbox port.

Somewhat irrelevant. These days aimbots and wallhacks are available within 24 hours of a game's release. The hackers have these masterful technologies down to a *puts on sunglasses* science.

ShumaGorath wrote:I played call of duty for hundreds of hours online. Galaga is worth all of an hour maybe to me. Different folks different strokes. I kinda dislike easy meaningless repetition against a simple machine which is what most "simple" games boil down to.

Easy?

What's your high score?

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I played call of duty for hundreds of hours online. Galaga is worth all of an hour maybe to me. Different folks different strokes. I kinda dislike easy meaningless repetition against a simple machine which is what most "simple" games boil down to.

Easy?

What's your high score?

I got 31 kills in a row in CoD:MW2 once! I'm gonna level with ya. I've never really worked for a high score in anything except MVC2.

ShumaGorath wrote:I got 31 kills in a row in CoD once! I'm gonna level with ya. I've never really worked for a high score in anything except MVC2.

31? pft. One round in CoD4 I went 72-1, and I died within 10 seconds of the match start to grenades with no kills

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I got 31 kills in a row in CoD once! I'm gonna level with ya. I've never really worked for a high score in anything except MVC2.

31? pft. One round in CoD4 I went 72-1, and I died within 10 seconds of the match start to grenades with no kills

Impressive. Most kills I've managed in a single game were slightly over 50 in a round. Was this on the PC that you got 72?

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I got 31 kills in a row in CoD once! I'm gonna level with ya. I've never really worked for a high score in anything except MVC2.

31? pft. One round in CoD4 I went 72-1, and I died within 10 seconds of the match start to grenades with no kills

Impressive. Most kills I've managed in a single game were slightly over 50 in a round. Was this on the PC that you got 72?

PC max time of 18 minutes, we had 28 or 29 players for that round (edit: I forget what the map was called, it's the one with the broadcasting building (EDIT: oh wait, broadcast XD)). I was lucky. The CEVO player was on my team

Twas a blood bath.

EDIT: Lots of editing on this one... I think the best score I've ever seen was my clan leader about three years ago. He went 150 something and 1 on Shippment, which is just horrible. He had black magic going on or something to have only died once in that cluster

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I got 31 kills in a row in CoD once! I'm gonna level with ya. I've never really worked for a high score in anything except MVC2.

31? pft. One round in CoD4 I went 72-1, and I died within 10 seconds of the match start to grenades with no kills

Impressive. Most kills I've managed in a single game were slightly over 50 in a round. Was this on the PC that you got 72?

PC max time of 18 minutes, we had 28 or 29 players for that round (edit: I forget what the map was called, it's the one with the broadcasting building (EDIT: oh wait, broadcast XD)). I was lucky. The CEVO player was on my team

Twas a blood bath.

By what I've played of the PC release it seems the kill scores are much higher since the playercount is doubled and the maps don't change in size. Doesn't diminish your accomplishment much though. Thats still a lot.

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:Xbox also has cheating issues . The first aimbots for Homefront were on its xbox port.

Somewhat irrelevant. These days aimbots and wallhacks are available within 24 hours of a game's release. The hackers have these masterful technologies down to a *puts on sunglasses* science.

My only point was that hacking and etc is across all platforms, not just PS3 and PC.

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:Xbox also has cheating issues . The first aimbots for Homefront were on its xbox port.

Somewhat irrelevant. These days aimbots and wallhacks are available within 24 hours of a game's release. The hackers have these masterful technologies down to a *puts on sunglasses* science.

My only point was that hacking and etc is across all platforms, not just PS3 and PC.

The skew goes PC-PSN-360 for rates of hacking online. None are immune but the 360 keeps a tighter ship then sony and the PC as an open platform suffers the worst. I've never experienced more issues with hacking then in my days with Valve and VAC.

Im not saying Xbox is perfect, nor was I claiming it to be hack free. But MW2's hacks for Xbox seemed to be restricted to mainly that game, I'm sure that there are aimbots and automatic DMRs in Halo Reach, but we just dont see them often enough, while the hacked lobbies in MW2 were just fun. Who didnt love the fully automatic NOOB TUBES lobbies, in a real game (non-hacked/adjusted I hated them though).

Im not saying any platform is perfect, but I've never really had hacks used against me on Xbox (wallhacks etc.), or the PS3 (though I havent really played PS3 at all). I was just stating how consoles are easier on the simple gamer, while PCs sometimes arent.

Except that isn't the case any more. Black Ops is notorious for the aimbotting that takes place on the 360 for example.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You should think about renting.

Yeah, that's not really a bad idea.

My main point was that in my experience the simpler games have more replay value.

Certain games have more replay value, the ones with endless waves of bad guys tend to last more than those with a specific ending. Compare Call of Duty to Galaga, you can beat Call of Duty but you can't beat Galaga. Or can you beat Galaga by reaching an insane score which causes the game to crash?

I played call of duty for hundreds of hours online. Galaga is worth all of an hour maybe to me. Different folks different strokes. I kinda dislike easy meaningless repetition against a simple machine which is what most "simple" games boil down to.

Simple repetition makes some games good. Its like you know what's going to happen and you want to beat the game, but when you get taken out you feel like you need to beat that benchmark.

As far as CoD goes the best game I've had would have to be 33-2 on Firing Range in Black Ops, second best would be 27-2 on Stadium. Both used a Spas-12 with a silencer so I felt like I was cheating, especially on hardcore.

Other than that the Python with an ACOG in Havannah will be my choice.

Melissia wrote:Except that isn't the case any more. Black Ops is notorious for the aimbotting that takes place on the 360 for example.

However, in mine and my brother's combined 1000+ games, we have not run into a SINGLE aimbot. Granted, I ragequitted about 100 of those, but my point still stands.

Disclaimer: I am a Xbox 360 Fanboy, though I do not hate on other consoles/Pcs.

And In a thousand hours of TF2, I saw less than twenty aimbots... none of whom lasted more than twenty minutes without a ban.

dogma wrote:

Cybronx wrote:
Difference of opinion. I like to go by reality rather than theory, others don't.

Data isn't theory. If you're claiming such and such system is effective given what software and hardware you're using it isn't because of some magical process that can only be observed by you, in your house. Its the result of the physical properties of your system, which is something anyone can observe, and is always explicitly described by data.

Your terabyte drive isn't going to behave like a 500 gig drive without some mitigating factor affecting its performance, even if you're unaware of what that mitigating factor is.

Not only are you splitting microscopic hairs, but you're twisting words. Application and observance, and therefore anecdotal experiences, are what you defined above. Sure you can test exactly my specs in the exact same conditions, but tell me, who has? You? The various companies I bought my parts from?

The point being that I can guarantee that no conclusive studies have been done and published based on Cybronx's computer. Therefore, in order to learn about my computer you would have to ask me. I would trust someone's opinion of the finished product of their computer (and how it works put together), rather than collect data on every part and do wild calculations in an attempt to produce a muddied idea of what the computer is capable of.

Melissia wrote:And In a thousand hours of TF2, I saw less than twenty aimbots... none of whom lasted more than twenty minutes without a ban.

You play on some damn well moderated servers. TF2 sees almost the amount of hacking that cs1.7 saw. It's ludicrous how poorly VAC works.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:And In a thousand hours of TF2, I saw less than twenty aimbots... none of whom lasted more than twenty minutes without a ban.

You play on some damn well moderated servers. TF2 sees almost the amount of hacking that cs1.7 saw. It's ludicrous how poorly VAC works.

To be truthful, the PC gaming community does suffer from myg0t