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.

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

1. Find and install drivers
2. Plug in PS3/360 controller into USB slot
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.

You guys are bad with your money.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.

You guys are bad with your money.

Pft. I didn't buy Black Ops. I borrowed the copy that my brother, who's a multiplayer junkie and has yet to finish the campaign even on easy, owns on the 360.

Total money spent by me? $0! No pirating involved either!

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.

You guys are bad with your money.

Pft. I didn't buy Black Ops. I borrowed the copy that my brother, who's a multiplayer junkie and has yet to finish the campaign even on easy, owns on the 360.

Total money spent by me? $0! No pirating involved either!

That means you exist outside of consideration for the developers, and thus this article.

Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

Fafnir wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

1. Find and install drivers
2. Plug in PS3/360 controller into USB slot
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

And.... How the does that allow me to use the Keyboard?

I mean, I was playing Megaman X on my Computer, which is so much better on Consoles, so it probably COULD be done.......

Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

Meh, Call of Duty has become such a Cash Crop that I don't think they care either way....

Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

I'm sure if they took your suggestions it might have sold better. If that were possible.

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

1. Find and install drivers
2. Plug in PS3/360 controller into USB slot
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

And.... How the does that allow me to use the Keyboard?
[

It doesn't. That's why you go out and buy a controller. Or just lift one from one of your consoles temporarily. No PC gamer should be found without a controller of some kind on hand.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Not really.
If they had devoted more time to campaign and less on the crapfest that is MP, I'd have actually bought the thing.

For every time they've gone and done new MP maps, they could have done small little 'scenarios' to enhance upon the SP.
They, of course, don't because more people want to corpsehump someone who they killed while shouting obscenities over a headset.

I'm sure if they took your suggestions it might have sold better. If that were possible.

Yes, well they should have took my suggestions. Because I'm a customer...maybe.

I don't remember if this is on the topic or not but I remember watching the CEO of Valve do an interview and stating he thought the PS3 was crap because you had to write multithreaded code for the games, which even he had no idea how to do.

And yet, he's porting Steam over to the PS3.

Gabe Newell wrote:“If you look at the customers that I feel we’ve done the worst job at taking care of is the people who bought our product on the PS3 – Orange Box on PS3. Those are the people who I have trouble saying anything to other than ‘Yeah, I’m sorry. You have legitimate beef with us.”

I think I'm fine with the beta version of TF2 on the PS3 though. 60 rounds of rocket ammo and nary a hat in sight.

Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good thing?

Perpetual pushes for newer shinier hardware so that developers can include more eye candy is why I dropped PC gaming in the first place. Sit down and make a new game instead of making an old game with better graphics.

Requia wrote:Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good thing?

Perpetual pushes for newer shinier hardware so that developers can include more eye candy is why I dropped PC gaming in the first place. Sit down and make a new game instead of making an old game with better graphics.

Plus if you are wanting to do "more with less", developers actually need to... what is the word... develop?

You know, figure out how to gain optimum compression for their data, how to code complex behaviours using easily processed code, etc. Basically take a complex, data and processor heavy section of code and streamline it. Something that will only benefit them in the future as now when the hardware moves on, there will be even more room to add in shiny new graphics

asimo77 wrote:At its core I would agree with this guy, but I wouldn't say it as "forcefully" as he did. Consoles are holding the PC back but they are not holding gaming back. Also I think PC vs. Console debate can depend on the genre of a game.

Crytek had to dump-down the level design of Crysis 2 as consoles don't have enough memory. So you don't count "streamlined" level design as gaming being holded back by consoles.

asimo77 wrote:For example FPS's on consoles have become so refined that saying "mouse+keyboard is the best" is almost sounding ridiculous given how far the controls for shooters have come. Which is funny because back in the day the keyboard and mouse crowd were absolutely correct.

I've heard this before. One of my brother's friend said the exact same thing so we took a 1vs1 match on UT. I won with my mouse (I didn't use keyboard) 15-1 (I afk for a while as I got something to drink)

asimo77 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consoles are also as a good of a platform as PC for small developers, whether they be making small puzzle games, or trying to break into the larger AAA market.

As far as I know ps3 doesn't support indie games or has very poor support for them.

Well what I meant was that multiplatform games usually see the PC port getting the short end of the stick. That's no suprise. But there are some people who say that the consoles themselves are poison in the gaming industry's lifeblood. That's a bit too much, consoles are fine platforms for certain kinda of games, it's just bad ports that gets everyone all upset.

As for the mouse vs controller the mouse probably is better but claiming it's the only way to play is silly. The controller setup has become very very good at what it does, compare Goldeneye to CoD, we've come a long way.

As for the last part I'm no expert on the subject but from the people I've talked to (actual coders/programmers) and the stuff I've read making a game on PC and consoles seemed to be about the same as far as difficulty is concerned. I of course could be mistaken. I also can't speak for the PS3 since I don't have one.

Several years ago Microsoft came up with the great idea (it actually was a good idea and I'm not being sarcastic) of allowing players on the console, the Xbox 360 and players on a computer running their operating system, to play the same game together. So Timmy on his console could play against Jimmy on his PC. 3 or 4 games were only ever made useing this system, and I'm pretty sure the servers that allowed this are shut down. The reason for this was that unless the console player had a significant advantage, say sticky targeting, a moderately skilled PC Gamer could out preforme a very skilled Console gamer.

I would personally say that the limiation of console gaming isint so much in the actual processor, memory and cpu, but instead is in the controller.

The Xbox 360 is basically a computer, its as easy to code for it as it is to code for a PC. The PS3 on the other hand is an entirely different beast, its not so much more difficult to code for this as is it is different. What these meens is that you can easily port a PC game to the 360, but you can't port a PC game to the PS3.

Also, just to rib on any PS3 fanboys out there. Cell processor technology in the last few years has taken a major hit since its been found that relativly low speed, high core count processors have been able to out class them when calculating Floating Point.

Catyrpelius wrote:Several years ago Microsoft came up with the great idea (it actually was a good idea and I'm not being sarcastic) of allowing players on the console, the Xbox 360 and players on a computer running their operating system, to play the same game together. So Timmy on his console could play against Jimmy on his PC. 3 or 4 games were only ever made useing this system, and I'm pretty sure the servers that allowed this are shut down. The reason for this was that unless the console player had a significant advantage, say sticky targeting, a moderately skilled PC Gamer could out preform a very skilled Console gamer.

Yeah...that actually had nothing to do with why they moved away from it.

Games for Windows Live was a massive resource hog on the PC. It still is.

I would personally say that the limitation of console gaming isn't so much in the actual processor, memory and cpu, but instead is in the controller.

Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Catyrpelius wrote:Also, just to rib on any PS3 fanboys out there. Cell processor technology in the last few years has taken a major hit since its been found that relativly low speed, high core count processors have been able to out class them when calculating Floating Point.

That's been known forever, its how they build supercomputers, and your graphics card* is already built that way.

But that actually aggravates the development problems the PS3 has. The more cores you have, the more you need to do multithreaded code. With 2 cores you can just rely on separate processes to use both cores, with 4 cores, not so much. With 256 cores? Forget about it, you need every last process to be multithreaded.

*Graphics cards can get away with this because everybody uses OpenGL or DirectX (and whatever the PS3 uses) to display 3D graphics, which handle the multithreading for you.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Requia wrote:Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good thing?

Perpetual pushes for newer shinier hardware so that developers can include more eye candy is why I dropped PC gaming in the first place. Sit down and make a new game instead of making an old game with better graphics.

Plus if you are wanting to do "more with less", developers actually need to... what is the word... develop?

You know, figure out how to gain optimum compression for their data, how to code complex behaviours using easily processed code, etc. Basically take a complex, data and processor heavy section of code and streamline it. Something that will only benefit them in the future as now when the hardware moves on, there will be even more room to add in shiny new graphics

I don't think you know how software development for hardware works.

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't think you know how software development for hardware works.

I've done my share of programming (granted it was not games development, but rather programing data processing software and PIC code) and I had to find a way of doing "more with less" as the software had to run on old windows 98 machines which were woefully slow to an acceptable level. I had to go through quite a few iterations of the program before I managed to streamline the design enough that it would process the data that was coming from the sensors in real time on the old machines as well as the original code did on the new machines (which when run on the old machines tied them up for over half an hour before they could process a 30 second data acquisition session).

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

So what would the dedicated servers be for? 360 or PC?

The requirements for the two, at that point in time, were a smidge different. There were very few games that experimented with the 'cross-platform' that I can think of(Shadowrun being the biggest), and it was generally regarded as a very 'meh' thing.

The latency issues were one part, but the others were regulating cheat/exploits, etc.

Developer's say consoles are holding them back? Then why are they developing for consoles? If consoles are really that bad, then they should just stick with the PC. They obviously like the money the console games rake in. It sounds like more of, hey let's get everyone to switch to PC games so they can invest about $700 every 2 years in their PC to keep it up to date with the newest tech.

Sorry I have been burned too many times with PC gaming. I buy a $1000 PC and get a game the next year that needs better hardware. So in order to play it I have to buy new graphics cards, more ram, etc. A gamer such as myself wants to buy a system and a game and have it work. I don't have the time to research and find which video cards will last the longest and which ones that will not need replaced every time I get the latest game. I know on my console that the game will work on the system it was designed for. I barely have enough time to play these games in the first place, let alone enough time to make sure my PC is going to be up to date in order to play some game.

PC gaming may look better, but you get what you pay for. Sure I could probably get a good gaming PC that will last me a few years, but if you are not techy enough to find one of these supposed machines, then you are stuck with whatever Dell or Wal-mart sells you. Chances are that if you are a buyer like me you will get PC that just will not cut it and be one of those ones that put consoles to shame.

Now if I could go to gamestop and buy a PC that is made to play every game that comes out in the next 5 years and not need to be upgraded during that time, and be priced like a console, then I would be all for PCs. That will never happen.

Kanluwen wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

So what would the dedicated servers be for? 360 or PC?

The requirements for the two, at that point in time, were a smidge different. There were very few games that experimented with the 'cross-platform' that I can think of(Shadowrun being the biggest), and it was generally regarded as a very 'meh' thing.

The latency issues were one part, but the others were regulating cheat/exploits, etc.

Latency? PC and 360 don't require two different kinds of servers. Cheating is an issue with both platforms.

Only reason why they ditched cross-platform was that consoles were getting owned without handicap.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If only games developers realise that graphics and "how many shards and flames we can fit on screen from each explosion" is actually not all that draws people to a game, but they come (and stay) for the story, how the game plays, the multiplayer support and experience, etc...

If people came and stayed for the story and gameplay call of duty black ops wouldn't be the best selling game in history. People come for graphics and they stay for gameplay. The story is irrelevant. Console hardware is a severe and significant limiter on both graphics and gameplay, especially with modern focus on large-scale multiplayer gaming.

Story>Gameplay>Graphics>Popularity

But consoles are holding the PC back, beacause once that console is in production, that's it until the next one comes out. But you're continually updating PC's which give them an edge power wise

Hmm how interesting , to confirm im not reading it wrong....

the guy is saying Consoles are holding game developers back due to out dated inferior console machines cant keep up with the state of the art
games they make while PC can ?

yep, because you can't swap out parts in a console like you ccan in a PC


interesting note, while it doen't apply to most the PC gamers, alot of the ones I know just go "ohh, that's a cool game, I'll pirate that to see what it's like" and then never buy it, and them they complain that nobody develops with PC as the lead platform

Lord Scythican wrote:Developer's say consoles are holding them back? Then why are they developing for consoles?

Because they like to eat.

Lots of players can afford console easier than a PC. Which means In some cases can make a total difference getting into gaming or not.
Which is the difference between the company making enough profit to support the company which = pay check for the complaining developer.

Take blizzard for example , was warcraft the best in graphics or w/e when it came out? Maybe yes , maybe not who cares.
But for certain they made sure the requirement is at a level where most people are able to play comfortably.

Lower graphics but gain 1 million more subscriber , smart move Blizzard.

( and yes i know WoW is on PC but im trying to make a point that a company can make more profit if everyone can keep up with the system easier )