well i am not trying to argue which control scheme is the best. i am saying that a controller by a very good console gamer can be used effectively against a mouse user most likely in a lot of cases.

6/10/2007 7:18:04 PM

ARGH!!! WHICH MICROSOFT GAMING PLATFORM IS THE BEST?!?!?!?!??!


Its funny back when microsoft put out the original xbox people were like LOL MIKKKRO$OFT CANT MAKE CONSOLES SONY WILL PWN THEM.


And now the best game on ps3 is folding@home and sony has lost a shitton of money.

6/10/2007 7:20:57 PM

First of all i don't think there's ever been a standard auto-aim feature for a pc fps. On console games like halo/halo 2 the auto-aim is default. The ONLY way controllers might possibly beat a mouse is when the auto-aim feature is on. Most people don't realize it, but when people play halo and get really good, it's the auto-aim feature that's helping them. Console controls have to be helped in order to play a fps, if there was no autoaim most people couldn't aim as well as they do with the feature. PC is straight up aim and shoot, with a console it's more "aim in the general area" and the auto feature will stick the crosshairs on the bad guy.

6/10/2007 8:15:02 PM

you are still missing the point: accuracy of SHOOTING can only go so far when they are lots of other things to do within the game.

6/10/2007 8:34:19 PM

Depending on the game i'd argue that most fps online or xbox live are 80-90 percent dependent on shooting. Halo 2, Counter Strike, Gears of War, and Unreal all rely highly on accurancy and amount of kills, or amount of kills aiding to attain a goal, ctf, koth, etc. So i would have to make the point that yes, most fps either on console or pc consider accurancy far over any other aspect of the game.

6/11/2007 12:37:58 AM

he won't concede, so don't worry about arguing with him.

6/11/2007 12:40:32 AM

Quote :

"the best game on ps3 is folding@home"

quote of the thread

and the real reason PC > any console for gaming, but not necessarily as a Microsoft gaming platform:



[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 1:02 AM. Reason : flexibility]

6/11/2007 1:00:55 AM

why did they pick such a shitty game to do that on

and you could just do that with one projector and be just as big

6/11/2007 1:18:08 AM

^Quake III runs well on Linux.

This pic is really old. It's meant to show off Linux as a gaming platform more than anything. Oh and that multimonitor setup is curved to help remove some of the fisheye lens effect on the periphery.



[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 8:42 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2007 8:34:01 AM

does anyone elses ps3 lock up when accessing media on a PC?

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 8:37 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2007 8:35:45 AM

I wouldn't be surprised with all the decoding the ps3 would have to do with all the codecs currently in use.

Oh best game in the world, Mario Kart 64. No matter how many new games i play, and what i play them on, we keep coming back to Mario Kart. I'm running Project 64 for Mario Kart at 1920 by 1200 with full antialiasing, and increased texture patterns with wireless ps2/360 controllers. You wouldn't believe how crisp and clear it is, compared to playing it on the 64. Finally beat Wario Stadium in under 30 seconds. Any other MK fans?

6/11/2007 8:44:56 AM

They need Guitar Hero for the pc already.

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2007 9:59:07 AM

http://fretsonfire.sourceforge.net/

heh

6/11/2007 10:23:15 AM

Interesting. What exactly is it? Can't tell from the website.
Ahhh got it, gotta try that out. ha

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2007 10:41:04 AM

I haven't played it but I knew it was out there. There was a similar thing when DDR was real popular.

6/11/2007 12:29:10 PM

Someone needs to develop a ps2 emulator already. I know there's a ps1 emulator out there as well as emulators for all older consoles.

6/11/2007 12:58:45 PM

We need to start a halo3 vs crysis thread. I don't think there's enough Crysis fans to have that going though. No doubt halo 3 will outsell Crysis, but Crysis will pwn halo 3 in graphics, storyline, and overall game play.

6/11/2007 3:47:10 PM

Any takers?

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2007 3:47:10 PM

^^^http://www.pcsx2.net/

Quote :

"Its funny back when microsoft put out the original xbox people were like LOL MIKKKRO$OFT CANT MAKE CONSOLES SONY WILL PWN THEM. And now the best game on ps3 is folding@home and sony has lost a shitton of money."

And honestly, you can't even make this argument. To this day, Microsoft's XBox/Games division has yet to make them a single dollar. It's estimated to start becoming profitable this summer, whereas Sony has been raking it in for nearly a decade with PS/PS2.

6/11/2007 7:16:11 PM

sony really was in the right place at the right time. it was a smart move. had it been anyone else to make that move first they'd probably be in the same position as MS.

and i dont get the crysis love here. it is beautiful, but id say its kinda hard to predict gameplay and story.

6/11/2007 8:22:22 PM

Didn't you get the memo?

Image quality is far more important that content.

6/11/2007 8:39:50 PM

look maw i can shoot a tree down. hope it doesnt go the way of red whatever (see i dont even remember the name) that was one of the first with destructable walls and whatnot, but sucked major balls.

[Edited on June 11, 2007 at 8:50 PM. Reason : red faction i think]

6/11/2007 8:41:47 PM

it was red faction, and i for one enjoyed it

6/11/2007 8:55:48 PM

it wasnt terrible, but nobody is mourning the loss of it.

6/11/2007 9:17:22 PM

yeah I was a lot younger then, I think the main thing i liked was blowing/digging tunnel systems as deep as the game engine would let me..........that and blowing people's footing out from under them, that was fun too

6/11/2007 9:21:35 PM

http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/06/18/lost_planet/
Hopefully it will prove better than the demo.

6/18/2007 2:05:49 PM

the logistics of that slide show is unbearable.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 2:42 PM. Reason : asdfg]

6/18/2007 2:42:26 PM

^logistics? You can get higher res images. It's just comparing the different features in the pc version vs the xbox version and how the dx10 features improve the graphics a little.

6/18/2007 2:45:42 PM

roll-over images would help for easier viewing. this page refreshing is awful.

6/18/2007 3:08:23 PM

^yeah it is. They need to work on thier slideshows.

6/18/2007 3:17:43 PM

Quote :

" and the real reason PC > any console for gaming, but not necessarily as a Microsoft gaming platform:"

xbox had a 3 50" screen setup on their website. using 3 xboxes... still cheaper than the pc require to run that array of monitors.

6/18/2007 4:09:38 PM

Quote :

"and the real reason PC > any console for gaming"

hahaha

these people still don't get it

6/18/2007 4:24:12 PM

^ Confused. For price yes, but for everything else no. Console gaming you're stuck with the low resolution of 1080i/p. PC Gaming you got 1200p and 1600p. Not to mention every game that you have on both console and pc, the pc version 99.9 percent of the time has better graphics because it's usually stripped so they can stick it on a console.

Yes you got us, it's cheaper, and easier to game on a console. But in terms of graphics, and ease of moding/expansions PCs will always have consoles beat.

Oh and don't bring up the interface debate. You can buy both ps3 and 360 controllers for your pc.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 4:29:37 PM

i mean i know graphics make a difference, but that is not all what there is to see in a game. no matter how good a game looks, if it doesn't play right it will flop.

6/18/2007 4:58:03 PM

^Exactly that's why i'm saying it's easier and cheaper to play on consoles, because it's gonna work 99 percent of the time. I'd rather put a little more effort into it, tweak it like i want, and have it run far better than just pluging it into a console and playing. It's just personal preference. I like the challenge.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 5:03:50 PM

oh nothing wrong with that. i prefer console gaming just because i can play without the hassle of upgrading, and it easier to entertain company with a console rather than a pc with gaming. i will eventually get me a gaming rig, but not until i can put up enough money to get all top of the line stuff.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 5:11 PM. Reason : adsf]

6/18/2007 5:10:40 PM

who the fuck sells more games, pc or console?

6/18/2007 5:20:02 PM

^Again stupid argument. Bud light sells more than stella artois in the US, but bud light tastes like piss and in my opinion stella is the better light beer. You can't judge quality by how much something sells.

[Edited on June 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/18/2007 5:25:45 PM

Anyone play Call of Juarez yet?

6/20/2007 8:45:30 AM

Quote :

"Console gaming you're stuck with the low resolution of 1080i/p. PC Gaming you got 1200p and 1600p."

Please stop calling every computer resolution ####p. It's just silly.

6/20/2007 8:52:49 AM

^^ if you have been reading the xbox games thread in entertainment you would have saw that i have been playing it. good single player, very fun multiplayer, decent replay value. 8/10 overall, although it kinda has some technical issues with graphics in certain ways, and in platforming, both of which take nothing away from the fun and action. a shooter is only as good as its guns, and it has some very nice guns that have very good cracks when you lets off shots.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 8:58 AM. Reason : sdfg]

6/20/2007 8:56:49 AM

Quote :

"You can't judge quality by how much something sells."

problem is that beer and games are not an apt comparison. if it is the same game, that speaks to the preference for a platform (since the entire point of gaming is entertainment, we can infer which is generally easier/more enjoyable to the average person). if they are different games, it says something about the calibur of games coming out for each, which also makes a difference in the market.

6/20/2007 9:27:41 AM

^^^Why? I've met plenty of people who are idiots and believe you can't HD game on a computer. I didn't know how to solve this issue so i started explaining the resolution of computer displays and how they can also be described in terms of progressive vertical resolution. Aside from that, some computer displays are still interlaced so it's legit to say 1200p or 1600p to make the comparison.

^^I'm gonna check it out tonight on my new 8800gtx evga KO.

^Yes beer and games aren't exactly the best comparison. I was getting more at the fact that some games on the PC arn't able to be played unless you make an investment and are into pc gaming. Just because these games arn't as popular as console games doesn't mean the quality is any less. I was just making the generalization that just because PC games are harder to set-up and maintain a PC for doesn't mean the games are of less quality because they're less popular.

Anywho i love consoles and have no hate for them, i just can't afford everything right now. I have access to both a ps3 and 360 and enjoy them both.

Here's a little scenario in regard to the comparison. Lets say i have Call of Juarez for both 360 and pc. I got my wireless xbox 360 controller on the pc and xbox, so it's the same interface. I set them both up on a 30 inch lcd then hide both pc and console. The only difference people would notice would be the pc is playing at 1600p and the 360 is playing at 720p usually for that size display. So with the pc i'm getting more than twice the vertical resolution, much better graphics, and yet the interface is exactly the same. I'd easily pick the PC anyday, but still wouldn't mind having a console around because it's easy to deal with, more fun when people are around, and usually more simple overall.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 9:52:55 AM

Quote :

"^^^Why? I've met plenty of people who are idiots and believe you can't HD game on a computer. I didn't know how to solve this issue so i started explaining the resolution of computer displays and how they can also be described in terms of progressive vertical resolution. Aside from that, some computer displays are still interlaced so it's legit to say 1200p or 1600p to make the comparison. "

Here's the problem. The HDTV resolutions that are talked about with "i"s and "p"s at the end of the digits largely imply a 16:9 display. You're talking about the resolutions a computer produces which are very seldomly 16:9 (unless hooked to a TV). Widescreen monitors are generally 16:10 (1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1440x900, etc.).

So while yes, you may have the right amount of vertical lines of resolution, it's completely misleading. By your logic, my 1600x1200 LCD and 1920x1200 LCDs are both 1200p, even though the latter has 276,000 more pixels.

6/20/2007 11:24:46 PM

I'm not talking about 4:3 displays. Making a comparison between 16:10 and 16:9. Still my original point holds, you can get higher resolution easier with a computer. Not to mention pc games have been "HD" for years.

6/21/2007 12:06:24 AM

Quote :

"I'm not talking about 4:3 displays. Making a comparison between 16:10 and 16:9."

Yes, but how does anyone know that when you're creating video standards on a whim? 16:10 and 16:9 are completely different aspect ratios.

Quote :

"Still my original point holds, you can get higher resolution easier with a computer. Not to mention pc games have been "HD" for years."

Your point doesn't matter. You're making shit up. The solution to the fact that you know people who can't grasp a simple concept like resolution isn't to say "welp, 1200 vertical lines, if I call it 1200p they'll understand!", it's to not associate with morons.

6/21/2007 6:59:52 PM

^First of all i'm not "making any shit up." I don't know why you added that line in there. Second of all 16:9 and 16:10 are NOT that different of resolutions. Even so saying "1200p" if perfectly legit. I didn't coin that phrase myself. I started using it after other computer people used it, and at intrex (computer store) in Raleigh. I usually say the actual resolution but i assumed since other people said "1200p" and "1600p" it was alright to say. I guess i won't say it from now on, i'll just state the full resolution because you can't figure it out.

Aside from all that my original point stands, you can still get much much higher resolutions out of a computer monitor. You seem to have forgotten my point. On a pc you can play up to 2560 by 1600 or 1920 by 1200. On an xbox or ps3 you get a measly 1280 by 720 (usually). Unless you got a 1080p display. You're trying to side track yourself from the original dispute. Don't argue over semantics, it's pointless. Stick to the topic at hand. My only point was with a pc you get much much higher resolution and quality. That's a fact, don't dispute it.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 7:40:12 PM

^ well without a nice tv you arent getting much resolution + size out of a computer either.

6/21/2007 8:00:48 PM

^^You know what's funny about the way this guy types? You can read the sentences in that tirade in any order and it doesn't make any less (or more) sense. Well done.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : :]

6/21/2007 8:02:49 PM

^^^ First off, I couldn't care less about your little video games debate. I have a 360 that I use to play movies and there's a PS3 in my living room that's severing the sole purpose of making my home look less barren. I don't care that your computer can render a game at 1920x1200 -- your monitor is still about 30" big. Wowzers. All that resolution!

Not to mention your ridiculous "unless you got a 1080p display" comment. Somehow I get the feeling 1080p televisions are just as prevalent as LCDs that are doing 1920x1200 or 2560x1600, if not more so.

The fact is you're citing standards that don't exist and, if they did exist, wouldn't be what you said they are. It's dumb. You shouldn't take video terminology advice off people who peddle overpriced computer hardware. You should state the full resolution because, like I've said, 1200p means jack shit.

6/21/2007 10:04:55 PM