302 réponses à ce sujet

[DeepGray]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

So?

Depth should come in the box.  I wouldn't rate Half-Life based on the likes of Counter Strike and Sven Co-OP, I'd judge the actual game.

You named two (free) stand-alone games, so of course not. Mods aren't their own game (unless you download something akin to a total conversion), they enhance the game and extend the life and limit of the game/player. So I guess if you're not creative, passionate or imaginative enough, just stick to consoles? Geez, no wonder you'll all for a voiced PC.

[Deathstyk85]

minutes played=casual or hardcore? really.

man i didnt know. here i thought it was actually more indepth and most people are idiots for simplifying it to justify whatever point they are making at that moment

oh wait, i am right. nevermind.

[Nerevar-as]

Defining it as "Spartan" doesn´t really point towards a deep system, at least taken in the 300 sense.

Won´t go in the console vs PC wars.

[Larryboy_Dragon]

haberman13 wrote...

That, and on things like System Wars the ignorance of the avg. console poster is astounding.
I have heard things like "controllers are way better than mice for FPS"

When I say that the 360 controller is better, what I really mean is it doesn’t give me OSI/RSI. Obviously a mouse is more accurate and is the only serious options for RTS-type games.
Having said that, I do find the 360 controller more natural and comfortable – however that is likely due to familiarity rather then anything else. When I first picked up a controller I literality could not play even the simplest FPS and it seemed super clunky – now the slight movements come naturally.
The PS3 controller gives me RSI worse then a keyboard/mouse does.  

[Onyx Jaguar]

DeepGray wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

So?

Depth should come in the box.  I wouldn't rate Half-Life based on the likes of Counter Strike and Sven Co-OP, I'd judge the actual game.

You named two (free) stand-alone games, so of course not. Mods aren't their own game (unless you download something akin to a total conversion), they enhance the game and extend the life and limit of the game/player. So I guess if you're not creative, passionate or imaginative enough, just stick to consoles? Geez, no wonder you'll all for a voiced PC.

Sven Co-Op is not stand alone its a mod.  Counter Strike was a mod

Has the definition of mods changed sine 2003?  Have mods also turned into DLC?  ROFL

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 13 juillet 2010 - 09:41 .

[Haexpane]

Prosthetics511 wrote...

 

Having only 6 abilities to toggle is more of a disadvantage if you ask me.  The whole point of the game, or atleast mages is to use spells in combos, not use the same over and over again. 

That is the fault of the DESIGN NOT the controller.

EQOAF for example had a lot more than 6 hot slots, this was done by having a smart cascading tree system
It was actually much faster and easier than using the keyboard.

As always, it's not about naysaying, it's about smart problem solving. EQOAF didn't sell enough to change the market, but it did enough things really well that World of Warcraft stole a ton of the design and made billions

[DPB]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

Modifié par dbankier, 13 juillet 2010 - 09:43 .

[Deathstyk85]

DeepGray wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

So?

Depth should come in the box.  I wouldn't rate Half-Life based on the likes of Counter Strike and Sven Co-OP, I'd judge the actual game.

You named two (free) stand-alone games, so of course not. Mods aren't their own game (unless you download something akin to a total conversion), they enhance the game and extend the life and limit of the game/player. So I guess if you're not creative, passionate or imaginative enough, just stick to consoles? Geez, no wonder you'll all for a voiced PC.

i guess if you dont like sunlight, social events, the opposite sex, or moving out of your moms basement stick to pcs? geez no wonder your so closed minded

snide comebacks to make you realize how dumb you are aside, seriously?
the fact that sony and microsoft have set limitations that dont allow most games like DA to have an editor on the console, isnt our fault. nor does it make us less creative or passionate.
im writing a book, im also in a great relationship. guess what, i also prefer some games on consoles.

[Deathstyk85]

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

no, it WAS made for playstation, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, excuse for a game. in my opinion atleast.

[Onyx Jaguar]

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

It was also coming to Dreamcast

And so was Half life and Black and White

Damn thing was the Xbox before the xbox

Those three games sound impossible to play with a dreamcast controller, which is why dreamcast had keyboard (and possibly? mouse) support

[Onyx Jaguar]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

no, it WAS made for playstation, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, excuse for a game. in my opinion atleast.

LOL did the rom get released?

[DeepGray]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

DeepGray wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

So?

Depth should come in the box.  I wouldn't rate Half-Life based on the likes of Counter Strike and Sven Co-OP, I'd judge the actual game.

You named two (free) stand-alone games, so of course not. Mods aren't their own game (unless you download something akin to a total conversion), they enhance the game and extend the life and limit of the game/player. So I guess if you're not creative, passionate or imaginative enough, just stick to consoles? Geez, no wonder you'll all for a voiced PC.

Sven Co-Op is not stand alone its a mod.  Counter Strike was a mod

Has the definition of mods changed sine 2003?  Have mods also turned into DLC?  ROFL

They weren't exactly simple mods, there are clear lines between a hair or texture mod and a game like Earth Special Forces. And yes, you could buy CS alone without HL.

[Haexpane]

DanteCousland wrote...

The only real difference between the two is the tactical overview and refined graphics. .

No, there is a bunch of other differences.

I own and love the PS3 version but

- PC has more enemies on screen
- PS3 is gimped in summons.  YOu can only have a pet or a summoned/zombie.  You can't have both.  And you can't give commands to the pet like you can on PC

BG2 was even better, you could cast multiple summons and familiars all at once, make an entire army!

[Onyx Jaguar]

You can now, but not originally. Not before Valve scooped them up

Same with Day of Defeat, I got it before it was a retail release.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 13 juillet 2010 - 09:47 .

[Haexpane]

DeepGray wrote...

 
So how did you like the nearly endless mods on your xbox? Oh wait.

Console gamers WANT MODS too

[Onyx Jaguar]

PS3 has mod support for some of its games

[Haexpane]

SSH83 wrote...

If anything, the fact that they're designing an entirely new console-specific system should mean the opposite of "nerf", since they're creating something customized for console, rather than dumbing down (nerfing) the PC stuff to cram into a console box.

We hope you're right

[Haexpane]

Prosthetics511 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kinthalis ThornBlade wrote...
 

I'm just wondering, why you think that the more casual user base 

The *more casual user base* IS on the PC

World of Warcraft
Counterstrike
Farmville
Peggle
Sims

CASUALs

PC owns the casual space by a large margin

 

LOL if you consider Famville Peggle and Sims part of the hardcore PC gamers, you need a reality check.  World of Warcraft is also a much more serious game than you are implying, along with Counterstrike.

PC games in a nutshell can be found by a program that about 1/2 of PC gamers have that tracks time:
http://www.xfire.com/
Look in lower right.

I never said "Farmvile hardcore PC gamers"  read the quote, I said PC owns the casual game space.

[Deathstyk85]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Deathstyk85 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

no, it WAS made for playstation, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, excuse for a game. in my opinion atleast.

LOL did the rom get released?

the ps2 version they made,made me terribly sad. yes it did, it was called baldurs gate broken alliance. and it made me want to hurl. my understanding was that the dreamcast version was supposed to be actually similar to baldurs gate, where as this was a solo player, choose from one of three characters, and then run around mashing one button murdering millions of kobolds, skeletons etc, with no real story at all.

[Haexpane]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in the day Command and Conquer played just fine on the console. And after playing the PC version I understood why. The original C&C is really, really slow.

Also Halo Wars played well for being on a console, and while C&C3 did not its expansion had a decent input system. But not enough for it to compete with a PC

Civ Revolutions controlled fine on consoles.  If anything, that game needed MORE DEPTH, and MORE TACTICS.   The biggest flaw was it wasn't deep enough. They went w/ a shallow gameplay to try and lure in console gamers, that failed.

[Haexpane]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

no, it WAS made for playstation, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, excuse for a game. in my opinion atleast.

No, it wasn't Baldur's Gate was NOT released for the playstation. 

[Deathstyk85]

i think the problem is, alot of devs, think like pc elitists, and over simplify games because they are ignorant about the gaming community, wich only feeds the seperate faction type forums we have today.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Deathstyk85 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

no, it WAS made for playstation, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, excuse for a game. in my opinion atleast.

LOL did the rom get released?

the ps2 version they made,made me terribly sad. yes it did, it was called baldurs gate broken alliance. and it made me want to hurl. my understanding was that the dreamcast version was supposed to be actually similar to baldurs gate, where as this was a solo player, choose from one of three characters, and then run around mashing one button murdering millions of kobolds, skeletons etc, with no real story at all.

No, actually the youtube video he showed was BG on the playstation the original.

I have dark alliance and it has surprisingly good graphics for tis time.  Pretty much a diablo clone.

[Deathstyk85]

Haexpane wrote...

Deathstyk85 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember when BG was getting ported to the Dreamcast. Wish that game would have come out just to see what it would look like.

Not quite, Playstation, actually. I can't imagine controlling the cursor with a controller would have been very efficient, you'd probably have to spend most of the game paused.

no, it WAS made for playstation, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, excuse for a game. in my opinion atleast.

No, it wasn't Baldur's Gate was NOT released for the playstation. 

umm yes, i have it upstaires in my dresser full of ****ty old games.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Haexpane wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in the day Command and Conquer played just fine on the console. And after playing the PC version I understood why. The original C&C is really, really slow.

Also Halo Wars played well for being on a console, and while C&C3 did not its expansion had a decent input system. But not enough for it to compete with a PC

Civ Revolutions controlled fine on consoles.  If anything, that game needed MORE DEPTH, and MORE TACTICS.   The biggest flaw was it wasn't deep enough. They went w/ a shallow gameplay to try and lure in console gamers, that failed.

That was turn based though, turn based is the realm of the consoles it is where that design thrives.  Real time is more of an issue and DA:O is more real time than turn based even though it operates on pseudo turns