155 réponses à ce sujet

[JumboWheat01]

Personally, I find playing on my Xbox easier, though it may be more due to the fact that only computers I use are laptops with touch pads. I haven't used an actual mouse in YEARS, and I probably never will again. Kinda hard to use a mouse on ones lap, no?

[MachineUK]

"Now on the other hand consoles have the advantage of design. With a mouse if you want your character to spin on the spot you need to move your mouse left, pick it up when you run out of space, go right, place the mouse down again and move left. Consoles: thumb left on your joystick and spin. The buttons are laid out to be easy to get to, your fingers never more than an inch away from a button. On PC, the medi-gel and survivor packs are default 8 and 7. A hand-width away."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just picking up on a PC negatives here.  

If your having to pick up your mouse, may I suggest changing your mouse sensitivity settings(in-game). As I dont have that problem at all.

Modifié par MachineUK, 01 mars 2012 - 08:02 .

[Cuthlan]

I've played the demo on both, and as with most shooters the mouse is far easier to aim with than the xbox controller.

Otherwise everything seemed the same.

[Cuthlan]

JumboWheat01 wrote...

Personally, I find playing on my Xbox easier, though it may be more due to the fact that only computers I use are laptops with touch pads. I haven't used an actual mouse in YEARS, and I probably never will again. Kinda hard to use a mouse on ones lap, no?

I use a little wooden lap-desk for my laptop, it has room on the side for a mouse.

[az350z]

The major downsides of console gameplay all relate to the controller. Less precise, harder to aim exactly where you want. And a power wheel... after playing the PC demo so much, I can't imagine not having every power linked to their own key for quick use.

[AcidThe Wraith]

Stardusk78 wrote...

It seems every time someone accomplishes something on PC like a solo run, in come Xboxers et al. and say, it's easy, you play on PC. I have no idea since I have never played on the console but I can't imagine it being that much easier. It just sounds like a way of putting people down.

I've played on both(Not ME but shooters in general), and it really is a lot easier on PC. 

Assign buttons for certain actions instead of them being assigned for you, mouse >>>>>> thumbsticks, little things like that really add up. 

And don't think that I'm talking down to you, I'm just saying that it is in fact easier on PC. 

I could flip it around and say that because you use the Gold difficulty as your standard because you play on PC, you are talking down to the console players who have a much harder time conpleting that difficulty. 

Really the problem here is ignorance and a lack of communication.  

[The Makatak]

I'm just a casual gamer; as such, I'm really happy with controllers. Now, yeah, you can up the sensitivity and turn faster, but I've never been in a situation where a slow turning radius has ever been such a problem that I've felt a need to shell out $1200 for a gaming rig (which is what I'd pay at least for the customizable options that PC gamers laud).

What I mostly like about console gaming is that I don't have to worry about specs. I'm not so jaded that I have to post my computer's hardware with every video I render. If a game comes out for Xbox, I know I'm getting the same experience as every other console gamer out there, and I'm totally fine with that.

While I find that mouse-gaming works better for shooters, I do hate with the mouse gaming in particular the drag, lift, drop, drag motion that you have to use with a mouse...but I feel like this could be eliminated with a button for a quick-180. Anyone who played Mirror's Edge knows what I'm talking about. I'm surprised more FPS games haven't integrated this idea yet.

I also really like force feedback. I have since the N64 days, when the Rumble Pack got introduced. There's something about feeling recoil, even simulated recoil, while firing a gun, or while that thing you're in is shaking. Screen bob is kind of annoying and feels like a cheap compensation, even coming from a synesthete.

But I do respect PC gamers, I really do. They make it better for all of us by demanding better key maps (or custom keymappings), pushing the hardware, and streamlining the interface.

[Delta_V2]

I've always played shooters on xbox rather than pc; it just feels more natural to me for some reason. However, I've been playing the ME3 demo on pc since I don't have access to my xbox atm. The mouse is definitely more precise than the thumbstick for aiming, but I absolutely hate the WASD keys for movement. Using a thumbstick for movement just feels so much more fluid.

The other advantage pc technically has over consoles are the hot keys, but that only applies in singleplayer (and I've never minded the power wheel anyway).

Overall, it just comes down to preference. If you want to be the most "effecient", the pc+mouse is the way to go, but many people still find playing on a console more enjoyable.

EDIT: Almost forgot: as has already been mentioned, one advantage xbox has in multiplayer is that more people have headsets (since every xbox comes with one, even if it kind of sucks), allowing for better team coordination.

Modifié par Delta_V2, 01 mars 2012 - 08:39 .

[RGFrog]

On the PC an aimbot is considered a cheat. On the consoles auto-aim is usually a feature in the menu... lol

Personally, if I want the whole enchilada of graphics, horsepower, and control it's the PC.

If I want to just sit on the couch and relax or couch-coop with friends it's the console.

So, at least for me, it all boils down to mood. For now, though PC is king. And if the next xbox specs are to be trusted it will be for another 7 years. That wasn't necessarily the case when xbox/ps3 were first released...

[AcidThe Wraith]

RGFrog wrote...

On the PC an aimbot is considered a cheat. On the consoles auto-aim is usually a feature in the menu... lol

Personally, if I want the whole enchilada of graphics, horsepower, and control it's the PC.

If I want to just sit on the couch and relax or couch-coop with friends it's the console.

So, at least for me, it all boils down to mood. For now, though PC is king. And if the next xbox specs are to be trusted it will be for another 7 years. That wasn't necessarily the case when xbox/ps3 were first released...

Aim assist, not aim bot. 

Console without aim assit would be impossible, the thimbsticks are just not presice enough.

PC mouse is literally that much easier to aim with.

[KnuckLes_8I0]

As a previous console gamer, I always felt games were harder to play on PC. For awhile my head couldnt wrap around using a keyboard and mouse. It wasnt until I actually took the time to get really acquainted with PC gaming that I had realized how much more fluid and accurate it was than using a controller. Now controllers just seem clunky and weird to me.

[Arppis]

az350z wrote...

The major downsides of console gameplay all relate to the controller. Less precise, harder to aim exactly where you want. And a power wheel... after playing the PC demo so much, I can't imagine not having every power linked to their own key for quick use.

It's not so bad, I aim just where I want with the controller, I know how to use it. And the powerwheel is really quick to use. There are also 3 mappable buttons for your own powers and 2 for squadmates. You don't have so many powers anyhows and ones you use least are usable from the power wheel really fast.

[Cuthlan]

I still plan to play ME3 on console, though. The graphics are close enough to not be an issue for me, and that's where my ME/ME2 saves are. And where my friends that want to play multiplayer are.

[cactusberry]

I can't use computer mice, due to joint problems where my hands shake when I try to hold or control something like that. There are many variables to mouse versus controller, and neither is "superior" for everyone.

[kelton312]

Newsflash, a gaming PC that can play console quality games and above only costs 600-800$. Please keep the 1200$ gaming PC comments to a minimum if you don't know how much hardware costs in the current market.

[SKiLLYWiLLY2]

iamsnakemaster wrote...



Now on the other hand consoles have the advantage of design. With a mouse if you want your character to spin on the spot you need to move your mouse left, pick it up when you run out of space, go right, place the mouse down again and move left. Consoles: thumb left on your joystick and spin.

Disagree. Use a sensitivity that allows you do at least a 180 with your mousepad (most FPS players can easily do a 360) and use an appropriate size mousepad. I use a steelseries qck+ which is 17.7" wide and I almost never have to lift the mouse off. Your average gamer, however, will most likely not own a mousepad this size so I can understand that.

[SKiLLYWiLLY2]

kelton312 wrote...

Newsflash, a gaming PC that can play console quality games and above only costs 600-800$. Please keep the 1200$ gaming PC comments to a minimum if you don't know how much hardware costs in the current market.

Not to mention, to enjoy PC gaming to the fullest won't cost you much more than that but if you want to enjoy console gaming to the fullest, you will probably want a decent TV, which will bring the overall cost close to a PC.

[Sabbatine]

Stardusk78 wrote...

It seems every time someone accomplishes something on PC like a solo run, in come Xboxers et al. and say, it's easy, you play on PC. I have no idea since I have never played on the console but I can't imagine it being that much easier. It just sounds like a way of putting people down.

PC players have a major advantage in terms of control.  Trying to condense a complicated and deep game into a 12 button controller a first grader could use means developers have to really dumb things down to get the game easy enough for console gamers to actually succeed in it.  If they don't take the time to rebalance the pc version of the game then generally the PC version is significantly easier... even though there is no actual difference between the difficulty of the two versions, pc gamers aren't handicapped with a console controller.  Bioware did approach this problem in a rather refreshing way with Dragon Age: Origins and actually made the pc version more difficult by adding more enemies and such, but I don't think they've done that since.

If you've never tried playing a shooter on a console you really should give it a shot.  Just for fun I downloaded the 360 ME3 demo and gave it a shot... it was hilarious.  It was like playing the pc version drunk while hanging upside down.

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

You can build a decent pc for 800 bucks and that one would utterly outperform any console available too and most probably also the next generation of consoles to come, so yb the end of the day, you don't pay much extra for the rather striking benefits of pc gaming that you miss out on consoles.

My $800 PC is getting close to five years old now and so far the only game I have not been able to run at a decent speed and graphical settings has been Rage.  It's nearing the end of its practical life, but I regret none of the money I spent on it.

Modifié par Sabbatine, 01 mars 2012 - 09:36 .

[Adhin]

Well was going to go into a long winded text-wall about not actually needing aim assist on consoles and wishing more would have the option to turn it off. Moot point though as ME3 uses a wildly different variant. I play, regardless if its PC or consoles, on a high sensitivity. CoD and Halo its 8-9 which lets me spin around almost instantly and a lot of it just comes down to getting used to the 'timing'.

A LOT of games, and I mean A LOT of games really screw up stick sensitivity. They don't use a proper curve on it and, when you go high you end up screwing over your minute changes so as has been stated, making it 'faster' means you can't make pixel by pixel shifts for more precition. So you either have to be a slug and get good precition or be fast and fail at that.

Halo, CoD, and a few others do a much better job with it as maxing out out sensitivity ultimately works on a massive curve. Meaning going up to 10 barely changes your low end stick movements to the point you can, literally, adjust pixel by pixel still. And you don't get the mass acceleration till your going full stick. Then you got issues with dead zones on sticks and so on and so on. Frankly ME3, while better then ME2 in this area - doesn't let me turn as fast as I'm used to but its good enough and even on max settings you can adjust pixel by pixel so there at least using a curve on that.

Damn left stick needs a bigger deadzone though. IF any of you BioWare guys are reading this - patch in increasing the left-stick deadzone. You got it right the right one, but not the left. Movement 'needs' its own deadzone. Getting so tired of accidentally popping out of cover because of that. If anyones ever wondered WHY you just kinda somtimes forcibly yank off cover in ME2/3? That's why - lack of a proper deadzone on your movement stick.

[jimmyw404]

iamsnakemaster wrote...
Now on the other hand consoles have the advantage of design. With a mouse if you want your character to spin on the spot you need to move your mouse left, pick it up when you run out of space, go right, place the mouse down again and move left. Consoles: thumb left on your joystick and spin. The buttons are laid out to be easy to get to, your fingers never more than an inch away from a button. On PC, the medi-gel and survivor packs are default 8 and 7. A hand-width away.

Except that:
1. The speed at which a person can spin with a mouse at even a low dpi is much greater than someone with an analog stick at even the highest sensitivites.
2. You can rebind your hotkeys. I have Mouse 4, spacebar and ~ bound to ability keys (Mouse5 is sprint), which shifts all my other abilities over 3 spaces.

And pursuant to your point about equipment, good PC gamers have a large mouse pad area which greatly reduces the need to constantly lift up your mouse.  I have a 
http://steelseries.c...steelseries-qck  mousepad which is roughly 1ft x 1xft.

[Kaitheus]

I think its a 50/50 deal as in if your an avid PC gamer your going to be better at playing games on the PC, if your an Avid console gamer your be better with games on the console, that's all there is to it, there's also the fact of, how long someone has played a particular game on either system *PC or Console* the longer you use one or the other the more proficient you are using it.

Modifié par Kaitheus, 01 mars 2012 - 09:51 .

[Sabbatine]

 

Adhin wrote...

Halo, CoD, and a few others do a much better job with it as maxing out out sensitivity ultimately works on a massive curve.

I've always thought the Halo games were the best optimized console shooters... something about the way they handled just felt right which is an incredibly rare thing for me to feel while using a console controller in a shooter. 

jimmyw404 wrote...

Except that:
1. The speed at which a person can spin with a mouse at even a low dpi is much greater than someone with an analog stick at even the highest sensitivites.
2. You can rebind your hotkeys. I have Mouse 4, spacebar and ~ bound to ability keys (Mouse5 is sprint), which shifts all my other abilities over 3 spaces.

And pursuant to your point about equipment, good PC gamers have a large mouse pad area which greatly reduces the need to constantly lift up your mouse.  I have a 
http://steelseries.c...steelseries-qck  mousepad which is roughly 1ft x 1xft.

Your post is a bright and shining example of everything that is wonderful about pc gaming.

Large mouse pads are nice, but that aside, higher levels of sensitivity generally eliminate the need to lift the mouse up to reposition even in small spaces.  I have a pad similar to the one you linked (it's actually larger) to but I only use maybe six inches of it vertically, and 10 inches horizontally because that amount of space still allows for a massive amount of adjustment in game before even coming close to an edge.

[Adhin]

@Sabbatine : Yeah they do a damn good job of it and there version of aim assist isn't as bad as a few of the copys. CoD does a good job of it but the aim assist online often gets in the way. Really should be disabled when your looking through a scope.

As for jimmy there - something tells me hes never seen Halo/CoD on sensativity 10 before - or played PC games on low sensitivity. Mouse gives better precious but speed is not what the console lacks in turning. Least not due to it being a console. Usually it's just how they develop the game that's the issue. A lot of games (like ME2) have far to low sensitivity for max, and... well I gave most my examples in my above post.

Battlefield is a good example of the developer not getting console controls as far as the movement. Neither stick had a deadzone and they didn't use a good curve on the right stick so I had to play lower then I wanted just so I could properly aim.

Another irksome issue you get with some is this whole concept of speed-bleed in on the sticks. It's a REALLY bad practice far to many games use on console, least when it comes to shooters. Basically the idea is, instead of having your sensitivity on a 'curve' as i mentioned above (so even on max settings the 0-50% range barely changes for pixel-to-pixel movement) they instead add a 'timer' onto when you hit your max speed.

Ultimately that kind of an approach is counter productive as your ultimately always moving at slow speeds unless your holding for over a second then it starts to super-speed up. Dunno who thought that design up and why its so damn prevalent in current console games but bleh. Syndicate has some nice options for that actually, lets you adjust your bleed-rate (setting to max removes it) which I went ahead and maxed horizontal movement but kept a bit of bleed in for vertical. Generally you want vertical to not be 'as' sensitive as your turn speed as you, well, use it less and only have 180% of general movement in that field.