Support NeoGAF

[DoomGyver]

I can play COD4 with a controller at the highest sensitivity setting (10). Does that put me at a disadvantage?.. maybe it does. But I'd deal with it for the comfort of a controller.

 

[BloodySinner]

Does using a 360 pad on PC mean you are disadvantaged in MP against KB/M players?
I was pretty good at COD4 on 360 but Im getting MW2 for PC

Get yourself a Merc Stealth gaming keyboard alongside any Razer wired gaming mouse. You won't regret the purchase. I know I didn't.

 

[Zeliard]

24 pages huh...are we aiming for 1 page per missing p?

Here's my take on the whole kbm vs controller thing.

KBM turns everything into a twitch fest, you look around like you're on unrealistically on speed and you move like a robot. It also makes every FPS feel the same. Keyboard sucks and is not built for games, but one thing is does have is an endless amount of buttons. Mouse wheel is a + too.

Controller takes more skill and practice (and ironically so considering it is more casually popular) you move realistically, but you turn like a robot. The buttons are 10 times more convenient, but you have a limited amount of them to assign.

Neither of these things are super superior awesome, but they both have their perks. It all depends on what the game was made for. Most fps's out there are definitely made for the PC. No doubt about that, but I found COD4 was made with the controller in mind.

Of course you can perform better with a kbm, but because of the unrealistic performance of the players, it turns every single freggin fps into a twitch-fest. I hate that so much,especially in games like COD that are already semi-twitchy to begin with. I felt COD4 played better with a controller. Aiming felt like aiming with a controller...not twitching unrealistically like a spaz. It seems it was balanced with the controller in mind in terms of perk power, turning radius, things like that. It took more skill and strategy to get the kills and felt more rewarding when I did. he intensity was more potent with a controller, because the "Oh Sh*t, there he is!" moment of truth where both you and the enemy spot each other and line up the shot was half a second longer and more climatic. On the PC, if I blink i missed the moment of intensity between two players.
You also get that "point and click" feel with a mouse, but a good game with lots of immersion makes me forget all about that feeling very quickly. Didn't get that feeling too much with COD4 on the PC.

In games like L4D, TF2, Quake, Unreal, etc are made with the mouse and keyboard in mind first and foremost. You need to twitch to be a hunter in L4D. You need to twitch to spin around a lot in Unreal. But to me, it can get too twitchy. Unreal and Quake series aren't what they used to be in terms of popularity, and I'm all for that. We need PC gamers to rely on brains and teamwork more than mouse-point-skill. TF2 comes to mind here. We need more games that give PC gamers that opportunity.
But there are games like Halo and Goldeneye that are made in mind that you can't twitch and the entire game is designed around that.

If I want super-twitchy I'll play L4D or Unreal 2006 on my Pc. If I want minimal twitching I'll pop in a Halo with a controller. If I want that rare breed that is right smack in between the two, I'll play CoD4 with a controller (or TF2 on my PC). It doesn't hurt that the controls in COD4 are better than any console fps I've ever played.

Speaking of PC-related misconceptions, I believe this one includes the "twitch shooters require no teamwork and strategy" one. I missed it.

"Twitch shooter" is a very stupid, inaccurate term. There were high-level players back in Quake 1 and up till now in Quake 3 and such that use(d) a low sensitivity and dominated. Thresh, for example, was never really know for incredible aim. His aim was certainly good, and better than most, but what set him apart was that he would predict what his opponents would do and consistently out-think them.

At the higher levels where everybody aims and moves around very well, what do you think it is that sets the individual players apart? There have been numerous examples in various big PC shooters over the years that show that a smart, consistent player can dominate one that is technically more skilled (at aiming, movement, trick jumps, etc), including (and especially) at the tourney levels.

And this notion that it somehow takes less skill to aim accurately while moving quickly at other players who also move around quickly and aim accurately is just amusing. Without the benefit of auto-aim, I might add. Or "aim assistance". Whatever you want to call the handicap. There is also much more of a degree of verticality in PC shooters compared to most console shooters, and most of that is due to the range of motion and speed/precision of analog sticks limiting developers from putting too many things in high places. Notice how most console shooters have a slower vertical speed (pitch) than horizontal (yaw) by default on the stick.

 

[Pantheon Of The Lesser]

There is also much more of a degree of verticality in PC shooters compared to most console shooters, and most of that is due to the range of motion and speed/precision of analog sticks limiting developers from putting too many things in high places. Notice how most console shooters have a slower vertical speed (pitch) than horizontal (yaw) by default on the stick.

true, Gears of War designed this way.

then again, playing Halo 3, there's shit going on everywhere, high, low, on the sides, ships flying... the pace is slower than most competitive PC FPSs but i always thought it was a good poster child for how you don't need to tone down the design to accomodate a gamepad.

 

[Draft]

Do controllers have the movement advantage? Yes. Trying to justify WASD as superior to an analog stick is taking it way too far no matter how you try to spin it.

There's nothing to justify. As long as the majority of FPS games use a digital movement system, a digital controller will be dominant. Not to mention, 4 fingers are always going to be more responsive than one thumb.

 

[M°°nblade]

I rather play on my comfy couch
http://i26.tinypic.com/23vew3s.jpg

nice setup!

 

[gillFTR]

Speaking of PC-related misconceptions, I believe this one includes the "twitch shooters require no teamwork and strategy" one. I missed it.

"Twitch shooter" is a very stupid, inaccurate term. There were high-level players back in Quake 1 and up till now in Quake 3 and such that use(d) a low sensitivity and dominated. Thresh, for example, was never really know for incredible aim. His aim was certainly good, and better than most, but what set him apart was that he would predict what his opponents would do and consistently out-think them.

At the higher levels where everybody aims and moves around very well, what do you think it is that sets the individual players apart? There have been numerous examples in various big PC shooters over the years that show that a smart, consistent player can dominate one that is technically more skilled (at aiming, movement, trick jumps, etc), including (and especially) at the tourney levels.

And this notion that it somehow takes less skill to aim accurately while moving quickly at other players who also move around quickly and aim accurately is just amusing. Without the benefit of auto-aim, I might add. Or "aim assistance". Whatever you want to call the handicap. There is also much more of a degree of verticality in PC shooters compared to most console shooters, and most of that is due to the range of motion and speed/precision of analog sticks limiting developers from putting too many things in high places. Notice how most console shooters have a slower vertical speed (pitch) than horizontal (yaw) by default on the stick.

Another great example would be still until this day and back in the day for counter strike 1.6 at tournament lan levels. The Americans are known for good aim and good skill, while the Europeans mainly the Swedish when it came to CS were known for their teamwork, As you can see mostly the Euros have dominated the cs scene for years. Also most competitive cs players use low sens.

 

[Walshicus]

Not to mention, 4 fingers are always going to be more responsive than one thumb.

I don't want to get involved either way in the standard console vs keyboard & mouse argument, but I'd rather think one thumb would be FAR more 'responsive' in this situation...

 

[clashfan]

I think the PS3 is to blame for the low resolution, remember the Madden at 30fps problem?

 

[StuBurns]

I think the PS3 is to blame for the low resolution, remember the Madden at 30fps problem?

That's a ballsy move Sir, I admire your gumption.

 

[BeeDog]

I think the PS3 is to blame for the low resolution, remember the Madden at 30fps problem?

Sure buddy, if you say so.

 

[Gully State]

Do controllers have the movement advantage? Yes. Trying to justify WASD as superior to an analog stick is taking it way too far no matter how you try to spin it.

This is just absolutely wrong. If movement in an FPS just consisted of WASD or the left digital analog, then yes that would be true. However when you bring the mouse into play, being able to turn with a larger amount of precision allows you to make moves that aren't possible with dual analog. For example, scout players on TF2 PC are able to make sharper and more precise changes in direction than their console counterpart.

 

[Huttie0]

I think the PS3 is to blame for the low resolution, remember the Madden at 30fps problem?

Hahaha, oh wow. I almost wanted to ignore it.

The PS3 is not to blame, it's the engine. It's old, and they're cranking as much as they can out at 60 FPS.

There is nothing to blame for it to be 600p, they just want a smooth, playable, experience. If you want 720p - you'd most likely be playing COD in 30 FPS, and COD does not lend itself well to that.

 

[ShinobiFist]

60fps >>>>>> resolution

Hell fucking YEAH! That's why I'm getting a PC again, can't stand this console games at 30fps.

 

[brain_stew]

Is something like this available for ATI cards?

No.

Transparency supersampling is nice to try out though, makes a huge difference in games that are alpha texture heavy (games with lots of fences, foliage and the like).

 

[Purkake4]

No.

Transparency supersampling is nice to try out though, makes a huge difference in games that are alpha texture heavy (games with lots of fences, foliage and the like).

I'm pretty sure you can set multi/supersampling in Catalyst under Adaptive Anti-Aliasing.

 

[Draft]

I don't want to get involved either way in the standard console vs keyboard & mouse argument, but I'd rather think one thumb would be FAR more 'responsive' in this situation...

Why?

 

[ViolentP]

I don't want to get involved either way in the standard console vs keyboard & mouse argument, but I'd rather think one thumb would be FAR more 'responsive' in this situation...

Try typing on your keyboard with both of your thumbs instead of your 8 digits.

 

[brain_stew]

i guess the left stick beats the keyboard and the rights stick loses to a mouse.

Does it fuck. I'll take being able to quickly change movement direction and having quick access to some 10 keys over over analog control of movement speed. Actual movement direction itself is fully analog with a kb/m ofcourse, and to a much, much greater degree than with a restrictive analog stick. How often do you find your self needing to move at more than two/three different speeds in an FPS? You'll be moving at full speed most of the time, or really slowly, having a few extra settings inbetween really doesn't add much at all.

The fact that the COD games need to include a separate run button on consoles anyway shows just how worthless analog control of movement speed is.

Not really a relevant point anyway, if you want to use an analog stick with your mouse on a PC then go right ahead, nothing's stopping you.

I'm pretty sure you can set multi/supersampling in Catalyst under Adaptive Anti-Aliasing.

That's for transparent/alpha textures only, its not supersampling.

 

[Teknopathetic]

The idea that shooters with KBM boil down to who has the best aim is ridiculous (and stupid, mostly stupid).

1v1 Deathmatch requires as much thought and TDM/CTF require as much teamwork and coordination as any other style of online FPS.

 

[ViolentP]

The idea that shooters with KBM boil down to who has the best aim is ridiculous (and stupid, mostly stupid).

1v1 Deathmatch requires as much thought and TDM/CTF require as much teamwork and coordination as any other style of online FPS.

This is true but I believe the fundamental advantages of the individual are whats in question here. The same argument could be made of two separate players with differing mouse sensitivities. Game aside, one certainly has advantage over the other.

This is of course assuming both players are of equal skill and adapted to said sensitivities accordingly.

 

[brain_stew]

I don't want to get involved either way in the standard console vs keyboard & mouse argument, but I'd rather think one thumb would be FAR more 'responsive' in this situation...

Um, some members of the fighting game community might want a word with you there, bud. Your assumption is 100% incorrect. To change from any direction to another you only need to press a short throw key, directly under our fingertips with a kb, you physically have to drag a stick to achieve the same thing with an analog stick. It takes a lot longer. Its like saying an analog stick is more responsive ans suitable for fighting games than a d-pad, which is some ludicrous shit, I'm sure you'll agree.

The Fight Night games are a good example, which method of control is more responsive in them games? The button config or the analog gesture config? Its the same sort of principal, except keyboard keys are even more responsive because you'll have each covered by a finger, so it doesn't even need to move like it doe with a controller button. If your keyboard has a really long throw then buy one with short laptop keys, problem solved.

 

[kitch9]

I think the PS3 is to blame for the low resolution, remember the Madden at 30fps problem?

Somewhere on the internet, an arsehole just farted.......

 

[Teknopathetic]

"This is true but I believe the fundamental advantages of the individual are whats in question here. The same argument could be made of two separate players with differing mouse sensitivities. Game aside, one certainly has advantage over the other.

This is of course assuming both players are of equal skill and adapted to said sensitivities accordingly."


I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding with sensitivity here. Having high sensitivity doesn't mean you'll be able to aim faster than someone with low sensitivity. The difference with sensitivity is how people use their hand/arm to aim. People with low sensitivity use big motions with all of their arm to aim, they can still aim very quickly. People with high sensitivity use more of their wrist/fingers and smaller motions. Same result, different style. High/low sensitivity is not an advantage or disadvantage.

 

[vandalvideo]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding with sensitivity here. Having high sensitivity doesn't mean you'll be able to aim faster than someone with low sensitivity. The difference with sensitivity is how people use their hand/arm to aim. People with low sensitivity use big motions with all of their arm to aim, they can still aim very quickly. People with high sensitivity use more of their wrist/fingers and smaller motions. Same result, different style. High/low sensitivity is not an advantage or disadvantage.

 

[Teknopathetic]

Nobody not awful bunny hops.

Bad grammar intended.

 

[ViolentP]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding with sensitivity here. Having high sensitivity doesn't mean you'll be able to aim faster than someone with low sensitivity. The difference with sensitivity is how people use their hand/arm to aim. People with low sensitivity use big motions with all of their arm to aim, they can still aim very quickly. People with high sensitivity use more of their wrist/fingers and smaller motions. Same result, different style. High/low sensitivity is not an advantage or disadvantage.

I think that's arguable. The flick of a wrist and the broad stroke are the two methods we're discussing here. Surely it's acceptable to imply one motion takes longer to produce than the other.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"I think that's arguable. The flick of a wrist and the broad stroke are the two methods we're discussing here. Surely it's acceptable to imply one motion takes longer to produce than the other."


One motion does take longer to produce than the other, that's true. However, the other motion cannot be done with as much precision, you can't really flick your wrist at full speed and expect to hit a target dead on with any consistency. Even if the two players are of equal skill and comfort, there are limits to human ability.

 

[ViolentP]

One motion does take longer to produce than the other, that's true. However, the other motion cannot be done with as much precision. Even if the two players are of equal skill and comfort, there are limits to human ability.

That's precisely why I worded my original comment the way I did. I tried to draw the equation using best-case scenario. While I believe that people like you and I don't really fall into a category that takes such subtleties into play, I believe they are certainly existent. You jump on Quake Live lately? I would call cheats in those matches but it's everybody. Everybody in that game is insanely good. Those guys can prove the sensitivity argument better than I ever could.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"That's precisely why I worded my original comment the way I did. I tried to draw the equation using best-case scenario. While I believe that people like you and I don't really fall into a category that takes such subtleties into play, I believe they are certainly existent. You jump on Quake Live lately? I would call cheats in those matches but it's everybody. Everybody in that game is insanely good. Those guys can prove the sensitivity argument better than I ever could."



Actually, I think you would be surprised how many *really good* Quake players use low sensitivity.

 

[LCGeek]

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding with sensitivity here. Having high sensitivity doesn't mean you'll be able to aim faster than someone with low sensitivity. The difference with sensitivity is how people use their hand/arm to aim. People with low sensitivity use big motions with all of their arm to aim, they can still aim very quickly. People with high sensitivity use more of their wrist/fingers and smaller motions. Same result, different style. High/low sensitivity is not an advantage or disadvantage.

Amen to that

High sensitivity and DPI sucks without good tracking. Esreality has mouse benchmarks showing that tracking and scaling to resolution is far more important in the realm of PC FPS games now. The styles you mentioned are just that and play in to how people throw down. I've been low sensitivity since getting in to CS beta and UT99.

 

[To Far Away Times]

I'd be willing to say that part of the reason that modern warfare was so popular was because it was running at ~45fps. The game just feels more responsive, and as a result, is more fun to play.

I'd play all my games at 640x480 if it means 60fps.

 

[Bluemercury]

So the pc version is now superior x10???....nice...

edit:shame on mod support though....

 

[agaru]

One motion does take longer to produce than the other, that's true. However, the other motion cannot be done with as much precision. Even if the two players are of equal skill and comfort, there are limits to human ability.

This is true. It's more related to every individual's nervous system and how it operates with their hands muscles. I've seen people aim very accurately and "fast" with high sensitivity and on the other hand ones who are just as (if not better) accurate and "fast" with using low sensitivity.

 

[vandalvideo]

So the pc version is now superior x10???....nice...

edit:shame on mod support though....

What happened with mod support?

 

[ViolentP]

Actually, I think you would be surprised how many *really good* Quake players actually use low sensitivity.

Sure. I believe the spectrum is varied. Where one man is dominant with low sensitivity there exists one who is dominant with high. And the truth is as you mentioned before, it's not purely aim that wins games. That kind of makes the whole argument moot. Though if one decided to argue the pointless, I would imagine lesser movements with 100% accuracy would be advantageous to longer movements with 100%. How viable that is to gaming as we know it? Potentially not at all.

 

[Bluemercury]

What happened with mod support?

oh i meant mod support in cod in general, compared to valve games....they lack variety....and support from the maker.

 

[vandalvideo]

oh i meant mod support in cod in general, compared to valve games....they lack variety....and support from the maker.

WAWA is all you need with Call of Duty anyway. No WAWA = angry vandal.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Sure. I believe the spectrum is varied. Where one man is dominant with low sensitivity there exists one who is dominant with high. And the truth is as you mentioned before, it's not purely aim that wins games. That kind of makes the whole argument moot. Though if one decided to argue the pointless, I would imagine lesser movements with 100% accuracy would be advantageous to longer movements with 100%. How viable that is to gaming as we know it? Potentially not at all."


Well, setting aside the fact that 100% is impossible, in order to control those smaller, faster movements with the same accuracy you have to slow yourself down. If someone were able to aim at full speed and maintain top accuracy, then yeah that would be an advantage. That just isn't possible, though.

 

[Mogg0]

"Sure. I believe the spectrum is varied. Where one man is dominant with low sensitivity there exists one who is dominant with high. And the truth is as you mentioned before, it's not purely aim that wins games. That kind of makes the whole argument moot. Though if one decided to argue the pointless, I would imagine lesser movements with 100% accuracy would be advantageous to longer movements with 100%. How viable that is to gaming as we know it? Potentially not at all."


Well, setting aside the fact that 100% is impossible, in order to control those smaller, faster movements with the same accuracy you have to slow yourself down. If someone were able to aim at full speed and maintain top accuracy, then yeah that would be an advantage. That just isn't possible, though.

Is it so hard to hit the 'Quote' button? Putting in speech marks is ultimately more laborious?

Anyway, on COD4 and 5 I use high sensitivity under the apparently false belief that I turned faster... at least, that's what it seemed like. So, I'm wrong?!

 

[CultureClearance]

Oh good, I come back to this thread and what do I see? We got a whole page of people exaggerating points I made for the sake of putting me down and making their stance seem more ingenuous.

I can literally quote 10 or so people right now and just say "I didn't say that though, did I?" Even 2 mods quoted me with exaggeration. but what's the point? I guess I jumped into this trap of a thread and shouldn't be surprised that I got my shoes dirty. I play PC games and Console games and have been for 20 years. I played cod4 on both. The game plays better with a controller TO ME and plays too much like everything else with a mouse. It's more like Halo in that sense than it is like L4D. I played Halo on Pc and it didn't play right because it got too twitchy for its own good. I played L4D on a console (very briefly) and that didn't quite play right either. The game requires instant precision and I couldn't get that on my 360. I'm sorry if I offended anyone's "baby" by saying that.

You guys have fun.

 

[Draft]

Oh good, I come back to this thread and what do I see? We got a whole page of people exaggerating points I made for the sake of putting me down and making their stance seem more ingenuous.

I can literally quote 10 or so people right now and just say "I didn't say that though, did I?" Even 2 mods quoted me with exaggeration. but what's the point? I guess I jumped into this trap of a thread and shouldn't be surprised that I got my shoes dirty. I play PC games and Console games and have been for 20 years. I played cod4 on both. The game plays better with a controller TO ME and plays too much like everything else with a mouse. It's more like Halo in that sense than it is like L4D. I played Halo on Pc and it didn't play right because it got too twitchy for its own good. I played L4D on a console (very briefly) and that didn't quite play right either. The game requires instant precision and I couldn't get that on my 360. I'm sorry if I offended anyone's "baby" by saying that.

You guys have fun.

Another quality meltdown courtesy of the PCDF.

 

[MickeyKnox]

Oh good, I come back to this thread and what do I see? We got a whole page of people exaggerating points I made for the sake of putting me down and making their stance seem more ingenuous.

I can literally quote 10 or so people right now and just say "I didn't say that though, did I?" Even 2 mods quoted me with exaggeration. but what's the point? I guess I jumped into this trap of a thread and shouldn't be surprised that I got my shoes dirty. I play PC games and Console games and have been for 20 years. I played cod4 on both. The game plays better with a controller TO ME and plays too much like everything else with a mouse. It's more like Halo in that sense than it is like L4D. I played Halo on Pc and it didn't play right because it got too twitchy for its own good. I played L4D on a console (very briefly) and that didn't quite play right either. The game requires instant precision and I couldn't get that on my 360. I'm sorry if I offended anyone's "baby" by saying that.

You guys have fun.

Who are you again?

 

[AnnSwag]

At least you get 60fps

 

[Dark Stalkers]

That was beautiful.

 

[AnnSwag]

Resolutions and all that don't bother me. Activision's price hike bothers me. At the RRP, this game should be beating everything, not just in gameplay, in graphics as well, including resolutions.

 

[vocab]

The game requires instant precision and I couldn't get that on my 360.

:lol

 

[Gully State]

Oh good, I come back to this thread and what do I see? We got a whole page of people exaggerating points I made for the sake of putting me down and making their stance seem more ingenuous.

I can literally quote 10 or so people right now and just say "I didn't say that though, did I?" Even 2 mods quoted me with exaggeration. but what's the point? I guess I jumped into this trap of a thread and shouldn't be surprised that I got my shoes dirty. I play PC games and Console games and have been for 20 years. I played cod4 on both. The game plays better with a controller TO ME and plays too much like everything else with a mouse. It's more like Halo in that sense than it is like L4D. I played Halo on Pc and it didn't play right because it got too twitchy for its own good. I played L4D on a console (very briefly) and that didn't quite play right either. The game requires instant precision and I couldn't get that on my 360. I'm sorry if I offended anyone's "baby" by saying that.

You guys have fun.

Doesn't L4D on console assign a button to do 180 degree turns? If that's true I don't understand how anyone could think it controls better on the 360.

 

[bran]

 

[bran]

2 more shots, showing split screen side-by-side comparison of the loss of resolution, notice scaling was performed in photoshop (read: better than whatever you got on your TV/scaler/receiver)

Image 1:



Image 2: