Slashdot Mirror
PC Gamers Crush Console Brethren
l_bratch writes "Since December 22nd DICE have been running a competition between each target platform of their latest Battlefield expansion — Bad Company 2: Vietnam. Players were required to complete a large number of 'team actions' in game, in order to unlock a hidden, remastered version of the Operation Hastings map from the original Battlefield: Vietnam. PC gamers have completed the task, whereas gamers on both console platforms are only about halfway there."
Players with superior input devices do better. More as this story develops.
Not to defend the console gamers but:
1) This is based on one game.
2) This assumes that the ports were equivalent
3) This was a count of collective actions of a community not averaged over the individual. The same tournament held between various PC OSes would have resulted in Microsoft crushing Linux's gamers simply because there are more of them on the PC platform.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Now, assuming that the player populations are of equal size, with equal numbers of hours played...
That may be quite an assumption, since the hours played since team actions have counted towards unlocking the map isn't listed (at least it wasn't when I checked). Considering that BC2 is a bit of a darling on PC in light of Activision's actions of late, it likely has a much larger portion of the online population on the PC than the consoles (where most players are probably playing CoD, Halo, or Resistance/Killzone). That being said, PC gamers are still faring a higher actions per hour rate since launch, but with the possibility of a larger population on PC it's likely this was never going to be close.
"This is considered plagiarism."
I read the summary title and thought - for once - some insane game company had enabled PCs to play in the same games with consoles. But no... PC gamers just performed more "team actions" in their own isolated world than console gamers did in theirs.
The game could be more popular on PC than consoles, or perhaps just more "serious" (and maybe older) players on PCs. Hell, maybe the PC version just got cracked and it didn't involve many players at all. Who knows. Slightly interesting, with so little data, only slightly.
http://www.battlefieldbadcompany2.com/globalstats ;)
Both consoles have over 90k combined playing hours, while PC gamers only accumulated 55k so far and have been nearly doubly as "efficient" in total (regarding this challenge).
Which of course makes one PC gamer 3-4 times "better" than a console gamer
On a more serious note, you have superior input instruments and superior communication channels on the PC, plus the crowd is generally a bit more "savvy".
Skill at gaming might actually be equal, but the interface is not. I believe someone from MS said at one time they had Xbox and PC FPS shooters(i forget the game) sharing servers and found that PC gamers always smoked the console gamers. KB/M > gamepad for FPS or RPG or RTS with hotkeys/macros/accuracy via mouse vs toggling a stick to move your reticle around and limited buttons. I thought this was common knowledge..
So many injustices..so little time..
Not just easier to learn, but better. The reason is because a mouse can be both fast and precise. You can easily make quick movements, but can dial that back and be extremely precise too. This is the reason it works so well as an input device. You can get the cursor across the screen fast, but then easily zero in on a small button. Joysticks can't do that. They can be fast or precise, but not both at once. You either have to turn up the sensitivity/acceleration for fast moves, meaning precise aiming is very hard, or you have to turn it down to allow precision, but sacrifice quick movement.
So for FPSes the mouse is by far a superior control system. That is part of the reason for next to no cross platform shooters. Xbox Live makes that possible, Windows and the 360 can play against each other, however in play testing the PC users just slaughter the console users. This is also why in the exceedingly rare cross platform play titles the console users have auto aim and the PC users do not.
Not all games benefit from a mouse. I'd say platformers are easier with a controller, but FPSes do in a big way.
The sales numbers don't reflect it at all, because that simply isn't the case. See Halo series sales.
But really we're all one big happy gaming geeky segment of the population.
More likely what it means is that console players don't know how to play real FPS games. The controllers just don't support any game made from Quake or so on. I remember prior to Quake pretty much everybody played with keyboard only, then quake came out and people started to use keyboard and mouse other wise they were going to get crushed by the competition.
Comparatively speaking the controllers that these games are designed for on consoles fit midway between keyboard and keyboard/mouse combo. They require special tweaks and assistance to work which aren't necessary on PC.
Doesn't mean that console FPS can't or aren't fun, but it does mean that they're the equivalent of arcade race games to the PC's race simulators.
Can we have this guy and the nitwit who posts excerpts from "Turner Diaries" go fight it out on some deserted island somewhere?
Somewhere without internet, of course.
Whenever this tired argument breaks out I never hear mention of the REAL reasons why PC FPS gamers are better then consolers.
Yes, it is true that the k/m combination is much better then an analog controller for FPS games, but this has wider implications then just simple accuracy and speed. The fact is the tactics used by PC gamers are more sophisticated because of the better controls. PC gamers an defend themselves from flank attacks much better because of the ability to turn quickly. If you cannot turn 90/180 degrees in a tenth of a second or faster with a mouse then you need to set your sensitivity higher and practice some more. A consoler has far fewer options when defending from such attacks. How long does it take for a consoler to turn around when being shot in the back? Since such limitations exist, the defensive skills to utilize turn speed are never developed in consolers.
A large part of a master FPSer is superior situational awareness. Knowing where the enemy is at all times involves the ability to make quick visual checks at all times. You virtual 'eyes' should be darting around looking and checking every corner of your field of view AT ALL TIMES. This is what separates the proficient gamers from those with real talent. It is harder to get the element of surprise on a person who has the ability to see in all directions and uses it. This is achieved through the use of high mouse sensitivity. The distance a mouse should travel to turn 90 degrees should be much less then an inch. You should shoot for an eighth of an inch of physical space traveled to turn 90 degrees. If you can maintain accuracy at this speed, and I assure you this is very possible with practice, then your turning movements should be very near instant.
The contribution of situational awareness to the skill-set of a gamer cannot be understated. The poor response of analog controllers ensures that console gamers will never develop proper situational awareness skills.
The PC gamer has a much larger set of tools, so to speak, and so he or she learns to use these tools and becomes efficient with them. Console gamers don't have effective tools and so learn inferior tactics and are unable to capitalize on the awareness afforded by a better input device.
Actually, it's the other way around. Consoles are expensive systems, you only buy one if you're certain you'll spend a significant amount of time with it as otherwise it'd be an useless waste; meanwhile, many PC gamers are simply professionals who already own computers as part of their jobs, and decide to spend $60-80 on a relatively modern-ish GPU in order to play BluRay movies more smoothly on their PCs as well as play the odd game or two.
That's why nearly all driving and flight sims, the most realistic FPS and strategy games are all PC exclusives and why none of them require the high-end GPUs commonly owned by console-gamers-turned-PC, because their core market is composed of grown adults and they, by and large, aren't ready to spend $400 on a device built solely to play videogames.
Though that probably doesn't apply to TFA though, given that Bad Company isn't *quite* to the level of Operation: Flashpoint in terms of realism.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I've used this before and I'm sure most of /. has seen this, but I believe it fits the conversation at hand.
Loading...
No they don't. Mouse and keyboard are better for aiming, true, and would give an advantage were the tasks based on that. They're not though, from TFA:
...perform 69 million collective team actions... Team actions, for those unfamiliar with the game, include spotting, performing repairs, and healing, reviving and resupplying your fellow soldiers
Presumably because making the challenges things like "Get 10 headshots in a row" would give PC gamers the advantage. That it's team based stuff more likely represents real differences in the players themselves, not the tools. If you've ever dabbled on xbox live and then tried an online PC game, this may not come as a shock (depending on the games of course.) In general, I'd have expected console gamers would be younger, and more interested in shooting things rather than actually playing as a team and winning.
Halo 3 for example. Didn't matter what the actual goal was, pretty much everyone went for "shoot the other team." Guard the flag? Well, sure, we'll do that by jumping in a warthog, driving to the opposite side of the map, and shooting the other team. If that doesn't work, shoot some more. If that doesn't work, quit in the middle of the round.
You'll see that to some extent in any game, I've been frustrated in some TF2 matches on the PC where my team was more interested in trying to snipe the other side rather than accomplish the objective of pushing the cart, but it doesn't happen every single time, like it tends to on xbox live.
My take is that due to pervasiveness of cheaters in PC multiplayer games, most long time PC gamer have already joined some clan or another, or have long time in-game buddies. Otherwise, if you venture out alone, you will be playing against cheaters all day long.
In BF2, it is common for PC clans to host their own servers, so they can ban any cheaters found.
OTOH, the console don't have/need private servers. Hacks/aimbots/etc mods are not (yet) possible on PS3, so it is common for PS3 players to just join random multiplayer games without any clan or wait for buddies. Lots of BF2 games in PS3 are filled with players who don't know each other at all, you will find maybe 5-6 from clans out of 24 players in the game.
With this background, is it any wonder that tasks needing team work will be done much much faster for PC gamers than console gamers?
While some would say it is good news for PC gamers, as they logged only 1/2 of the hours played but "achieved" twice as much". I would think the opposite, as it indicates that PC sales is probably only 1/2 of either PS3 or XBox sales. I.e. combined console sales : PC sales would be about 4 : 1!
Is it good news for PC when they only consist of 20% of the market share?
Oliver.
So you're blaming the players for not staying in the games... The PC version does the same thing as the console, as soon as the objectives are completed, you get stuck with the scores where you can't quit, then the loading screen for the next map where you can't cancel or leave, you have to wait until you're completely loaded to leave the game...
The big difference is that you can access your keys much more easily on the PC than on the console, that's the way it is... You can much more easily press "Q" while still moving and shooting on the PC to spot an enemy while pressing the "select" button on a controller is pretty much impossible to do while you're trying to do movement and aiming at the same time... that's the way the human hands works, you can't use a joystick effectively while pressing on a button right next to it with the same hand...
giant 8' bean bag
65" TV
[expensive] audio system
Mustang
According to my handy dandy "Expensive Purchases to Compensate for Penis Size" chart, you're currently sitting at -4 inches.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Turner Diaries was a reasonable book, yes very racist, but I felt it was well written.. I tried to read his other book called Hunter and could not make it past a few chapters, too much racist ramblings... As far as an On Topic post: I always wondered how much better PC gamers would score on games like these, I really cant see, at least on average, console gamers competing on anywhere near the same level.
s/©//g
Pretty much what happened in WoW battlegrounds. If you were lucky you'd find a small group of people who knew what they were doing. Could only be three or four people out of a group of 40, but they'd be winning the fight while the headless chickens went running off to fight anything that moved.
The thing that really killed strategy was the system that provided pretty decent rewards to everyone - including people who just bounced on the spot. Another problem was that rushing became far too viable. Defence went out the window. People just raced to see who could be the first to reach a pretty much undefended base.
Shame that the game didn't issue assignments to people and punish them if they spend too long playing out of position or otherwise not doing the job they were assigned.
-- Using the preview button since 2005