Quite a few of my friends used to get together and have Halo bouts in split screen during high school, and we would even link up 4 xboxes and TVs in the same room to have 8v8 matches.
The key statement being "high school". We see a lot of "I did goldeneye/halo at college" comments over the years, but then you realize that once you're no longer in school and share schedules and living space with lots of people in the same age/interest bracket, it becomes harder to do.
Why focus so much attention on split screen multiplayer? I mean why? There have always been single player games. I know you were once a babysitter who babysat kids with an older console connected to an SDTV but you aren't doing that anymore. That is in the past.
So rather than saying:
"Waaah Nintendo/Sony won't give me a devkit to do a local multiplayer tetris clone" you should be thinking. "I should do a flash/java/pygame prototypes of various games and genres for a portfolio and apply for a job at an already existing studio."
Note that I said "Play with whomever, whether they're in your friends list or not." Remember that you can "friend" instantly, and if your game time is fairly consistent, the same people will be online. Think of pick up games as an "introduction".
For example I'm involved in Second Life, and I tend to see certain people...a lot. Because of "when" I play my SL friends list has a mix of people, people from the UK, SAHM's, west coasters, telecommuters. Doesn't really matter who or where they are, we just tend to be in SL at the same time. That makes them the pool to draw friends from.
So you admit that PC games are created so well that they can be enjoyed for years and years while most console gamers await the yearly refresh of their favourite titles like the morons that they are.
Nope, what I'm saying is that PC gamers are cheap bastards who play de_dust, not because CS is a greatest game evah, but because they are cheap bastards who spent too much on hardware which makes them less willing to blow money on software. Besides, each time they play de_dust they're doing the same basic thing over and over.
while most console gamers await the yearly refresh of their favourite titles like the morons that they are.
If the yearly title has more features, and is better than the previous version, why not? I'm not talking about COD/Battlefield/Sports games...that is a relatively recent development. Sure I could have played a map in SOCOM over and over, but SOCOM II was a better game.
I mean consoles get linear FPS games like CoD,
Which has also been on PC since the beginning of the franchise, and was more popular on PC than console till relatively recently
while PCs get thinking FPS games like Deus Ex.
Oh you mean that game I played on the PS2? The one that also has mouse (and keyboard) support if you want it? What, you didn't know about the PS2 version? Filthy PC Gamers...you think you know gaming but all you know is your moms basement and de_dust or the Barrens. That is why I say that console gamers know more about PC gaming than PC Gamers do about console gaming.
Consoles get simplistic kiddie garbage RPGs like "Final Fantasy", while the PC has Ultima.
Ha! Early RPG's like Ultima were just as linear as Final Fantasy, you were expected to go through the dungeons in a particular order and often couldn't go places without doing certain quests to gain "passage" or permits or what have you.
Besides, who says console gamers didn't get to play Ultima. Several Ultima games were ported to various consoles. Even Ultima Underworld got a PSone port in Japan. But of course, living in the PC gaming ghetto, you never knew that. I know about Richard Garriot but I bet you can't name the producer for the early Final Fantasy's.
Consoles don't get strategy games, due to lack of proper controls and lack of brainpower to go behind those controls.
You remind me of Desslock, PC Gamer magazines former RPG guy, who once thought consoles didn't have any strategy games or RPG's because he didn't recognize any of the titles. Consoles have their OWN games in those genres and of course you don't know about them because you're thinking: "No Europa whatever, or Civ-foo? Consoles don't have any strategy games then." rather than actually checking to see what they do have.
due to lack of proper controls and lack of brainpower to go behind those controls.
I'm old enough to remember when the oldbie PC gamers who started on the gold box games lambasted the fratboys playing DOOM/Heretic etc as brainless casuals. There are plenty of cerebral games on consoles, but since you're in the PC Gamer Ghetto, you don't know about them.
Game consoles predate Japanese games with angsty pokey-haired protagonists. Atari 2600? Intellivision? Colecovision? Bally Astrocade? Fairchild Channel F? Magnavox Odyssey 1 and 2?
[quote]The extra control and input flexibility that comes from a keyboard and mouse allows for a greater variety of games, notably MMORPGs [/quote]
you know, it's very possible to make an MMORPG that doesn't need a a bajillion keys to control it. In fact, I've played such MMORPG's.
[quote]and RTSs, which have very little presence on consoles[/quote]
The first RTS was a console game, Herzog Zwei. The genre originated on consoles. While there aren't many now, quite a few got ported back in the PSone days.
It wasn't impossible, I could tell how hard.....on a controller that wasn't too old. I was able to use the feature in a couple of games. Didn't work so well in Gran Turismo though. I can also bullseye womp-rats.
I would like to see a competitive player get a logitech marble mouse and a nostromo speedpad and see what they can get.
Ooooh yes! With the cross-pad used for movement? That would be very similar to the setup I use on the console, with games that support it. DualShock left hand: movement. Mouse: right hand. Though now you can replace the full dual shock with a Move Navigation controller (which can be used without the wand controller and camera)
I know! I blame the Microsoft catering to the dudebro gamer demographic with the original Xbox. And then publishers seeing that it was easier to market a shooter to dudebros than figuring out how to market other games to a more diverse market.
I think the last non-shooter commercial I saw was for Diablo 3 for the PS3! Every Xbox 360/Xbox one commercial seems to be for a shooter.
Depends on which FPS, which controller, and what you're doing with that stick. I like moving with the stick, but given my druthers, I'd prefer the option of stick movement but mouse aiming. Some console FPS's let you do that, which works very very well.
Plus, $60 for a online-only shooter? That's beyond pathetic.
Well the developers and publishers found out that most online-shooter players were ignoring the single-player modes and playing multi-only so they decided to just omit the parts most didn't play.
Not that I agree with that, but you have to admit it's a logical decision for them to make with limited budgets and developer manpower.
It isn't when it gets as ridiculous as it's been getting with that PC Master Race shit. That shit, which I was satirizing, can go the way of the Dodo.
I'm primarily a console gamer, but I've played a PC game or two that doesn't have a console port, now and then. So I'm getting a bit tired of it, especially since I've been around long enough to remember when the SSI gamers were bashing the DOOM guys as idiot "frat-boy gamers come lately" and not "real gamers"
There are these things on the Dual Shock called Analog Sticks, perhaps you should be using them. And if the game is one of those fighting games stuck in 1993 paradigms because the Fighting Game Fanboys insist on it (Street Fighter), perhaps you should play a modern fighting game that uses proper controls.
I'm already putting together a Steam Box that's going to end up costing about 4 times what a next-gen console goes for.
But why? If you can get a near equivalent experience for 1/4 the price, why waste money on hardware when you can get more games. Then again... that Steam box actually won't have many games.
And don't tell me that games looking "slightly better" is worth a 4X price premium.
Filthy PC Gamer Bourgeosie! Instead of wasting money on an SSD, you should have got that HDD. For the large price premium you pay for SSD, I'd take disk space over speed any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
But that's Filthy PC Gamers for you, wasting money on hardware they could spend on games, and using craptastic Windows.
Only Filthy PC Gamer Bourgeoisie think the only games that exist are first-person-shooters. But of course they are Filthy Cheap PC Gamers who buy Counter Strike a decade ago and play on de_dust over and over for 10 years and think that makes them the experts in what gaming is, or should be.
Slashdot Mirror
homework? You do realize that majority of gamers are adults, right? You focus far too much thought on the after school market.
Single-player: You get to play for 45, 30, or 22 minutes.
Who says?
Online multiplayer: Same taking turns,
Who says?
and COPPA limits communication in pickup matches to which under-13 players have lawful access.
No, it doesn't. Not in practice anyway.
So I guess friend matches are for people you know from outside the game, and pickup matches are for people you meet on the inside
Not quite, because you can make friends INSIDE the game.
Quite a few of my friends used to get together and have Halo bouts in split screen during high school, and we would even link up 4 xboxes and TVs in the same room to have 8v8 matches.
The key statement being "high school". We see a lot of "I did goldeneye/halo at college" comments over the years, but then you realize that once you're no longer in school and share schedules and living space with lots of people in the same age/interest bracket, it becomes harder to do.
For the PS3, Sony calls it Simulview.
Already been done, Sony calls it Simulview
Why focus so much attention on split screen multiplayer? I mean why? There have always been single player games. I know you were once a babysitter who babysat kids with an older console connected to an SDTV but you aren't doing that anymore. That is in the past.
So rather than saying:
"Waaah Nintendo/Sony won't give me a devkit to do a local multiplayer tetris clone" you should be thinking. "I should do a flash/java/pygame prototypes of various games and genres for a portfolio and apply for a job at an already existing studio."
You don't actually move, till you have the job.
No Splitscreen: Our household buys no copies, knowing that the game will be useless at family parties.
What, no one plays single-player or online-play at your house?
Note that I said "Play with whomever, whether they're in your friends list or not." Remember that you can "friend" instantly, and if your game time is fairly consistent, the same people will be online. Think of pick up games as an "introduction".
For example I'm involved in Second Life, and I tend to see certain people...a lot. Because of "when" I play my SL friends list has a mix of people, people from the UK, SAHM's, west coasters, telecommuters. Doesn't really matter who or where they are, we just tend to be in SL at the same time. That makes them the pool to draw friends from.
You can do the same with online gaming.
So you admit that PC games are created so well that they can be enjoyed for years and years while most console gamers await the yearly refresh of their favourite titles like the morons that they are.
Nope, what I'm saying is that PC gamers are cheap bastards who play de_dust, not because CS is a greatest game evah, but because they are cheap bastards who spent too much on hardware which makes them less willing to blow money on software. Besides, each time they play de_dust they're doing the same basic thing over and over.
while most console gamers await the yearly refresh of their favourite titles like the morons that they are.
If the yearly title has more features, and is better than the previous version, why not? I'm not talking about COD/Battlefield/Sports games...that is a relatively recent development. Sure I could have played a map in SOCOM over and over, but SOCOM II was a better game.
I mean consoles get linear FPS games like CoD,
Which has also been on PC since the beginning of the franchise, and was more popular on PC than console till relatively recently
while PCs get thinking FPS games like Deus Ex.
Oh you mean that game I played on the PS2? The one that also has mouse (and keyboard) support if you want it? What, you didn't know about the PS2 version? Filthy PC Gamers...you think you know gaming but all you know is your moms basement and de_dust or the Barrens. That is why I say that console gamers know more about PC gaming than PC Gamers do about console gaming.
Consoles get simplistic kiddie garbage RPGs like "Final Fantasy", while the PC has Ultima.
Ha! Early RPG's like Ultima were just as linear as Final Fantasy, you were expected to go through the dungeons in a particular order and often couldn't go places without doing certain quests to gain "passage" or permits or what have you.
Besides, who says console gamers didn't get to play Ultima. Several Ultima games were ported to various consoles. Even Ultima Underworld got a PSone port in Japan. But of course, living in the PC gaming ghetto, you never knew that. I know about Richard Garriot but I bet you can't name the producer for the early Final Fantasy's.
Consoles don't get strategy games, due to lack of proper controls and lack of brainpower to go behind those controls.
You remind me of Desslock, PC Gamer magazines former RPG guy, who once thought consoles didn't have any strategy games or RPG's because he didn't recognize any of the titles. Consoles have their OWN games in those genres and of course you don't know about them because you're thinking: "No Europa whatever, or Civ-foo? Consoles don't have any strategy games then." rather than actually checking to see what they do have.
due to lack of proper controls and lack of brainpower to go behind those controls.
I'm old enough to remember when the oldbie PC gamers who started on the gold box games lambasted the fratboys playing DOOM/Heretic etc as brainless casuals. There are plenty of cerebral games on consoles, but since you're in the PC Gamer Ghetto, you don't know about them.
(...)
Game consoles predate Japanese games with angsty pokey-haired protagonists. Atari 2600? Intellivision? Colecovision? Bally Astrocade? Fairchild Channel F? Magnavox Odyssey 1 and 2?
[quote]The extra control and input flexibility that comes from a keyboard and mouse allows for a greater variety of games, notably MMORPGs [/quote]
you know, it's very possible to make an MMORPG that doesn't need a a bajillion keys to control it. In fact, I've played such MMORPG's.
[quote]and RTSs, which have very little presence on consoles[/quote]
The first RTS was a console game, Herzog Zwei. The genre originated on consoles. While there aren't many now, quite a few got ported back in the PSone days.
It wasn't impossible, I could tell how hard.....on a controller that wasn't too old. I was able to use the feature in a couple of games. Didn't work so well in Gran Turismo though. I can also bullseye womp-rats.
Besides, do you think Sony will ever allow PC/PS4 gamers to play together?
It's a developer decision, not SCEfoo's. It has been done in the past and present:
FFXI on the PS2 had cross-platform play PC, PS2 and later the Xbox.
PS3 Dust514 players can communicate with Eve Online players.
http://www.eveonline.com/retri...
PS3 Portal 2 players can also play with PC players.
Final Fantasy XIV players play cross platform across ALL platforms, PS3, PS4, and PC.
There is this thing called HDMI audio, use it, love it.
There is this thing called HDMI audio, let the video card handle it.
I would like to see a competitive player get a logitech marble mouse and a nostromo speedpad and see what they can get.
Ooooh yes! With the cross-pad used for movement? That would be very similar to the setup I use on the console, with games that support it. DualShock left hand: movement. Mouse: right hand. Though now you can replace the full dual shock with a Move Navigation controller (which can be used without the wand controller and camera)
I know! I blame the Microsoft catering to the dudebro gamer demographic with the original Xbox. And then publishers seeing that it was easier to market a shooter to dudebros than figuring out how to market other games to a more diverse market.
I think the last non-shooter commercial I saw was for Diablo 3 for the PS3! Every Xbox 360/Xbox one commercial seems to be for a shooter.
Playing FPS games with a joystick isn't fun.
Depends on which FPS, which controller, and what you're doing with that stick. I like moving with the stick, but given my druthers, I'd prefer the option of stick movement but mouse aiming. Some console FPS's let you do that, which works very very well.
Plus, $60 for a online-only shooter? That's beyond pathetic.
Well the developers and publishers found out that most online-shooter players were ignoring the single-player modes and playing multi-only so they decided to just omit the parts most didn't play.
Not that I agree with that, but you have to admit it's a logical decision for them to make with limited budgets and developer manpower.
It isn't when it gets as ridiculous as it's been getting with that PC Master Race shit. That shit, which I was satirizing, can go the way of the Dodo.
I'm primarily a console gamer, but I've played a PC game or two that doesn't have a console port, now and then. So I'm getting a bit tired of it, especially since I've been around long enough to remember when the SSI gamers were bashing the DOOM guys as idiot "frat-boy gamers come lately" and not "real gamers"
There are these things on the Dual Shock called Analog Sticks, perhaps you should be using them. And if the game is one of those fighting games stuck in 1993 paradigms because the Fighting Game Fanboys insist on it (Street Fighter), perhaps you should play a modern fighting game that uses proper controls.
Or if you must, plug in an arcade stick.
I'm already putting together a Steam Box that's going to end up costing about 4 times what a next-gen console goes for.
But why? If you can get a near equivalent experience for 1/4 the price, why waste money on hardware when you can get more games. Then again... that Steam box actually won't have many games.
And don't tell me that games looking "slightly better" is worth a 4X price premium.
I want the next map to load as fast as possible so the others won't start the next round without me
If your multiplayer compatriots are that impatient that they can't wait a few seconds at most, perhaps you should find new ones.
But that's Filthy PC Gamer Philistines for you.
Filthy PC Gamer Bourgeosie! Instead of wasting money on an SSD, you should have got that HDD. For the large price premium you pay for SSD, I'd take disk space over speed any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
But that's Filthy PC Gamers for you, wasting money on hardware they could spend on games, and using craptastic Windows.
Only Filthy PC Gamer Bourgeoisie think the only games that exist are first-person-shooters. But of course they are Filthy Cheap PC Gamers who buy Counter Strike a decade ago and play on de_dust over and over for 10 years and think that makes them the experts in what gaming is, or should be.
Filthy PC Gamer Philistines!