Good post. I found what you said very interesting.
I can't comment on COD SP. I thought MW1 SP was terrible, despite every reviewer saying is was amazing. So I never bought the rest for SP.
The thing is, I don't think you can argue COD without MP. COD *is* MP. To separate SP from MP in COD is impossible.
I do disagree with you, however, on the fine tuning part. See my other post on Psychonauts elsewhere in this post. I can't imagine much else to put into FPS MP. If anything, COD points was very novel. It totally changed the shooter mechanics and made it easier for newer players to play vs. better ones and affected how you advance your character and everything else. It's like adding co-op to a SP game. It changes the entire dynamic. Not only that, but for the first time snipers and campers were severely toned down from the usual unfair advantage. I've never seen another shooter manage that. Also don't forget that BF BC2 uses the leveling and attachment mechanic. 50% of its core mechanic is the same as COD. But no one harps on BC2 for being unoriginal and rehashed.
I can't comment on the rest of the games. I came late to the party not having played any prior BF games. BF:BC2 was awesome. However, BC1 did not have much of what BC2 put in, so I've researched. It was put in as competition to MW2 deficiencies most likely (e.g. dedicated servers). So BC2 was a proper release; BC1 wasn't.
And I'm totally with you on the PC debate. PC's deliver superior everything. However, consoles MUST be considered. And here's why:
Cheaters.
Cheating is so rampant on the PC MP scene it's pathetic. Every time I fire up ANY game, it's just atrocious. I played MoH reboot the other day. I kept getting instantly killed in an open area that is atop a lower area but with wide open vistas. Kept getting killed. Nevermind you that I couldn't see anyone from higher points or equal points, and no one from below could shoot/see me. One would say a sniper got you, correct? Wrong. I kept getting killed by a guy with a carbine. A short range SMG. Please.
A console provides this: cheating protection. It doesn't eliminate them forever. Because that's impossible. But the fact that say XBL or PSN has a team of people dedicated to monitoring cheating is a godsend. Yes with the PC you have server admins. But some server admins suck. Some are just ok. Some don't have the time. Cheating enforcement is spotty at best. Some are good, some are bad. It's done as a hobby. Consoles OTOH provide a dedicated staff paid to do it 24x7. Ever hear that interview recently at one of the conferences from the guy that runs XBL cheat protection dept.? Fascinating.
Also, it's a blessing and a curse. MP on BF:BC2 looks amazing on my PC on full details. But a) my CPU is aging and I'm noticing it can't handle full 32 player servers (nothing noticeable for casual play, but for serious play it is a problem sometimes. But I can't justify buying a new CPU for just 1 game. And b) to see anything I need to turn off shadows and effects to be competitive. Ever do a mortar strike with full effects turned on? You can't see shit. Turn down details and you're fine. On a console, while it may be inferior, I do get more of the experience from the effects, and *everyone* has to use them. So even me, a pro-PC player, would for just online MP play on consoles, is a valid concern.
So in the end, you can't discount console MP play.
BF3 probably will be awesome. BF:BC2 is incredible. But don't keep spreading that rhetoric. I'm getting sick of seeing it everywhere in comments. EA has gotten on everyone's good side for BF3 by saying things. But until I see the game, and see the things actually implemented, don't hold your breath. They could be making stuff up/lying just for PR purposes.
People, make your decision the month *after* BF3 is released, once the game is released and bugs are patched. And keep it mind from those trailers, that's the PC version. Playing on a i7 2600K with 8 GB RAM with dual-GPU's at 2500x1440 at 16X CSAA, and then even modified by whatever photo/video editor to look better.
If you get the console version, your game will look exactly the same as BF:BC2 on the console. End of story. There's no way it'll look any better.
Read the memo again. It basically said "let's continue to make this franchise better, because that's why people buy it and what makes us money."
I think that's a great thing. They actually care! Shocker, I know (rolls eyes).
But it's true. BO MP was pretty damn fun and Treyarch did an outstanding job. I mean, I keep getting reminded of this. Have you actually played any other FPS MP's lately? See my other comment about how awful Crytek handles cheating and Homefront's terrible MP design. The others are just pretty crappy in comparison.
Yea, I have to say, I give Treyarch credit for this. The maps are amazing. And not a single spot you can really camp, which is good. *Every* spot has multiple entry points so you can outmaneuver and kill an enemy. They did a great job.
I'm starting to think in hindsight that Treyarch was the better developer. Yes, IW created MW 1. But Treyarch was really the one to refine it, and also truly support it. Look at WaW. 3 or 4 map packs! MW2 had only 2. And in MW2 with noob-toobers, it just killed it. IW did nothing. It was like IW said I don't care after a certain time. Yet Treyarch still is working--witness the gimping of the AK-74U.
I completely disagree. And I think you're wrong. In the end though, it doesn't matter what we say. CoD:BO made over $1 *billion* dollars. Just because you or someone else doesn't made it bad. But I want to move on to my point.
To precede, ALL videogames are just slight modifications to a formula. For example, I just don't find 3D platformers interesting anymore. Been there, done that. Played Donkey Kong Country 64, ad nauseum. Everyone said Psychonauts was an amazing game. Yes, it had great story. But when it got down to it, the main crux of the game was boring. Why? Because save for the story, it was the exact same thing that I was bored of because it was done a million times before with DKC64, Crash Bandicoot, Mario 64, etc. CoD:BO introduced an entirely new "leveling" mechanic in the form of CoD points. They finally stopped noob-toobers. They finally stopped ridiculous quick scoping and overpowered sniping. What other shooter do you know did that?
In addition, everyone seems to rag on the game. In the past 6 months I got into MP FPS. I'm hooked. I got BO. You know what? THE GAME WAS FUN. Isn't that all that matters. Bitch and moan, all you people do. The game was actually fun. NOT only that, but have you played any other shooter lately? They're terrible. The reason CoD is selling like crazy because they *do a good job.* I played Homefront the other day. They make spawn points in the same exact spot for the same person. Brilliant! So I had a guy just camp by the spawn area and *every* time I respawned I was instantly killed. Yea, CoD is so much worse (read:sarcasm). Or the cheating. I can't get over how much cheating is in Crysis 2. Again, the reason CoD is so much fun and is on top is because they actually *continue to support MP.* Crytek says they'll make a patch that will stop cheating forever (I forget the exact quote). But Treyarch actually supports MP continuously. Look at the fact that 5 months later they refined it again so the AK-74U was balanced. At this point any other developer besides Treyarch or DICE would have dumped support. THIS is why CoD is successful.
I think you are very wrong. And yes we're gonna see a ton of comments because/. is pretty much all semi-informed commenters playing armchair quarterback. But the main thing is, take a step back, think, and realize that the game for me, and the other people who gave the game $1 billion, is just play fun to play. End of story.
You should give it a shot. Not saying you have to abandon your preferred platform, but just try the next COD or BF on the PC. I was from the old school quake shooters. When I briefly played COD 4 years later, I got my ass handed to me. But the past 3 months when I've gotten back into shooters again, and then learned & honed my positioning skills and strategies on modern shooters (like COD:BO and BF:BC2) then used those same strategies (primarily positioning) learned from the console, I was unstoppable. I'm not attempting to boast either. It was like PC players still perform 50% just mindless shooting. I would say, no kidding, I would win on-foot encounters in BF:BC2 90% of the time using the strategies used in the consoles. Though like I said I play a mix of holding positions and run-and-gun. So at the high end (if I run-and-gunned a lot) I'd have high 20'sk/0-3 deaths and 18-20/0-3d for a mix of run-and-gun/holding.
I've posted this elsewhere on this thread, but I think you and/.'ers would appreciate it: Bought both the 360 and PC copies (because I'm unfortunately hooked and obsessed, but I digress). I've been comparing and analyzing like crazy. Also, I have put in the months with the 360 (and hence controller) on COD:BO. I'd welcome your opinion; here's what I found:
1) Accuracy really is better and so much more natural and easier to achieve with the mouse
2) You can't relax with a controller. By this I mean is that you always have to position yourself perfectly because in the surprise event you can't move the reticle, then ADS, and fire in time. Even if you use the technique of moving in ADS, if the opponent is within distance, you're in a much better chance but if they move quickly you can't follow them or if they're far over you can't move your reticle quick enough
3) It's a valid technique and one might say, hey this is the situation so here is the technique to solve it, but I *hate* when I watch the killcam and see that all these guys do is spam fire (with say a AR or SMG) left and right within an inch and don't even aim, and they demolish you.With KB/M you can actually aim and even use non-automatic weapons and still be competitive. If you've ever played BO, you'd know. Using a non auto like a M16 in non-HC mode is just worthless.
4) It's just easier to look around. You get very frustrated when you can't look freely and easily because you lowered your sensitivity to the lowest setting for accurate aim
5) It's more about positioning because you can't get a surprise shot like I mentioned above
6) If you play a non run-and-gun game (and I do play some, just not constant like some players do with mp5k in close quarters and don't even ADS), you're consistently in the middle of the leaderboard if you're lucky. I have no idea how players have 20-33 kills in BO, or get killstreaks 8+. The best I've ever gotten is 18k/3d. That's ever! But I only average 11k/5-9d. If you compare that to the leaderboards, that's only average/below average. Yet I've had my gameplay analyzed and they tell me I'm pretty good. Go figure. Yet with the m/kb, coupled with the positional tactics learned from the controller, I wreck. Easily average 20k/4d, and on good days in the upper 20s. And that's with a mix of stealth, run-and-gun, and holding positions
7) You really don't have the choice of controller sensitivity. Because if you raise it to medium or high, you're not hitting any targets, even when you ADS it and it slows it down. You just can't position it.
The one downside I noticed is that in BF:BC2 my computer (I'm assuming it's my CPU, not GPU, because I run shooters in lowest details) can't handle the large maps and 32 players. I notice alot of lag when I see players move. I would imagine consoles don't have this problem, or at least everyone is on the same playing field. Is it really my CPU or is BF:BC2 even bad lag/graphics wise on a more powerful computer (I have a E6400 C2D 2.14ghz with 2GB RAM and a 8800 GTS 512--how is it on a i7 920 with say even a cheap 4870/6850) or 360?
I found your post intriguing. Just to give you a background, I've been playing since the Doom days when they transitioned to +mlook as well. Stopped at Quake 2 but recently picked up the newest shooters. Bought both the 360 and PC copies (because I'm unfortunately hooked and obsessed, but I digress). I've been comparing and analyzing like crazy. Also, I have put in the months with the 360 (and hence controller) on COD:BO. I'd welcome your opinion; here's what I found:
1) Accuracy really is better and so much more natural and easier to achieve with the mouse
2) You can't relax with a controller. By this I mean is that you always have to position yourself perfectly because in the surprise event you can't move the reticle, then ADS, and fire in time. Even if you use the technique of moving in ADS, if the opponent is within distance, you're in a much better chance but if they move quickly you can't follow them or if they're far over you can't move your reticle quick enough
3) It's a valid technique and one might say, hey this is the situation so here is the technique to solve it, but I *hate* when I watch the killcam and see that all these guys do is spam fire (with say a AR or SMG) left and right within an inch and don't even aim, and they demolish you.With KB/M you can actually aim and even use non-automatic weapons and still be competitive. If you've ever played BO, you'd know. Using a non auto like a M16 in non-HC mode is just worthless.
4) It's just easier to look around. You get very frustrated when you can't look freely and easily because you lowered your sensitivity to the lowest setting for accurate aim
5) It's more about positioning because you can't get a surprise shot like I mentioned above
6) If you play a non run-and-gun game (and I do play some, just not constant like some players do with mp5k in close quarters and don't even ADS), you're consistently in the middle of the leaderboard if you're lucky. I have no idea how players have 20-33 kills in BO, or get killstreaks 8+. The best I've ever gotten is 18k/3d. That's ever! But I only average 11k/5-9d. If you compare that to the leaderboards, that's only average/below average. Yet I've had my gameplay analyzed and they tell me I'm pretty good. Go figure. Yet with the m/kb, coupled with the positional tactics learned from the controller, I wreck. Easily average 20k/4d, and on good days in the upper 20s. And that's with a mix of stealth, run-and-gun, and holding positions
7) You really don't have the choice of controller sensitivity. Because if you raise it to medium or high, you're not hitting any targets, even when you ADS it and it slows it down. You just can't position it.
The one downside I noticed is that in BF:BC2 my computer (I'm assuming it's my CPU, not GPU, because I run shooters in lowest details) can't handle the large maps and 32 players. I notice alot of lag when I see players move. I would imagine consoles don't have this problem, or at least everyone is on the same playing field.
You again. Okay, this is like the 3rd or 4th time where you've given that single lame reponse, in 4 different stories, over the course of 2 or 3 months.
Get over it. That one insignificant strawman didn't cut it the first time, nevermind the 4th. Do you sit online waiting to troll for that one thing in *every* gaming story?
And a split screen tournament is your answer to online MP? Please.
In BC2, do you notice performace degrade in the game with your desktop? I have a C2D 6400 2.13ghz with a 8800 GTS 512 and 2GB RAM. Not good enough to run the game at max settings in multiplayer. Well they are actually for single player, but movement isn't buttery smooth enough for MP, and with a FPS, you need smooth movement in multiplayer. So I play everything on lowest settings. Good again for MP because then you can see everything. I find that lighting and effects get in your way of seeing your opponent.
But anyway, if you played at low settings, do you still get performance issues or lag graphics-wise* in MP? I'm considering a new build because I'm wondering if it's my CPU that is not keeping up (because I'm running it at all low settings). It's my theory because BC2 has such vast maps and a ton of simultaneous players. And as every FPS MP gamer knows, you need as much latency reduced, from the network to the mouse to the graphics performance as necessary.
* It's not my connection. Playing on a console isn't a problem. And I play on a wired ethernet connection and even disconnect my router, so network performance is pristine.
I'm glad someone brought this up. In BC2, do you notice performace degrade in the game with your desktop? I have a C2D 6400 2.13ghz with a 8800 GTS 512 and 2GB RAM. Not good enough to run the game at max settings in multiplayer. Well they are actually for single player, but movement isn't buttery smooth enough for MP, and with a FPS, you need smooth movement in multiplayer. So I play everything on lowest settings. Good again for MP because then you can see everything. I find that lighting and effects get in your way of seeing your opponent.
But anyway, if you played at low settings, do you still get performance issues or lag graphics-wise* in MP? I'm considering a new build because I'm wondering if it's my CPU that is not keeping up (because I'm running it at all low settings). It's my theory because BC2 has such vast maps and a ton of simultaneous players. And as every FPS MP gamer knows, you need as much latency reduced, from the network to the mouse to the graphics performance as necessary.
* It's not my connection. Playing on a console isn't a problem. And I play on a wired ethernet connection and even disconnect my router, so network performance is pristine.
Oh man don't start another flamewar lol. I do want to address what you said about consoles however. And I have a perfect example for you of why PC gaming can be superior, won't die, and frankly, we can't let die:
Online multiplayer.
I don't own a PS3. I have a 360. So I can't speak for the PS3 ecosystem. But the problem is that there is no one to play on-line multiplayer. The whole draw of XBL is the online component. And something like BF:BC2, MoH, or CoD:BO are all about the multplayer. Except there is no one on! I own all three on both the PC and console. Example:
PC: 20,000 (off peak) / 40,000 (peak) * People are talking about BC2. There is *no one* playing on the 360 version at all, even peak! The PC has 40,000!
MoH 360: 2000 / 8000 PC: 2500 both
CoD:BO 360: 600,000/850,000 PC: 50,000
Here's the problem. Unless it's CoD:BO, *no one is playing any other online shooter*. Yea, CoD has a lot of people to play with, but what good is XBL if only one game in their entire library people are playing? As a side note, the matchmaking system is so poor that there could be 600,000 people on and I won't find anyone to play with and have to wait 15 minutes (No kidding I was on one day and it said 2.9m players--holy shit btw--but twice during that session I was waiting 10 min for a game! And this was with the new patch releaed a couple days ago with the enhanced matchmaking). So what good is 800,000 if 10% of the time you can't find a match? And the only other two people are even playing are GoW2 or Halo:Reach. Halo only has 30,000 people playing. CS:Source, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000.
That's why you can't even bother with consoles, at least for online play. Only 1, maybe 2 games people are playing. And you're stuck with always having to buy those 2 new titles every time they come out just to get a game.
With the PC, you can buy a game and people will still play it, sometimes even years later. Forget even that, with PC, you can at least buy a game and play it online *at all*.
I have a perfect example for you in why PC gaming is superior, won't die, and frankly, we can't let die:
Online multiplayer.
I don't own a PS3. I have a 360. And the problem is that there is no one to play on-line multiplayer. The whole draw of XBL is the online component. And something like BF:BC2, MoH, or CoD:BO are all about the multplayer. Except there is no one on! I own all three on both the PC and console. Example:
PC: 50,000 (off peak) / ? (never played during peak)
MoH 360: 2000 / 8000 PC: 2500 both
CoD:BO 360: 600,000/850,000 PC: 50,000
Here's the problem. Unless it's CoD:BO, *no one is playing any other online shooter*. Yea, CoD has a lot of people to play with, but what good is XBL if only one game in their entire library people are playing? As a side note, the matchmaking system is so poor that there could be 600,000 people on and I won't find anyone to play withj and have to wait 15 minutes. So what good is 800,000 if 10% of the time you can't find a match? And the only other two people are even playing are GoW2 or Halo:Reach. Halo only has 30,000 people playing. CS:Source, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000
That's why you can't even bother with consoles, at least for online play. Only 1, maybe 2 games people are playing. And you're stuck with always having to buy those 2 new titles every time they come out just to get a game.
With the PC, you can buy a game and people will still play it, sometimes even years later. Forget even that, with PC, you can at least buy a game and play it online *at all*.
That's a really nice theory. Except you forget this is the real world.
In reality, they will just say screw it--let's raise our price to all our competitors--$10/mo. Why do you think most things cost comparable to each other? It's the traditional price expected and set.
And I think you're the one who is going to need to lie down, because the math is a *lot* more complicated than that. In *reality*, unlike your simple 1 set equation, they have teams of pricing and marketing analysts, who will figure out the exact new sweet spot for the price. So no, it won't be 3.25. And I won't pretend to know the know the new price because I actually have some sort of business sense and know that I can't just add 1 thing and get a new number.
That's great, right? Nevermind the fact that Apple then will kill off another business, but how many options are left on iOS?
Mog Rdio
That's it*. Yea, real smart. Kill off 1/3 of your choices. And this is a really useful product--I would argue too useful for Apple to kill off. It's not bullshit like Apple killing off a flashlight application developer.
* Pandora doesn't count. It doesn't let you choose what you want to listen to specifically.
Where do you think they'll get the money to offset this huge income loss?
You do know that anytime a business pays more, they pass that cost along to you, right? The only reason it's not easily apparent is because they'll have their army of pricing analysts figure out a way to charge you for it without you noticing or complaining too much, if it's at all possible.
Exactly. Which was my point. The jerkoff at the playground is ruining everyone's playground.
That's why we as consumers should just not accept it, complain, not support the company's actions, evangelize to others about the evil policies, not purchase the products, create awareness in the media as to the awful repercussions, ad nauseum.
Your employer: "we're reducing your pay by $10,000"
You: "But I'm just barely paying my rent now."
Employer: "Too bad. Deal with it. Besides, you do have that option. Instead of whining, you can quit and go hungry AND we will tarnish your professional reputation."
You: "But that isn't really a choice!"
And then the realization hits you.
A company like Last.fm, or just about any company for that matter, doesn't have the option of not selling its software to a platform that is pretty much the other biggest half of the market and in an explosive growth market in general.
That's a pretty good deal. Didn't know about that.
As a side note, I do think Zune Pass is a very good service. I was just throwing it out for illustrative purposes. Though $3/mo for unlimited music streaming is pretty incredible though. I wouldn't want that gone, you know?
I take it you have never had any business experience, worked in business, or any education in it whatsoever.
All businesses pretty much adhere to a general way of operating, finance and accounting-wise. All retail is pretty much within, for example, 3%-10 margins on average. Some items more, some less. All prices for particular products in particular categories all are within certain ranges. This stuff isn't pulled out of their asses. You can't just charge more for the hell of it. I'm sure you've even heard of as the price goes higher, consumer demand goes lower.
Or to put it in a simple way your completely clueless post can understand:
"I'm sure you no problem with your employer telling you that you should take a $10,000 pay cut. Even though you're just about breaking even after paying all your bills. Doesn't matter. It's your problem and if you can't cope, you shouldn't be living on your own."
I hate that people are already saying "well don't buy it" or "don't use it." Here is the reality of what happens in the REAL world:
a) Company pulls out of the market b) Company raises their prices, in some form or another, to cover the cost. Consumer loses. Consumer pays more.
The winner? Ding ding! Answer B. That's what happens. So thanks to Apple, instead of paying, what $3 that Last.fm charges, they'll charge more. It could be $5. Or they could raise it to the competitors like Zune which is $10. I wouldn't bat an eye to pay for $3 for music a month. For $10, I might shop around first and potentially they might lose a sale.
And here is an even bigger problem. That cost will be raised for everyone else too. So you got an Android phone because you don't support Apple being an evil company? Too bad. It's $10/mo for Last.fm no matter what.
And wait, it gets worse! It raises the traditional pricing level for that product. It seems everyone is either in the $3/mo tier, $10. But at least you have a choice. But when Last.fm charges $10 because they can't make it at 3 with Apple's blatantly rip-off policies, now the norm will be $10. Thanks Apple! Now you have no choice--everyone pays $120 per year instead of being able to choose one that's $36 per year.
But alas, I'll get flamed and modded down to hell for this. I really think they enjoy the useful things at reasonable prices being ruined and they like to say "thank you sire, may I have another?"
I have to say, your post really made me laugh. I gotta give you this one, I enjoyed it.:)
But I do have to response to a few points:
1) Had nothing to do with attention span. Movies have to have good pacing. Ever play Dead Space? Amazing game. But it's the perfect example. You would play for hours upon hours sometimes without any sort of story or story progression. So I didn't enjoy it as much as I could. I enjoy movies with no action that have good pacing. Perfect example is Contact. No action, but held your interest with wonder and suspense the entire time.
2) I can, see above. But watchmen just rambled on like an unintelligle drunk for 30-45 minutes on frequently.
3) There's a different between nuance and rambling on with no direction.
5) Only because it was so cheesy. It really sounded like those other shows that parody the awful movies that do it. But Watchmen was serious!
Honestly, I know there is the phrase "you couldn't pay me to watch it again." But in all seriousness, that line isn't strong enough. Only if someone was going to get laid as a direct result of suffering through this movie with someone they really wanted, only *then* should they see this movie.
And they will hate every minute of it and think to themself "is this worth getting laid?":)
Slashdot Mirror
Good post. I found what you said very interesting.
I can't comment on COD SP. I thought MW1 SP was terrible, despite every reviewer saying is was amazing. So I never bought the rest for SP.
The thing is, I don't think you can argue COD without MP. COD *is* MP. To separate SP from MP in COD is impossible.
I do disagree with you, however, on the fine tuning part. See my other post on Psychonauts elsewhere in this post. I can't imagine much else to put into FPS MP. If anything, COD points was very novel. It totally changed the shooter mechanics and made it easier for newer players to play vs. better ones and affected how you advance your character and everything else. It's like adding co-op to a SP game. It changes the entire dynamic. Not only that, but for the first time snipers and campers were severely toned down from the usual unfair advantage. I've never seen another shooter manage that. Also don't forget that BF BC2 uses the leveling and attachment mechanic. 50% of its core mechanic is the same as COD. But no one harps on BC2 for being unoriginal and rehashed.
Just some things to think about.
I can't comment on the rest of the games. I came late to the party not having played any prior BF games. BF:BC2 was awesome. However, BC1 did not have much of what BC2 put in, so I've researched. It was put in as competition to MW2 deficiencies most likely (e.g. dedicated servers). So BC2 was a proper release; BC1 wasn't.
And I'm totally with you on the PC debate. PC's deliver superior everything. However, consoles MUST be considered. And here's why:
Cheaters.
Cheating is so rampant on the PC MP scene it's pathetic. Every time I fire up ANY game, it's just atrocious. I played MoH reboot the other day. I kept getting instantly killed in an open area that is atop a lower area but with wide open vistas. Kept getting killed. Nevermind you that I couldn't see anyone from higher points or equal points, and no one from below could shoot/see me. One would say a sniper got you, correct? Wrong. I kept getting killed by a guy with a carbine. A short range SMG. Please.
A console provides this: cheating protection. It doesn't eliminate them forever. Because that's impossible. But the fact that say XBL or PSN has a team of people dedicated to monitoring cheating is a godsend. Yes with the PC you have server admins. But some server admins suck. Some are just ok. Some don't have the time. Cheating enforcement is spotty at best. Some are good, some are bad. It's done as a hobby. Consoles OTOH provide a dedicated staff paid to do it 24x7. Ever hear that interview recently at one of the conferences from the guy that runs XBL cheat protection dept.? Fascinating.
Also, it's a blessing and a curse. MP on BF:BC2 looks amazing on my PC on full details. But a) my CPU is aging and I'm noticing it can't handle full 32 player servers (nothing noticeable for casual play, but for serious play it is a problem sometimes. But I can't justify buying a new CPU for just 1 game. And b) to see anything I need to turn off shadows and effects to be competitive. Ever do a mortar strike with full effects turned on? You can't see shit. Turn down details and you're fine. On a console, while it may be inferior, I do get more of the experience from the effects, and *everyone* has to use them. So even me, a pro-PC player, would for just online MP play on consoles, is a valid concern.
So in the end, you can't discount console MP play.
BF3 probably will be awesome. BF:BC2 is incredible. But don't keep spreading that rhetoric. I'm getting sick of seeing it everywhere in comments. EA has gotten on everyone's good side for BF3 by saying things. But until I see the game, and see the things actually implemented, don't hold your breath. They could be making stuff up/lying just for PR purposes.
People, make your decision the month *after* BF3 is released, once the game is released and bugs are patched. And keep it mind from those trailers, that's the PC version. Playing on a i7 2600K with 8 GB RAM with dual-GPU's at 2500x1440 at 16X CSAA, and then even modified by whatever photo/video editor to look better.
If you get the console version, your game will look exactly the same as BF:BC2 on the console. End of story. There's no way it'll look any better.
Read the memo again. It basically said "let's continue to make this franchise better, because that's why people buy it and what makes us money."
I think that's a great thing. They actually care! Shocker, I know (rolls eyes).
But it's true. BO MP was pretty damn fun and Treyarch did an outstanding job. I mean, I keep getting reminded of this. Have you actually played any other FPS MP's lately? See my other comment about how awful Crytek handles cheating and Homefront's terrible MP design. The others are just pretty crappy in comparison.
Yea, I have to say, I give Treyarch credit for this. The maps are amazing. And not a single spot you can really camp, which is good. *Every* spot has multiple entry points so you can outmaneuver and kill an enemy. They did a great job.
I'm starting to think in hindsight that Treyarch was the better developer. Yes, IW created MW 1. But Treyarch was really the one to refine it, and also truly support it. Look at WaW. 3 or 4 map packs! MW2 had only 2. And in MW2 with noob-toobers, it just killed it. IW did nothing. It was like IW said I don't care after a certain time. Yet Treyarch still is working--witness the gimping of the AK-74U.
I completely disagree. And I think you're wrong. In the end though, it doesn't matter what we say. CoD:BO made over $1 *billion* dollars. Just because you or someone else doesn't made it bad. But I want to move on to my point.
To precede, ALL videogames are just slight modifications to a formula. For example, I just don't find 3D platformers interesting anymore. Been there, done that. Played Donkey Kong Country 64, ad nauseum. Everyone said Psychonauts was an amazing game. Yes, it had great story. But when it got down to it, the main crux of the game was boring. Why? Because save for the story, it was the exact same thing that I was bored of because it was done a million times before with DKC64, Crash Bandicoot, Mario 64, etc. CoD:BO introduced an entirely new "leveling" mechanic in the form of CoD points. They finally stopped noob-toobers. They finally stopped ridiculous quick scoping and overpowered sniping. What other shooter do you know did that?
In addition, everyone seems to rag on the game. In the past 6 months I got into MP FPS. I'm hooked. I got BO. You know what? THE GAME WAS FUN. Isn't that all that matters. Bitch and moan, all you people do. The game was actually fun. NOT only that, but have you played any other shooter lately? They're terrible. The reason CoD is selling like crazy because they *do a good job.* I played Homefront the other day. They make spawn points in the same exact spot for the same person. Brilliant! So I had a guy just camp by the spawn area and *every* time I respawned I was instantly killed. Yea, CoD is so much worse (read:sarcasm). Or the cheating. I can't get over how much cheating is in Crysis 2. Again, the reason CoD is so much fun and is on top is because they actually *continue to support MP.* Crytek says they'll make a patch that will stop cheating forever (I forget the exact quote). But Treyarch actually supports MP continuously. Look at the fact that 5 months later they refined it again so the AK-74U was balanced. At this point any other developer besides Treyarch or DICE would have dumped support. THIS is why CoD is successful.
I think you are very wrong. And yes we're gonna see a ton of comments because /. is pretty much all semi-informed commenters playing armchair quarterback. But the main thing is, take a step back, think, and realize that the game for me, and the other people who gave the game $1 billion, is just play fun to play. End of story.
You should give it a shot. Not saying you have to abandon your preferred platform, but just try the next COD or BF on the PC. I was from the old school quake shooters. When I briefly played COD 4 years later, I got my ass handed to me. But the past 3 months when I've gotten back into shooters again, and then learned & honed my positioning skills and strategies on modern shooters (like COD:BO and BF:BC2) then used those same strategies (primarily positioning) learned from the console, I was unstoppable. I'm not attempting to boast either. It was like PC players still perform 50% just mindless shooting. I would say, no kidding, I would win on-foot encounters in BF:BC2 90% of the time using the strategies used in the consoles. Though like I said I play a mix of holding positions and run-and-gun. So at the high end (if I run-and-gunned a lot) I'd have high 20'sk/0-3 deaths and 18-20/0-3d for a mix of run-and-gun/holding.
I've posted this elsewhere on this thread, but I think you and /.'ers would appreciate it: Bought both the 360 and PC copies (because I'm unfortunately hooked and obsessed, but I digress). I've been comparing and analyzing like crazy. Also, I have put in the months with the 360 (and hence controller) on COD:BO. I'd welcome your opinion; here's what I found:
1) Accuracy really is better and so much more natural and easier to achieve with the mouse
2) You can't relax with a controller. By this I mean is that you always have to position yourself perfectly because in the surprise event you can't move the reticle, then ADS, and fire in time. Even if you use the technique of moving in ADS, if the opponent is within distance, you're in a much better chance but if they move quickly you can't follow them or if they're far over you can't move your reticle quick enough
3) It's a valid technique and one might say, hey this is the situation so here is the technique to solve it, but I *hate* when I watch the killcam and see that all these guys do is spam fire (with say a AR or SMG) left and right within an inch and don't even aim, and they demolish you.With KB/M you can actually aim and even use non-automatic weapons and still be competitive. If you've ever played BO, you'd know. Using a non auto like a M16 in non-HC mode is just worthless.
4) It's just easier to look around. You get very frustrated when you can't look freely and easily because you lowered your sensitivity to the lowest setting for accurate aim
5) It's more about positioning because you can't get a surprise shot like I mentioned above
6) If you play a non run-and-gun game (and I do play some, just not constant like some players do with mp5k in close quarters and don't even ADS), you're consistently in the middle of the leaderboard if you're lucky. I have no idea how players have 20-33 kills in BO, or get killstreaks 8+. The best I've ever gotten is 18k/3d. That's ever! But I only average 11k/5-9d. If you compare that to the leaderboards, that's only average/below average. Yet I've had my gameplay analyzed and they tell me I'm pretty good. Go figure. Yet with the m/kb, coupled with the positional tactics learned from the controller, I wreck. Easily average 20k/4d, and on good days in the upper 20s. And that's with a mix of stealth, run-and-gun, and holding positions
7) You really don't have the choice of controller sensitivity. Because if you raise it to medium or high, you're not hitting any targets, even when you ADS it and it slows it down. You just can't position it.
The one downside I noticed is that in BF:BC2 my computer (I'm assuming it's my CPU, not GPU, because I run shooters in lowest details) can't handle the large maps and 32 players. I notice alot of lag when I see players move. I would imagine consoles don't have this problem, or at least everyone is on the same playing field. Is it really my CPU or is BF:BC2 even bad lag/graphics wise on a more powerful computer (I have a E6400 C2D 2.14ghz with 2GB RAM and a 8800 GTS 512--how is it on a i7 920 with say even a cheap 4870/6850) or 360?
I found your post intriguing. Just to give you a background, I've been playing since the Doom days when they transitioned to +mlook as well. Stopped at Quake 2 but recently picked up the newest shooters. Bought both the 360 and PC copies (because I'm unfortunately hooked and obsessed, but I digress). I've been comparing and analyzing like crazy. Also, I have put in the months with the 360 (and hence controller) on COD:BO. I'd welcome your opinion; here's what I found:
1) Accuracy really is better and so much more natural and easier to achieve with the mouse
2) You can't relax with a controller. By this I mean is that you always have to position yourself perfectly because in the surprise event you can't move the reticle, then ADS, and fire in time. Even if you use the technique of moving in ADS, if the opponent is within distance, you're in a much better chance but if they move quickly you can't follow them or if they're far over you can't move your reticle quick enough
3) It's a valid technique and one might say, hey this is the situation so here is the technique to solve it, but I *hate* when I watch the killcam and see that all these guys do is spam fire (with say a AR or SMG) left and right within an inch and don't even aim, and they demolish you.With KB/M you can actually aim and even use non-automatic weapons and still be competitive. If you've ever played BO, you'd know. Using a non auto like a M16 in non-HC mode is just worthless.
4) It's just easier to look around. You get very frustrated when you can't look freely and easily because you lowered your sensitivity to the lowest setting for accurate aim
5) It's more about positioning because you can't get a surprise shot like I mentioned above
6) If you play a non run-and-gun game (and I do play some, just not constant like some players do with mp5k in close quarters and don't even ADS), you're consistently in the middle of the leaderboard if you're lucky. I have no idea how players have 20-33 kills in BO, or get killstreaks 8+. The best I've ever gotten is 18k/3d. That's ever! But I only average 11k/5-9d. If you compare that to the leaderboards, that's only average/below average. Yet I've had my gameplay analyzed and they tell me I'm pretty good. Go figure. Yet with the m/kb, coupled with the positional tactics learned from the controller, I wreck. Easily average 20k/4d, and on good days in the upper 20s. And that's with a mix of stealth, run-and-gun, and holding positions
7) You really don't have the choice of controller sensitivity. Because if you raise it to medium or high, you're not hitting any targets, even when you ADS it and it slows it down. You just can't position it.
The one downside I noticed is that in BF:BC2 my computer (I'm assuming it's my CPU, not GPU, because I run shooters in lowest details) can't handle the large maps and 32 players. I notice alot of lag when I see players move. I would imagine consoles don't have this problem, or at least everyone is on the same playing field.
You again. Okay, this is like the 3rd or 4th time where you've given that single lame reponse, in 4 different stories, over the course of 2 or 3 months.
Get over it. That one insignificant strawman didn't cut it the first time, nevermind the 4th. Do you sit online waiting to troll for that one thing in *every* gaming story?
And a split screen tournament is your answer to online MP? Please.
In BC2, do you notice performace degrade in the game with your desktop? I have a C2D 6400 2.13ghz with a 8800 GTS 512 and 2GB RAM. Not good enough to run the game at max settings in multiplayer. Well they are actually for single player, but movement isn't buttery smooth enough for MP, and with a FPS, you need smooth movement in multiplayer. So I play everything on lowest settings. Good again for MP because then you can see everything. I find that lighting and effects get in your way of seeing your opponent.
But anyway, if you played at low settings, do you still get performance issues or lag graphics-wise* in MP? I'm considering a new build because I'm wondering if it's my CPU that is not keeping up (because I'm running it at all low settings). It's my theory because BC2 has such vast maps and a ton of simultaneous players. And as every FPS MP gamer knows, you need as much latency reduced, from the network to the mouse to the graphics performance as necessary.
* It's not my connection. Playing on a console isn't a problem. And I play on a wired ethernet connection and even disconnect my router, so network performance is pristine.
I'm glad someone brought this up. In BC2, do you notice performace degrade in the game with your desktop? I have a C2D 6400 2.13ghz with a 8800 GTS 512 and 2GB RAM. Not good enough to run the game at max settings in multiplayer. Well they are actually for single player, but movement isn't buttery smooth enough for MP, and with a FPS, you need smooth movement in multiplayer. So I play everything on lowest settings. Good again for MP because then you can see everything. I find that lighting and effects get in your way of seeing your opponent.
But anyway, if you played at low settings, do you still get performance issues or lag graphics-wise* in MP? I'm considering a new build because I'm wondering if it's my CPU that is not keeping up (because I'm running it at all low settings). It's my theory because BC2 has such vast maps and a ton of simultaneous players. And as every FPS MP gamer knows, you need as much latency reduced, from the network to the mouse to the graphics performance as necessary.
* It's not my connection. Playing on a console isn't a problem. And I play on a wired ethernet connection and even disconnect my router, so network performance is pristine.
Oh man don't start another flamewar lol. I do want to address what you said about consoles however. And I have a perfect example for you of why PC gaming can be superior, won't die, and frankly, we can't let die:
Online multiplayer.
I don't own a PS3. I have a 360. So I can't speak for the PS3 ecosystem. But the problem is that there is no one to play on-line multiplayer. The whole draw of XBL is the online component. And something like BF:BC2, MoH, or CoD:BO are all about the multplayer. Except there is no one on! I own all three on both the PC and console. Example:
360:
BF:BC2*: 0 (people online during off-peak hours) / 0 (during peak hours)
PC: 20,000 (off peak) / 40,000 (peak)
* People are talking about BC2. There is *no one* playing on the 360 version at all, even peak! The PC has 40,000!
MoH 360: 2000 / 8000
PC: 2500 both
CoD:BO 360: 600,000/850,000
PC: 50,000
Here's the problem. Unless it's CoD:BO, *no one is playing any other online shooter*. Yea, CoD has a lot of people to play with, but what good is XBL if only one game in their entire library people are playing? As a side note, the matchmaking system is so poor that there could be 600,000 people on and I won't find anyone to play with and have to wait 15 minutes (No kidding I was on one day and it said 2.9m players--holy shit btw--but twice during that session I was waiting 10 min for a game! And this was with the new patch releaed a couple days ago with the enhanced matchmaking). So what good is 800,000 if 10% of the time you can't find a match? And the only other two people are even playing are GoW2 or Halo:Reach. Halo only has 30,000 people playing. CS:Source, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000.
That's why you can't even bother with consoles, at least for online play. Only 1, maybe 2 games people are playing. And you're stuck with always having to buy those 2 new titles every time they come out just to get a game.
With the PC, you can buy a game and people will still play it, sometimes even years later. Forget even that, with PC, you can at least buy a game and play it online *at all*.
I have a perfect example for you in why PC gaming is superior, won't die, and frankly, we can't let die:
Online multiplayer.
I don't own a PS3. I have a 360. And the problem is that there is no one to play on-line multiplayer. The whole draw of XBL is the online component. And something like BF:BC2, MoH, or CoD:BO are all about the multplayer. Except there is no one on! I own all three on both the PC and console. Example:
360:
BF:BC2: 0 (people online during off-peak hours) / 0 (during peak hours)
PC: 50,000 (off peak) / ? (never played during peak)
MoH 360: 2000 / 8000
PC: 2500 both
CoD:BO 360: 600,000/850,000
PC: 50,000
Here's the problem. Unless it's CoD:BO, *no one is playing any other online shooter*. Yea, CoD has a lot of people to play with, but what good is XBL if only one game in their entire library people are playing? As a side note, the matchmaking system is so poor that there could be 600,000 people on and I won't find anyone to play withj and have to wait 15 minutes. So what good is 800,000 if 10% of the time you can't find a match? And the only other two people are even playing are GoW2 or Halo:Reach. Halo only has 30,000 people playing. CS:Source, a 7 year old PC game, has 50,000
That's why you can't even bother with consoles, at least for online play. Only 1, maybe 2 games people are playing. And you're stuck with always having to buy those 2 new titles every time they come out just to get a game.
With the PC, you can buy a game and people will still play it, sometimes even years later. Forget even that, with PC, you can at least buy a game and play it online *at all*.
*Shakes head* Why do I bother?
I was using that as an example. Because you mentioned retail.
And no, it's ONLY what the market will support. You have to factor in so many other things.
Forget it, this is lost on you. I'm done with this reply.
That's a really nice theory. Except you forget this is the real world.
In reality, they will just say screw it--let's raise our price to all our competitors--$10/mo. Why do you think most things cost comparable to each other? It's the traditional price expected and set.
And I think you're the one who is going to need to lie down, because the math is a *lot* more complicated than that. In *reality*, unlike your simple 1 set equation, they have teams of pricing and marketing analysts, who will figure out the exact new sweet spot for the price. So no, it won't be 3.25. And I won't pretend to know the know the new price because I actually have some sort of business sense and know that I can't just add 1 thing and get a new number.
Try again.
That's great, right? Nevermind the fact that Apple then will kill off another business, but how many options are left on iOS?
Mog
Rdio
That's it*. Yea, real smart. Kill off 1/3 of your choices. And this is a really useful product--I would argue too useful for Apple to kill off. It's not bullshit like Apple killing off a flashlight application developer.
* Pandora doesn't count. It doesn't let you choose what you want to listen to specifically.
Where do you think they'll get the money to offset this huge income loss?
You do know that anytime a business pays more, they pass that cost along to you, right? The only reason it's not easily apparent is because they'll have their army of pricing analysts figure out a way to charge you for it without you noticing or complaining too much, if it's at all possible.
Exactly. Which was my point. The jerkoff at the playground is ruining everyone's playground.
That's why we as consumers should just not accept it, complain, not support the company's actions, evangelize to others about the evil policies, not purchase the products, create awareness in the media as to the awful repercussions, ad nauseum.
Your employer: "we're reducing your pay by $10,000"
You: "But I'm just barely paying my rent now."
Employer: "Too bad. Deal with it. Besides, you do have that option. Instead of whining, you can quit and go hungry AND we will tarnish your professional reputation."
You: "But that isn't really a choice!"
And then the realization hits you.
A company like Last.fm, or just about any company for that matter, doesn't have the option of not selling its software to a platform that is pretty much the other biggest half of the market and in an explosive growth market in general.
That's a pretty good deal. Didn't know about that.
As a side note, I do think Zune Pass is a very good service. I was just throwing it out for illustrative purposes. Though $3/mo for unlimited music streaming is pretty incredible though. I wouldn't want that gone, you know?
I'm sure those services have more than you do, that's for sure.
I take it you have never had any business experience, worked in business, or any education in it whatsoever.
All businesses pretty much adhere to a general way of operating, finance and accounting-wise. All retail is pretty much within, for example, 3%-10 margins on average. Some items more, some less. All prices for particular products in particular categories all are within certain ranges. This stuff isn't pulled out of their asses. You can't just charge more for the hell of it. I'm sure you've even heard of as the price goes higher, consumer demand goes lower.
Or to put it in a simple way your completely clueless post can understand:
"I'm sure you no problem with your employer telling you that you should take a $10,000 pay cut. Even though you're just about breaking even after paying all your bills. Doesn't matter. It's your problem and if you can't cope, you shouldn't be living on your own."
I hate that people are already saying "well don't buy it" or "don't use it." Here is the reality of what happens in the REAL world:
a) Company pulls out of the market
b) Company raises their prices, in some form or another, to cover the cost. Consumer loses. Consumer pays more.
The winner? Ding ding! Answer B. That's what happens. So thanks to Apple, instead of paying, what $3 that Last.fm charges, they'll charge more. It could be $5. Or they could raise it to the competitors like Zune which is $10. I wouldn't bat an eye to pay for $3 for music a month. For $10, I might shop around first and potentially they might lose a sale.
And here is an even bigger problem. That cost will be raised for everyone else too. So you got an Android phone because you don't support Apple being an evil company? Too bad. It's $10/mo for Last.fm no matter what.
And wait, it gets worse! It raises the traditional pricing level for that product. It seems everyone is either in the $3/mo tier, $10. But at least you have a choice. But when Last.fm charges $10 because they can't make it at 3 with Apple's blatantly rip-off policies, now the norm will be $10. Thanks Apple! Now you have no choice--everyone pays $120 per year instead of being able to choose one that's $36 per year.
But alas, I'll get flamed and modded down to hell for this. I really think they enjoy the useful things at reasonable prices being ruined and they like to say "thank you sire, may I have another?"
I have to say, your post really made me laugh. I gotta give you this one, I enjoyed it. :)
But I do have to response to a few points:
1) Had nothing to do with attention span. Movies have to have good pacing. Ever play Dead Space? Amazing game. But it's the perfect example. You would play for hours upon hours sometimes without any sort of story or story progression. So I didn't enjoy it as much as I could. I enjoy movies with no action that have good pacing. Perfect example is Contact. No action, but held your interest with wonder and suspense the entire time.
2) I can, see above. But watchmen just rambled on like an unintelligle drunk for 30-45 minutes on frequently.
3) There's a different between nuance and rambling on with no direction.
5) Only because it was so cheesy. It really sounded like those other shows that parody the awful movies that do it. But Watchmen was serious!
Honestly, I know there is the phrase "you couldn't pay me to watch it again." But in all seriousness, that line isn't strong enough. Only if someone was going to get laid as a direct result of suffering through this movie with someone they really wanted, only *then* should they see this movie.
And they will hate every minute of it and think to themself "is this worth getting laid?" :)