Metroid Prime had a mechanic similar to Zelda's "Z-targeting." That's not at all like the automatic aim adjustment you find in other FPS games like Halo. Not even close.
Generally speaking consoles are far less prone to failure than PCs. I'm fairly certain that if you were to conduct a comprehensive enough study of this, you'd get results supporting my claim.
True, you can be far more "superhuman" with mouse+keyboard controls altogether, but I'm not sure how that is a plus per se. Merely means a different learning curve, especially since difficulty/depth in games these days rarely comes down to twitch skill alone (and if it does, you're on level with your opponent which is all that matters).
Um, that's a good partial list of the specific hardware I've *had break* over the years. Don't assume everyone except you buys rubbish; PC components are just more prone to failure than consoles, for a multitude of reasons. My machines don't crash much over their "lifetime," either, but their lifetime isn't quite what my NES's is (still runs like new, and that goes for ALL my however-many consoles).
Personally I think it comes down to dev houses caring to/not caring to scale to hardware. Crytek was IMO stupid not to scale to lower hardware, as it actually bit them in the butt real hard on sales/reviews/what have you. Blizzard on the other hand seems to refuse to scale to *better* hardware with World of Warcraft, something I'm not surprised by (given its... healthy sales, to put it mildly) but still disappointed by. I have a comp that can handle something of much higher fidelity than the blocky eyesores WoW presents me with (granted they have great visual design in other respects so the game overall looks good enough), and for $14/month it'd be nice to not have to put up with it. Especially since WoW will eventually have to compete with games that do have better visuals.
I think what you're arguing for isn't so much "challenge" as it is "immersion," AC. PC shooters can (and are) still as difficult as console shooters are, by virtue of different design. But the interface is never going to be as immersive/natural as a controller is, particularly the Wii remote.
As for Resident Evil, I always thought the main character should have a peg leg in order to explain the utter lack of mobility he/she is capable of. If Leon in RE4 had a peg leg the game would be way more immersive.
I've had 1 console break and need to be replaced in, oh, the 18 years I've been playing video games. Take that 3-4 weeks I was without one of my however-many consoles and compare it to the time I have been without a working (i.e. broken-and-being-fixed) PC over those same years (more like over 15 years since I had an NES prior to my first PC) and the PC LOSES BIG-TIME!
(Yes I repair my own computers myself and as quickly as convenient/possible.)
You can fix a computer more quickly on your own than a game console manufacturer can fix your console, but the console is about a hundred times less likely to fail in the first place.
What's the difference between "mouse look" and looking around with one of the joysticks? Most default control setups on console shooters have the left stick set to fwd/reverse/strafe and the right stick set to "look."
In console shooters where turning quickly/slowly makes a difference (esp. competitively), the sensitivity can often be ajusted. Go to control options in Halo 1-3, and see for yourself. So, that's a non-issue.
Regarding circle strafing, that's just something you need to work on for yourself man. I find it extremely easy with both a controller and a mouse+keyboard.
Metroid Prime was the only FPS I've EVER played on console which had that lame auto-lock mechanic. Terrible move IMO, and it make the game a joke.
FPS don't need such a control scheme, and almost none employ it. So my question is, have you ever played any FPS except Metroid Prime? Because your post is basically INCORRECT.
T_T Quake 3. I agree, zero-depth just-point-and-click-fast games are easier played with a mouse. The mouse gives you high precision at speed. Most games have evolved past that being the sole key to success.
There is no "added challenge of dealing with a joystick input." That's not even subjective. Console shooters have intelligent aim adjustment, different pacing, etc. The difficulty is as low/high as the game designers want it to be. The "adjustment" console shooters make to incorporate a controller also doesn't detract from gameplay in the slightest. And the fact that a controller is far more ergonomic and immersive of an interface than a keyboard+mouse adds to the experience.
By the way, you give a Halo 2 champ a USB 360 controller to play PC Halo 2, he'll dominate as usual. You don't need pixel precision at speed to hit someone in the head, and with the joystick sensitivity as high as those top-tier players play at, response time is more than fast enough.
From your post it appears you have difficulty adjusting from using a keyboard+mouse setup to using a console controller, since you mentioned it with regards to both Halo and the Wii. Either you're using that as an excuse every time your opponents take you to town on a console shooter, or you're just making stuff up for the heck of it. Either way you need to get out of 1999.
Vista is, but from what I see it uses the resources well enough once they're there. Plus, having lots of RAM has its ups in other respects as well. Even my XP machine has 2 GB of it so I can do graphics, music, etc. without hassle.
In Ohio, Hillary "trounced" Obama in the rural areas which are predominately white and conservative. The urban areas - Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnatti - Obama won those. I have a guess as to why...
Oh yeah, saying the Hillary supporters are hard-working adults and the Obama supporters are first-time-voter college students with plenty of time on their hands is REALLY OBJECTIVE.
Ok... but then you turn right back around and say "just wait, soon we'll be getting tickets for jaywalking" which is a direct extension of what the police are already doing. It's just not logical to flip flop like that.
Remind yourself of that thought as camera technology improves and you eventually start getting tickets for jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, littering, etc. in the mail a few weeks after some random camera on top of a police car snaps your picture doing that. Again, what does this have to do with Google Street View as opposed to the cameras police have been using for unattended enforcement for quite some time now? I repeat, police do not need Google and MS to set precedent for them when they're perfectly capable of doing it themselves. Your downplaying of the red-light and speeding cameras but criticism of Google Street View is rather backwards.
1) there's a "report" feature in Street View where you can ask to have images removed. Not a big deal.
2) they're photos of public places. if you don't want something you do in public to be seen, best not to do it in public to begin with. i think folks having *more* (than those in the immediate surroundings) people see their public mishaps is a small price to pay for the convenience everyone gets of being able to take a virtual tour of any city.
3) there are already countless intersections with cameras set up that capture cars running red lights. there are likewise countless sections of the highway where cameras are set up to photograph speeders. So, don't think the police need Google and MS to help them set precedent for anything.
There are some things worth getting concerned over. This is not one of them.
I picked very specific cars because they in particular are the ones that I haven't seen driven by anyone other than competent drivers. Even others in their "class" (i.e. 911's) wouldn't be "drivers' cars" in my view because I see at least as many people buy them "because they're Porsches" as I do "because they have superior handling" or whatever. If you can't drive very well, a Z06 is downright *dangerous.* An Evo is such a bare-bones track car that no-one who doesn't take driving seriously would even consider one. Etc.
These also aren't the folks who drive 20-30 over on highways. You're confusing them with the SL500 drivers, the Jag XK drivers, etc. The folks who, yes indeed, just throw down a wad of cash on whatever they saw an ad of on the back of the latest Road&Track. Though I probably see something like a small Saturn or a tuned Civic do that more often than not. The "real drivers" that I'm referring to go with the flow, just maneuver better and are more attentive than your average driver.
The people who truly enjoy *the act of driving* aren't the scenery kind of people. They're race track people. They know their vehicle well, they know how to watch the road, etc. They have their eyes *on the road* at all times. And they're smart enough to know that weaving in and out of traffic is only going to endanger their machine.
Me, I like driving. I appreciate scenery, nice weather, etc. as much as anyone else, but I get the most enjoyment out of my car when I'm going 50 on winding country roads where all my focus can be on the act of driving. BTW I have never received a speeding ticket. I agree that there is no need to really break the law to enjoy the road. (Though, on a long stretch of road out West, if there's no vehicles in sight, there's nothing wrong with hitting 135 for a couple of seconds ^_^.)
These are all blatant generalizations I'm making, of course. As for that bit of statistics you mentioned, well, I've seen expensive performance vehicles crash enough. Proportionally it's probably the same as any other class of vehicle. But I've seen 100k Porsches driven by all sorts of people, including ones who clearly bought it just based on the 'prestige' of the brand. IMO it takes a more particular kind of person to buy a car that *only* makes sense if you can appreciate its performance.
But yeah the whole idea of "if you like to drive, why hurry," well, I'm never in a hurry unless I gotta be. Regardless of what car you have, driving safe is the most important thing. I just find some personalities more likely to drive safely than others. And the folks who I most often find drive far less safe than they *think* they do are those who see cars are nothing but routine transportation:-/
How smug. I rather share the road with someone who concentrates on the *driving* than someone who thinks he's better/safer enjoying scenery/skyline/weather/radio.
The best drivers are people who like to drive. They're not easy to spot, but you can in fact recognize these people based on what car they're driving. A "driver's car" like a 3-series coupe, a Lancer Evo, a Z06, etc. You're safest when you're by these folks. (Note the converse/inverse are not true, obviously. You don't need a Z06 to be a good driver, but if you're driving one I feel OK giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
Next time you see an accident scene on a road shoulder, take a look at who is involved. I've yet to see the kind of car that people buy *to drive.* No, the people are almost invariably teens or people who treat the vehicle as simply something to take them from point A to point B. So they drive at the speed limit, enjoy their scenery/weather/skyline/seriouslywtf/radio and think they're model drivers.
So yeah, you might think you're a good driver, but you're exactly the kind I would avoid on the road if I could.
Not to mention that by going the speed limit when everyone on the freeway goes 5-10 above is actually *more* dangerous than going with the flow of traffic. You're not safer for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Aim adjustment != lock.
Metroid Prime had a mechanic similar to Zelda's "Z-targeting." That's not at all like the automatic aim adjustment you find in other FPS games like Halo. Not even close.
My 360 was the one console I've had to replace.
Generally speaking consoles are far less prone to failure than PCs. I'm fairly certain that if you were to conduct a comprehensive enough study of this, you'd get results supporting my claim.
True, you can be far more "superhuman" with mouse+keyboard controls altogether, but I'm not sure how that is a plus per se. Merely means a different learning curve, especially since difficulty/depth in games these days rarely comes down to twitch skill alone (and if it does, you're on level with your opponent which is all that matters).
Um, that's a good partial list of the specific hardware I've *had break* over the years. Don't assume everyone except you buys rubbish; PC components are just more prone to failure than consoles, for a multitude of reasons. My machines don't crash much over their "lifetime," either, but their lifetime isn't quite what my NES's is (still runs like new, and that goes for ALL my however-many consoles).
Are you trying to say Quake 3 has depth? By what year's standards?
Good post.
Personally I think it comes down to dev houses caring to/not caring to scale to hardware. Crytek was IMO stupid not to scale to lower hardware, as it actually bit them in the butt real hard on sales/reviews/what have you. Blizzard on the other hand seems to refuse to scale to *better* hardware with World of Warcraft, something I'm not surprised by (given its... healthy sales, to put it mildly) but still disappointed by. I have a comp that can handle something of much higher fidelity than the blocky eyesores WoW presents me with (granted they have great visual design in other respects so the game overall looks good enough), and for $14/month it'd be nice to not have to put up with it. Especially since WoW will eventually have to compete with games that do have better visuals.
I think what you're arguing for isn't so much "challenge" as it is "immersion," AC. PC shooters can (and are) still as difficult as console shooters are, by virtue of different design. But the interface is never going to be as immersive/natural as a controller is, particularly the Wii remote.
As for Resident Evil, I always thought the main character should have a peg leg in order to explain the utter lack of mobility he/she is capable of. If Leon in RE4 had a peg leg the game would be way more immersive.
I've had 1 console break and need to be replaced in, oh, the 18 years I've been playing video games. Take that 3-4 weeks I was without one of my however-many consoles and compare it to the time I have been without a working (i.e. broken-and-being-fixed) PC over those same years (more like over 15 years since I had an NES prior to my first PC) and the PC LOSES BIG-TIME!
(Yes I repair my own computers myself and as quickly as convenient/possible.)
You can fix a computer more quickly on your own than a game console manufacturer can fix your console, but the console is about a hundred times less likely to fail in the first place.
What's the difference between "mouse look" and looking around with one of the joysticks? Most default control setups on console shooters have the left stick set to fwd/reverse/strafe and the right stick set to "look."
In console shooters where turning quickly/slowly makes a difference (esp. competitively), the sensitivity can often be ajusted. Go to control options in Halo 1-3, and see for yourself. So, that's a non-issue.
Regarding circle strafing, that's just something you need to work on for yourself man. I find it extremely easy with both a controller and a mouse+keyboard.
Metroid Prime was the only FPS I've EVER played on console which had that lame auto-lock mechanic. Terrible move IMO, and it make the game a joke.
FPS don't need such a control scheme, and almost none employ it. So my question is, have you ever played any FPS except Metroid Prime? Because your post is basically INCORRECT.
T_T Quake 3. I agree, zero-depth just-point-and-click-fast games are easier played with a mouse. The mouse gives you high precision at speed. Most games have evolved past that being the sole key to success.
There is no "added challenge of dealing with a joystick input." That's not even subjective. Console shooters have intelligent aim adjustment, different pacing, etc. The difficulty is as low/high as the game designers want it to be. The "adjustment" console shooters make to incorporate a controller also doesn't detract from gameplay in the slightest. And the fact that a controller is far more ergonomic and immersive of an interface than a keyboard+mouse adds to the experience.
By the way, you give a Halo 2 champ a USB 360 controller to play PC Halo 2, he'll dominate as usual. You don't need pixel precision at speed to hit someone in the head, and with the joystick sensitivity as high as those top-tier players play at, response time is more than fast enough.
From your post it appears you have difficulty adjusting from using a keyboard+mouse setup to using a console controller, since you mentioned it with regards to both Halo and the Wii. Either you're using that as an excuse every time your opponents take you to town on a console shooter, or you're just making stuff up for the heck of it. Either way you need to get out of 1999.
Ok there was a "less than" sign there. I forgot that /. is dumb even if I post in "plain old text."
Yeah, citizens government. That's the way it's been for, idk, thousands of years.
Vista is, but from what I see it uses the resources well enough once they're there. Plus, having lots of RAM has its ups in other respects as well. Even my XP machine has 2 GB of it so I can do graphics, music, etc. without hassle.
$9.63 million, a 5.4% increase over 2006
How about "billion" instead? (It'll probably get corrected.)
Well, either that, or piracy has indeed PWNED the movie industry. Bad. Hah.
In Ohio, Hillary "trounced" Obama in the rural areas which are predominately white and conservative. The urban areas - Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnatti - Obama won those. I have a guess as to why...
Oh yeah, saying the Hillary supporters are hard-working adults and the Obama supporters are first-time-voter college students with plenty of time on their hands is REALLY OBJECTIVE.
Troll.
Why would the rats survive?
Ok... but then you turn right back around and say "just wait, soon we'll be getting tickets for jaywalking" which is a direct extension of what the police are already doing. It's just not logical to flip flop like that.
Remind yourself of that thought as camera technology improves and you eventually start getting tickets for jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, littering, etc. in the mail a few weeks after some random camera on top of a police car snaps your picture doing that.
Again, what does this have to do with Google Street View as opposed to the cameras police have been using for unattended enforcement for quite some time now? I repeat, police do not need Google and MS to set precedent for them when they're perfectly capable of doing it themselves. Your downplaying of the red-light and speeding cameras but criticism of Google Street View is rather backwards.
Ok...
1) there's a "report" feature in Street View where you can ask to have images removed. Not a big deal.
2) they're photos of public places. if you don't want something you do in public to be seen, best not to do it in public to begin with. i think folks having *more* (than those in the immediate surroundings) people see their public mishaps is a small price to pay for the convenience everyone gets of being able to take a virtual tour of any city.
3) there are already countless intersections with cameras set up that capture cars running red lights. there are likewise countless sections of the highway where cameras are set up to photograph speeders. So, don't think the police need Google and MS to help them set precedent for anything.
There are some things worth getting concerned over. This is not one of them.
Do you actually think insurance companies have a per-model policy?
I picked very specific cars because they in particular are the ones that I haven't seen driven by anyone other than competent drivers. Even others in their "class" (i.e. 911's) wouldn't be "drivers' cars" in my view because I see at least as many people buy them "because they're Porsches" as I do "because they have superior handling" or whatever. If you can't drive very well, a Z06 is downright *dangerous.* An Evo is such a bare-bones track car that no-one who doesn't take driving seriously would even consider one. Etc.
:-/
These also aren't the folks who drive 20-30 over on highways. You're confusing them with the SL500 drivers, the Jag XK drivers, etc. The folks who, yes indeed, just throw down a wad of cash on whatever they saw an ad of on the back of the latest Road&Track. Though I probably see something like a small Saturn or a tuned Civic do that more often than not. The "real drivers" that I'm referring to go with the flow, just maneuver better and are more attentive than your average driver.
The people who truly enjoy *the act of driving* aren't the scenery kind of people. They're race track people. They know their vehicle well, they know how to watch the road, etc. They have their eyes *on the road* at all times. And they're smart enough to know that weaving in and out of traffic is only going to endanger their machine.
Me, I like driving. I appreciate scenery, nice weather, etc. as much as anyone else, but I get the most enjoyment out of my car when I'm going 50 on winding country roads where all my focus can be on the act of driving. BTW I have never received a speeding ticket. I agree that there is no need to really break the law to enjoy the road. (Though, on a long stretch of road out West, if there's no vehicles in sight, there's nothing wrong with hitting 135 for a couple of seconds ^_^.)
These are all blatant generalizations I'm making, of course. As for that bit of statistics you mentioned, well, I've seen expensive performance vehicles crash enough. Proportionally it's probably the same as any other class of vehicle. But I've seen 100k Porsches driven by all sorts of people, including ones who clearly bought it just based on the 'prestige' of the brand. IMO it takes a more particular kind of person to buy a car that *only* makes sense if you can appreciate its performance.
But yeah the whole idea of "if you like to drive, why hurry," well, I'm never in a hurry unless I gotta be. Regardless of what car you have, driving safe is the most important thing. I just find some personalities more likely to drive safely than others. And the folks who I most often find drive far less safe than they *think* they do are those who see cars are nothing but routine transportation
How smug. I rather share the road with someone who concentrates on the *driving* than someone who thinks he's better/safer enjoying scenery/skyline/weather/radio.
The best drivers are people who like to drive. They're not easy to spot, but you can in fact recognize these people based on what car they're driving. A "driver's car" like a 3-series coupe, a Lancer Evo, a Z06, etc. You're safest when you're by these folks. (Note the converse/inverse are not true, obviously. You don't need a Z06 to be a good driver, but if you're driving one I feel OK giving you the benefit of the doubt.)
Next time you see an accident scene on a road shoulder, take a look at who is involved. I've yet to see the kind of car that people buy *to drive.* No, the people are almost invariably teens or people who treat the vehicle as simply something to take them from point A to point B. So they drive at the speed limit, enjoy their scenery/weather/skyline/seriouslywtf/radio and think they're model drivers.
So yeah, you might think you're a good driver, but you're exactly the kind I would avoid on the road if I could.
Not to mention that by going the speed limit when everyone on the freeway goes 5-10 above is actually *more* dangerous than going with the flow of traffic. You're not safer for it.