I know most of you will disagree, but I personally think playing a shooter on a Console makes a little more sense than on a computer. Partly because I can't imagine this pop-up coming while I'm in the middle of a big fight.

Computers: Because it is simply better with a mouse and keyboard.

Computers: Because it is simply better with a mouse and keyboard.

QFT. Console shooters will always be crippled by the lack of mouse control, and will have to make up for this by either Auto Aiming or some kind of other smart-ass solution.

Computers, did you even have to ask?

Computers. You just can't get the level of precision on a controller that a mouse and keyboard can give you. I mean you could get something close on the controller but it's usually auto-aimed and takes practice.

Computers, thread closed.

That's not to say that console shooters are all bad, they just cheat.

Water - Better in our lungs or outside of them?

Computers of course.

Partly because I can't imagine this pop-up coming while I'm in the middle of a big fight.

What's that suppose to mean? Sounds like you have some serious spyware problems. :lol:

Same here, computers all the way because of the much better and accurate controls.

Now to throw up a joke.

What do the 2007 National Geography Bee Winner and the main character of Half-Life 2 have in common?

Er, now to get horribly off topic do you mean?

Anyways, thread has served it's purpose, it can rest now.

Consoles, the sound system and the feel of the controllers are just so much more satisfying than a mouse and keyboard. Plus the TVs are meant for that kind of stuff, computer screens just don't seem to capture the game. This is based on Halo, but it should be the same for other games.

I haven't played a computer shooter in years. I can't really say.

Consoles, the sound system and the feel of the controllers are just so much more satisfying than a mouse and keyboard. Plus the TVs are meant for that kind of stuff, computer screens just don't seem to capture the game. This is based on Halo, but it should be the same for other games.

Halo is 100% designed for a console, and it fails miserably as a PC FPS so it's not a very good comparison to the PC.

I don't see how TVs are any better then computer screens, especially as they aren't meant for games (although now with the LCD and higher resolutions they are better). The mouse is a LOT more accurate than the console controllers so there's no auto-aiming for the PC as well there's more aim down the sights (nesecary for the goold olde bolt action rifles).

Consoles, the sound system and the feel of the controllers are just so much more satisfying than a mouse and keyboard. Plus the TVs are meant for that kind of stuff, computer screens just don't seem to capture the game. This is based on Halo, but it should be the same for other games.

You're obviously a heathen and must be put to death by burning.

You simply cannot replace a keyboard for serious shooters. The lack of controls really limits what can be done with console shooters.

The precision of a mouse, and the additional buttons with a keyboard, makes it a non-contest.

Computers: Because it is simply better with a mouse and keyboard.


QFT. Far easier to aim with mouse/keyboard.

After playing goldeneye with my friends at all of our parties for about a year and a half, I can't play shooters anymore.

1# Mouse and keyboard.
2# Better customization options to controls.
3# Easier to connect to the internet.

Computers are way better!

for this, consoles because it makes more sense and of course the one REAL reason.......(my sucky comp can't handle any FPS's.)

so swein, what DO they have in common?

I just can't get into the feel of a shooter game on a computer, but on a console I can really get into it.

Overall I like computers better period, especially for shooters, I just really wish they would make the MGS franchise for computer.

for this, consoles because it makes more sense and of course the one REAL reason.......(my sucky comp can't handle any FPS's.)

so swein, what DO they have in common?

Try Half-Life 1.6 (dunno about Source (VALVe's engine that they made and half-assed added to Half Life 1) or Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. Either should run on a rather low end comp.

With a computer, you can hear something behind you, throw your mouse around and do a 180 and plant a bullet in the head on some nazi sneaking up on you.

Just cant do that the same way on a console.

With a computer, you can hear something behind you, throw your mouse around and do a 180 and plant a bullet in the head on some nazi sneaking up on you.

Just cant do that the same way on a console.

True that, although the camera can be a lot smoother on consoles you can't turn as fast (and, due to the auto-aim, you don't need to be accurate).

True that, although the camera can be a lot smoother on consoles you can't turn as fast (and, due to the auto-aim, you don't need to be accurate).

On a really good shooter there are ways to change the sensitivity. And yes, the camera is a lot smoother. It has acceleration on the best of the best, so it will turn faster as you continue to hold the stick.

First of all, they're alike because both are Seattle natives.

Two, doesn't anybody know that most people the 360 versions of Call of Duty 4 and BioShock more than the PC versions. And some of the best shooters of all time were on the NINTENDO 64 and they were never ported to the PC.

Two, doesn't anybody know that most people the 360 versions of Call of Duty 4 and BioShock more than the PC versions.
Source please.
And some of the best shooters of all time were on the NINTENDO 64 and they were never ported to the PC.
WRONG!

And some of the best shooters of all time were on the NINTENDO 64 and they were never ported to the PC.

I would not consider Perfect Dark nor Goldeneye even the best shooters of the time they came out. Goldeneye was competing with Quake I-II and Duke Nukem, both of which allowed you to *gasp* fall off of small ledges. Perfect Dark was competing with Half-life and all its mods, Quake III, and Unreal Tournament.

First of all, they're alike because both are Seattle natives.

Two, doesn't anybody know that most people the 360 versions of Call of Duty 4 and BioShock more than the PC versions. And some of the best shooters of all time were on the NINTENDO 64 and they were never ported to the PC.

I was just about to take you off my ignore list, but I think I'll leave you on it.

Forever.

Also your sig is even dumber than you come across as.

Also your sig is even dumber than you come across as.
Hey, it has me in it. That makes everything good. :cool:

unfortunately, not me................

As far as I know, GoldenEye 007 had excellent Single-Player and Multi-Player, and Perfect Dark had more of the same. To some things up...

...Actually, Half-Life 2 has a higher Gamerankings average than both games. But not by a full percent, and ()'s users like GoldenEye more than Half-Life 2.

@harbinger: I believe the first two MGS games have PC versions.

I just can't get into the feel of a shooter game on a computer, but on a console I can really get into it.

I don't know what that even means.

I say they're about equal. Only a PC shooter with a mouse can really reflect the actual reflexes of the player, adding realism.

Only a console shooter (unless you use a joystick or gamepad, which I don't) offers the actual motion of hitting a trigger to fire a weapon, thus realism.

I don't know what that even means.

It means that I just don't feel like I'm into the game on a PC. I feel remote and away from it all, whereas on a console I get sucked in and feel like I'm actually there, shooting.

It means that I just don't feel like I'm into the game on a PC. I feel remote and away from it all, whereas on a console I get sucked in and feel like I'm actually there, shooting.

Well you do have the vibrators in some (all now?) controllers. Eh, whatever is the most fun for you is what you should get :)

Well you do have the vibrators in some (all now?) controllers. Eh, whatever is the most fun for you is what you should get :)

Yeah, I have an Xbox 360. I like its controllers more than any other controllers for some reason.

Do you mind posting a picture of a 360 controller?

Dude... Google Image is your friend.

Here is an Xbox 360 controller and a PS3 controller for comparison.

http://blogs.msdn.com/photos/pstubbs/images/530710/original.aspx
http://www.gamepro.com/sony/ps3/games/news/images/121888-1-1.jpg

Notice how the left stick takes the place of the D pad and how the 360 one is smoother and rounder.

I do quite like the 360 controllers, and Gears of War was very fun. But, the mouse/keyboard gives the extra control needed to allow me to feel in the game.

I've never used a 360 controller. It does look comfortable though.

Here is an Xbox 360 controller and a PS3 controller for comparison.
Isn't that a PS2 controller? :huh:

AFAIK, PS3 controllers are basically a bigger PS2 controller without a cord.

Isn't that a PS2 controller? :huh:

It's wireless and has 4 input lights, so it's probably PS3 unless Sony released new PS2 controllers. Another thing I forgot to mention was that the PS3 controllers' triggers are really, really, annoying to pull. For some reason, they don't seem like they were playtested at all. The 360 ones are really well designed for maximum efficiency.

To me it all comes down to headphones and precision which is something that consoles cant do, or are a pain in the ass to do. And no, I do not feel like spending a lot of money for some nice wireless headphones.

It means that I just don't feel like I'm into the game on a PC. I feel remote and away from it all, whereas on a console I get sucked in and feel like I'm actually there, shooting.

Strange. Nowadays a lot of console shooters are 3rd person. You'd think that would be less engaging. Either way, ones not better than the other really. They're just different.

Strange. Nowadays a lot of console shooters are 3rd person. You'd think that would be less engaging. Either way, ones not better than the other really. They're just different.

Really? I haven't heard of a 3rd person shooter since Star Wars Battlefront 2 was released in 2005.:confused:

Really? I haven't heard of a 3rd person shooter since Star Wars Battlefront 2 was released in 2005.:confused:

Splinter cell, the metal gear solid games, whatever that frozen planet thing was, theres at least a few others.

Splinter cell, the metal gear solid games, whatever that frozen planet thing was, theres at least a few others.

Splinter Cell is 3rd person?:eek:

I don't know about MGS or the snow game though. Not a real fan.

Frozen Planet - I'm pretty sure the game you are refering to is Lost Planet: Extreme Condition.

Ugh, I dislike 3rd person FPS games. Mafia is an exception. While I DO like 3rd person when driving a car or to check out how awesome my charactor looks, I vastly perfer first person when actually doing something.

Ugh, I dislike 3rd person FPS games.

Two people. :mischief:

I like the third person thing sometimes but most of the time it just makes the sensitivity all weird and thats never good in a pinch.

I like the third person thing sometimes but most of the time it just makes the sensitivity all weird and thats never good in a pinch.

This.

Yay for toggles :) which devs sometimes forget to use.

Ugh, I dislike 3rd person FPS games. Mafia is an exception. While I DO like 3rd person when driving a car or to check out how awesome my charactor looks, I vastly perfer first person when actually doing something.

Would Resident Evil 4 count there?
And don't forget Mercenaries!

Would Resident Evil 4 count there?
And don't forget Mercenaries!

RE4 did it ok, but it was just annoying and weird when you pulled your gun up and things got all slow, I don't know, maybe its an acquired thing.

I've never played the Resident Evil games, don't mind that too much.

Frozen Planet - I'm pretty sure the game you are refering to is Lost Planet: Extreme Condition.

Thats it.

And RE4 counts too.

Does it count as one that you don't like?

Although I supppose that it's atmosphere has a little something to do with why it's so well rated.

Computers, you have more keys to go around with instead of a console controller.

Does it count as one that you don't like?


No, it counts as an example of a 3rd person console shooter. I liked RE4 on gamecube a whole lot.

D'oh! Who didn't?

Consoles give a small advantage with split-screen multiplayer, but that's about it. Mouse and keyboard setup wins every time though, can't think of any console shooter (bar Goldeneye) I've ever truly loved that wasn't on PC.

Let's see...

Perfect Dark, Halo series, Call of Duty 2-4, BioShock, Orange Box. All were FPS, and they were great on consoles. And just about everybody at Gamespot and IGN (including the Readers) prefer the 360 and PS3 versions of Call of Duty 4 to the PC version.

Let's see...

Perfect Dark, Halo series, Call of Duty 2-4, BioShock, Orange Box. All were FPS, and they were great on consoles. And just about everybody at Gamespot and IGN (including the Readers) prefer the 360 and PS3 versions of Call of Duty 4 to the PC version.

You are incredibly thickskulled.

But pay attention to the phrase "including the users/readers".

Let's see...

Perfect Dark, Halo series, Call of Duty 2-4, BioShock, Orange Box. All were FPS, and they were great on consoles. And just about everybody at Gamespot and IGN (including the Readers) prefer the 360 and PS3 versions of Call of Duty 4 to the PC version.

Yes some shooters have made successful conversions to consoles, or been made specially for consoles. But overall nearly all shooters are better on computers.

I have come to a conclusion there must be something in the Swedish water for all the swedish posters to act so....what is the word....ah yes, RETARDED!

But pay attention to the phrase "including the users/readers".

I would pay more attention if you used something along the lines of "but my opinion is..."

:)

I have come to a conclusion there must be something in the Swedish water for all the swedish posters to act so....what is the word....ah yes, RETARDED!

No you know how we in Norway feel, we have to live next door to that:mischief:

And my opinion is that I would get fed up with all the dumb keyboard controls on a computer. I can't imagine playing an FPS with a keyboard.

And my opinion is that I would get fed up with all the dumb keyboard controls on a computer. I can't imagine playing an FPS with a keyboard.

You, sir, are what we call a fanboy.

And my opinion is that I would get fed up with all the dumb keyboard controls on a computer. I can't imagine playing an FPS with a keyboard.

Swein do you even have opinions?

In Swein's defense, it is rather unfair to demand an opinion and then insult him for that opinion. Kind of Kafka-esque if you ask me.

Swein do you even have opinions?

His opinions are whatever IGN tells him his opinions are.

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

The fact that you even know that pretty much proves it.

The fact that you even know that pretty much proves it.

Dude, calm down.:)

Dude, calm down.:)

Ok, Ive done my breathing, im perfectly calm. Now, again:

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

The fact that you even know that pretty much proves it.

His opinions are whatever IGN tells him his opinions are.

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

The fact that you even know that pretty much proves it.

So now you guys are getting mad at someone just because they're informed?

So now you guys are getting mad at someone just because they're informed?

I cant help if you perceive my posts as angered.

I cant help if you perceive my posts as angered.

I'm using "getting mad" as "being ridiculous" here.

And my opinion is that I would get fed up with all the dumb keyboard controls on a computer. I can't imagine playing an FPS with a keyboard.

Have you EVER played a FPS on a computer?

I suggest you do. Go to a freind who has one and play it.

The keyboard controls are not dumb at all, plus you can change them to whatever works best for you.

@D0MINATRIX: In case you hadn't noticed, Swein uses IGN's opinions as his own, even after we discussed it with him he still keeps saying stupid (and this is not debateable) things like most most people prefer game X on the x-box with only IGN's site as proof.

@D0MINATRIX: In case you hadn't noticed, Swein uses IGN's opinions as his own, even after we discussed it with him he still keeps saying stupid (and this is not debateable) things like most most people prefer game X on the x-box with only IGN's site as proof.

Well then why did he say:

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

Well then why did he say:

Because its a weak vein attempt to rid him of that moniker, but the fact that he even knows that just digs the hole deeper.

A few things I've though of that can affect the rating of a game;

1. People usually only buy one version, and if they have a console they want to get good games for that.

2. The game is compared with other console games, of which there is a significantly smaller selection than on PC.

4. Ratings on consoles are not compeltely directly comparable to ratings for PC due to the above factors that can occour and others. As such the exact same game can and does have two different ratings depending on platform, which does not mean that more people like it for that platform. As it is last time I played CoD4 online there was exactly 20,000 servers that the game found (this was a month ago).

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

Portal is the best shooter ever, end of story.

So now you guys are getting mad at someone just because they're informed?

Using IGN's opinions instead of forming your own is not what an informed person would do. Using infomation gathered from numerous game reviews to judge the features in the game which would/wouldn't appeal to you, the reader, then proceeding to formulate your opinion based on the other opinions you have read is what an informed person would do. Using just one, such as IGN, would be what an IGNorant person would do.

The fact is that Swein is a good drone, probably programmed to be that way by his folks. I mean for crying out loud he's afraid to play an M rated game because they dont let him. Not that I mind much, he's the kind of voter base that is the easiest to manipulate, I would need more people like him when I go into politics.

I bet he's fun in religious debates. :goodjob:

On topic - i never played shooters on consoles (nor know anyone who did) but the keyboard controlls never annoyed me. So why look to improve something that is already great ?

I have come to a conclusion there must be something in the Swedish water for all the swedish posters to act so....what is the word....ah yes, RETARDED!
:hatsoff:

The fact is that Swein is a good drone, probably programmed to be that way by his folks. I mean for crying out loud he's afraid to play an M rated game because they dont let him. Not that I mind much, he's the kind of voter base that is the easiest to manipulate, I would need more people like him when I go into politics.
He's a victim of the videogame-industrial complex!!!

Because its a weak vein attempt to rid him of that moniker, but the fact that he even knows that just digs the hole deeper.

Portal is the best shooter ever, end of story.



Using IGN's opinions instead of forming your own is not what an informed person would do. Using infomation gathered from numerous game reviews to judge the features in the game which would/wouldn't appeal to you, the reader, then proceeding to formulate your opinion based on the other opinions you have read is what an informed person would do. Using just one, such as IGN, would be what an IGNorant person would do.

The fact is that Swein is a good drone, probably programmed to be that way by his folks. I mean for crying out loud he's afraid to play an M rated game because they dont let him. Not that I mind much, he's the kind of voter base that is the easiest to manipulate, I would need more people like him when I go into politics.

Well then why would he say this?

No they're not. IGN says that Half-Life 2 is the best shooter, followed by stuff like DOOM, Half-Life, etc.

Is it disallowed for somebody to know that? I don't see how him knowing something digs the hole deeper. I think you guys are just being unreasonable.

No it's not bad to know that. Harbringer was wrong on that SINGLE point.

I do give Swein credit for one thing, his English is very good. Mine wasn't so great when I was a little noob.

Well, what's the deal with everybody? I mean, I've seen worse sources. For example, Gamespot gave Metal Gear Solid an 8.5/10, and Gamespy gave Brawl a 4.5/5 (when they gave a 5/5 to games like Twilight Princess, Mario Galaxy, and Civ4).

Swein, What is your major malfunction, do you not get that those are payed review sites that are sponsored by the very people they are reviewing. Not only is there opinion worth the same as any one else's in existence, theres are most likely inflated to keep from there sponsorship getting pulled. Nobody hear gives a damn about what some payed nit at so and so gave a game.

Well, what's the deal with everybody? I mean, I've seen worse sources. For example, Gamespot gave Metal Gear Solid an 8.5/10, and Gamespy gave Brawl a 4.5/5 (when they gave a 5/5 to games like Twilight Princess, Mario Galaxy, and Civ4).

Ever consider that the reason everyone is giving you such a hard time is because you constantly regurgitate these useless statistics no matter how much everyone yells at you?

Swein, What is your major malfunction, do you not get that those are payed review sites that are sponsored by the very people they are reviewing. Not only is there opinion worth the same as any one else's in existence, theres are most likely inflated to keep from there sponsorship getting pulled. Nobody hear gives a damn about what some payed nit at so and so gave a game.

That's beside the point. I don't believe that they can pay for high scores. Empire Earth, for example. It received the awards it deserved, and so the first two got good scores while the third one bombed.

That's beside the point. I don't believe that they can pay for high scores. Empire Earth, for example. It received the awards it deserved, and so the first two got good scores while the third one bombed.

Your cute and naive, its called a corporation, and it serves only one singular purpose that is mutual from all others.

Your cute and naive, its called a corporation, and it serves only one singular purpose that is mutual from all others.

Explain Empire Earth then. It's a corporation. It's a popular game chain. Explain why it got rated so low. Maybe it's because the corporations don't pay.

The reason that it seems like most games get high ratings is because only the good games get advertised about, and generally good games follow similar "guidelines." Call me naive, call me whatever you want, I don't think they can pay.

Explain Empire Earth then. It's a corporation. It's a popular game chain. Explain why it got rated so low. Maybe it's because the corporations don't pay.

The reason that it seems like most games get high ratings is because only the good games get advertised about, and generally good games follow similar "guidelines." Call me naive, call me whatever you want, I don't think they can pay.

It doesn't matter what you think, they do, have you seen the adds all over the game review sites? The corporations and companies pay the review sights to host those adds for there game, give somebodies game a bad score and your shot yourself in the foot, because suddenly adds get pulled, and you cant pay the bills that month. Empire earth III got rated so low because it sucked and sierra didn't put out the advertising to make the review sights care.

It doesn't matter what you think, they do, have you seen the adds all over the game review sites? The corporations and companies pay the review sights to host those adds for there game, give somebodies game a bad score and your shot yourself in the foot, because suddenly adds get pulled, and you cant pay the bills that month. Empire earth III got rated so low because it sucked and sierra didn't put out the advertising to make the review sights care.

EXACTLY! Games that suck like EE3 don't get advertised for because they suck so much. It would just be a waste of money. Good games, on the other hand, have everything to gain from advertising. Good games get publicity and then they get good ratings because they're well known. On average, well-known games are more likely to get good ratings because of the wide variety of people introduced to them, and more than likely they will appeal to some people who will try to safeguard them from bad ratings.

Plenty of crappy games are advertised, like Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones or whatever it's called. Ubisoft got mad at Penny Arcade when they gave it a bad review while running ads.

Well, I understand people have different opinions, but sometimes they are just way out of whack. For example, this one Gamespot user gave a 10/10 to Sonic the Hedgehog (2007) while he gave Grand Theft Auto IV a 1/10 (because he said he hates the series due to unrealistic stories). Similarly, another guy says that Desperados is the best game ever (10/10) followed by Civ3 (9/10) when he's given bad reviews to some of the most critically acclaimed strategy games ever, like Civ4 (6/10), Rome: Total War (7/10), Rise of Nations (7.5/10), and Age of Mythology (7.5/10).

What I understand is that these websites make bad games looks like pieces of trash while the good games look godly. Then you get them, and you enjoy them no matter what.

It's clear that with the lone exception of Swein, no one seems to trust game review sites. But can you really trust user reviews either? Most of them are just "DIS GAME IZ TEH KEWL" or "DIS GAME IS TEH SUK." Not exactly informative.

The person that seems to fit with my opinions most is Yahtzee. It's like we have the same mindset regarding games.

Yahtzee is't an actual reviewer.

He's a lolz reviewer.

Although I do agree, I've agreed with him on a nubmer of points. His review of The Witcher however was crap. Although I agree the combat sucks, I really enjoyed the demo and can't wait for The Witcher Enhanced to come out,

It's clear that with the lone exception of Swein, no one seems to trust game review sites. But can you really trust user reviews either? Most of them are just "DIS GAME IZ TEH KEWL" or "DIS GAME IS TEH SUK." Not exactly informative.

I read the reviews. They are not written by 1337 talkers as you think, but by professional testers, so they actually describe the game. I listen to the information given and decide whether or not I like it based on the information, and not on the way it's presented or the rating.

EXACTLY! Games that suck like EE3 don't get advertised for because they suck so much. It would just be a waste of money. Good games, on the other hand, have everything to gain from advertising. Good games get publicity and then they get good ratings because they're well known. On average, well-known games are more likely to get good ratings because of the wide variety of people introduced to them, and more than likely they will appeal to some people who will try to safeguard them from bad ratings.

Yes and it had nothing to do with the fact that Mad doc is independent and couldn't afford to put up advertising. Were NOT arguing opinion here, thats how all industries work period, if somebodies getting payed by the producers, they will always review it well.

And the point im trying to make about reviews it that there getting payed, and Joe254123's opinion doesn't mean jack to me, I look at a game, watch the footage and previews and decide whether it looks interesting or not. More times then not Ive played games that got high reviews and weren't nearly as good as they were made out to be.

Yes and it had nothing to do with the fact that Mad doc is independent and couldn't afford to put up advertising. Were NOT arguing opinion here, thats how all industries work period, if somebodies getting payed by the producers, they will always review it well.

And the point im trying to make about reviews it that there getting payed, and Joe254123's opinion doesn't mean jack to me, I look at a game, watch the footage and previews and decide whether it looks interesting or not. More times then not Ive played games that got high reviews and weren't nearly as good as they were made out to be.

I think that the reason they get higher ratings is because they get more serious testers, and not because the companies pay for the ratings.

Do you not understand basic business? What are you not registering? If someone is paying your electric bill you better not say they suck, they withdraw there adds and suddenly your out of business because your business is repossessed and you go bankrupt. I don't know how to make it any more clear to you, it doesn't matter what you think or what hunches you have or how you feel or whatever your trying to force here, that is how it works, period.

I think that the reason they get higher ratings is because they get more serious testers, and not because the companies pay for the ratings.

I forget the game, but Gamespot fired their previous lead reviewer after he gave a mediocre review to a game they were running ads for.

The person that seems to fit with my opinions most is Yahtzee. It's like we have the same mindset regarding games.

The one issue I have with Yahtzee is that he occasionally enters "Rant Mode" where he forgets to review the game and just complains about whatever for 5 minutes.

I forget the game, but Gamespot fired their previous lead reviewer after he gave a mediocre review to a game they were running ads for.

wasn't that the "kane & lynch dead men" fiasco?

Do you not understand basic business? What are you not registering? If someone is paying your electric bill you better not say they suck, they withdraw there adds and suddenly your out of business because your business is repossessed and you go bankrupt. I don't know how to make it any more clear to you, it doesn't matter what you think or what hunches you have or how you feel or whatever your trying to force here, that is how it works, period.

I might understand better if you gave examples, like PrinceScamp did.

I forget the game, but Gamespot fired their previous lead reviewer after he gave a mediocre review to a game they were running ads for.

Now I see what you mean.

Another thing is that Gamespot, since June 2007, only reviews games in increments of .5, so no more 9.7 (Metroid Prime), 9.4 (Civilization IV), 8.4 (Battle for Middle Earth), and so on.

Another thing is that Gamespot, since June 2007, only reviews games in increments of .5, so no more 9.7 (Metroid Prime), 9.4 (Civilization IV), 8.4 (Battle for Middle Earth), and so on.

So?:confused:

I might understand better if you gave examples, like PrinceScamp did.



Now I see what you mean.

Now your just trying to pull for a weak lame ass win, examples are created by the rules, not the other way around.

Another thing is that Gamespot, since June 2007, only reviews games in increments of .5, so no more 9.7 (Metroid Prime), 9.4 (Civilization IV), 8.4 (Battle for Middle Earth), and so on.

You aren't making yourself look any smarter.

How bout this, Swein why do you give a . .. .. .. . what some random guy thinks of a game?

I like FPS on PC's better. I'm a lot better than using a mouse and keyboard than using a controller. Although I like the ability to play co-op on consoles though, its much more fun to play with a friend or friends than alone.

yeah, I agree completely......

Actually, to be honest, I can't even imagine playing an FPS using a "traditional" controller.

Wii Remote and Nunchuk All the Way!

wow, the wii's controllers are so different, you can't even classify it as a console controller...you should have put another option in the poll "wii nunchuk and remote'

The mouse and keyboard are still superior to the wiimote and nunchuk except you can't swing them around and do fun little motions.

Now your just trying to pull for a weak lame ass win, examples are created by the rules, not the other way around.

Oh, so admitting you're right now constitutes a win? You just won man, don't go getting mad at me for winning. You were right, I was wrong, ok?

...you can't swing them around and do fun little motions.

Oh, I beg to differ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA

Oh, I beg to differ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA

That are actually part of the game and do not break the controllers or make it rather hard to play.

That are actually part of the game and do not break the controllers or make it rather hard to play.

It was a joke. Anyways, wasn't guncon PC compatable?

Well, I understand people have different opinions, but sometimes they are just way out of whack. For example, this one Gamespot user gave a 10/10 to Sonic the Hedgehog (2007) while he gave Grand Theft Auto IV a 1/10 (because he said he hates the series due to unrealistic stories). Similarly, another guy says that Desperados is the best game ever (10/10) followed by Civ3 (9/10) when he's given bad reviews to some of the most critically acclaimed strategy games ever, like Civ4 (6/10), Rome: Total War (7/10), Rise of Nations (7.5/10), and Age of Mythology (7.5/10).

What I understand is that these websites make bad games looks like pieces of trash while the good games look godly. Then you get them, and you enjoy them no matter what.
Why do you put so much weight into what these game sites say? Why put any weight into what other players think at all? Why not just play a game yourself and make your opinion from that?

Why not just play a game yourself and make your opinion from that?

I think most people would rather not spend the money if the game wasn't any good.

BTW, I think a separate thread for this discussion is in order.

Why do you put so much weight into what these game sites say? Why put any weight into what other players think at all?

Depends on the players! Of course, I assume you're talking about the random player reviews on Gamespot that Swein is talking about, in which they sway me about as much as reading Youtube comments. However, I do have an interest in what, say, CFC'ers opinions are on a game and in some cases it has pushed me to purchase a game.

That said, I actually do let official reviews help me in deciding to whether or not to buy a game. I seek out the reviews that gave the lowest scores in order to work out what they think is wrong with it, and I decide from there if I think those problems will overcome my gaming experience and whether it is worth purchasing from that.

This of course, requires reading said reviews properly, and not depending on a number at the end in order to sway my opinions.

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.
No one really cares, and you look more pathetic spouting off whatever some reviewer says.

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.

Anyone who thinks you're pathetic for liking a game that others don't like isn't someone who's opinion you should care about anyway.

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.

Who gives a flying intercourse whether you like a game which didn't rate well? It's significantly more pathetic to take reviews as 100% fact.

What the 3 posts above me said.

in fact, it's the reverse

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.
Unbelievable. Never have I heard such an opinion before. You actually think you look pathetic by liking games not rated well? Grow up. And how important are video games in your social circles that this concept can actually enter your mind?

I think most people would rather not spend the money if the game wasn't any good.

BTW, I think a separate thread for this discussion is in order.
Demos! But for games that don't have demos, you are unfortunately going to have to rely on reviews and word of mouth.

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.

You let ratings determine wether or not you like a game even after you play it?? what?! That's just crazy. Do you really associate with people who would think less of you if you were a fan of, say, steambot chronicles (IGN score 7.0)?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/starshiptroopers/index.html

Gamespot gave it a 3.8. I liked it, sure it isn't great, and I only had time to play a couple of levels at a friends, but it was kind of fun. Which reminds me, I should ask my friend to lend me a copy of it.

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.

So do your friends and peers always play very high rated games?

Because I don't want to look pathetic by liking games that are not rated well.
I forgot to add this, Swein Forkbeard. You're looking pretty damn pathetic in my eyes by only wanting to play games that are rated well.

I forgot to add this, Swein Forkbeard. You're looking pretty damn pathetic in my eyes by only wanting to play games that are rated well.

sorry swein...........but QFT............

sorry swein...........but QFT............

Sorry Civfan but you could learn something from Swein, grammar. Can you please stop using so many ....s? And please use capitals. Just because it's the internet doesn't mean you are allowed to write like a breaindead fool. (No offense, just pelase clean it up a bit).

;):blush::goodjob::cool:frankly enough, I oenouygy stpoiudpo game liklew THEw LOred of thew RIngsd: THew BAtelk for MIddle EArth, and fI dsan'dt wawaroi to plaSOYe Mario Kart Wii at somebody's house.:lol::mischief:

;):blush::goodjob::cool:frankly enough, I oenouygy stpoiudpo game liklew THEw LOred of thew RIngsd: THew BAtelk for MIddle EArth, and fI dsan'dt wawaroi to plaSOYe Mario Kart Wii at somebody's house.:lol::mischief:

Never do that again.

Come on, that was FUNNY!!!!

Come on, that was FUNNY!

I was in grammar nazi mode :p

Wow, ok...but now I'll jsut haVe tO tYpE in GrAet grammAR....

Why can't we be friends?
Da-da-da-da-da-da-da...

Maybe it's a bit late to pipe into the *original* topic, but here's my view:

Computer shooters will always beat Console shooters. There is no way a joystick is going to compete with mouse and keyboard control. Sure, you can have some kind of auto-aimer, but that takes all the fun out of it. Usually, when an auto-aimer is used, you just try to pump the enemy full of bullets, not get a perfectly placed headshot.

The only thing console shooters have going is compatibility: With a console, you know the game is going to work, with a PC, its quite a bit less certain. Although, disturbingly, lately there have been games that get patches on the consoles.

Bah, I like joysticks better. A joystick does beat a mouse in my book for fast action. A mouse isn't any more or less accurate for me than a joystick. Accuracy comes in with skill in whichever device you prefer. It isn't like the game goes "Hey he is using a joystick, always shoot 2 degrees NW of the crosshairs until he learns to get a mouse." I guess look sensitivity is somewhat more "on the fly" so you may be able to get a minor minor advantage from that.
But the real reason I hate a mouse on a first person shooter is having a bogey on your 6 and you are picking up your mouse dragging left or right - run out of mousepad, pick up mouse dragging across again just to turn around. I suck at pulling about faces on a mouse. I play Battlefield 2142 online and a sure way to get me is to come up on my 6 o'clock. Because I can't get turned around in under 3 secs. And a 3 sec turn around for me is fast. Hell, sometimes I go too far... that sucks.

I will soon be buying a joystick for it so I can control myself a little better. I heard Xbox controller can be plugged in and used on PCs which makes sense and its little adapter looks like it would fit into te mouse slot. Anyone tried this before?

However, in the poll I voted computer because I like more of the shooter games that come out on PC than console. And that more accuratley answers the poll question.

EDIT: Swein another note on listening to reviewers even though its been bluntly covered already. That is the same as having critics tell you what to watch at the movies. The movies that get the best scores are usually foreign (note: I live in the USA) and usually dramas. Stuff like "The Piano" and so forth. I can't stand those movies. Casablanca is a "must see" but I couldn't care less. I would be more entertained watching Drop Dead Fred (which critics scoff at I bet) than most highly acclaimed titles. Scarlet letter anyone? :hammer2: Now what should I eat? Lets see what the critics have to say. I bet my barbeque burgers would get the boot for some fillet minon (which I hate - unless you throw some cheese on it and put it on a bun.) Food critics would browbeat some of my favorite dishes. Like Papa John's pizza, man that is the best! But A critic probably wouldn't agree. He would want me to spend 20 bucks on a pizza that I would probably find just "OK" or freakin nasty. Everyone's tastebuds are different. Just like everyone's entertainment values are different. I seriously can't figure out why people like WoW so much. I think the game downright sucks. It's boring and downright repetative. Honestly, I don't get the draw and I do enjoy MMOs. But lots of people love that game. But I aint gonna go buy and play some game I don't like because those people think its a perfect 10.

Everytime a PC FPS gamer plugs in a gamepad a truckload of kittens runs of a cliff and explodes.

Flevance, your absolutely going to get destroyed online if you try playing with a gamepad.

Lol, gamepad for PC, lol. It's just an excuse for lazy ports of console games to the PC.

A joystick would be nice for flying, I kind of wish I had one for X3.

Everytime a PC FPS gamer plugs in a gamepad a truckload of kittens runs of a cliff and explodes.

Flevance, your absolutely going to get destroyed online if you try playing with a gamepad.

A device is a device. There are still look sensitivity options. A mouse isn't any better than a joystick. If I use a joystick I can still use the keyboard right? I am better at using an Xbox (or double joystick) controller on FPSs than I am with a mouse. The accuracy of a mouse vs. a joystick boils down to your experience with both.

No one has listed a single reason why a mouse is better than a joystick. They have only said it is more accurate (which is an attribute to the player not the device) or that a mouse is just simply better. (Which means they probably have more experience with a mouse than a joystick.) A reason I will put up for the joystick is that it is impossible to run out of mousepad.

A device is a device. There are still look sensitivity options. A mouse isn't any better than a joystick. If I use a joystick I can still use the keyboard right? I am better at using an Xbox (or double joystick) controller on FPSs than I am with a mouse. The accuracy of a mouse vs. a joystick boils down to your experience with both.

No one has listed a single reason why a mouse is better than a joystick. They have only said it is more accurate (which is an attribute to the player not the device) or that a mouse is just simply better. (Which means they probably have more experience with a mouse than a joystick.) A reason I will put up for the joystick is that it is impossible to run out of mousepad.

I think the reason people say it's more accurate, is that a mouse typically requires far less manual dexterity to control than a game controller. You use your entire arm or forearm rather than individual fingers/thumb, and as a result it's easier for many people (myself included). Assuming perfect dexterity, it should be possible to achieve the exact same result for either controller, it's just possible to get that perfect control with a mouse at a lower dexterity level.

A device is a device. There are still look sensitivity options. A mouse isn't any better than a joystick. If I use a joystick I can still use the keyboard right? I am better at using an Xbox (or double joystick) controller on FPSs than I am with a mouse. The accuracy of a mouse vs. a joystick boils down to your experience with both.

No one has listed a single reason why a mouse is better than a joystick. They have only said it is more accurate (which is an attribute to the player not the device) or that a mouse is just simply better. (Which means they probably have more experience with a mouse than a joystick.) A reason I will put up for the joystick is that it is impossible to run out of mousepad.

There's a difference between a joystick and the analog sticks on a gamepad. Beginning with size.

Its a lot less painful to use for more than a couple of hours? Whenever I play a console, my thumbs and hands overall get tired from constantly grasping the controller. With a mouse, its a lot easier. Plus, a decent mouse can be so much more versatile. I can use almost only my mouse for just about every relatively modern FPS, relying on the keyboard for movement. Everything else requires a small combination of 2 buttons and a scroll wheel.

Like King Flevance said, it's just easier to use an analog stick. There isn't any explanation for it. It's just a person-specific thing.

EDIT: Thanks PrinceScamp.

I think the reason people say it's more accurate, is that a mouse typically requires far less manual dexterity to control than a game controller. You use your entire arm or forearm rather than individual fingers/thumb, and as a result it's easier for many people (myself included). Assuming perfect dexterity, it should be possible to achieve the exact same result for either controller, it's just possible to get that perfect control with a mouse at a lower dexterity level.

That makes sense. Although I am clumsy with the mouse for some reason. I always oversteer. I have used the heck out of joysticks (or analogs whatever you wanna call them.) and I love 'em. As for the sore fingers thing, I never get that personally. But the longest I will play a shooter game is about 5-6 hours. Usually though, its only 2-3.

Like King Flevance said, it's just easier to use a joystick. There isn't any explanation for it. It's just a person-specific thing.

I assume you mean gamepad/analog stick.

The joystick is the larger hand sized one while the analog stick is the thumb/finger controlled one.

Lol, gamepad for PC, lol. It's just an excuse for lazy ports of console games to the PC.

I dunno, I can't really see myself enjoying GTA or Pro Evo on the PC without a gamepad, no matter how well they converted it. Like FPS' seem to be best with a mouse-keyboard, certain console conversions are designed originally for gamepad use :)

A joystick would be nice for flying, I kind of wish I had one for X3.

And similarly, I can't play X-Wing/TIE Fighter without a joystick. I tried with the mouse, I really did...it just didn't feel right :lol: