Archive: 21 posts

---

top 3 reasons Why do I love FPS for online ps3?? #3= You guys should know this is because it's free online play verus the $50 a month for 360 live. #2= I like to chat with alot of people online with the bluetooth headpiece. and the real reason why do I love FPS for online is?? #1= If you playing against me. You better be on the top of your game because if not you going to be dominated by the MUFFINMAN!!!!!!!! That's my top 3 reasons Why do I love FPS for online?? if you like you can add me to your friend list on psn and we can get some battles together. (my ps3 is being service right now but getting it back to dominate the FPS scene

2008-10-13 00:42:00 Author: muffinman701 Posts: 37

---

This needs to be moved to General Game Discussion. It's rather out-of-place, here. But yeah, with the PSN I don't have to pay the cost of an entire game per year just to get online. The other two points you made don't apply to me.

2008-10-13 00:59:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

I don't care for talking to strangers over the internet, unless its by text. I just don't like actually talking to people that I don't know.

2008-10-13 01:56:00 Author: alexbull_uk Posts: 1287

---

I also love FPS, but the on;y one I have for PS3 is Battlefeild Bad Company, I am going to buy R2 or CoD5 when they come out, I have also been looking at SOCOM but it's 3rd person and I am not sure if I would like that or not

2008-10-13 02:16:00 Author: Jaegernaut Posts: 43

---

Xbox Live is $50/Year, not per month. Not that it matters, seeing as I haven't played my 360 since I bought my PS3 two months ago.

2008-10-13 04:41:00 Author: jaredririe20 Posts: 3

---

I for one don't like pure shoot 'em up games... but that's because my friend has no life and totally owned me so many times in FPSes that I grew to hate them. I might recover... someday.

2008-10-13 05:03:00 Author: Code1337 Posts: 3476

---

BT headset is pretty nice but, you've gotta admit that it's really nice for Xbox360 owners that a headset is included in EVERY Xbox360 box. It gets irritating on PSN when you get into a game and the first thing you hear is, 'holy crap, someone with a mic!' :-p Personally, I play most of my FPS's on the ol' 360 but, I'm picking up Far Cry 2 for the PS3 and if I ever come across the muffin man.... I'll be sure to have my game up. Whether my game is enough to handle the muffin man... that's a story for another day.

2008-10-13 06:34:00 Author: 1000101 Posts: 192

---

I play a wide variety of games, including FPS's. Do you have Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2? I love that game. I noticed that Creative is the only one on my friends list from here that has played it. >_>

2008-10-13 06:40:00 Author: Unknown User

---

BT headset is pretty nice but, you've gotta admit that it's really nice for Xbox360 owners that a headset is included in EVERY Xbox360 box. It gets irritating on PSN when you get into a game and the first thing you hear is, 'holy crap, someone with a mic!' :-p Personally, I play most of my FPS's on the ol' 360 but, I'm picking up Far Cry 2 for the PS3 and if I ever come across the muffin man.... I'll be sure to have my game up. Whether my game is enough to handle the muffin man... that's a story for another day. I'm with 1000101 on this one. The headsets with the 360 are wired, but at least it means you get plenty of opponents with headpieces. It's annoying how many people do act like idiots, but the mute button is there for a reason. It's nice actually having a full team to talk to most of the time rather than one player. I also play my FPS's on the 360. Dedicated servers and less lag. It might cost ?40 a year, but if Sony put the same kind of dedication and service level and most importantly, speed into PSN, i'd pay for it. If they charged for what they offer now I wouldn't.

2008-10-13 07:29:00 Author: flakmagnet Posts: 1084

---

I play a wide variety of games, including FPS's. Do you have Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2? I love that game. I noticed that Creative is the only one on my friends list from here that has played it. >_> Uh, how did you know that? >_>

2008-10-13 11:02:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Uh, how did you know that? >_> Uhm, whatever you do, just don't look try to find a camera underneath your bedpost. O_o Actually, if you go to the Leaderboards, you can see your friends rankings. You're the only one with any stats. Do you have RSV2?

2008-10-13 11:10:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I personally find playing any FPS on any console to be frustrating. The main aspect of the game is aiming, and if you can't do that properly then you're pretty much screwed. I, for one, find aiming with a joystick to be much harder than using a mouse, but I've heard people claim that the joystick is more precise and better than a mouse (I'm not sure where they're coming from) (EDIT: for example: Uncharted... I am still miffed about that game simply because I had to aim with the joystick... I won't go into detail though) So, until I figure out the 'magic' in aiming with a joystick I'm probably just going to play my FPS's on the computer X_X As for the headset... Bluetooth? I hate those things. They're very uncomfortable. I use a USB headset which works just fine, if not better than when I tried to Bluetooth (I tried using a bluetooth in one particular game and my friends were complaining about constant static coming from my mic...) As for gaming online... I like playing online, it's great =P. It seems to be more exciting fighting a group of enemies when you know that someone else is actually controlling them rather than an artificial intelligence. However, I also like being able to join up with some friends and co-operatively bash some AI as well. Enough rambling from me for now.

2008-10-13 17:26:00 Author: Ozymandias Posts: 223

---

I'm a people person.. I talk to everyone xD And nobody owns me at CoD4, not when I'm in the zone

2008-10-13 17:28:00 Author: DrunkMiffy Posts: 2758

---

you don't wanna read itI personally find playing any FPS on any console to be frustrating. The main aspect of the game is aiming, and if you can't do that properly then you're pretty much screwed. I, for one, find aiming with a joystick to be much harder than using a mouse, but I've heard people claim that the joystick is more precise and better than a mouse (I'm not sure where they're coming from) (EDIT: for example: Uncharted... I am still miffed about that game simply because I had to aim with the joystick... I won't go into detail though) So, until I figure out the 'magic' in aiming with a joystick I'm probably just going to play my FPS's on the computer X_X As for the headset... Bluetooth? I hate those things. They're very uncomfortable. I use a USB headset which works just fine, if not better than when I tried to Bluetooth (I tried using a bluetooth in one particular game and my friends were complaining about constant static coming from my mic...) As for gaming online... I like playing online, it's great =P. It seems to be more exciting fighting a group of enemies when you know that someone else is actually controlling them rather than an artificial intelligence. However, I also like being able to join up with some friends and co-operatively bash some AI as well. Enough rambling from me for now. Joysticks are awesome! I bought a Xbox Wireless controller for Windows just for that, I find it much easier and enjoyable to play games like Bioshock, Brothers in Arms or Assassin's Creed this way. And they rumble, which is unique to joysticks unless you have Philips amBX, which is AWESOME!

2008-10-13 18:02:00 Author: illyism Posts: 146

---

Allow me to make sure something, here: A joystick is a large, hand-sized device which you rotate your wrist to direct. Also known as the flight stick, or the arcade stick. An analog stick, however is a thumb-only control used on console controllers for the past few generations. That's what you're thinking of. Ozymandias, the reason is that on consoles, with the dual-analog controls, first-person shooters take longer to get used to. It's due to the sensitivity. It varies from game to game, so there's an adjustment period for each one. However, it's a skill just as much as using a mouse is. They're different, just like that. Aiming in pretty much every PC FPS is the same, the only difference is what all the keys aside from WSAD do. (As well as secondary fire vs. zoom vs. grenade right-click.) So although it does take some adjustment, a first-person shooter on the computer is quicker. For example, when I started playing Call of Duty 4, I was terrible at it, even though I've had some pretty decent experience with console shooters. The reason was because the movement and the aiming just felt incredibly wild, and so it took me considerable time to acquire a target, and then longer to actually shoot it. (That opening level was pretty lost on me.) However, as I continued to play, I adjusted to it, and got better. After a couple hours of playing, it all got more and more natural, and it wasn't long before it wasn't as much me guiding my controller as much as me guiding my character. (That's when you know you've broken through.) And then I got Battlefield: Bad Company. And that has an entirely different feel, and so I had to adjust to that. But I did, and now I'm fluent with that, as well. Also, you may have the same problem as I once had. I started out my console shooter experience trying to use standard look. Up is up, down is down. It just didn't feel right. Very counter-intuitive, and I simple couldn't handle it. So I went inverted. It quickly became much more natural, and I could then improve on my skill and familiarity with it, rather than struggling to wrap my head around the controls. Odd thing is that with mouse, I'm standard. So play around with that for a bit. But remember it takes practice. It also takes control, because knowing what sensitivity of input to use is key. Admittedly, analog sticks are not as good for aiming. At least as far as precision goes. They don't have the fraction minutes-of-angle and stability that a mouse does. However, they're not as far off as some people suggest, because proper use of its subtleties can have a very similar effect. It's just not as great for sniping. This is due to the fact that without the proper degree of skill, people will try to fine-tune their aim using subtle analog control. But they'll find it's either too slow, and then overcorrect, or too fast, and both over and undercorrect. However, despite its shortcomings in the precisi-aim department, I find it's actually better when it comes to turning. This will likely be controversial, as there will be many mouse advocates who say the mouse is still better at this. But the fact remains that you have to frequently pick up and relocate the mouse when you're turning, and although this can become second-nature and hardly noticed, it's still there, whereas with analog sticks the turning is continual and constant. Thus, there are situations where that one picking up of the mouse to relocate can result in death, where that wouldn't happen with an analog. Also, the analog is better for movement. With an analog, the player has much better control over their character's movement. The player can, without having to tap the keys repeatedly, finely control the speed at which they move. This comes into play best with more stealth-oriented games, where that fine control is paramount. Also, the specific direction can be guided using the analogs, as opposed to, again, tapping with WSAD controls. This is not to say that the keyboard cannot perform the same job, but the analog is still better. In conclusion, both are very adequate control systems, both with their own shortcomings and strengths, but each holding their own very well. They each require a different skill set, but are both very effective for use inside the first-person (as well as the third-person, which I failed to mention but falls largely inside the same category (although the TPS may lean in favor of the console, but that's another topic)) shooter. For those of you who actually read that, thank you for your time.

2008-10-13 18:36:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

I actually read that. It's well thought out. When I made the jump from PC FPS to console FPS, I missed my mouse dearly. Now, I can't get by without my 360 controller. I use it for the PC now. It's preferable for comfort and ease of access to the buttons. Yes, the aiming suffers as a result, but you can be more precise with your character's movements than with the WASD method.

2008-10-13 19:24:00 Author: flakmagnet Posts: 1084

---

Yes, I meant to say Analog stick, my bad. Keep in mind we're talking about first person shooters, not stealth games... Platformers and stuff I can understand just fine using a controller... as for having to lift up the mouse, usually in FPS games I can move the mouse from its center point on the pad to the outer edge and my character would have spun around about 2 times, and unless it's a first person ballet-performance-simulator then it's not really a problem. In addition to that, I can spin my character around instantly if I notice danger from behind, where a controller I have to hold the stick to the right and wait for my guy to turn around... but if I set the sensitivity on the stick high so I can turn then I won't be able to aim right. As for the character precision, I can agree with you. But, in FPS games you're going to be going full speed most of the time to be a harder target. Also, someone was telling me how in Max Payne when he was trippin' (or whatever) and he had to walk through a void with a very tiny path on the ground without stepping off, they said that they had an extremely hard time with it. I don't know if this has anything to do with it but when i tried it (on the computer) I got it right the first time... *shrug* Also, something that controllers have over the keyboard/mouse nowadays is button sensitivity. Keyboard buttons are either on or off. The Sixaxis (I don't have a Dualshock yet) has touch sensitive buttons and triggers. Those of you who have played a game where you drive in a car and hold down the R2 button will find it satisfying that pressing on it lighter gives it less gas etc. Or, in the case of a certain game you may know of, while holding an enemy with the R1 button you can press it harder to choke them (or when throwing a grenade you can hold the aim button lightly for an underhand toss or tighter for an overhead). In LittleBigPlanet holding down the trigger buttons to move your arms will have the hands out in a normal position, but holding the button down harder will make them points, give a peace sign etc. This is something that the keyboard and mouse setup doesn't have that the consoles benefit from =P (that wasn't an example of an FPS though, hehe) Oh well, I guess I'll let the console players enjoy their version of the game while I enjoy my version of the game, and leave it at that... but that's just my personal preference.

2008-10-13 21:29:00 Author: Ozymandias Posts: 223

---

Keep in mind we're talking about first person shooters, not stealth games... Ghost Recon? Any tactical shooters? Heck, even CoD4 has some sort of stealth element to it. Simply because something is a first-person shooter doesn't mean that it's best to run around guns blazing constantly. Anyway, sure, have personal preference. But you've just not spent enough time playing console shooters to be fluent with them, that's all. (Also, that certain shooter of which you were saying really should get a PS3 version. It'd be the only consistent way for most people to play it without scaling it considerably.)

2008-10-13 21:37:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

(Also, that certain shooter of which you were saying really should get a PS3 version. It'd be the only consistent way for most people to play it without scaling it considerably.) (my bad, we're thinking of different games because this game was on the PS3 =O) As for CoD4... yes there were some stealth elements in singleplayer, but I don't remember having to walk at any point to avoid detection. What I wish that shooters had these days, though, is what Red orchestra has, and that would be crouch-sprinting... but that's a bit irrelevant *nods* Tactical shooters... I can't remember the last one I played because I'm not very good at them really X_X (would Brothers in Arms be considered one? That was a cool game but there's a reason I don't play RTS games hehe) EDIT: I'm sorry I got this off topic, my bad.

2008-10-13 21:49:00 Author: Ozymandias Posts: 223

---

(my bad, we're thinking of different games because this game was on the PS3 =O) As for CoD4... yes there were some stealth elements in singleplayer, but I don't remember having to walk at any point to avoid detection. What I wish that shooters had these days, though, is what Red orchestra has, and that would be crouch-sprinting... but that's a bit irrelevant *nods* Tactical shooters... I can't remember the last one I played because I'm not very good at them really X_X (would Brothers in Arms be considered one? That was a cool game but there's a reason I don't play RTS games hehe) (Ohhh...THAT game. Sorry, I was thinking of Crysis.) In multiplayer of CoD4, that's where you really like that control. Being able to escape detection in some specific game modes, as well as getting the right distance around the corner so you don't get shot (more than necessary) but have the open window for laying down fire. As well as playing sniper. It's not absolutely necessary, hardly, but it really helps play into your hand if you use it well. BiA is kinda like that, yeah. But essentially, as tactical shooters are the counterpoint to run-and-gun shooting, that realism means that stealth and cover are paramount. Doesn't mean they can't get scrappy, though. Just means you have to be more skillful at not getting shot when it comes down to that.

2008-10-13 22:02:00 Author: Mark D. Stroyer Posts: 632

---

Uhm, whatever you do, just don't look try to find a camera underneath your bedpost. O_o Actually, if you go to the Leaderboards, you can see your friends rankings. You're the only one with any stats. Do you have RSV2? Yesh, yesh I do.

2008-10-14 13:45:00 Author: Unknown User

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.