Archive: 40 posts

---

Now I wan't to know why people think FPSs are fun?I'm just one of those people who is very hard to impress with games.I like violence in my video games depending on the type.I am not one of those people who hate to have violence in video games.But what makes me wonder is why the First Person Shooter genre is so popular( nearly everybody with a gaming console has a game of that genre).

2012-03-02 07:00:00 Author: wheelbbase911 Posts: 54

---

Because you can shoot people a bazilion times each minute! And if you get low on life, you hide in a corner sucking your thumb for 20 seconds or so until the blood falls off your face! And if you really want to mix it up, you throw grenades and stuff! Not many people can handle a genre this innovative and varied! Seriously now, I have no idea. I loathe realistic war FPS's with only 2 weapon slots, regenerative health and slow character movement. The market is just saturated with this kind of games. Maybe it's because some people are so obsessed with war, I don't know.

2012-03-02 08:35:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

Are they more fun than other games? Didn't noticed it

2012-03-02 09:47:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

It's probably do with the fact that FPS's are generally more responsive, than well everything really. For example the call of duty series has probably the faster responding controls for a console game ever and it's also the most popular FPS series too (can anyone see a connection?). Nothing beats super responsive controls, in a game like cod where fast paced is a must, it goes very well together. Then there's the competitive side of fps's, which is very very fun to play. FPS's generally serve as a good online game to play with friends too.

2012-03-02 10:56:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449

---

Call of Duty has the most responsive controls ever? Surely you jest! I mean, COD's controls aren't exactly bad but I've played a great deal of games whose controls were much more responsive, intuitive and smooth. Gears of War, Uncharted 2 and 3, God of War 3, Bayonetta, Vanquish, to cite a few off the top of my head. And neither of those belong to the FPS genre. Until now I've never played a game whose controls make me feel more powerful and free than Vanquish. The jet slide mechanic is so satisfying to use, I get goosebumps every time I slide away from a spot just in the nick of time to see it bombarded with missiles that were meant for me I tolerate FPS's when they're more than just the old realistic, gray/brown war shooters. Like Resistance with its crazy weapons (and Halo to a lesser extent, even though the latter is much more consistent than Resistance), Bioshock, Half Life, etc. But realistic war shooters, those have gotten samey, overdone and stale for a long time now.

2012-03-02 11:31:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

Big doses of respect for coming up with Vanquish and Bayonetta

2012-03-02 12:44:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

I think what everybody's missing here is online multiplayer. Majority of people just by FPSs to play online. Some of my friends haven't even touched the campaign modes in some games (like Resistance 3) just to play online. EDIT: I love FPS games.. Especially those like BF2, BF2142, and BF3 where you are playing other people and have lots of tanks, planes, helicopters and weapons at your disposal. (never did like COD much) Outthinking the enemy, working as a team to win the battle is great fun to me. Way back in the day, Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem were fun, but just playing AI enemies wasn't nearly as fun as playing those games against your buddies on a network. ..but it is all a matter of taste. I rest my case.

2012-03-02 14:08:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I love FPS games.. Especially those like BF2, BF2142, and BF3 where you are playing other people and have lots of tanks, planes, helicopters and weapons at your disposal. (never did like COD much) Outthinking the enemy, working as a team to win the battle is great fun to me. Way back in the day, Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem were fun, but just playing AI enemies wasn't nearly as fun as playing those games against your buddies on a network. ..but it is all a matter of taste.

2012-03-02 14:13:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

Playground evolution, its a better version of the pretend soldiers that we played as kids.

2012-03-02 14:18:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

Playground evolution, its a better version of the pretend soldiers that we played as kids. I always used to be the enemy. It was fun "killing" everybody, only to be killed in a dramatically cliche form by the hero. For some reason, though, our hero at the time was Neil Armstrong. Yeah...try playing a game with Neil Armstrong as the captain of a squad of soldiers, it's hilarious. /off-topic

2012-03-02 14:30:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

I think it has to do with the immersion the perspective of the game gives you. You feel like your more involved in the events of the game if your camera isn't revolving around someone you can see. Jeez, were pretty selfish, arent we? Not to mention most people thing toting a sniper around with them everywhere they go is "Bada ss" (Not at all really)

2012-03-02 20:35:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

I dunno mayb u jsut a noob come at me 1 on 1 PSITOLS ONLY

2012-03-02 21:21:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

I dunno mayb u jsut a noob come at me 1 on 1 PSITOLS ONLY lolz pistols sux ur such a n00b prestige to teh max

2012-03-02 22:22:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

---

U mad!? I got 13 kills using pistols when Playing in my friends house with BF3.But then I got knifed.Yay!For random pistol usage!

2012-03-03 00:13:00 Author: wheelbbase911 Posts: 54

---

FYI.. There is a BF3 thread if you want to swap stories. The only reason I mention it is I'd hate to derail the OP's thread and risk it getting locked when he was just curious why FPS's are fun. ..and now off to a few rounds of BF3.

2012-03-03 00:22:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

FYI.. There is a BF3 thread if you want to swap stories. The only reason I mention it is I'd hate to derail the OP's thread and risk it getting locked when he was just curious why FPS's are fun. ..and now off to a few rounds of BF3. And this is one of the reasons why I stopped posting in LBPC: we can't have fun with threads anymore. So... on topic and whanot, if everybody's buying the game, then most likely kids will eat it up, not knowing anything about it. Just like BF3, where most of the CoD community didn't know it existed, but as soon as the internet was bragging "BF3 is going to beat CoD's a**. It's more realistic lololo XDDD", then a lot of people went for BF3. It's popularity, I'm afraid, but what can you do...?

2012-03-03 03:09:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551

---

In my opinion, no game is bad... except for that Elf Bowling game that was on the NES at some point. The fun of FPSs is the adrenaline of killing the most pepole you can without being shot, and the permission to scream HA! TAKE THAT LOSER! everytimme you shoot someone. I do not really love aimy-shooty-reloady games, but they are better than... you know... social network games. But some pepole resign to play only that kind of games and don't like other generes, which I think is wrong. Almost everyone prefers Cod, BF, and in some cases even Halo, but I like another FPS, Microvolts, which is actually a TPS (Third Person Shooter).

2012-03-03 04:13:00 Author: ALEXhatena Posts: 1110

---

They aren't. Most of them are getting boring now because they are all conforming to the same formula set out by CoD (and not even the good CoD's either) so they are all the same. FPS' are fun when they are insane, like Quake.

2012-03-03 14:34:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I do not really love aimy-shooty-reloady games, but they are better than... you know... social network games. You mean like Farmville and Travian? Those aren't games. They're second jobs. Second jobs which you do voluntarily and don't get paid for.

2012-03-03 16:53:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

You mean like Farmville and Travian? Those aren't games. They're second jobs. Second jobs which you do voluntarily and don't get paid for. Good sir, your correction is pretty accurate.

2012-03-03 17:30:00 Author: ALEXhatena Posts: 1110

---

Call of Duty has the most responsive controls ever? Surely you jest! I mean, COD's controls aren't exactly bad but I've played a great deal of games whose controls were much more responsive, intuitive and smooth. Gears of War, Uncharted 2 and 3, God of War 3, Bayonetta, Vanquish, to cite a few off the top of my head. And neither of those belong to the FPS genre. Controls that were much more responsive, intuitive and smooth? Get off your high house. I would never post something I wasn't sure about. You know what doesn't lie? Numbers. Let me show you some. Input Lag: in milliseconds. Thanks for preparing a list of games. Gears of war 3: 8 frames 133.3ms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewj8GBboI7Q Uncharted 2: 10 frames, 166.7ms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHBy0gaICKM Uncharted 3: 240ms (Before Patch, most people would have played the game for the first time with this input lag though...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5-9oV9cXwY Vanquish: 7 frames, 116.7ms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGmEenK-FMQ) Couldn't find a input lag video on God of War 3 or Bayonetta for obvious reasons. (But if you could find some for me that would be great). Let's see MW3 input lag... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-modern-warfare-3-vs-battlefield-3 "Input lag tests for Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. The figure of 50ms we see for MW3 makes it the most responsive first-person shooter we've ever tested on console - the ultra-fast response defining its gameplay. Battlefield 3 at 116ms is ballpark with other 30FPS titles including Killzone 3." ultra-fast response? "With input lag measured at 50ms - or three frames - Modern Warfare 3 simply feels so much more crisp and responsive than any other first-person shooter we've played on the current-generation consoles. Somehow it even seems to be faster than other titles in the COD stable, as previously we've measured MW3's predecessors at anything between 66ms to 83ms latency. As swift and responsive as MW3 is, though, we should expect frame-rate drops to take a toll on that superlative level of response. However, where it matters most - in multiplayer - console frame-rates remain high, preserving that all-important feedback. As the video demonstrates, Battlefield 3 on console - running at 30FPS - clearly has a deficit in response in comparison with Modern Warfare 3. Our latency measurement of 116ms might not sound too fantastic (it's over twice the response time of its competitor) but it is roughly ballpark within a frame or two with a whole host of other console shooters. For reference, 116ms is the same as Killzone 3 and 16ms faster than Epic's Bulletstorm." 50ms. 3 frames? Over Twice or even 3 times as fast than all the games (i could find videos on) you listed. Like I said, MW3 controls can't be match because they're vastly responsive. Oddly enough, gameplay > Graphics.

2012-03-08 06:34:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449

---

You think good controls are all aboout the input lag ? It's like saying visual quality is all about screen resolution. Character animation, physics and feedback play a much larger role when it comes to control smoothness. As long as the input lag isn't too bad, half a dozen frames of control latency don't matter, and you know why? Because depending on the game's framerate, that's a fricking sixth of a second or even less. You take much, much longer to react and press a button than that. And in online multiplayer your internet connection will create much more lag than the controls ever will. All things considered, you'll never notice the control latency. So much for your "vastly responsive controls". You know what stuff you will notice? You notice Drake screwing up the way he lands and tripping about a little bit from time to time. It depicts him as more human and prone to making mistakes but without sacrificing the flow of gameplay. You notice how you can dodge attacks in Bayonetta, Vanquish and God of War just in the nick of time to avoid being damaged, and you how well the collision and hitboxes were designed when you're escaping an attack by centimeters. Or the way you're perfectly nailing platforming and chaining moves intuitively without giving it a second thought. That's smooth, responsive, intuitive, immersive gameplay and latency has little to do with it. That's gameplay that actually makes you feel empowered, like there's anything you can't do. That's something you don't get in realistic FPS games.

2012-03-08 13:33:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

MW3 proves Visual quality isn't about High res and doesn't sacrifice gameplay for. Online doesn't lose feedback, did you even read the above?" where it matters most - in multiplayer - console frame-rates remain high, preserving that all-important feedback." I'm not a vain prick, I could have jumped on and said COD sucks because it's popular lolololol and everyone who plays it is stupidz. You're lying to yourself if you don't believe the less input lag the more control you have, it's important as you gives you a greater feedback especially in aiming where it's important. Also I'd like to point out, it's not a fair comparison to use GOW III or Bayonetta they're not shooters, it's too hard to compare. What does drake stumbling got to do with control response? If want to talk about sacrificing gameplay have you seen him handle a grenade from a distance, he kneels down like he's constipated for like 5 seconds so much for not sacrificing gameplay. If you're barely hit by a grenade in mw3, you can still move you can still shoot. If you're hit by a flash you can still move and shoot. FPSs main core is they always maintain your FPS control in any situation. Also any FPS you see on the consoles are no where near realistic, they're arcade shooters meant and designed for fun. Animations in cod especially are extremely fast, for example reloading and you can always instantly switch to your gun or knife need be. How many times in a 3rd person shooter have you tried running through a door just to miss it completely, turn around and miss it again because the game is trying to create realistic animation mixed in with input lag? FPS benefits are they don't have to lunge around a character worrying about a realistic animation and they don't have as much input lag and since you have a greater view of the door you can judge more accordantly. You can belittle and pretend a few frames doesn't make a differences all you want but they clearly do.

2012-03-08 22:11:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449

---

If want to talk about sacrificing gameplay have you seen him handle a grenade from a distance, he kneels down like he's constipated for like 5 seconds so much for not sacrificing gameplay. If you're barely hit by a grenade in mw3, you can still move you can still shoot. If you're hit by a flash you can still move and shoot. That's part of the gameplay aspect of Uncharted, third person games allow for more character interactions and animations than FPS, because you have a greater sense of space around the protagonist, however, the better animations and interactions are traded for easier and more direct controlling in FPSs. One game that you can notice this pretty well is Mirror's Edge. It's a first-person freerunning game, and the first person allows you to have more control of the character, but it lacks situational awareness. If it was 3rd person, you would be more aware of your surroundings but it would be harder to time up the right moves. Also, who said that explosions don't knock people down?

2012-03-09 00:35:00 Author: gdn001 Posts: 5891

---

That's smooth, responsive, intuitive, immersive gameplay and latency has little to do with it. That's gameplay that actually makes you feel empowered, like there's anything you can't do. That's something you don't get in realistic FPS games. I think the ideas you're writing about are still pretty new. Prior to games like Killzone were there any first-person shooters that deliberately added latency to their controls? People used to make the distinction between games like Quake and Unreal Tournament versus games like Rainbow Six by calling the latter tactical shooters, but does the modern slew of FPS titles fall in that category?

2012-03-09 13:53:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

Not even gonna bother reading what's been written, i'm just responding to the question in the title: You get to shoot people. In the face... In the face... Yeah.

2012-03-09 14:22:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Or the butt!

2012-03-09 14:52:00 Author: ryryryan Posts: 3767

---

MW3 proves Visual quality isn't about High res and doesn't sacrifice gameplay for. Online doesn't lose feedback, did you even read the above?" where it matters most - in multiplayer - console frame-rates remain high, preserving that all-important feedback." I'm not a vain prick, I could have jumped on and said COD sucks because it's popular lolololol and everyone who plays it is stupidz. You're lying to yourself if you don't believe the less input lag the more control you have, it's important as you gives you a greater feedback especially in aiming where it's important. Also I'd like to point out, it's not a fair comparison to use GOW III or Bayonetta they're not shooters, it's too hard to compare. What does drake stumbling got to do with control response? If want to talk about sacrificing gameplay have you seen him handle a grenade from a distance, he kneels down like he's constipated for like 5 seconds so much for not sacrificing gameplay. If you're barely hit by a grenade in mw3, you can still move you can still shoot. If you're hit by a flash you can still move and shoot. FPSs main core is they always maintain your FPS control in any situation. Also any FPS you see on the consoles are no where near realistic, they're arcade shooters meant and designed for fun. Animations in cod especially are extremely fast, for example reloading and you can always instantly switch to your gun or knife need be. How many times in a 3rd person shooter have you tried running through a door just to miss it completely, turn around and miss it again because the game is trying to create realistic animation mixed in with input lag? FPS benefits are they don't have to lunge around a character worrying about a realistic animation and they don't have as much input lag and since you have a greater view of the door you can judge more accordantly. You can belittle and pretend a few frames doesn't make a differences all you want but they clearly do. It's irrelevant unless you are playing them on PC, because consoles controllers aren't accurate enough anyway for it to matter, hence the heavy auto-aim. You aren't playing them on PC, therefore the few ms difference makes no real difference at all. And just because you're presenting a load of negligible facts does not change the fact your are a fanboy. Nor does it change the fact that CoD sucks.

2012-03-09 15:19:00 Author: Unknown User

---

It's irrelevant unless you are playing them on PC, because consoles controllers aren't accurate enough anyway for it to matter, hence the heavy auto-aim. You aren't playing them on PC, therefore the few ms difference makes no real difference at all. And just because you're presenting a load of negligible facts does not change the fact your are a fanboy. Nor does it change the fact that CoD sucks. Whoa, you didn't say that out loud did you? Hide before the mob with torches and pitchforks arrives! MW3 proves Visual quality isn't about High res and doesn't sacrifice gameplay for. Online doesn't lose feedback, did you even read the above?" where it matters most - in multiplayer - console frame-rates remain high, preserving that all-important feedback." I'm not a vain prick, I could have jumped on and said COD sucks because it's popular lolololol and everyone who plays it is stupidz. You're lying to yourself if you don't believe the less input lag the more control you have, it's important as you gives you a greater feedback especially in aiming where it's important. Also I'd like to point out, it's not a fair comparison to use GOW III or Bayonetta they're not shooters, it's too hard to compare. What does drake stumbling got to do with control response? If want to talk about sacrificing gameplay have you seen him handle a grenade from a distance, he kneels down like he's constipated for like 5 seconds so much for not sacrificing gameplay. If you're barely hit by a grenade in mw3, you can still move you can still shoot. If you're hit by a flash you can still move and shoot. FPSs main core is they always maintain your FPS control in any situation. Also any FPS you see on the consoles are no where near realistic, they're arcade shooters meant and designed for fun. Animations in cod especially are extremely fast, for example reloading and you can always instantly switch to your gun or knife need be. How many times in a 3rd person shooter have you tried running through a door just to miss it completely, turn around and miss it again because the game is trying to create realistic animation mixed in with input lag? FPS benefits are they don't have to lunge around a character worrying about a realistic animation and they don't have as much input lag and since you have a greater view of the door you can judge more accordantly. You can belittle and pretend a few frames doesn't make a differences all you want but they clearly do. And you are lying to youself if you really believe latency is all that matters to make controls feel tight and smooth. Besides, if reduced input lag is so important to you that you think half a dozen frames makes a huge difference, why the hell don't you play with a wired controller like we all did when we were cavemen? Not succeeding in running through doors isn't something you blame on latency, it's something you blame on shoddily designed controls like RDR's and GTA4's redundant "press X to run" controls. Or in bad skills. By the way, this just in: grenade shrapnel hurts. You get caught in a grenade's blast radius and you're pretty lucky if the only consequence is unability to move for a few moments. Apalling, right? It's not like the purpose of a grenade is to cripple enemies or something like that. By "realistic war shooters" I mean the FPS's that are based on reality without any sci-fi-esque elements. And yes, I belittle them. I'm belittling a genre that hasn't had a meaningful innovation in years. A genre that means "safe bet" and "easy money" to publishers. I belittle COD because no matter how old, samey and recycled it gets, no matter how much they dumb down the gameplay, no matter how unbalanced and cheater-friendly the multiplayer is, it still sells millions every goddarned year. They could put a turd in a box instead of a gamedisc and it'd still sell millions. Meanwhile, games that really do something fresh, new and risky like Rayman Origins barely sell more than one single million copies. I do belittle these games, because they deserve it. True innovation and originality in games is almost a thing of the past and that's because the market is saturated with COD and its competitors.

2012-03-09 17:32:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

Whoa, you didn't say that out loud did you? Hide before the mob with torches and pitchforks arrives! And you are lying to youself if you really believe latency is all that matters to make controls feel tight and smooth. Besides, if reduced input lag is so important to you that you think half a dozen frames makes a huge difference, why the hell don't you play with a wired controller like we all did when we were cavemen? Not succeeding in running through doors isn't something you blame on latency, it's something you blame on shoddily designed controls like RDR's and GTA4's redundant "press X to run" controls. Or in bad skills. By the way, this just in: grenade shrapnel hurts. You get caught in a grenade's blast radius and you're pretty lucky if the only consequence is being unable to move for a few moments. Apalling, right? It's not like the purpose of a grenade is to cripple enemies or something like that. By "realistic war shooters" I mean the FPS's that are based on reality without any sci-fi-esque elements. And yes, I belittle them. I'm belittling a genre that hasn't had a meaningful innovation in years. A genre that means "safe bet" and "easy money" to publishers. I belittle COD because no matter how old, samey and recycled it gets, no matter how much they dumb down the gameplay, no matter how unbalanced and cheater-friendly the multiplayer is, it still sells millions every goddarned year. They could put a turd in a box instead of a gamedisc and it'd still sell millions. Meanwhile, games that really do something fresh, new and risky like Rayman Origins barely sell more than a million. I do belittle these games, because they deserve it. True innovation and originality in games is almost a thing of the past and that's because the market is saturated with COD and its competitors. I use a wired controller so that I don't run out of battery in the middle of 4+ hour Forza league races, and because it stops my Turtle Beach headset making a stupid noise from the FFB. So ha.

2012-03-09 18:47:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Why is a thread with "FUN" in the title have content to read that is all un fun? D: Lets fix this! I think TF2 does this perfectly because, well, I don't know. Most of the fun FPS games revolve around community and developer interaction. DICE has battlelog (Despite how I hate it), COD now is practically a friggin national sport with it's elite features. (Never said I like cod or this feature) and TF2 has lived for a long time because of the constant updates, guns, and hats. Not to mention it has an entire Steam network feature that was created for trading hats and items. Valve is actually one of the most involved game companies IMO, and thats why not a single game they have released has lacked in quality. But whatever, I'm no person habit scientist person. I don't know. I think people just need friends to shoot, because it seems every game with a social background has done well.

2012-03-10 01:47:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

By "realistic war shooters" I mean the FPS's that are based on reality without any sci-fi-esque elements. And yes, I belittle them. I'm belittling a genre that hasn't had a meaningful innovation in years. A genre that means "safe bet" and "easy money" to publishers. I belittle COD because no matter how old, samey and recycled it gets, no matter how much they dumb down the gameplay, no matter how unbalanced and cheater-friendly the multiplayer is, it still sells millions every goddarned year. They could put a turd in a box instead of a gamedisc and it'd still sell millions. Meanwhile, games that really do something fresh, new and risky like Rayman Origins barely sell more than one single million copies. I do belittle these games, because they deserve it. True innovation and originality in games is almost a thing of the past and that's because the market is saturated with COD and its competitors. I like games with a flare to it. That flare is the X factor of the game and the X factor needs to be creative and memorable or something that makes you want play again and again. For that reason I'm still playing Pokemon, Gran Turismo and Little Big Planet. Games to remember just needs to feel *right*. When I played BF3 the immersion was great but it didn't feel like as if it had anything special about it. To me it felt like there was no passion put into the design of the game play. Take LBP2 for example. Some of the levels aren't very immersive or ground breaking, but you can feel the effort put into the level, the complexity or the design will look like as if it was something that was toiled upon if any effort was put into it. But in BF3 it just felt reused and recycled. Like a plastic bottle you made into a flower pot.It maybe good for the environment but it still doesn't look as attractive as a flower pot that was crafted by hand and bought from a store. BF3's gameplay is safe, yes. But it feels bland and you can tell that some part of it was used by something that has served it's purpose. It's simply felt as if that it was not really something to *remember*.

2012-03-10 04:14:00 Author: wheelbbase911 Posts: 54

---

It's irrelevant unless you are playing them on PC, because consoles controllers aren't accurate enough anyway for it to matter, hence the heavy auto-aim. You aren't playing them on PC, therefore the few ms difference makes no real difference at all. And just because you're presenting a load of negligible facts does not change the fact your are a fanboy. Nor does it change the fact that CoD sucks. Man you're so right, the way you presented no proof at all then processed to call mine negligible, and then called me a fanboy? I didn't realise I was a fanboy? Man I feel like such a bad fanboy because I haven't actually brought the new cod, I better go buy MW3 and Cod Elite Club dlc right now. Cod still suck? I'm sure meta (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare)critic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2) and sales (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/11/modern-warfare-3-sells-6-5m-in-biggest-day-one-ever/) back that up? Good job, good job for setting me straight... I am NOT debating how good the game is, or if you, I or anyone likes it, I'm debating how essential a low input lag is to make a game FUN and MORE RESPONSIVE. If anyone bothered to read my post instead of typing up how I was wrong because they believe a award series sucks with no justifiable proof other than they're jealous of its success.... I said probably the best, console controls ever, pc has little to do with the discussion I'm putting forward. Consoles games used to be plagued with bad programmed controls and bad input lag, MW3 has has refined it to the point, with the use of sight aiming and a 50ms input lag rate that consoles can be extremely responsive without the aid of heavy auto aim. And I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series, so stop trying to throw petty immature excuses that try to make me out to be a dumb sheep because you don't have anything better to say. Whoa, you didn't say that out loud did you? Hide before the mob with torches and pitchforks arrives! And you are lying to youself if you really believe latency is all that matters to make controls feel tight and smooth. Besides, if reduced input lag is so important to you that you think half a dozen frames makes a huge difference, why the hell don't you play with a wired controller like we all did when we were cavemen? Not succeeding in running through doors isn't something you blame on latency, it's something you blame on shoddily designed controls like RDR's and GTA4's redundant "press X to run" controls. Or in bad skills. By the way, this just in: grenade shrapnel hurts. You get caught in a grenade's blast radius and you're pretty lucky if the only consequence is unability to move for a few moments. Apalling, right? It's not like the purpose of a grenade is to cripple enemies or something like that. By "realistic war shooters" I mean the FPS's that are based on reality without any sci-fi-esque elements. And yes, I belittle them. I'm belittling a genre that hasn't had a meaningful innovation in years. A genre that means "safe bet" and "easy money" to publishers. I belittle COD because no matter how old, samey and recycled it gets, no matter how much they dumb down the gameplay, no matter how unbalanced and cheater-friendly the multiplayer is, it still sells millions every goddarned year. They could put a turd in a box instead of a gamedisc and it'd still sell millions. Meanwhile, games that really do something fresh, new and risky like Rayman Origins barely sell more than one single million copies. I do belittle these games, because they deserve it. True innovation and originality in games is almost a thing of the past and that's because the market is saturated with COD and its competitors. I remember playing Killzone 2, It was my first FPS for my PS3. I knew something felt strange with the controls but I concluded that it's because of the stick/console FPS's performed poorly. I remember buying MW2 because all the praise the first one received and I was surprised how well the controls responded, I was alarmed how you could move the crosshair so fast around but yet have pin point precision especially when aiming down the iron sights. I urge you to play a un-patched verison of KIllzone 2 and MW3 and tell me there's no difference and say it doesn't matter. This article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/killzone3-pad-lag-measured-blog-entry) talks about how much a little improvement in response improves the game dramatically. I myself believe Killzone 2 input lag was not deliberate it was the post-proccessing effects which caused the input lag. "Or in bad skills." Really? Being immature is not helping your point of view. You know what? More people seem to share my belief as well, the ones you'd actually find in the industry. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article "Our mantra of '60FPS 60FPS 60FPS!' would all be for nothing if we had horrible input lag," says Infinity Ward's Drew McCoy. "It is extremely helpful being able to see the physical, measurable, result of what is going on in our game - especially if things change or if someone in the office complains that things 'don’t feel right'. If anyone cares about the end user experience of their game, they should be heavily invested in their input latency." Criterion senior engineer Alex Fry concurred in our expansive Burnout tech interview. "We try to get the latency down to the lowest possible, because it's just a better experience. It's one of the reasons Burnout runs at 60FPS." In basic terms, controller latency is very easy to define. It's the time, usually measured in frames or milliseconds, between pressing the button on your controller and the appropriate action kicking in on-screen during gameplay. The longer the delay, the less responsive the controls, and the more unsatisfying the game can feel. Unless you have the credentials and have shipped one or more Triple AAA titles, then please say so and explain better why input lag doesn't really matter in more detail. Just a little bit Digital Foundry concluded at the end But in the meantime, while overall "pings" between console and gamer remain rather high, the bottom line seems to be that players are now used to it, to the point where developers - like Infinity Ward - centred on getting the very lowest possible latencies are using that to give their games an edge over the competition. Call of Duty's ultra-crisp response is one of the key reasons why it's a cut above its rivals, and it's a core part of a gameplay package that will once again top the charts this Christmas. You talked about how Uncharted 3 didn't sacrifice the flow of gameplay, where I pointed being hit by a grenade does, where in a FPS they keep you restrained in a FPS view without sacrifice gameplay when hit by a grenade, but that's another discussion. You keep saying innovating, innovating, like the COD series doesn't, 50ms input lag not a innovation? The PS3 XMB has that on default, one of the article mentioned it's impossible to get any better on current systems. I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series.I have simply stated input lag can help determine how enjoyable the game can be (a game isn't all about how responsive the controls can be), I have gaven many varying sources that back up my claim even from reputable game companies who have made and shipped many games, hell cods sales alone should be the only proof I need. Think of this, have you ever played a game where the frame-rate goes to a crawl? Pretty enjoyable right, eh? I refused to discuss this any further, until you can show me some proof that I can see, where it states input lag doesn't matter and is a better opinion then from the developers I mentioned. Please, leave your bias and hate at the door, and please submit a good rational reply, thank you.

2012-03-10 04:20:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449

---

Man you're so right, the way you presented no proof at all then processed to call mine negligible, and then called me a fanboy? I didn't realise I was a fanboy? Man I feel so bad that I haven't actually brought the new cod, I better go buy MW3 and Cod Elite Club dlc right now. Then you said, cod still suck? I'm sure meta (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare)critic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2) and sales (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/11/modern-warfare-3-sells-6-5m-in-biggest-day-one-ever/) back that opinion up? Good job, good job for setting me straight... I am NOT debating how good the game is, or if you, I or anyone likes it, I'm debating how essential a low input lag is to make a game FUN and MORE RESPONSIVE. If anyone bothered to read my post instead of typing up how I was wrong because they believe a award series sucks with no justifiable proof other than they're jealous of its success.... I said probably the best, console controls ever, pc has little to do with the discussion I'm putting forward. Consoles games used to be plagued with bad programmed controls and bad input lag, MW3 has has refined it to the point, with the use of sight aiming and a 50ms input lag rate that consoles can be extremely responsive without the aid of heavy auto aim. And I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series, so stop trying to throw petty immature excuses that try to make me out to be a dumb sheep because you don't have anything better to say. I remember playing Killzone 2, It was my first FPS for my PS3. I knew something felt strange with the controls but I concluded that it's because of the stick/console FPS's performed poorly. I remember buying MW2 because all the praise the first one received and I was surprised how well the controls responded, I was alarmed how you could move the crosshair so fast around but yet have pin point precision especially when aiming down the iron sights. I urge you to play a un-patched verison of KIllzone 2 and MW3 and tell me there's no difference and say it doesn't matter. This article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/killzone3-pad-lag-measured-blog-entry) talks about how much a little improvement in response improves the game dramatically. I myself believe Killzone 2 input lag was not deliberate it was the post-proccessing effects which caused the input lag. "Or in bad skills." Really? Being immature is not going helping your point of view. You know what? More people seem to share my belief as well, the ones you'd actually find in the industry. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article Unless you have the credentials and have shipped one or more Triple AAA titles, then please say so and explain better why input lag doesn't really matter in more detail. Just a little bit Digital Foundry concluded at the end You talked about how Uncharted 3 didn't sacrifice the flow of gameplay, where I pointed being hit by a grenade does, where in a FPS they keep you restrained in a FPS view without sacrifice gameplay when hit by a grenade, but that's another discussion. You keep saying innovating, innovating, like the COD series doesn't, 50ms input lag not a innovation? The PS3 XMB has that on default, one of the article mentioned it's impossible to get any better on current systems. I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series.I have simply stated input lag can help determine how enjoyable the game can be (a game isn't all about how responsive the controls can be), I have gaven many varying sources that back up my claim even from reputable game companies who have made and shipped many games, hell cods sales alone should be the only proof I need. Think of this, have you ever played a game where the frame-rate goes to a crawl? Pretty enjoyable right, eh? I refused to discuss this any further, until you can show me some proof that I can see, where it states input lag doesn't matter and is a better opinion then from the developers I mentioned. Please, leave your bias and hate at the door, and please submit a good rational reply, thank you. Rage much. Anyways quick and responsive controls make gameplay flow faster and easier. but that has nothing to do to why FPS genre games are fun.

2012-03-10 06:23:00 Author: wheelbbase911 Posts: 54

---

Consoles games used to be plagued with bad programmed controls and bad input lag That depends what games you're talking about. Console fighting games like Guilty Gear have low input lag as a priority. I myself believe Killzone 2 input lag was not deliberate it was the post-proccessing effects which caused the input lag. That really flies in the face of what the developers have said in the past. The clunky and weighty controls were part of their design philosophy in the first game. If you want to compare input latency on consoles you should really compare the Quake and UT ports on the PS2 which placed emphasis on responsive controls unlike Killzone.

2012-03-10 14:05:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

Man you're so right, the way you presented no proof at all then processed to call mine negligible, and then called me a fanboy? I didn't realise I was a fanboy? Man I feel like such a bad fanboy because I haven't actually brought the new cod, I better go buy MW3 and Cod Elite Club dlc right now. Cod still suck? I'm sure meta (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare)critic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2) and sales (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/11/modern-warfare-3-sells-6-5m-in-biggest-day-one-ever/) back that up? Good job, good job for setting me straight... I am NOT debating how good the game is, or if you, I or anyone likes it, I'm debating how essential a low input lag is to make a game FUN and MORE RESPONSIVE. If anyone bothered to read my post instead of typing up how I was wrong because they believe a award series sucks with no justifiable proof other than they're jealous of its success.... I said probably the best, console controls ever, pc has little to do with the discussion I'm putting forward. Consoles games used to be plagued with bad programmed controls and bad input lag, MW3 has has refined it to the point, with the use of sight aiming and a 50ms input lag rate that consoles can be extremely responsive without the aid of heavy auto aim. And I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series, so stop trying to throw petty immature excuses that try to make me out to be a dumb sheep because you don't have anything better to say. I remember playing Killzone 2, It was my first FPS for my PS3. I knew something felt strange with the controls but I concluded that it's because of the stick/console FPS's performed poorly. I remember buying MW2 because all the praise the first one received and I was surprised how well the controls responded, I was alarmed how you could move the crosshair so fast around but yet have pin point precision especially when aiming down the iron sights. I urge you to play a un-patched verison of KIllzone 2 and MW3 and tell me there's no difference and say it doesn't matter. This article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/killzone3-pad-lag-measured-blog-entry) talks about how much a little improvement in response improves the game dramatically. I myself believe Killzone 2 input lag was not deliberate it was the post-proccessing effects which caused the input lag. "Or in bad skills." Really? Being immature is not helping your point of view. You know what? More people seem to share my belief as well, the ones you'd actually find in the industry. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article Unless you have the credentials and have shipped one or more Triple AAA titles, then please say so and explain better why input lag doesn't really matter in more detail. Just a little bit Digital Foundry concluded at the end You talked about how Uncharted 3 didn't sacrifice the flow of gameplay, where I pointed being hit by a grenade does, where in a FPS they keep you restrained in a FPS view without sacrifice gameplay when hit by a grenade, but that's another discussion. You keep saying innovating, innovating, like the COD series doesn't, 50ms input lag not a innovation? The PS3 XMB has that on default, one of the article mentioned it's impossible to get any better on current systems. I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series.I have simply stated input lag can help determine how enjoyable the game can be (a game isn't all about how responsive the controls can be), I have gaven many varying sources that back up my claim even from reputable game companies who have made and shipped many games, hell cods sales alone should be the only proof I need. Think of this, have you ever played a game where the frame-rate goes to a crawl? Pretty enjoyable right, eh? I refused to discuss this any further, until you can show me some proof that I can see, where it states input lag doesn't matter and is a better opinion then from the developers I mentioned. Please, leave your bias and hate at the door, and please submit a good rational reply, thank you. Your entire reply is invalid because CoD2 ****s all over every other CoD game. Your move. Edit: xD, 'dis guy thinks the 'pinpoint accuracy' is from the controls being good... IT'S ****ING AUTO-AIM YOU ****.

2012-03-11 03:38:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I remember playing Killzone 2, It was my first FPS for my PS3. I knew something felt strange with the controls but I concluded that it's because of the stick/console FPS's performed poorly. I remember buying MW2 because all the praise the first one received and I was surprised how well the controls responded, I was alarmed how you could move the crosshair so fast around but yet have pin point precision especially when aiming down the iron sights. I urge you to play a un-patched verison of KIllzone 2 and MW3 and tell me there's no difference and say it doesn't matter. This article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/killzone3-pad-lag-measured-blog-entry) talks about how much a little improvement in response improves the game dramatically. I myself believe Killzone 2 input lag was not deliberate it was the post-proccessing effects which caused the input lag. "Or in bad skills." Really? Being immature is not helping your point of view. You know what? More people seem to share my belief as well, the ones you'd actually find in the industry. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article Unless you have the credentials and have shipped one or more Triple AAA titles, then please say so and explain better why input lag doesn't really matter in more detail. Just a little bit Digital Foundry concluded at the end You talked about how Uncharted 3 didn't sacrifice the flow of gameplay, where I pointed being hit by a grenade does, where in a FPS they keep you restrained in a FPS view without sacrifice gameplay when hit by a grenade, but that's another discussion. You keep saying innovating, innovating, like the COD series doesn't, 50ms input lag not a innovation? The PS3 XMB has that on default, one of the article mentioned it's impossible to get any better on current systems. I am NOT a fanboy of the COD series.I have simply stated input lag can help determine how enjoyable the game can be (a game isn't all about how responsive the controls can be), I have gaven many varying sources that back up my claim even from reputable game companies who have made and shipped many games, hell cods sales alone should be the only proof I need. Think of this, have you ever played a game where the frame-rate goes to a crawl? Pretty enjoyable right, eh? I refused to discuss this any further, until you can show me some proof that I can see, where it states input lag doesn't matter and is a better opinion then from the developers I mentioned. Please, leave your bias and hate at the door, and please submit a good rational reply, thank you. Again, I'm not even saying latency and framerate don't matter at all. Of course it matters, because no one wants to play laggy games with 5fps. But the fact that no one wants to play games with a crappy latency and crappy framerate IS A GIVEN. What I've been saying is that it doesn't matter nearly as much as other stuff like controls/gameplay design, animations and feedback to make the game feel good. And no, 50ms lag isn't an innovation. Not even close. It's just a tiny improvement, something that doesn't alter or evolve the way we see gaming. It doesn't create any new gameplay notions, mechanics or conventions. True innovation goes much beyond simple tweaks. The way Minecraft lets you shape and create worlds, that's innovation. LBP's easy to use but deep and complex create mode and the community structure it built for sharing of user-generated content, that's innovation. Gears of War 2 innovated when it introduced Horde mode, which every game with co-op multiplayer copied. Uncharted 2 innovated when it came up with action setpieces you'd normally see in a cutscene but remain playable. Demon's Souls innovated with the online elements that influence your experience but are designed in such a way that doesn't interfere with the spooky and lonely atmosphere. All that stuff is innovation; new and exciting gameplay elements. The input lag, resolution, framerate, those are just technical aspects that evolve naturally over time as the technology of the platform they're in evolves too. Improving them doesn't mean crap in the big picture. By the way, how am I being immature? You really miss the doorways in games? Are you serious?

2012-03-11 20:48:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452

---

because no one wants to play laggy games with 5fps Obviously Bethesda didn't get that memo.

2012-03-11 21:41:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

Sorry if I'm kind of just jumping in this debate here, but for me, a huge reason why I enjoy Call of Duty is because it just feels right. The modern FPS's that I've played for a reasonably long amount of time are Halo Reach, BFBC2, and the COD's since MW2. Now Halo feels alright for me, but I find it a little hard to aim and I hate how long it takes to kill people, though that's just really my opinion. The physics felt a little off for me as well. Now matter how long I played Battlefield, I never felt like I knew what I was doing, even when I was doing well and winning. I had awful aim, couldn't tell when I was hitting people, had no clue how many bullets it took to kill people. Usually I would just sit behind a rock, spot people and spray because that's all I could do well. Now COD for some reason just works for me; the controls and the gameplay are smooth, and hand me a shotgun, sniper, automatic, or anything, and I'd be confident that I could shoot a person in front of me and kill him reasonably with no hitches. I don't really know how to explain it further, and I honestly don't care what the reasons are (like high FPS, aim assist, or whatever), but when I play COD, it just feels like that's how FPS's should work.

2012-03-11 22:12:00 Author: metsfan1025 Posts: 181

---

There are some FPS that I like. I own CoD but barely play it, and I never even want to play it's campaign. Campaigns on FPS usually suck, since they only really try to make good online play, but I found that the BF3 campaign was actually really fun. Online first person shooters are fun, like BF3. Me and my friend set up our PS3's right beside eachother, and we played Battlefield online. It was really fun when all the buildings we were in kept getting blown up, and when we would sneak into the enemy's base to plant the bomb. It would almost be the same with headsets. So if you're to play BF3, I recommend playing it with a friend. Well, that's why I think First person shooters are fun.

2012-03-12 19:29:00 Author: TheMonkeyBlade Posts: 687

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.