Jump to content


Unreal Tournament 3


  • Please log in to reply
355 replies to this topic

#21 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 27 May 2007 - 12:03 AM

Even if few people can play it now (which may be too pessimistic), the game should have a nice long sales life into the future as machines get faster.

#22 pwn1j

pwn1j

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 27 May 2007 - 12:04 AM

well basically i'm saying that in the commercials it seems like they are always getting on pc's for not being able to do something a mac does, they need to bring out a commercial showing that windows based pc's have everything that mac has and then some.. for example how many games are there out on windows compared to mac.

another thing is i don't see how ut2004 runs so horribly on osx with my dual 1ghz g4 box when i have ran it smooth as butter on an old amd athlon 1000mhz machine running 256mb ram, with a horrible video card.

#23 AussieMacGamer

AussieMacGamer

    Owner, 2nd Largest Topic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3087 posts

Posted 27 May 2007 - 12:37 AM

View Postpwn1j, on May 27th 2007, 04:04 PM, said:

well basically i'm saying that in the commercials it seems like they are always getting on pc's for not being able to do something a mac does, they need to bring out a commercial showing that windows based pc's have everything that mac has and then some.. for example how many games are there out on windows compared to mac.


no offence...but that would be a ridiculously bad idea mate...Micrsoft should do it though.

IMG Resident Crackpot
"What you need is a dog or a girlfriend, or both, or one in the same!" -Gary Simmons Aka. The Battle Cat
15" Macbook Pro C2D 2.16Ghz ATI X1600 3Gb Ram w/Samsung 840 SSD R.I.P

2015 Mbp 13", 256gb SSD

Windows popsnizzlebox with a 5400rpm HD and a GTX 1060

Now Playing: Player Unknown's Battlegrounds/CS:GO/Rising Storm 2/The Witcher 3 Blood and Wine/Shenmue 1


#24 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 27 May 2007 - 12:52 AM

Actually I agree with you especially on how the mac has lagged behind the PC when it comes to games. Also some games just aren't optimized as well on the Mac (at least on G4). I've noticed some games where my G4 Mac exceeded the system requirements but they didn't perform so well. Sometimes there are ms specific optimizations that don't get carried over to other OS'.

Though I find that my 1.4GHz G4 Mac is faster in some games than my 1.2GHz Celeron M PC. The PC is faster in other things like HD video and emulators. However in all honesty 1GHz machines are no longer even mid-range anymore. Neither is 1.4GHz they are considered lower than low-end now... as in.. you can't get a low end computer (not media device) from say... Apple with 1GHz anymore especially not next year. Not to mention the G4 has long since been long in the tooth even before they switched.

Truth be told they did say they are wanting to make UT3 playable on a wide variety of machines but you have to consider what exactly will be considered low, mid and high when it comes out. You can only squeeze so much from old hardware.

So if it requires 2GHz on either Mac or PC that won't be the same as requiring a high end machine but it won't run optimally if at all on our sub-2GHz computers... most likely. Because system requirements tend to be the bare minimum to get it running. Although I have been surprised with certain games I have run on my 1.4GHz G4 this past year how well they ran. But I just know it won't be that way in the future.

It may be exaggerating to say that it would require a Quad G5 as a bare minimum though. I say a Quad G5 should be able to get mighty fine performance especially with an upgraded GPU. But other G5s including the G5 iMacs should be able to run it pretty good albeit with reduced settings. However running it on G4 will probably be pushing it apart from the highest GHz ones at lowest detail settings. But if you want blazing performance it'll probably take a Quad G5 if anything on the PowerPC side I say.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but that's probably how it'll be..


BTW, I don't really think that Microsoft needs to be making any kind of comeback campaign against Apple. It's not like Apple is a threat to MS especially on the game front, sorry. It's like kicking someone when they're down.

One of the editors at PC Gamer was saying Microsoft should do that because Apple has started winning people over with their campaign. But what's so bad about that if it means more people use the Mac and more software (games is really the only area the Mac is lacking) gets converted and with better quality. It's not going to bring their whole world crashing down if a few more people get Macs.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#25 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 27 May 2007 - 06:05 AM

View Postpwn1j, on May 27th 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

another thing is i don't see how ut2004 runs so horribly on osx with my dual 1ghz g4 box when i have ran it smooth as butter on an old amd athlon 1000mhz machine running 256mb ram, with a horrible video card.

ran smooth enough for me with 800Mhz a Gf2 and 1Gb of RAM... RAM is probably the all important factor here.

and seeing as Epic said a while ago that they expected a 9800 to be the bare minimum GPU (and times change and expectations change), id say that you wont be able to run on anything less than a DP G5 tower with a X800 or 6800 and upwards...

and thats a pretty small market to be fair, so excuse me for being skeptical of there being a PPC version...
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#26 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 27 May 2007 - 03:39 PM

I'd like to add if it comes out as a universal binary and is playable on a G4 I'd gladly eat my words. But since technology marches on I wouldn't blame anyone for doubting how well it might run on a G4 if at all especially since most G4s hardly have the GPU to keep up with the game much less the CPU.

I understand why people complain about creeping system requirements but that's just a fact of life in games.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#27 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 30 May 2007 - 12:39 AM

Some vague (Windows-centric) performance notes from Epic:

"Since optimization work is still ongoing, these details may change every day. Generally speaking, the game runs quite smooth with DX9 hardware released by NVidia and ATI since 2006."

http://www.beyondunr...st.php?id=10581

My iMac has a DX9-era GPU from early 2006 (a 7600 GT) so MAYBE I can run UT3 without turning the detail down too far :) And at worst, it should be smooth if I do turn detail and res down.

Also of note: the game will benefit from quad cores.

Meanwhile, it looks like Leopard will be out before UT3. Maybe LONG before. Epic's response to a September 3 release rumor:

"We don't know when the game will be released but it won't be ready in time for September 3rd."
http://www.beyondunr...st.php?id=10578

If he's so sure of that then I'll bet it won't be out for some time after September. Maybe even 2008. Good thing the name UT2007 was scrapped....

#28 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 02 June 2007 - 12:41 AM

Did you take a look at this interview? It makes things look a bit more positive. Like for example...

"Also, the 360 work we did resulted in an engine that also runs well on low-end and mid-range PCs. This is very important for games today; the high-end PC gaming market alone is not big enough to support next-generation games with budgets in the $10-20M range. You need to run on ordinary mass-market PCs as well. In reading PC gaming websites, one might get the impression that everyone owns a dual-core PC with a pair of $600 GPUs in SLI configuration, but the reality is very different. More than 80% of PCs sold today are still single-core, and have very low-end DirectX9 graphics capabilities. Unreal Engine 3 supports those configurations well."

Although I still doubt 1GHz will be enough. I can imagine perhaps the system requirements for low detail being ~1.6GHz, and a DX9 level card. Dual processor would help.. obviously. The requirements perhaps will be similar to Doom 3 engine games. I can't imagine them being lower.

On the high end it looks like there may be performance benefits for those who have more than four cores especially in the future with licensees\future games.

One more thing, even though UT3 can run on DX9 level cards I still hope that Apple puts in DX10 level cards into the macs. There isn't just high end DX10 level cards there is a whole range of them for example in the GeForce 8 series.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#29 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 02 June 2007 - 05:36 AM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on June 2nd 2007, 01:41 AM, said:

Did you take a look at this interview? It makes things look a bit more positive. Like for example...

"Also, the 360 work we did resulted in an engine that also runs well on low-end and mid-range PCs. This is very important for games today; the high-end PC gaming market alone is not big enough to support next-generation games with budgets in the $10-20M range. You need to run on ordinary mass-market PCs as well. In reading PC gaming websites, one might get the impression that everyone owns a dual-core PC with a pair of $600 GPUs in SLI configuration, but the reality is very different. More than 80% of PCs sold today are still single-core, and have very low-end DirectX9 graphics capabilities. Unreal Engine 3 supports those configurations well."

It's nice to see this acknowledged by a developer. Some of the games you'd swear they thought everyone has top of the line hardware.

With UT3, I wonder if there will be an opportunity for Mr. keyboard/mouse to kick some consol controller buttock? :) I realize 360's have a keyboard mouse option, but I bet ya, most won't spend the extra money.

#30 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 02 June 2007 - 07:37 AM

Console and PC versions won't play against each other. In fact, I think they said the console version is slowed down a bit to compensate for the awkward controls that all console shooters have. Likewise, I'm sure they have some auto-aim always enabled for consoles.

#31 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 June 2007 - 08:39 AM

isnt it part of the Vista SDK that game pads (read. the X360 pad) can be very simply supported with context sensitive controls etc. etc. just like on the X360 itself?

so, plug in a X360 pad and play Halo 2 and itll automatically detect it and youll be able to play it just like on the xbox...

of course, if UT3 supports this and the console version is slowed down, then the PC version will be where you want to practice, and then the console version would be where you want to play seriously so that your reactions are honed to a fine art.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#32 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 02 June 2007 - 03:36 PM

View Postteflon, on June 2nd 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

the PC version will be where you want to practice, and then the console version would be where you want to play seriously so that your reactions are honed to a fine art.

Eh? PC just practice and the 360 for serious gaming? Hmmmm..... I take it you got yourself a 360 recently and thus are a big fan of it now. I am starting to get this impression from here and the id software thread. I myself consider the PC and even the *gasp* Mac to be serious gaming.. not just practice for playing on a console. :P So for me it's the opposite.. I hone my skills on the PC\Mac and then perhaps try it out on a console sometime.

BTW, there's nothing to stop you from using a gamepad on a PC especially with the GFW program. You can even do the hybrid gamepad\mouse thing I've read of some people doing that with Halo 2 Vista and it worked well. BTW, I like the speed to which a game runs on a PC with keyboard and mouse and that's how I'd like to play it.

Also I have read people say that a true gamer will play on any system but I sort of take issue to this because I don't want to throw money around on any and all systems. So I have turned in my "true gamer membership card" a while back. =P I'm not a gamer I'm just a person who happens to play games... :lol: Or wait.. interactive entertainment. ;)

Hell, I don't really go for any labels because there are always strict requirements for each label and I'd rather pick and choose what I like\buy\wear\whatever.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#33 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 June 2007 - 06:01 PM

as a matter of fact, i dont have an x360, and unless i get too much money to know what to do with, wont be. i just recognise that if you can play a game at two different speeds, then its just a way to get that slight edge over your friends/competitors on the console by practicing on a PC at a higher speed without auto-aim and then play on a console at lower speeds with auto-aim making it a lot easier.

i can see professional gamers using this trick if theres a tournament for x360/PS3 versions of UT3.

and Gaming For Windows is the thing i was talking about where MS has given a framework to get the x360 pad in particular to work seamlessly with GFW labelled games.

i dont adhere to labels. i am who i am.

and i just think that youre underestimating the graphical power of the consoles, seeing as both the X360 and PS3 still have plenty power to be tapped through various multiprocessor based optimisations. PC devs write sloppy code, console devs need to write perfect code in order to squeeze every ounce of performance and graphics effects out of them, which in turn means that the consoles as fixed platforms can still wow even if they arent DX10, as those DX10 effects can be optimised for the CPU to run, or faked etc. etc. theres plenty of ways to get around it. but thats a discussion for the other thread.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#34 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 02 June 2007 - 06:46 PM

View Postteflon, on June 2nd 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

but thats a discussion for the other thread.

On that note I posted a response in the other thread.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#35 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 12:41 AM

I play UT2004 and Halo on my Mac using a gamepad sometimes. Aim sucks but comfort is great :) And it's good practice for when I occasionally play FPS games on other peoples' consoles.

UT2004 is actually good for console practice on a Mac: in Instant Action botmatches you can enable console-style auto-aiming. Halo, on the other hand is "high altitude training" if you use a gamepad on a PC or Mac: no auto-aim help AND no mouse!

It would be kind of cool if UT3 and other games had a "console compatibility mode" that slowed the game down, added auto-aim, and made various other changes... and REQUIRED a gamepad to play. Then they could allow only that ONE mode to play cross-platform between PCs/Macs and consoles. (Probably not worth the effort but it's an interesting idea.)

#36 Tetsuya

Tetsuya

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2172 posts
  • Location:MI

Posted 03 June 2007 - 04:19 AM

then i'd say it's Epic's fault for not allowing cross-platform play, as the upcoming Shadowrun game is cross-platformable and runs flawlessly.  it *is* possible to make a game that works that way.

#37 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 03 June 2007 - 06:23 AM

View Postteflon, on June 2nd 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

i just recognise that if you can play a game at two different speeds, then its just a way to get that slight edge over your friends/competitors on the console by practicing on a PC at a higher speed without auto-aim and then play on a console at lower speeds with auto-aim making it a lot easier.

If UT3 consol version has auto aiming then it's a joke on those who think they are sharp players. The serious play will be on the PC/Mac. :)

But will it have auto aim? I don't remember Halo on the orig xbox having auto aim and I question if practicing on keyboard/mouse would have any benefit if your going to switch to a consol controller to compete. The motor skills are different. Primarily  being a keyboard/mouse player, I find that consol accuracy is very awkward.

#38 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 03 June 2007 - 10:49 AM

seeing as Unreal Championship had auto-aim, yes it will.

and seeing as Halo did have auto-aim, H3 will too. It was partially disguised by the overly large targeting reticule, and the fact that it was pretty subtle. I remember Halo PC being criticised for keeping the large reticule, but having removed the auto-aim, making it a bit harder to get that pixel perfect shot in.

and im saying practice on the PC, while using a console controller, then play on the console.
i dont really get why its such a difficult concept to grasp (no offence meant to anyone) that playing a harder game on the PC and then stepping down to an easier version will give people an edge. Im not saying that pros wont play UT3 on the PC, but im saying that if there is a championship on the console version of UT3 and the PC version is faster and harder, then surely theyll all practice on the PC version to get the reflexes to the bleeding edge, and then step over to the easier version and pwn.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#39 nagromme

nagromme

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1954 posts

Posted 03 June 2007 - 01:55 PM

Well, I don't think the console versions are intended to be easier, merely difficult in DIFFERENT ways.

* Easier: the reduced speed and auto-aiming (and finer vehicle steering).

*Harder: the indirect, imprecise aiming method--because you have a little joystick instead of a mouse. (Also--how do you do WASD combos and dodging on a console? I find them VERY hard with a stick.)

So the intent I'm sure is to have the "training wheels" (speed and auto-aim) compensate for the awkward control, making both versions about equally fun and challenging in their own way. A PC user moving to console would have to deal with the good, the bad, and the ugly. The controls will be different enough that you'd want to practice on the same system you intend to compete on.

So I think it will just come down to what people are used to. Mouse is more natural, but console owners get used to aiming that way (with a little help) and seem to like it just fine.

Console-vs-PC tangent:

Here are the two concrete reasons why I find mouse control far superior to gamepad control for FPS aiming:

1. Mouse aiming is purely in MY control. Gamepad aiming is partly my control and partly the software aiming FOR me.

Gamepad aiming adds a challenge (awkward control) and an advantage (auto-aim). These two cancel out in a sense, except neither one is FUN. Challenges can be fun, but awkward controls are not a fun KIND of challenge. And advantages can be fun, but having the computer aim for me is not a satisfying advantage. A fun challenge is beating a tougher opponent, not having more frustrating controls. A fun benefit is a bigger weapon or more useful HUD, not full-time auto-aim that makes a shot hit the same whether my crosshair is on the target or not.

Imagine playing your favorite PC shooter with a mouse that jams, but the game makes all your weapons home in so you can still win. OK, you still win, but it's less fun :)

2. Direct vs. indirect control.

When you move your hand on a mouse, the position and motion of your hand is directly analogous to the resulting motion of your crosshair. Move your hand up a little: the cross hair moves up a little. Stop moving, and the crosshair stops. Move up a little more, the crosshair moves up more. Move faster, the crosshair moves faster. These things are true whether you use mouse acceleration or not. Your hand's position and speed translate to the crosshair's position and speed.

But when you move your thumb on a joystick, your thumb's position translate's not to the crosshair's position, but to it's SPEED. That's indirect control. And your thumb's speed controls the rate of change of acceleration--NOT the crosshair's speed directly. So, move your thumb up: the crosshair moves up, but at a rate that has nothing to do with how fast you moved your thumb. Stop moving your thumb: the crosshair keeps moving! Move your thumb up more--but moving your thumb slowly--and the crosshair moves faster regardless. In essense, you are telling the crosshair WHAT to do, rather than actually DOING it. Indirect.

This the same difference between an IBM-style  laptop trackpoint joystick and a nice desktop mouse. No contest there--not even if the trackpoint had more physical travel like a gamepad. That's why trackpads/trackballs took over--they are like a mouse: the cursor does what your finger does, and stops when your finger stops. Actually, I've always thought that a thumb-trackpad or trackball on the right side of a gamepad would be a great idea instead of a stick.

(In addition, a mouse's freedom of movement on the desktop is broader than the tiny range of a gamepad stick. Tiny motions are harder to control, which is why some surgical instruments translate broad user motions into small resulting motions--and why having a faster mouse isn't always a benefit even if it requires less muscle energy. Also, mouse aiming is natural simply because we already do it all the time every day in non-game apps: moving an arrow cursor across a screen is the same kind of action as moving a crosshair across a game scene. In one case the cursor moves, in the other case the view moves, but the resulting action--unless you invert Y like a flight sim--is the same. So that makes for a shorter learning curve.)

Now, the flip side: I know you can't make absolute rules for everyone when it comes to what's fun :) Anyone is free to like what they like--it is very subjective. Some people used to prefer playing shooters with ONLY keyboard and NO mouse! Talk about tough aiming! And it's natural to like whatever you get used to. And controls are just one aspect of a game, among many other huge factors. Plus some games just don't have PC versions. And I must admit that holding a gamepad is much more comfortable than mouse-and-keyboard. So I'm NOT calling anyone crazy for getting used to FPS console games and liking them, by any means :)

(I'll also note that both methods have required "pauses": lifting your mouse when you run out of space--which never happens to a gamepad. Or on the other hand, moving your stick back to center when you want to reverse crosshair-movement direction--compared to a mouse that can reverse direction instantly.)

#40 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 03 June 2007 - 03:17 PM

Nice post Nagromme, that should be an article. :) I agree with everything you said there including the last part where you say it's subjective.

I have to add though; I've gotten used to inverting the Y in my mouse like a flight sim so that's more natural for me than the other way. Also having practiced it a lot I don't really notice the "pauses" where I have to lift the mouse and move it I just do it and don't give it a second thought.

Also gamepads aren't necessarily more comfortable for me in particular they just work better for certain kinds of games. But when it comes to controls in my case it's a "the right tool for the right job" kind of thing.

BTW, I was confused as to the gamepad support in Halo but I noticed that it does work if you set it up and then switch back to keyboard and mouse in the controls setup. The gamepad is still active and you can use mouse and gamepad if you wanted. I've noticed as with any other control method that thumbstick+mouse has its advantages. I've been using that method in Serious Sam a lot for example. But keyboard has its advantages too.

Is it just me or is the gamepad particularly difficult to setup in Halo even with the latest UB Patch? I can't seem to directly setup the thumbsticks in particular for movement I have to setup the d-pad (hat switch) and then reverse the axis to the thumbstick after. This is with a Saitek P880.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7