PC vs. Xbox

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over consoles
such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.

Part of why I ask is that lately it seems like many publishers are making
the exact same game for both (however often these games play very
differently).

For example, KOTOR 1 & 2. I've played it on the Xbox and wondered if it
was as much different for the PC.

Also Sid Meyer's Pirates is another title that is set to release for the
XBOX in June. I understand that there are performance discrepancies
[Graphics/depth of play vs. user friendly] between the two (if you've
played both I don't need to tell which is which). What I do wonder is
whether the design of the game itself is different? Some games seem
entirely different, I can't imagine that the Xbox version would be as
detailed as the Pc one.

Anyway as I am relatively new to the PC market I wondered how games like
Morrowind/Pc compared to Morrowind/Xbox stack up.

My memories of the classics (Wizardry,BTale, M&M suggest there is no
comparison). But newer games (not as good - at least as my memories of
those listed) make this debateable.

Cheers,

Hawklan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-04-12, Hawklan <kris@nospamdnd.ca> wrote:
> I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over consoles
> such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.
>
> Part of why I ask is that lately it seems like many publishers are making
> the exact same game for both (however often these games play very
> differently).
>
> For example, KOTOR 1 & 2. I've played it on the Xbox and wondered if it
> was as much different for the PC.

KOTOR2 has a patch coming and a restoration project under the way
for the PC only. Morrowind has tons of mods and I'm not sure you
can use them with the Xbox version let alone get any additional
performance from an upgrade like you would with the PC version.

The thing to remember about console versus PC gaming is that it's
a business driven initiative to port between the two. Insofar as
people buy console games the ports will keep happening
irregardless of how many PC versus console games are sold. The
port allows the publisher to capitalize on both markets.

HL2 for example is a huge PC game seller and so is WoW. I'm not
aware of console versions for either and I'm not sure it would
make sense since both games are constantly updated by the
developer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I may be an exception here, but if I see a game in both platforms, I
tend to prefer the Xbox version. It's much more likely to work without
bugs, and basically, I prefer playing lying on my bed than in a chair.

I don't like action games so I don't play with my xbox that much, but
when jewels like Kotor and Gladius pop, I love my xbox... sadly,
they're a minority of the games by far, for each non-action RPG there
are 100 ninja gaidens/mortal combats/Death or Alive/NFL Madden/Dark
Alliance games.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

* the CPU of an xbox is a 720MHz mobile celeron, the graphics chip is
a crippled geforce3, and it's got 64MB RAM which is used for both
graphics and code/data; present baseline PCs have 2GHz CPUs, two
generations newer graphics, and at least 512MB RAM*

Of which 1.9GHz and 511MB are used by spyware, antivirus and the OS 🙂
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Hawklan wrote:
> I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over
consoles
> such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.

Despite the flamebait topic name, you asked some thoughtful questions,
and here's my probably-too-thoughtful response.

I think you really have to take it on a title-by-title basis, looking
for platform-specific details in the reviews. Some places, like
GameSpot, actually test out every flavor that's released and will often
recommend a specific version and outline the reasons why. For example,
someone already mentioned that the console versions of some big RPGs
that have been released on PC don't get the benefit of patches or mods
(although future console titles will likely start seeing more of the
latter through mechanisms such as XBox Live). Also, some ports are
clunkier and/or buggier than others (this is just as true for Xbox<->PC
ports as it is between various console flavors).

I wouldn't play Morrowind on an Xbox simply because the mods bring so
much more to the game. However, it seems like Arx Fatalis would be
great on the Xbox, as long as the spellcasting system works better than
it did on the PC.

The old arguments about why a PC is better as an overall gaming
platform are starting to change. For example, another poster mentioned
that games that are designed with the intent to be ported usually don't
have super-detailed graphics to begin with, so there's often not much
of a visible difference. Additionally, there used to be rules like
"you can't do RTS/FPS without a mouse/keyboard" but Halo and even
earlier games certainly challenge that assertion- and while RTS titles
haven't exactly taken off on consoles, some have been done. Then
there's the argument that computer monitors offer higher resolution
than standard-def TVs. Well, at 10 feet away from a typically-sized
television set, the finer detail that high resolutions would offer
really wouldn't be visible anyway.

While it's true that current-generation consoles don't have the
horsepower or graphics technology that a high-end PC does, we are near
the end of their lifecycle, and the next console generation will be
very competitive with modern PCs when they first come out. For the
frozen-in-time feature-set that consoles offer you get three pretty big
advantages: 1) Every game you buy for an Xbox will work in your Xbox.
2) You don't have to install the game, just pop it into the drive and
play (no Steam or Starforce!) 3) No system maintenance or upgrades
requires. Just look at the Xbox or PS2 groups... okay you won't see
too much inspired discourse there, but you won't see any "Will Fable
run on my Xbox?" posts either!

Finally, there probably really was a time when you just couldn't find
games on consoles that were as sprawling or as deep as some of the
favorite PC RPG titles. (Not being familiar with Japanese PlayStation
RPGs, I don't know how they compare.) But this is another thing that's
definitely changing as KOTOR, Morrowind, and other titles now on the
horizon are showing.

The reason _I_ like consoles is because my wife and I are both gamers,
and we like to play 2-player co-op action adventures and action RPGs.
I don't even think there's any such thing as an offline multiplayer
game on a PC anymore- all multiplayer PC games I know of require that
you have 2 PCs hooked up to a LAN and usually require two licensed
copies of the game. And frankly, even with single-player games, it's a
lot more comfortable for my wife and I to take turns "driving" while
sitting together playing a console game on the couch in the livingroom
than it is to crowd around my 17" monitor in the corner of the sideroom
to play a PC game.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca> wrote in
news:16977efa7a0b57e508e5afb5d43ef22b@localhost.talkaboutcomputing.com:

> Anyway as I am relatively new to the PC market I wondered how games like
> Morrowind/Pc compared to Morrowind/Xbox stack up.

When its the same game on both then Im not sure there is much difference.
The game isnt making the best use of the pros and cons of each platform.

I tend to choose Strategy and RPG on the computer, and more real-time
things on the XBox (shooter games, arcade, etc).

Gandalf Parker
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca> wrote in
news:16977efa7a0b57e508e5afb5d43ef22b@localhost.talkaboutcomputing.com:

> I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over
> consoles such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.
>
> Part of why I ask is that lately it seems like many publishers are
> making the exact same game for both (however often these games play
> very differently).
>
> For example, KOTOR 1 & 2. I've played it on the Xbox and wondered if
> it was as much different for the PC.
>
> Also Sid Meyer's Pirates is another title that is set to release for
> the XBOX in June. I understand that there are performance
> discrepancies [Graphics/depth of play vs. user friendly] between the
> two (if you've played both I don't need to tell which is which). What
> I do wonder is whether the design of the game itself is different?
> Some games seem entirely different, I can't imagine that the Xbox
> version would be as detailed as the Pc one.
>
> Anyway as I am relatively new to the PC market I wondered how games
> like Morrowind/Pc compared to Morrowind/Xbox stack up.

The great thing about PC games is that that you can modify them.
Morrowind with 200 different mods, that change anything from graphics to
adding lots of quests is a much richer experience than the vanilla
(X-box version) MW game.

I've also heard that an argument for the X-box is that you can sit in
the sofa an play it. Well, I sit in a comfy chair with keyboard in my
lap and mouse on the armchair. It's every bit as comfy as sitting with a
joystick on the sofa. 🙂


C
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly "Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca> Spake Unto All:

>I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over consoles
>such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.

Because a monitor is a far better display device than a TV, mouse &
keyboard infinitely better input devices than joypads, and gaming PC's
have greatly superior hardware* allowing them to play more complex
games.

>Part of why I ask is that lately it seems like many publishers are making
>the exact same game for both

Unfortunately, yeah. The fact that present consoles (xbox & ps2) have
extremely weak hardware means that games are made to be playable on
them, so they don't utilize the potential of the PC hardware at all.
The most common example is the low-res textures used in the graphics,
and the very small maps (both due to the extremely limited memory of
consoles).
That the ports are often so poorly written that they manage to run
slowly ANYWAY just adds insult to injury.

>For example, KOTOR 1 & 2. I've played it on the Xbox and wondered if it
>was as much different for the PC.

They're pretty much identical. Well, KOTOR1 had one extra map and some
extra armor/weapons on PC.

>Anyway as I am relatively new to the PC market I wondered how games like
>Morrowind/Pc compared to Morrowind/Xbox stack up.

Don't know. Havent played Morrowind for xbox.


* the CPU of an xbox is a 720MHz mobile celeron, the graphics chip is
a crippled geforce3, and it's got 64MB RAM which is used for both
graphics and code/data; present baseline PCs have 2GHz CPUs, two
generations newer graphics, and at least 512MB RAM.

--
A True Hero: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03ALI.html
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

> HL2 for example is a huge PC game seller and so is WoW. I'm not
> aware of console versions for either and I'm not sure it would
> make sense since both games are constantly updated by the
> developer.

Actually the latest Official Xbox Magazine has a HL2 cover and an article
about the upcoming port.

JSS
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-04-12, J.S. Smith <nospam.js_smith@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> HL2 for example is a huge PC game seller and so is WoW. I'm not
>> aware of console versions for either and I'm not sure it would
>> make sense since both games are constantly updated by the
>> developer.
>
> Actually the latest Official Xbox Magazine has a HL2 cover and an article
> about the upcoming port.

I tried playing an FPS on the PS2 and gave up. How in the world
are Xbox users playing Halo 2 or even Half Life? Auto-aim?
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>>Anyway as I am relatively new to the PC market I wondered how games
like
>>Morrowind/Pc compared to Morrowind/Xbox stack up.

>Don't know. Havent played Morrowind for xbox.

XBOX Morrowind has worse graphics then the PC version, much lower
texture resolution. Also has longer load times and all the bugs the PC
patches fixed.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:15:53 -0400, "Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca>
wrote:

>I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over consoles
>such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.
>

People here tend strongly advocate that developers make games for the
PC rather than consoles.

Games that are developed primarly for consoles tend to lack the
intricacy prefered by PC gamers.

Especially RPG's. Management of skills of and items seems to be
deeper for PC RPG's. Console games, "we" believe are dumbed to be
more accesible to the average user.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Actually there is a difference with some games. My parents recently bought
my son Harry Potter 3 for the PC (a game we played through twice on the
XBOX - My son was crushed at having a duplicate).

When we loaded it up for fun - it was completely different. Controls were
different (to be expected) but the game was unrecognizable. I mean you
could have told me it was Harry Potter 4 (It worked out well for us, as my
son played it like it was new.) Outside of the story being the same, the
levels & areas were completely redesigned.

It was almost like they did not port it at all but created a new game. But
games are good, unique beyond the expected performance limitations (both
in design and play).

Just wondered how common this is, from the sounds of some posters - not
very. The consensus seems to be that the difference is qualitative. In
this game however, this is not the case.

Cheers,

Hawklan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"100% agree. The problem with too many gamers is that it is always a PC
vs console or console x vs console y or company x vs company y."

The problem is when both Pc & Console offer the same software. I am
willing the acquire what is necessary to play, but I want the best
gameplay experience which I think changes from title to title.

I think more and more, there is no hard and fast rule (or at least they
are becoming less pronounced). I used to think Pc games hands down were
better(and I still favor them a bit for RPG's), however I don't play
MMORPG or use Mods so a PC Crpg is very similar to an Xbox RPG if I can
get the title.

Cheers,

Hawklan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Hawklan wrote:
> "100% agree. The problem with too many gamers is that it is always a PC
> vs console or console x vs console y or company x vs company y."
>
> The problem is when both Pc & Console offer the same software. I am
> willing the acquire what is necessary to play, but I want the best
> gameplay experience which I think changes from title to title.

I've found, in general, that usually the console title and pc title are
exactly the same. HOWEVER:
1) Graphics will usually not be as good on the console
2) You can't get mods on the console
3) Bugs are there and you can't do anything about it on the console

> I think more and more, there is no hard and fast rule (or at least they
> are becoming less pronounced). I used to think Pc games hands down were
> better(and I still favor them a bit for RPG's), however I don't play
> MMORPG or use Mods so a PC Crpg is very similar to an Xbox RPG if I can
> get the title.

I think it depends on the title. With KOTOR I didn't use a single mod,
so it really didn't matter that I played it on my PC. I could have just
as easily played on the Xbox, but didn't.

Now games like Morrowind that have a TON of mods should probably be
played on the PC, even if you only get a couple of mods.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I understand that porting between markets is an easy cash grab. If you look
at consoles they traditionally guard against too much of this, in order to
have proprietary titles, which in turn encourages unit sales (PS2
desperately held onto the GTA series until recently).

The Pc market does not seem to do this. Profits are one thing, but he PC
gaming industry loses a vital component that drives it, computer sales.
With seemingly less titles that are exclusive to the PC (MMORPG's
notwithstanding) there will a loss interest by many Pc gamers. I mean
those dollars publishers are tapping into by porting to consoles have to
come out of the industry somewhere.

I guess the problem becomes that game publishers do not have a vested
interest in supporting PC only games. Consoles have single ownership
(MS,N,PS) to protect their gaming niche whereas the Pc market is really at
the mercy of publisher's seeking to double-dip.

While I understand that Pc sales are driven by much more than games, it is
reasonable to assume that some customers buy primarily for gaming. ...And
even if sales don't drop, do we really want a world where (single-player)
games are on consoles and business is on the Pc exclusively. While this
may overstate the point PC software could still suffer greatly from this
unfettered cross-over.

CHeers,

Hawklan
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca> once tried to test me with:

> "100% agree. The problem with too many gamers is that it is always a PC
> vs console or console x vs console y or company x vs company y."
>
> The problem is when both Pc & Console offer the same software. I am
> willing the acquire what is necessary to play, but I want the best
> gameplay experience which I think changes from title to title.

It's simple.

PC > Xbox > Gamecube > PS2.

:)

Just kidding (sort of). Actually that IS my general rule, but I do read
reviews and try and determine which platform actually has the best
implementation of the game I'm wanting to play.

> I think more and more, there is no hard and fast rule (or at least they
> are becoming less pronounced). I used to think Pc games hands down were
> better(and I still favor them a bit for RPG's), however I don't play
> MMORPG or use Mods so a PC Crpg is very similar to an Xbox RPG if I can
> get the title.

But do you like using the mouse/kb/monitor over the TV/couch/gamepad? I
mean it's all a matter of personal preference. I have the Xbox version of
Morrowind and the PC version and they are extremely similar however, I
prefer the PC version because it allows more controller options and also
because the Xbox version is kind of dark and the only way to get it bright
enough is to turn up the brightness on the TV which washes out all the
colors. Also the PC version is mod-able. But then again, it's cool to be
able to just play and kick back on the couch. What would be ideal is if the
save-games worked on both and I could just play on whichever platform I
wanted to. Oh well.

Also some games are only out or at least come out first for a specific
platform, so if you want the game when it first hits the street you have to
buy it on that platform. Such as Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 for the PC, or such
as Sudeki/KotOR/KotOR2/Fable/Jade Empire on Xbox, or such as Grand Theft
Auto series on PS2, or Resident Evil series on Gamecube, etc.

So generally speaking, if it's a title I really want to play, I buy it for
whichever system it's out for first. I've got Jade Empire pre-ordered for
the Xbox but I'm sure if it sells remarkably well they'll consider porting
it to PC and/or other consoles. If the title is already out on multiple
platforms, I buy it for the best platform (with my general preference being
the formula above), guided by reviews and platform-specific features.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca> once tried to test me with:

> I guess the problem becomes that game publishers do not have a vested
> interest in supporting PC only games. Consoles have single ownership
> (MS,N,PS) to protect their gaming niche whereas the Pc market is
> really at the mercy of publisher's seeking to double-dip.

There's a lot of other reasons a developer might develop first for PC and
then (maybe) for console.

1. Lower barrier to entry. To develop for a console title you have to buy
an expensive development kit from the console owner, and pay licensing
fees, and be subject to their QA reviews, you could make a game and they
could veto it and you'd be out all that development cost. There's no such
thing for PC games, you make it, you sell it, it's that simple.

2. The PC is a good platform for developing games on. You've got a lot of
flexibility and the PC's you use to play the games are the same you'd use
to write the games. A lot of console games get developed on PC's anyway, so
it makes sense to iron out the problems on a PC version first then make it
work for the console (esp. if we're talking xbox here).

3. You want to aim at cutting edge technology. Lets say the cycle is that
the consoles are all more or less mature and your game idea doesn't really
fit well on that hardware, maybe you develop for the PC because it's
capable of so much more. Or maybe online networking is critical to your
game. Sure this advantage is slowly eroding from the PC but it's still
there.

4. Complexity. Your game is too complex to fit on a console controller, you
need the flexibility of a PC's input system (mouse/keyboard) to pull of the
interface.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

>>I tried playing an FPS on the PS2 and gave up. How in the world
>>are Xbox users playing Halo 2 or even Half Life? Auto-aim?

>Nope. On the PS2 the left stick is for movement, the right for look
>and the shoulder bittons are for shoot, run, inventory etc. Takes
>alot of getting used to and even then a console FPS player just sin't
>as good as a PC one.

There is some form of auto aiming in games like Halo 2. Most games take
the opinion that because you are firing towards a creature you must be
aiming for it and gives you a bit of leeway on the aim.

A few games like Metorid Prime lock onto a creature. Only when locked
on can you stife around it.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Hi
I got an xbox a few month ago.
I would have to say games for the xbox as good or better then games for the
PC.
Morrowind is better of the pc better graphics control.

Doom3 is better on the xbox the controls is better and the graphics is as
good <I have to play on med with my pc>
and the sound is better through my home theater system .

The console does somethings better then the PC
I find action type games better on the console.
While the PC does stratagy type games better.

I Think both systems have thier place but I what I find they are slowly
dumbing down games so that they can port it to the console easier.


"Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca> wrote in message
news:16977efa7a0b57e508e5afb5d43ef22b@localhost.talkaboutcomputing.com...
>I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over consoles
> such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.
>
> Part of why I ask is that lately it seems like many publishers are making
> the exact same game for both (however often these games play very
> differently).
>
> For example, KOTOR 1 & 2. I've played it on the Xbox and wondered if it
> was as much different for the PC.
>
> Also Sid Meyer's Pirates is another title that is set to release for the
> XBOX in June. I understand that there are performance discrepancies
> [Graphics/depth of play vs. user friendly] between the two (if you've
> played both I don't need to tell which is which). What I do wonder is
> whether the design of the game itself is different? Some games seem
> entirely different, I can't imagine that the Xbox version would be as
> detailed as the Pc one.
>
> Anyway as I am relatively new to the PC market I wondered how games like
> Morrowind/Pc compared to Morrowind/Xbox stack up.
>
> My memories of the classics (Wizardry,BTale, M&M suggest there is no
> comparison). But newer games (not as good - at least as my memories of
> those listed) make this debateable.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hawklan
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

me votes for the pc

Cowly the Game player

Please click on my links
<a href=http://www.gamestotal.com>http://www.gamestotal.com</a>
<a href=http://www.gamestotal.org>http://www.gamestotal.org</a>
<a
href=http://www.spacefederation.net>http://www.spacefederation.net</a>
<a href=http://uc.gamestotal.com>http://uc.gamestotal.com</a>
<a href=http://aw.gamestotal.com>http://aw.gamestotal.com</a>
<a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com>http://gc.gamestotal.com</a>
<a href=http://mmorpg.gamestotal.com>http://mmorpg.gamestotal.com</a>
<a href=http://3700ad.gamestotal.com>http://3700ad.gamestotal.com</a>
<a
href=http://ballmonster.gamestotal.com>http://ballmonster.gamestotal.com</a>
<a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com/strategygames/>http://www.gamestotal.com/strategygames/</a>
<a href=http://spacefed.com/news/>http://spacefed.com/news/</a>
<a href=http://spacefed.com>http://spacefed.com</a>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 12 Apr 2005 14:50:31 -0700, "Josh Mayfield"
<ultibloo-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hawklan wrote:
>> I realize everyone here probably strongly advocates the pc over
>consoles
>> such as the Xbox, but I would like to hear why.
>
>Despite the flamebait topic name, you asked some thoughtful questions,
>and here's my probably-too-thoughtful response.
>
>I think you really have to take it on a title-by-title basis, looking
>for platform-specific details in the reviews. Some places, like
>GameSpot, actually test out every flavor that's released and will often
>recommend a specific version and outline the reasons why. For example,
>someone already mentioned that the console versions of some big RPGs
>that have been released on PC don't get the benefit of patches or mods
>(although future console titles will likely start seeing more of the
>latter through mechanisms such as XBox Live). Also, some ports are
>clunkier and/or buggier than others (this is just as true for Xbox<->PC
>ports as it is between various console flavors).
>
>I wouldn't play Morrowind on an Xbox simply because the mods bring so
>much more to the game. However, it seems like Arx Fatalis would be
>great on the Xbox, as long as the spellcasting system works better than
>it did on the PC.
>
>The old arguments about why a PC is better as an overall gaming
>platform are starting to change. For example, another poster mentioned
>that games that are designed with the intent to be ported usually don't
>have super-detailed graphics to begin with, so there's often not much
>of a visible difference. Additionally, there used to be rules like
>"you can't do RTS/FPS without a mouse/keyboard" but Halo and even
>earlier games certainly challenge that assertion- and while RTS titles
>haven't exactly taken off on consoles, some have been done. Then
>there's the argument that computer monitors offer higher resolution
>than standard-def TVs. Well, at 10 feet away from a typically-sized
>television set, the finer detail that high resolutions would offer
>really wouldn't be visible anyway.
>

I agree with most of your post, but I have to say that having played
MP FPS' against a console gamer and having tried console FPS' the PC
has the advantage. A pad just doesn't compare to KB and mouse in any
FPS. I've never tried the few RTS' that have come out on consoles,
but imagine it would be extermely difficult to play without the handy
dandy keyboard shortcuts.

Lynley
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 23:27:08 -0500, shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>
wrote:

>On 2005-04-12, J.S. Smith <nospam.js_smith@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> HL2 for example is a huge PC game seller and so is WoW. I'm not
>>> aware of console versions for either and I'm not sure it would
>>> make sense since both games are constantly updated by the
>>> developer.
>>
>> Actually the latest Official Xbox Magazine has a HL2 cover and an article
>> about the upcoming port.
>
>I tried playing an FPS on the PS2 and gave up. How in the world
>are Xbox users playing Halo 2 or even Half Life? Auto-aim?

Nope. On the PS2 the left stick is for movement, the right for look
and the shoulder bittons are for shoot, run, inventory etc. Takes
alot of getting used to and even then a console FPS player just sin't
as good as a PC one.

Lynley
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Lynley James <lynley.james@gmail.com> wrote in
news:69qs511vi1mk8tdn3mtvme9msq6ike5uo8@4ax.com:

>>I tried playing an FPS on the PS2 and gave up. How in the world
>>are Xbox users playing Halo 2 or even Half Life? Auto-aim?
>
> Nope. On the PS2 the left stick is for movement, the right for look
> and the shoulder bittons are for shoot, run, inventory etc. Takes
> alot of getting used to and even then a console FPS player just sin't
> as good as a PC one.

Actually in most console FPS games there is some aim-assistance going on.
Usually if you move the crosshairs close to an enemy it will target that
enemy when you shoot.

It's pretty hard to directly compare FPS console vs PC, because as far as
I know, there's no games that support PC vs console players.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com
Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:40:00 -0400, "Hawklan" <kris@nospamdnd.ca>
wrote:

>Actually there is a difference with some games. My parents recently bought
>my son Harry Potter 3 for the PC (a game we played through twice on the
>XBOX - My son was crushed at having a duplicate).
>
>When we loaded it up for fun - it was completely different. Controls were
>different (to be expected) but the game was unrecognizable. I mean you
>could have told me it was Harry Potter 4 (It worked out well for us, as my
>son played it like it was new.) Outside of the story being the same, the
>levels & areas were completely redesigned.
>
>It was almost like they did not port it at all but created a new game. But
>games are good, unique beyond the expected performance limitations (both
>in design and play).
>
>Just wondered how common this is, from the sounds of some posters - not
>very. The consensus seems to be that the difference is qualitative. In
>this game however, this is not the case.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Hawklan

This is the exception rather than the rule. These days the ports are
almost exactly the same with maybe some extra content.

Lynley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom