FPS games on consoles vs PCs

[The Kernel]

No, you can't do that with an old GPU, but an old CPU will hurt, too. You'll run into CPU-limitations as it struggles to send enough setup over the AGP bus.

True, but a 1.2 GHz Athlon (2000) with a Radeon 9800 (modern) makes a great gaming PC while a P4 3.2C (modern) and a GeForce 2 GTS (2000) do not. That's all I meant really; any modern CPU will make a good gaming box, but you have to be very selective about the graphics card.

The D3 engine is targetted at the GeForce GTS or R7000 level for minimum specifications, plus 256MB RAM and a 1GHz processor. The R2x0 and NV3x series cards are quite in excess of that minimum. The D3 OpenGL renderer is little more advanced that what's seen in DirectX 7, but it uses those features in quite sophisticated ways.

The HL2 engine is targetted at the TNT2 level with a 733MHz CPU and 128MB of RAM. The HL2 DirectX renderer is very advanced but is designed to scale down as far as DirectX 6 in terms of feature-set.

Obviously, neither game will look extraordinary nor will framerates be stellar. That's not the point: the game should run at an acceptable speed even with such old hardware.

Those "minimum" requirements were set by the publishers, not the developers. Carmack had flat out told his fans that if they use the NV10 codepath in Doom III, it will look like shit. He meant for this game to use DX8+ shaders. HL2 we don't know as much about but from the look of it, the same is true. They need to sell these games after all and if they are only compatible with programmable shader cards they lose a lot of their audience.

Btw, it isn't true to say that they are "targeted" at hardware that low. They are designed so that they CAN run on that kind of hardware, but it isn't the way the game was designed to run.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I wouldn't complain at all if I could get a 9800 Pro for my computer... then Half-Life 2 would be so pretty...

[MKSheppard]

You can get the following emulators that I know of:
NES, SNES, N64, PSX, Sega Master/Genesis/CD, GB/GBC/GBA.

THeres a Sega Saturn Emulator floating around...

[phongn]

Obviously, neither game will look extraordinary nor will framerates be stellar. That's not the point: the game should run at an acceptable speed even with such old hardware.

Those "minimum" requirements were set by the publishers, not the developers. Carmack had flat out told his fans that if they use the NV10 codepath in Doom III, it will look like shit. He meant for this game to use DX8+ shaders. HL2 we don't know as much about but from the look of it, the same is true. They need to sell these games after all and if they are only compatible with programmable shader cards they lose a lot of their audience.

I'm quite aware about who sets minimum requirements and that neither HL2 or D3 will look good on low-end hardware. However, your assertion was that they could not run in R200-class hardware, which is absurd.

Btw, it isn't true to say that they are "targeted" at hardware that low. They are designed so that they CAN run on that kind of hardware, but it isn't the way the game was designed to run.

Targetted in the sense that it can run, not that it's designed to run at such specifications.

[Robert Walper]

They were having some kind of regional gameplayers' championships at Playdium in Mississauga today, and I happened to pass through. When you watch FPS games on XBox compared to FPS games on PC, it's just pitiful. The shitty control scheme slows down the game pace like you wouldn't believe, and when you see it side by side, it's just sad.

Watching a bunch of guys with lightning-quick moves on UT2003 with keyboard+mouse on PC and a bunch of guys (top gamers, no less) putzing around with gamepads on Halo is just fucking embarrassing for the console people.

Alas, why I have no interest in the consoles. Graphically, they are pretty good, but a high speed computer with a shitload of RAM and a high end video card can pretty much play any game the consoles can. With the difference in convience of controls, PC's win hands down. And to boot, I can write up reports, check my e-mail, browse the web, try to hack into SD.net, etc...

[Andrew J.]

Personally, I prefer console games to PC games for several reasons:

1. I am computer-illiterate to the point where I am deathly afraid of attempting to install a program. With consoles, you just plug the memory card in, put the game, maybe do some minor set-up stuff, and you're all set.

2. Games that are typically on PC usually don't interest me . First-person shooters? I've played one already, I've played 'em all. Real-time strategy? Boring. MMORPGs? Never really got into it when it first came around, and it never seemed so great afterwards, either. I don't really have a reason for my apathy towards that sort of game; I've never been that big into regular RPGs either. Flight sims? X-Wing and TIE Fighter were fun, but I beat them a long time ago. Commercial flight sims have never struck me as being at all interesting, and the one time I tried military flight sims the games made the computer crash all the time.

3. To be honest, I am not a good gamer. I could go on about this for a while, but suffice it to say that any game that requires more buttons than the average console controller and needs a keyboard is probably too difficult for me.

[Hotfoot]

Personally, I prefer console games to PC games for several reasons:

1. I am computer-illiterate to the point where I am deathly afraid of attempting to install a program. With consoles, you just plug the memory card in, put the game, maybe do some minor set-up stuff, and you're all set.

2. Games that are typically on PC usually don't interestme . First-person shooters? I've played one already, I've played 'em all. Real-time strategy? Boring. MMORPGs? Never really got into it when it first came around, and it never seemed so great afterwards, either. I don't really have a reason for my apathy towards that sort of game; I've never been that big into regular RPGs either. Flight sims? X-Wing and TIE Fighter were fun, but I bet them a long time ago. Commercial flight sims have never struck me as being at all interesting, and the one time I tried military flight sims the games made the computer crash all the time.

3. To be honest, I am not a good gamer. I could go on about this for a while, but suffice it to say that any game that requires more buttons than the average console controller and needs a keyboard is probably too difficult for me.

All of those are entirely valid reasons, and I think most everyone here can respect you for them. However, I think you're perhaps being a touch unfair to first-person shooters. There are several which really do stand out and are very different from your standard Quake-clones. Deus Ex, Thief, and System Shock in particular stand out as exceptional games that break from the norm of go here, kill everything, find the blue key, move on. I also happen to enjoy the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight series, but that's just me.

[Stark]

2. Games that are typically on PC usually don't interest me . First-person shooters? I've played one already, I've played 'em all. Real-time strategy? Boring. MMORPGs? Never really got into it when it first came around, and it never seemed so great afterwards, either. I don't really have a reason for my apathy towards that sort of game; I've never been that big into regular RPGs either. Flight sims? X-Wing and TIE Fighter were fun, but I beat them a long time ago. Commercial flight sims have never struck me as being at all interesting, and the one time I tried military flight sims the games made the computer crash all the time.
.

I'm curious to hear what kind of games you do like, since your criticisms (while quite valid, with the exception of the FPS/RTS thing) could easily be applied to fighting, driving, and puzzle games.

Go to a mates place and play Vietcong and Serious Sam - they're quite different, even if they share a common perspective. There's an FPS for everyone!

[Andrew J.]

I'm curious to hear what kind of games you do like, since your criticisms (while quite valid, with the exception of the FPS/RTS thing) could easily be applied to fighting, driving, and puzzle games.

I like fighting games so long as they don't have overly complex counter systems or difficult-to-execute special moves. I like driving games, but I haven't had the chance to play many. Can't stand puzzles.

The games I really like are action-adventure platformers like Zelda and Mario (which is also a reason I prefer Nintendo over Sony and Microsoft, since IMO Nintendo's are better). I also like arcade-style shooters like Starfox or Ikaruga that can be in no way called "simulators" seriously.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you like simple, low-effort games which are easy to learn and not too challenging. Nothing wrong with that per se, but if your bar is set that low, I hope you realize that you don't really qualify as a "gamer", so your tastes would be markedly different than those of a gamer.

[Stark]

In other words, you like simple, low-effort games which are easy to learn and not too challenging. Nothing wrong with that per se <snip>

This is ironic, because complexity and difficulty are precisely what I enjoy about PC shooters like VC. If you had a context-sensitive crouch, punishing damage model and realistically accurate weapons in Halo, I'm sure people would learn a thing or two about small unit tactics.

But Zelda is pretty cool... it lets you pretend your 8 again.

[Shinova]

In other words, you like simple, low-effort games which are easy to learn and not too challenging. Nothing wrong with that per se, but if your bar is set that low, I hope you realize that you don't really qualify as a "gamer", so your tastes would be markedly different than those of a gamer.

Depends on what you mean by challenging.

A top-down shooter can be just as challenging as an RTS, but just in a different way.



A low effort game would be one that's simply too easy to beat by a vast majority of the players, IMO.

[Chardok]

A low effort game would be one that's simply too easy to beat by a vast majority of the players, IMO.

Examples:
KOTOR
Serious Sam
Life Force (Gradius)
Mario brothers 1 and 3
Mike Tyson's Punch out

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

One thing I absolutely hate is the way game devs feel the need to program in camera lag. To anyone who knows what I'm talking about, feel free to skip this rant. To those who don't, read on: Say you have your marine guy/fighting starship/etc pointing one way and you want to turn. You hit the turn button and see the man/ship/etc turn on its pitch or yaw axis about ten degrees (the average; I've seen values ranging from 0 [no lag] to 90(!!!!) degrees.), then the camera drags along, still at that ten degrees. Ten Degrees OFF THE FUCKING BORESIGHT! That's an extreme tactical disadvantage IMHO. So instead of lining up enemies in your sights, you hafta compensate not only for your and their changing velocities while keeping your weapons fire on 'em (Deflection shots are fuckin FUN!) but you have to figure in the camera lag (and the play that happens if you start rockin and rollin around to keep the asshat you're trying to paste in your sights when they start jinking...) Worse: when the camera seems to be mounted on a spring. I will not even get into that. To Game Devs who do this: Dont. It's Fucking LAME.

THAT ONE FACTOR is why I prefer First Persion View in all the games I like to play...

[Darth Wong]

Third-person view is incredibly lame. All it does is waste polygons and processing speed in order to render a character who eats up a big chunk of the screen, always looks basically the same, and contributes nothing whatsoever to your tactical awareness.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Third-person view is incredibly lame. All it does is waste polygons and processing speed in order to render a character who eats up a big chunk of the screen, always looks basically the same, and contributes nothing whatsoever to your tactical awareness.

You completely mooted my rant. Thank you.

[Hotfoot]

Third-person view is incredibly lame. All it does is waste polygons and processing speed in order to render a character who eats up a big chunk of the screen, always looks basically the same, and contributes nothing whatsoever to your tactical awareness.

I've found it to be very useful in many games, really. Jedi Knight games especially benefit from the third person view in saber combat, for example. Also, in Independence War (cap-ship space sim, not FPS), one of the best ways to handle combat was from the WEP station, where your ship was shown from a third-person perspective as a see-through wireframe model, where the camera would track whatever you had targeted. It really did help with tactical awareness, since you had a much better idea of what was going on in a battle.

[Darth Wong]

I've found it to be very useful in many games, really. Jedi Knight games especially benefit from the third person view in saber combat, for example.

I should have specified that I was talking about shooters (as was Einy; he is, after all, the Quake fanatic). When JK goes into sabre mode, it's more like a fighting game, where you normally need to see your character.

Also, in Independence War (cap-ship space sim, not FPS), one of the best ways to handle combat was from the WEP station, where your ship was shown from a third-person perspective as a see-through wireframe model, where the camera would track whatever you had targeted. It really did help with tactical awareness, since you had a much better idea of what was going on in a battle.

In different types of games, I'm sure the third-person view finds some application. But in a shooter, it's fucking stupid.

[Hotfoot]

I should have specified that I was talking about shooters (as was Einy; he is, after all, the Quake fanatic). When JK goes into sabre mode, it's more like a fighting game, where you normally need to see your character.

In different types of games, I'm sure the third-person view finds some application. But in a shooter, it's fucking stupid.

Well in that case, yes. When the objective of the game is straight up shooting action, first-person is the way to go. Of course, having a third person perspective built into the engine of a FPS isn't a bad thing. After all, Jedi Knight 2/Jedi Academy is made with the Quake 3 engine.

But if you're talking about making it mandatory for a Quake-like shooter, then yeah, it is pretty stupid.

[Andrew J.]

In other words, you like simple, low-effort games which are easy to learn and not too challenging. Nothing wrong with that per se, but if your bar is set that low, I hope you realize that you don't really qualify as a "gamer", so your tastes would be markedly different than those of a gamer.

Of course. I've noticed that I have little in common with people that have talent.