Stark wrote:So 'alternative' = 'old game that doesn't look as good, doesn't include similar features, playstyle or options'. Gotcha. Thanks for conceding there have been fuck-all PC-only decent shooters in years, by the way.
Actually, an old game that is still being played because new releases are shit
does count. I agree there have been no decent new releases, but that doesn't mean there are no alternatives. That is unless looking good is the foremost quality of a game in your opinion, wich is a sad opinion to be had, seeing how you can get used to graphics in a few hours of gameplay, but not to crappy gameplay.
Stark wrote:
LordOskuro wrote:simply because the shooter mechanics work better under the keyboard/mouse combo.
Prove it.
Don't be thick. The mouse is a point and click device, and shooter mechanics (in the traditional non-autoaiming sense) are point and click. The precision you can get with a mouse is greater than what you can get by pushing the analog sticks. My personal proof is how extremely easy it is to pull headshots with a mouse in games such as GoW or GTA:SA by a noob (namely, me) when compared to experienced console players who claim GoW's hardcore mode should only be played after running through casual first (yeah, they might be not too good at the game, but they are probably on par to my skills, and used to the Xbox controller, so they are ok for this example). But really, not understanding that the point and click mechanic is superior, just as a joystick is superior for flight sims, or a wheel is superior to driving games, borders on console fanboyishm. And I do think there are several games that work better with a controller, the reason why I have a controller to use with them on my PC.
Stark wrote:
Yeah, it's so dishonest to say 'prove your statement, for which you provided no evidence and for which counter-evidence exists'. Sorry, is your ass still sore?
You're actually claming that there are no alternatives because you, and I quote, "haven't played a shooter on PC in seriously years". So admitedly you're no longer a PC player, and dislike what it has to offer, and that of course translates to PC shooters, present and past, being crap. Who's being closeminded now?
But since you're right that I should substantiate my claims, let's see, franchises: Half-Life, Doom, Battlefield, OFP, Rainbow Six, SWAT, Far Cry, Call of Duty, Crysis... Do I have to keep going on? And don't have the gall to claim they are also available on consoles, this is about shooters being shootier than GoW.
Stark wrote:
Hilarious! Agreement = hate speech!
Yeah well, it's hard to tell them appart when you're posting
Stark wrote:So... what? A crap port (technical issues) ages later on a platform full of piracy sold poorly. Oh I see, you're trying to say the 'market' for Gears is 'small' by laughably cherry-picking a barely-noticed port. Good work, junior! Next you'll say the Final Fantasy 7 port on PC sold badly, thus JRPGs suck because of the superior alternatives provided on PC, right?
Don't be an idiot, I meant to say that PC gamers didn't like GoW as much as Xbox players. Blame it on piracy or bad porting (although except for Windows Live, I didn't feel it was a bad port), but sales flopped, and I doubt it is a mere coincidence that the PC is flooded with shooters, thus reducing the market share of derivative styles such as GoW's
tacticool, but then again, I don't seem to have an omniscient space-age brain like yours, thus your assumptions and opinions apparently trump mine.
Stark wrote:
Yes, that's the only explanation. Clearly, they should have bribed more journalists, as Toyla suggests!
Obviously. With
whores. That's the only way.
