<!--quoteo(post=1827846:date=Jan 27 2011, 09:38 PM:name=Feha)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Feha @ Jan 27 2011, 09:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->magicka has 4 player coop on one machine, atleast I read that somewhere.
Also, if you want to play with friends, use computer, most console games require a physical copy of your friend to play with, and thats rare.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can see 4-player co-op on one machine working with gamepads, but that's just not going to work with mouse and keyboard.
<!--quoteo(post=1827842:date=Jan 27 2011, 03:24 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 27 2011, 03:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, there is all of one half decent 360 game with 4 player multiplayer/coop (via a bug) and that is Halo 3 which does get old after awhile. Black Ops does let you have 4 players against AI but that was an after thought and the AI is not well scripted.
Unless you have four xboxs and four TVs you can't really play with your friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
DY357LXPlaying since day 1. Still can't Comm.EnglandJoin Date: 2002-10-27Member: 1651Members, Constellation
Baaaaaaack on topic we go :-P
I'm very pleased with my purchase of Dead Space 2 on the pc. (It's 6am, am I up early to play it or have I just finished an all-nighter on it? I'll let you decide.)
I honestly haven't noticed ANY technical problems at all. No v-sync issues, no mouse "lag"/jerkiness, framerate has been constantly smooth. (1440*900 with everything enabled + features all set to high.) That's not to say said issues don't exist... I just haven't encountered them.
The game is fun and that's the important thing for me. DLC + Achievements are nice (if priced right) but I rarely bother with them.
Side note: I'll pick up Magicka next week... or Monday Night Combat... haven't decide yet. I'll see what my gaming friends go for. (No point having 7 of us on MNC and 1 on Magicka.)
<!--quoteo(post=1827842:date=Jan 27 2011, 03:24 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Jan 27 2011, 03:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827842"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, there is all of one half decent 360 game with 4 player multiplayer/coop (via a bug) and that is Halo 3 which does get old after awhile. Black Ops does let you have 4 players against AI but that was an after thought and the AI is not well scripted.
Unless you have four xboxs and four TVs you can't really play with your friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't play first person shooters on consoles unless I'm in the same room with the other players. To me, they are literally inferior in every conceivable way. RPG's I'm a little more willing to play on console alone just because it's a hassle to crouch over the computer for 60 hours, but I haven't put serious time into a console RPG for 2 years, so that's kind of a rarity. I'm pretty fixedly a PC gamer right now, I didn't buy a next gen console and I won't be able to any time soon.
<!--quoteo(post=1828066:date=Jan 28 2011, 10:13 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Jan 28 2011, 10:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't play first person shooters on consoles unless I'm in the same room with the other players. To me, they are literally inferior in every conceivable way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A few nights this week a few lads and I got together and played Black Ops on PS3. Christ it's control system is horrendous, even the best player there who could quite quickly flick his aim to near your head couldn't run and aim at the same time.
Controllers are just too damn difficult for fluid movement and fluid aim. It's all about the terrible control over your aim and ability to run which actually makes those games fun with your friends.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
I'd go so far as to call them 'last gen', given that with the standard console turnaround time (between 2-4 years historically between iterations), we're over-due for a hardware update/new console generation... not just new peripherals trying to jump on the Wii bandwagon.
<!--quoteo(post=1828180:date=Jan 28 2011, 09:04 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 28 2011, 09:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->even the best player there who could quite quickly flick his aim to near your head couldn't run and aim at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But could he aim while making the ingame character run? I do understand why its hard to aim when running and holding a thing attached with a cord though ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1828185:date=Jan 28 2011, 01:26 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Jan 28 2011, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828185"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd go so far as to call them 'last gen', given that with the standard console turnaround time (between 2-4 years historically between iterations), we're over-due for a hardware update/new console generation... not just new peripherals trying to jump on the Wii bandwagon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generations are relative, no point in arbitrarily differentiating the generations based on time. Seeing as there isn't a huge discrepancy between what PC games are capable of as opposed to consoles, the current generation will go out just fine without kicking and screaming. Microsoft and Sony have already gone on record saying they wanted the current life cycle to last 10 years anyway, forcing out new hardware just cause wouldn't make much sense for them or consumers.
<!--quoteo(post=1828612:date=Jan 30 2011, 02:38 PM:name=JediYoshi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JediYoshi @ Jan 30 2011, 02:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828612"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]there isn't a huge discrepancy between what PC games are capable of as opposed to consoles[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There may not be a huge discrepancy, but there is a large one. In terms of GPUs and CPUs, modern gaming PCs are now a good bit ahead of the consoles, and they always have been in terms of memory. DirectX 10 has come and gone and we're up to DX 11 now (though fully DX 11-capable GPUs are probably not widespread yet), but consoles still use DX 9. But few developers develop for the PC first and foremost. Games are developed with consoles in mind, then ported to PC if deemed viable. Or they're made for the PC, but the developers hope to make a console version, so they don't do anything the 360 or PS3 couldn't handle. That's why it seems like PCs aren't much better - they're not given the opportunity to shine. Crysis more or less set the bar for "ooo shiny" and nobody has really tried to challenge it.
But I agree that you can't call the current consoles "last gen." That's like calling 2011 last year because we don't have flying cars yet. But I know what Talesin means. Console hardware isn't keeping up, and because the console market dictates terms to game developers (at least the larger ones, and it usually takes them to push the edge - indie games are many things, but graphically bleeding-edge they're usually not), they can afford to stagnate. There's no risk of the developers running from them because they're unsatisfied with the hardware they have to work with, because they have nowhere to run to. Still, maybe it can be a positive development. Bereft of any significant advances in graphics, developers will have to focus on substance rather than flash to set them apart from their competitors. And while I am more of a graphics ###### now than I used to be, I still say gameplay over graphics.
But at least let's see developers make better use of the higher amounts of memory our rigs have. Gameplay-interrupting loading screens are SO last decade. Seriously man.
Comments
Also, if you want to play with friends, use computer, most console games require a physical copy of your friend to play with, and thats rare.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can see 4-player co-op on one machine working with gamepads, but that's just not going to work with mouse and keyboard.
Black Ops does let you have 4 players against AI but that was an after thought and the AI is not well scripted.
Unless you have four xboxs and four TVs you can't really play with your friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Castle. Freaking. Crashers. Get it. Get it now.
I'm very pleased with my purchase of Dead Space 2 on the pc. (It's 6am, am I up early to play it or have I just finished an all-nighter on it? I'll let you decide.)
I honestly haven't noticed ANY technical problems at all. No v-sync issues, no mouse "lag"/jerkiness, framerate has been constantly smooth. (1440*900 with everything enabled + features all set to high.) That's not to say said issues don't exist... I just haven't encountered them.
The game is fun and that's the important thing for me. DLC + Achievements are nice (if priced right) but I rarely bother with them.
Side note: I'll pick up Magicka next week... or Monday Night Combat... haven't decide yet. I'll see what my gaming friends go for. (No point having 7 of us on MNC and 1 on Magicka.)
Black Ops does let you have 4 players against AI but that was an after thought and the AI is not well scripted.
Unless you have four xboxs and four TVs you can't really play with your friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't play first person shooters on consoles unless I'm in the same room with the other players. To me, they are literally inferior in every conceivable way. RPG's I'm a little more willing to play on console alone just because it's a hassle to crouch over the computer for 60 hours, but I haven't put serious time into a console RPG for 2 years, so that's kind of a rarity. I'm pretty fixedly a PC gamer right now, I didn't buy a next gen console and I won't be able to any time soon.
A few nights this week a few lads and I got together and played Black Ops on PS3. Christ it's control system is horrendous, even the best player there who could quite quickly flick his aim to near your head couldn't run and aim at the same time.
Controllers are just too damn difficult for fluid movement and fluid aim. It's all about the terrible control over your aim and ability to run which actually makes those games fun with your friends.
But could he aim while making the ingame character run? I do understand why its hard to aim when running and holding a thing attached with a cord though ;)
Generations are relative, no point in arbitrarily differentiating the generations based on time. Seeing as there isn't a huge discrepancy between what PC games are capable of as opposed to consoles, the current generation will go out just fine without kicking and screaming. Microsoft and Sony have already gone on record saying they wanted the current life cycle to last 10 years anyway, forcing out new hardware just cause wouldn't make much sense for them or consumers.
There may not be a huge discrepancy, but there is a large one. In terms of GPUs and CPUs, modern gaming PCs are now a good bit ahead of the consoles, and they always have been in terms of memory. DirectX 10 has come and gone and we're up to DX 11 now (though fully DX 11-capable GPUs are probably not widespread yet), but consoles still use DX 9.
But few developers develop for the PC first and foremost. Games are developed with consoles in mind, then ported to PC if deemed viable. Or they're made for the PC, but the developers hope to make a console version, so they don't do anything the 360 or PS3 couldn't handle. That's why it seems like PCs aren't much better - they're not given the opportunity to shine. Crysis more or less set the bar for "ooo shiny" and nobody has really tried to challenge it.
But I agree that you can't call the current consoles "last gen." That's like calling 2011 last year because we don't have flying cars yet. But I know what Talesin means. Console hardware isn't keeping up, and because the console market dictates terms to game developers (at least the larger ones, and it usually takes them to push the edge - indie games are many things, but graphically bleeding-edge they're usually not), they can afford to stagnate. There's no risk of the developers running from them because they're unsatisfied with the hardware they have to work with, because they have nowhere to run to.
Still, maybe it can be a positive development. Bereft of any significant advances in graphics, developers will have to focus on substance rather than flash to set them apart from their competitors. And while I am more of a graphics ###### now than I used to be, I still say gameplay over graphics.
But at least let's see developers make better use of the higher amounts of memory our rigs have. Gameplay-interrupting loading screens are SO last decade. Seriously man.