I just played the Xbox 360 and all I can say is...

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:11 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
Brando70 wrote:I don't understand the mouse-keyboard superiority stuff anymore. Yes, the mouse is much better for aiming, but using the keyboard for movement absolutely blows.
The keyboard allows you to strafe while shooting...how many console shooters allow you to do that by just pressing left on the joystick? And if they do, you have to hit a strafe button, the shoot button and the joystick all at the same time.

Maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly but every console FPS lets you strafe and shoot at the same time without pressing a strafe button.

Left analog stick= move forward/back strafe left/right
Right analog stick= mouse look/aim

The last FPS strafe button I can remember was back on the PS1 pre-Dual Shock.

Did I misunderstand what you meant?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:12 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
Brando70 wrote:I don't understand the mouse-keyboard superiority stuff anymore. Yes, the mouse is much better for aiming, but using the keyboard for movement absolutely blows.
The keyboard allows you to strafe while shooting...how many console shooters allow you to do that by just pressing left on the joystick? And if they do, you have to hit a strafe button, the shoot button and the joystick all at the same time.

I'll stick with the keyboard for control in a shooter EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. Not to mention the fact that you can quick switch to your particular weapons instead of cycling through them. There are a ton of reasons why the keyboard and mouse setup dominates a controller when it comes to shooters.

The 360 may surpass the PC in video performance...but until there is a good MK setup, it will always be second rate from a control standpoint.

From an actual gaming standpoint, I disagree (and I realize I'm in the minority). When the controls are done well, a console FPS gives you a lot of freedom of movement. You may lose out on strafing, but maneuvering with the control stick beats the hell out of WASDX. I realize for someone like yourself, the keyboard setup is second nature, but for the person like me who only occasionally ventures into FPS territory, it's awkward and often uncomfortable. I loved COD on the PC but couldn't play for more than an hour because of the movement keys.

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:13 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:
RobVarak wrote:Scoop,

For the love of GOD, man! Which Wal-Mart ???
Rob,
The Wal-Mart on 75th Street just East of Lemont Road. I think that's Downers Grove isn't it?

Also the Walmart at Harlem and 103rd (?) has a kiosk setup as well.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:53 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:
Brando70 wrote:I don't understand the mouse-keyboard superiority stuff anymore. Yes, the mouse is much better for aiming, but using the keyboard for movement absolutely blows.
The keyboard allows you to strafe while shooting...how many console shooters allow you to do that by just pressing left on the joystick? And if they do, you have to hit a strafe button, the shoot button and the joystick all at the same time.
Maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly but every console FPS lets you strafe and shoot at the same time without pressing a strafe button.

Left analog stick= move forward/back strafe left/right
Right analog stick= mouse look/aim

The last FPS strafe button I can remember was back on the PS1 pre-Dual Shock.

Did I misunderstand what you meant?

Well, since I don't play FPS's on the Xbox, I'm not sure if they've implemented that yet which is why I asked the question. To me, strafing is moving left to right while still looking forward allowing you to aim. If they have, that's great...it still doesn't help the fact that manuevering two analog joysticks simultaneously is a lot harder, at least for me, than using keys with a ton more options. Things like fast changing weapons mapped to the # keys is a lot easier than cycling with a controller.

And Brando you're right...if you've never really played FPS's on the PC, it's going to be really hard for you to adjust to the keyboard setup. I played Halo 2 when it was released and I just couldn't get used to the lack of accuracy attributed to the joystick. The sensitivity of a mouse is definitely burned into my brain, so I'll always prefer that.

As for the mouse being too easy because you can aim quickly...to me it recreates a real atmosphere. In real life it's not going to take as long as it does with the joystick...if you see it, you react...not worry about where your joystick is, move it slowly across your field of vision, lock it on target and fire. The mouse movements are just more fluid and accurate.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:06 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:Well, since I don't play FPS's on the Xbox, I'm not sure if they've implemented that yet which is why I asked the question. To me, strafing is moving left to right while still looking forward allowing you to aim. If they have, that's great...it still doesn't help the fact that manuevering two analog joysticks simultaneously is a lot harder, at least for me, than using keys with a ton more options. Things like fast changing weapons mapped to the # keys is a lot easier than cycling with a controller.

You can do that on console FPS games. It started with Goldeneye and Turok on the N64, the FPS's on the DC had it and then when PS2 hit they fully utilized both analog sticks with that setup. On N64 and DC it was awkward since you used the analog stick (on the left side of the controller) to aim and used the controller face buttons to move forward/back and strafe left/right. When they moved aim to the right side because of the additional analog stick and the movement went to the left side it made console FPS's much easier to control for gamers accustomed to PC controls (left hand on keyboard/right hand on mouse).

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:09 pm

Well that's cool if they did that Scoop. I still think it's 2nd nature on the keyboard for movement...two analog sticks is kinda like patting my head and rubbing my tummy...it just doesn't work for me. And like I said, weapon changing and advanced control is MUCH easier with the sheer amount of keys available. That is definitely the biggest advantage in my eyes.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:54 pm

reeche wrote:Bah. Who cares about what PC gamers think. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Well the X360 is mostly positioned as a graphics upgrade, with MS billing it as ushering in high-def gaming.

The Nintendo revolution is touted for retro gaming and for new gameplay control mechanics.

The PS3, according to KK, will achieve levels of simulation (physics, organics) to create new worlds.

PC gamers will evaluate graphics, since they're following all these advances in graphics. One of the most common complaints, and not just from graphics whores, was jaggies this generation.

MS implied this complaint would be addressed by HDTV resolutions and hardware-assisted AA. It's worth watching whether this implicit promise is addressed within the life of the console. Most people think it will be and were somewhat surprised that these early demos of launch games didn't seem to have AA.

There's also some expectation that at launch, the consoles will have better graphics for some period before the PC games exceed console games. Even if that didn't happen this time, you figure for $400, you're getting performance at least on par with much more expensive hardware.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:43 pm

wco81 wrote:
reeche wrote:Bah. Who cares about what PC gamers think. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Well the X360 is mostly positioned as a graphics upgrade, with MS billing it as ushering in high-def gaming.

The Nintendo revolution is touted for retro gaming and for new gameplay control mechanics.

The PS3, according to KK, will achieve levels of simulation (physics, organics) to create new worlds.

PC gamers will evaluate graphics, since they're following all these advances in graphics. One of the most common complaints, and not just from graphics whores, was jaggies this generation.

MS implied this complaint would be addressed by HDTV resolutions and hardware-assisted AA. It's worth watching whether this implicit promise is addressed within the life of the console. Most people think it will be and were somewhat surprised that these early demos of launch games didn't seem to have AA.

There's also some expectation that at launch, the consoles will have better graphics for some period before the PC games exceed console games. Even if that didn't happen this time, you figure for $400, you're getting performance at least on par with much more expensive hardware.

Haven't jaggies been a ps2 problem solely? Will ps3 still have them, do we know yet?

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:54 pm

No some Xbox owners have complained about them too.

Jaggies are not something that was solved once and dealt with. That is why AA continues to be a marketed feature in graphics cards and future consoles.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 7:00 pm

wco81 wrote:No some Xbox owners have complained about them too.

Jaggies are not something that was solved once and dealt with. That is why AA continues to be a marketed feature in graphics cards and future consoles.

I didnt' know that. I really haven't seen much of a jaggies problem on xbox. There are some games that have some, but nothing comparable to the amount of jaggies on the ps2. Seems like some games on the ps2 get worse with jaggies as the next iteration comes out, for example ncaa06.

anchester · Post by **anchester** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:05 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I didnt' know that. I really haven't seen much of a jaggies problem on xbox. There are some games that have some, but nothing comparable to the amount of jaggies on the ps2. Seems like some games on the ps2 get worse with jaggies as the next iteration comes out, for example ncaa06.

Exactly, jaggies on the xbox are a sign of lazy programming. EA is the biggest culprit as they just port over PS2 games w/o maximizing the xbox.

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:40 pm

anchester wrote:
Exactly, jaggies on the xbox are a sign of lazy programming.

I could not disagree more. You are making generalizations that do not take into account how various games are rendered by very different hardware. PS2 games do NOT have enough VRAM to do AA. AA consumes a great deal of VRAM on any console hardware and the developer has to weigh that performance hit versus the impact visually. Current hardware is not really optimal for applying AA and I believe that developers don't feel the tradeoff is worth the minimal visual improvement. I think you will see this attitude shift when the new consoles and HDTV impact the mass market.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:24 pm

All I know is Madden on my HD set is shitty looking. FIFA looks good. The flagship EA title should be 720 no excuses.

If MVP can, and FIFA can surely Madden?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:32 pm

JRod wrote:All I know is Madden on my HD set is shitty looking. FIFA looks good. The flagship EA title should be 720 no excuses.

If MVP can, and FIFA can surely Madden?

I was wondering the same thing. I know MVP is, Fifa is, NBA Live is...so why isn't Madden? I didn't play NHL enough to give a sh*t about hooking it up to my HDTV so I'm not sure if that was available in 720p.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:36 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:
JRod wrote:All I know is Madden on my HD set is shitty looking. FIFA looks good. The flagship EA title should be 720 no excuses.

If MVP can, and FIFA can surely Madden?
I was wondering the same thing. I know MVP is, Fifa is, NBA Live is...so why isn't Madden? I didn't play NHL enough to give a sh*t about hooking it up to my HDTV so I'm not sure if that was available in 720p.

Maybe there is just too much going on at one time to be able to have a current gen football game in 720P? Don't forget ESPN NFL 2K4 was supposed to be 720p but did not pass the Microsoft QA due to framerate issues, and was left at 480p.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:45 pm

bdoughty wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:
JRod wrote:All I know is Madden on my HD set is shitty looking. FIFA looks good. The flagship EA title should be 720 no excuses.

If MVP can, and FIFA can surely Madden?
I was wondering the same thing. I know MVP is, Fifa is, NBA Live is...so why isn't Madden? I didn't play NHL enough to give a sh*t about hooking it up to my HDTV so I'm not sure if that was available in 720p.
Maybe there is just too much going on at one time to be able to have a current gen football game in 720P? Don't forget ESPN NFL 2K4 was supposed to be 720p but did not pass the Microsoft QA due to framerate issues, and was left at 480p.

I coulda sworn that 2k4 was in HD...2k5 on the other hand was not. In fact, I'm positive about that.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:47 pm

See and see:

2k4

http://www.gamefly.com/products/detail. ... 6365&tab=6

2k5

http://www.gamefly.com/products/detail. ... 0695&tab=6

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:50 pm

Yep on the back of the cover 2K4 had 720p showing on the back. Unfortuantely it was not in 720p. This generation has been full of HD mistakes on the back of the box. Heck NBA Ballers was 720p and they forgot to mention it.

Trust my memory on this one, it created a ruckus amongst HD gamers at the time. I think even Steve had a beta copy of 2K4 that was in 720p?

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:52 pm

Was 2k3 in HD then? I remember one of them actually ran in HD because I did it on my buddies TV (I didn't have one at the time). But wait, that TV was probably flawed because it was one of "my" friend's tvs. Scratch that.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:55 pm

dbdynsty25 wrote:Was 2k3 in HD then? I remember one of them actually ran in HD because I did it on my buddies TV (I didn't have one at the time). But wait, that TV was probably flawed because it was one of "my" friend's tvs. Scratch that.

Nope, there has yet to be a football (american) game released in 720P. Plenty in 480p and widescreen though.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:55 pm

720p alone isn't going to remove jaggies.

Developers may have to trade off AA with other effects like higher HDR, motion blur, etc. or higher frame rates.

In this generation, they've tended to go for more effects and filtering at the cost of higher or rock-solid frame rates.

GridIronGhost · Post by **GridIronGhost** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:11 pm

bdoughty wrote:
dbdynsty25 wrote:
JRod wrote:All I know is Madden on my HD set is shitty looking. FIFA looks good. The flagship EA title should be 720 no excuses.

If MVP can, and FIFA can surely Madden?
I was wondering the same thing. I know MVP is, Fifa is, NBA Live is...so why isn't Madden? I didn't play NHL enough to give a sh*t about hooking it up to my HDTV so I'm not sure if that was available in 720p.
Maybe there is just too much going on at one time to be able to have a current gen football game in 720P? Don't forget ESPN NFL 2K4 was supposed to be 720p but did not pass the Microsoft QA due to framerate issues, and was left at 480p.

The game runs pretty good in 720p offline, online was the problem. MS would not approve the game in two versions. Sad that MS approved Soul Caliber 2. If your wondering, I have the last beta version of the game in 720p.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:22 pm

GridIronGhost wrote:The game runs pretty good in 720p offline, online was the problem.

Makes you wonder about online games at HDTV resolutions.

Even non-HDTV games have disclaimers about online modes having less detail than offline. Typically some wording about how the experience may not be the same.

GridIronGhost · Post by **GridIronGhost** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:24 pm

DivotMaker wrote:
anchester wrote:
Exactly, jaggies on the xbox are a sign of lazy programming.
I could not disagree more. You are making generalizations that do not take into account how various games are rendered by very different hardware. PS2 games do NOT have enough VRAM to do AA. AA consumes a great deal of VRAM on any console hardware and the developer has to weigh that performance hit versus the impact visually. Current hardware is not really optimal for applying AA and I believe that developers don't feel the tradeoff is worth the minimal visual improvement. I think you will see this attitude shift when the new consoles and HDTV impact the mass market.

No it's lazy product support. They are not willing to do what is needed to put out the best possible product. It's out the door no matter what. They have some of the worst graphic artists in the business.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:20 pm

GridIronGhost wrote:
DivotMaker wrote:
anchester wrote:
Exactly, jaggies on the xbox are a sign of lazy programming.
I could not disagree more. You are making generalizations that do not take into account how various games are rendered by very different hardware. PS2 games do NOT have enough VRAM to do AA. AA consumes a great deal of VRAM on any console hardware and the developer has to weigh that performance hit versus the impact visually. Current hardware is not really optimal for applying AA and I believe that developers don't feel the tradeoff is worth the minimal visual improvement. I think you will see this attitude shift when the new consoles and HDTV impact the mass market.
No it's lazy product support. They are not willing to do what is needed to put out the best possible product. It's out the door no matter what. They have some of the worst graphic artists in the business.

I don’t hate EA but I have to somewhat agree with that. Seems like from a graphics end, EA has always lacked the detail that other developers have. I am only talking about console gaming here.

Back to the Jaggies discussion, will PS3 still have jaggies issues like ps2 and ps1 did? If thats going to be the case, then I won't even bother with it. Even the Dreamcast didnt have a problem with jaggies but Sony still may 3 generations past the DC?

I have a friend who plays his ps2 on a HDTV and it looks completely horrible. He plays madden a lot and it's very hard to even look at that game on a hdtv. The pixels are magnified 3 fold compared to a regular tv setup.