The Conduit heats up

Originally Posted by Twilight~09

Lmao XD

Wow, totally not a waste of a post.

And I still fail to see why preferring console shooters to PC shooters is such a damn sin.

I love how I finally make a decent post and everyone ignores it. **** decent posting, what a waste of time.

What a heated thread. Now how did I miss this?

Anyways, here are my two cents:

Granted, the game may look a bit eccentric compared to other generic shooters (at least in many perspectives). The visuals are decent and have seemed to be polished in the most recent video. It is also beginning to look a LOT like Metroid Prime.

BUT, I don't see why there is a need for all this hype. IMO, what is shown of the game is a little too vague, and the videos and information make you think of sci-fi shooter game clichés.
Also, one of the things I hate about ign and other gaming sources is that they tend to over-hype games like these just to fart in their face by scoring them with a 6.0 or below (Looks at De Blob). *Shrugs* I don't think I can judge the game well enough from what is shown, but I can safely say that it is not looking too bad.

As for the controllers: No one can deny that PC and Wii controls are superior to generic joystick hand controllers. Doing so may be because of fan bias or lack of experience with the variety of controller options.
Also, when it comes to shooter and wii-mote control, Metroid Prime 3 is not a good game to mention. I think RE4 is what shows the superior, more precise control scheme of the Wii. But that's IMO.

Originally Posted by IGNIS

As for the controllers: No one can deny that PC and Wii controls are superior to generic joystick hand controllers. Doing so may be because of fan bias or lack of experience with the variety of controller options.

Or preference.

Am I really the only one who ****ing can't stand Wii FPS controls?

Originally Posted by Ender

Am I really the only one who ****ing can't stand Wii FPS controls?

Meh, as of right now, the best Wii FPS controls is MP3, but since you can just lock on to everything in that game, they don't really seem too great.

Originally Posted by Raunm

Meh, as of right now, the best Wii FPS controls is MP3, but since you can just lock on to everything in that game, they don't really seem too great.

They felt clunky and just plain not accurate.

Thus why you get to lock on. :3

Originally Posted by sea

Dual-analogue controls are inferior to a keyboard and mouse when it comes to playing shooters. This is a fact; they are simply clumsier, slower and less precise. Dual-analogue controls largely work because of the huge concessions made to gameplay for them. These concessions come in the form of auto-aim, target tracking, "snap to" targeting (see Call of Duty 4), slowing down of game speed, and more emphasis on horizontally-oriented environments rather than vertically-oriented environments.

They aren't clumsier, and as all you PC players keep vomitting out: settings, settings, settings. You can change the sensitivity of them in any competent shooter to make them faster. I can understand the less precise argument, but with next-gen programming tricks like auto aim, this is easily overcome. More to come later on the vertical vs. horizontal issue. Oh, and the snap-to system is absolute bull**** in every way. I hate Call of Duty Four.

With mouse acceleration, poor equipment, etc., it's easy to believe sometimes that a keyboard and mouse aren't as great as they're trumpeted. However, grab a gaming mouse, turn up the sensitivity and turn off the acceleration, and you'll see just how amazingly fast and precise a mouse can be.

I really enjoy using a mouse on PC shooters, and just the flexibility of it for gaming. However, I greatly disagree that you need a special gaming mouse. What the hell is that? I prefer my simple two-button, one mouse wheel, optical corded USB mouse. Those things are so comfortable, ergonomic, and precise. Raunm is correct though, that they are no means better. It's an issue of preference over superiority.

Simply put, there is absolutely no comparison between the two methods. A skilled PC player will beat a skilled console player at the same game every time. One of the reasons why you don't see cross-platform play in, say, Games For Windows Live!-enabled titles is because the PC players will invariably win. In fact, this is the reason why Halo 2 on PC does not support cross-platform play; in testing, the developers found that the PC players dominated the console players so much that the game simply became too one-sided and thus not fun for the losers.

This is very possible and credible, but what evidence do you have? I haven't heard of this, can you possibly cite a reference?

Furthermore, when's the last time that you've played a console shooter that significantly uses or even emphasises vertical space? Halo? Nope.

It seems that the biggest mouse vs. joystick argument is the one that console gamers don't have the PC experience to back it up. Clearly, this is true in the reverse. If you find that Halo 3 doesn't emphasize vertical space, you've never played the maps Epitaph, Avalanche, Construct, Guardian, Black/Lockout, The Pit, Ghost Town, The Foundry, High Ground (more vertical than horizontal!), Cold Storage to an extent, Sandtrap, Last Resort, or I could go on forever. There's probably forty Halo maps in history, and I would say that only a select few aren't vertical based because they don't need to be. Play some of the maps before dooming the game.

Whenever someone says they prefer the dual-analogue setup to a PC and mouse, I get the impression it is only for a few reasons: that the player has not spent sufficient time playing PC shooters; that the player has low-end PC hardware; that the player has only ever used dual-analogue controls. In fact, I think that most console fans prefer consoles not so much because of the input device, but because of the added comfort of sitting on a couch in front of a larger monitor.

Well, this is obviously not true for Raunm, and he prefers consoles. And I have quite a lot of PC gaming experience:
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/5662/72632806nw8.jpg
That's just BF2 Vanilla. Add the two mods I play regularly for it, and that's the 400 seen there plus another three hundred. Then add 150 hrs of BF2142 and then another 100 hrs of 1942 + DC mod. Then probably at least 500 hrs. of Age of Mythology and I'd say that's enough to call me an avid PC gaming fan.

Also, I should note that while a keyboard and mouse are far better input devices for games requiring speed, precision, a large number of buttons, etc. (the high resolution of a PC monitor also assists greatly), the digital nature of the keyboard means that movement is confined to four or eight completely mechanical directions. Racing, sports, platform, and action games that don't require precision targeting or cursor movement are generally better suited to a gamepad. I don't want to downplay that strength, because it certainly exists. Playing a platform game on a PC is simply a nightmare. However, I think console players should be willing to admit the very apparent shortcomings of their platforms, especially when it leads to gameplay compromises and sacrifices.

Firstly,the high resolution of a PC monitor means nothing:
http://hardware.teamxbox.com/reviews...D-AV-Cable/p1/
I know of two people, including myself, who use this device to game with their 360 on a computer monitor. And it looks just fine.

And yes, I can admit that a mouse/Keyboard combination could definitely make easier many types of games found on consoles. But in this generation of gaming, there are so many clever tricks developers have learned to stretch the limit of a limited gamepad, and really make it work for those more complex games. Examples are context sensitivity, giving the same button multiple uses through pressure sensitivity or elongated presses of it, having numerous types of control schemes, and more advanced detection of how you press something. You can accomplish a lot of the more complex tasks that way that a PC would have simply assigned a cursor interface to, or some extra button. I think they do a fine job, but I still have to admit it would be slightly improved by a PC port.

Originally Posted by Ender

3rd, map design. ****ing bull****. The only time I play Halo 3 is when I'm playing 1v1 with my good friend, Andy, and we play on the same 2-3 maps every single time we play. At this point we must have several hundred hours on Guardian. Every surface is modeled so you can bounce grenades into peoples faces, there are multiple short cuts all over the place, and the only real issue with a lot of the maps is the horrible, horrible weapon placement, but that is all solved with Forge. Andy and I actually go into Forge (You guys know what that is right?) and edit pretty much all the maps before we sit down and play on them, maybe thats why I think the map design is so good, I actually play on them with decent weapon placement.

God dude, we must have spent 200 hours on guardian alone 1v1ing, and probably fifty hours total forging the crap out of all of the maps for weapon placement.

Overall, Halo 3 is one of the most refined and polished games I've ever played. The graphics and animation are both top notch, and Halo 3 has the best physics engine I've ever seen.

Which was subsequently employed in BF: Bad Company, and your beloved Smash Brothers Brawl. But I must really emphasize how AMAZING Halo 3 looks. I've played it just about every single week since it came out and I still see new things to gawk at. It never looks bad. It's such a polished gem of a game that I don't think I'll ever get bored with it.

Originally Posted by sea

Recharging health is one of the most annoying trends that the video game industry has latched onto, ever. It's definitely up there with third-person cover systems.

I'm not a fan of the system, I still greatly prefer the Battlefield way of getting health through other players, but Halo is not that kind of game, and the system works incredibly well in it.

Despite that, I will not dispute that Halo 3 has some pretty good balance, map design, and weapon design, and I have to admit that it's perhaps one of the most solid games I've seen, mechanically. However, the series hasn't really done anything extraordinary except for perhaps The Forge in the latest game; it's been treading water since the first, riding high on the fact that it's one of the first competent mainstream console shooters. The first game is hardly amazing, either, what with its awful cut-and-paste single-player mode.

But it is extraordinary. No game prior has had this deep of a general balance all around. The ability to tweak your maps to a very T, the theater feature employed masterfully for a console game, graphics that push the envelope of the 360, and gameplay that's never been touched as far as depth. And hacking Halo 3 for its singleplayer is like hacking Metroid Prime 2 for its multiplayer.

Originally Posted by IGNIS

As for the controllers: No one can deny that PC and Wii controls are superior to generic joystick hand controllers. Doing so may be because of fan bias or lack of experience with the variety of controller options.

Or, exactly as Raunm said, preference. And who the hell are you to say that nobody can deny the PC superiority in controls? Anyone can deny it, and many have and will. They are NOT better, they are different and more flexible, maybe.

Andy's the ****. The good kind of ****.

Originally Posted by Andy

This is very possible and credible, but what evidence do you have? I haven't heard of this, can you possibly cite a reference?

No no he's right, They said it on an IGN podcast a long while ago. They said that they were going to make Gears of War 360 and PC players be able to fight each other but they decided not to cause the 360 players would of gotten owned.

Originally Posted by Andy

Or, exactly as Raunm said, preference. And who the hell are you to say that nobody can deny the PC superiority in controls? Anyone can deny it, and many have and will. They are NOT better, they are different and more flexible, maybe.

Well I don't know, I have heard several times people say that PC controls are tons better. This is really the first time I've heard anyone say the reverse.

generic game, bad graphics. Yawn, Yawn

I know Wii Controls have the potential to be good...but does anyone else think critics go a little overboard when, "These are by far the greatest controls on a videogame ever!".

And WTF?! on

Halo has the best engine I have seen

. W.T.F.
Halo 3's engine makes me think of Dragon Ball Z or people made of rubber and jell-o. it's not great. Please, I mean it's so cheesy when you mellee someone and they go flying across the map or you splatter a guy and he's starts sliding everywhere. And since when do people just fall down when they get sniped in the head. No recoil = corny.

I'd say GTA has the closest. (I would say Crysis, but I haven't played that game.) I mean Euphoria engine is probably going to totally smoke anything and everything. (We'll see with The Force Unleashed.)

But I think we have all gotten a little off track. The Conduit is hyped because it's a Wii game that is mature. Period. It's a Wii game that is a FPS. I am excited for the game with my lungs, I mean I cannot wait. I just think they need to work on the art style...majorly.

It's also being covered by a very popular website: IGN. End o' Story.

Originally posted by Ender
They felt clunky and just plain not accurate.

If you geniunely believe they weren't accurate (given that Wii controls allow more accuracy than dual-analog), it's a sign that you're too used to normal FPS controls. You've mentioned on several occasions that it's your favorite genre, and I'm sure you've played the living hell out of games like Halo and CoD 4. As it is, pointing with the remote to aim has a big learning curve for any kind of gamer; it took me until Bryyo to truly understand them. For someone who is such an avid FPS gamer, and has such familiarity with dual-analog, it would take significantly longer for you to get a hang of, and even then, you may never be able to grasp them as well as others. That seems to be your case.

Originally posted by Andy
This is very possible and credible, but what evidence do you have? I haven't heard of this, can you possibly cite a reference?

In addition to what Kishiro said, I'm almost positive that GameInformer made notes of it with their previews and reviews for Halo 2 and Gears on the PC.

But in all seriousness, it's almost common knowledge.

The ability to tweak your maps to a very T

Games like Timesplitters: Future Perfect and Far Cry allow you make entire levels

and gameplay that's never been touched as far as depth.

That just isn't true at all. By all means, Halo 3 was a fantastic game, and anyone that says it or any other entry in the franchise is bad is nothing more than a fanboy. But the reason why so many gamers are aggravated by its popularity is because it's not revolutionary in the way that the fanbase makes it out as, and there have been several other FPS titles that have been equally as well-designed.

Or, exactly as Raunm said, preference. And who the hell are you to say that nobody can deny the PC superiority in controls? Anyone can deny it, and many have and will. They are NOT better, they are different and more flexible, maybe.

That's exactly why people consider them better, though; they give you more. You have more options with the layout and sensitivity, as well as the option for greater accuracy. And to many (arguably most) gamers, whatever offers quality and greater quantity is the better scheme.

Originally Posted by Jeff

If you geniunely believe they weren't accurate (given that Wii controls allow more accuracy than dual-analog), it's a sign that you're too used to normal FPS controls. You've mentioned on several occasions that it's your favorite genre, and I'm sure you've played the living hell out of games like Halo and CoD 4. As it is, pointing with the remote to aim has a big learning curve for any kind of gamer; it took me until Bryyo to truly understand them. For someone who is such an avid FPS gamer, and has such familiarity with dual-analog, it would take significantly longer for you to get a hang of, and even then, you may never be able to grasp them as well as others. That seems to be your case.

That actually makes perfect sense.