Diageo Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Socom definitely made it so that it can't be DS3 v Move because then DS3 players would get owned all the time. Why doesn't this translate to FPS's?
dwarf Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 The boundary box is much less important in 3rd person, and aiming centralises when you aim, making it much easier. In FPS your camera is pretty much always moving/unstable. For example turning corners and aiming can be a nightmare because as you go to aim your iron sights are wavering around. Makes motion controls a lot trickier, even if they can be more fun. I imagine Socom would be good with Move however.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 But the fact remains that in online shooters, you will do better with analogues. It's fine if you have Move vs. Move matches, but otherwise prepare to get steamrofled. Hmm. I wonder if this is so. Because when PC meets analogues, analogues get owned. And pointer controlls are more like PC controls when it comes to percision. So I guess it'll balance out, since people using DS3 won't be as accurate, but people using move will have worst reflexes. Pretty much, pointers are always better in singleplayer, but in multiplayer, it's very relative.
dwarf Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Mice are so precise and easy to use it's unfunny. They will destroy pad users. However, I find keyboard and mouse set-up a bit boring and awkward. Motion control is a different ball game (lul), as you have to factor in that you can't rest your pointer on a flat surface and just drag it and know where the pointer will plonk itself, in the same way that a mouse works. It's much harder to judge. So you've got both a quivering hand, and the camera is always moving as you adjust aim before aiming down the sights, so the readjustment time can be a bit awkward. No matter how you set a boundary box you'll suffer some sort of set back. So in my view - for FPS' at least: Precision Mouse > Pad > Motion Fun-o-meter! Motion > Pad > Mouse So controllers play a good compromising role for me.
Oxigen_Waste Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Mice are so precise and easy to use it's unfunny. They will destroy pad users. However, I find keyboard and mouse set-up a bit boring and awkward. Motion control is a different ball game (lul), as you have to factor in that you can't rest your pointer on a flat surface and just drag it and know where the pointer will plonk itself, in the same way that a mouse works. It's much harder to judge. So you've got both a quivering hand, and the camera is always moving as you adjust aim before aiming down the sights, so the readjustment time can be a bit awkward. No matter how you set a boundary box you'll suffer some sort of set back. So in my view - for FPS' at least: Precision Mouse > Pad > Motion Fun-o-meter! Motion > Pad > Mouse So controllers play a good compromising role for me. Pretty much think the same, except I would equate the pad and motion precision. As long as you calibrate it accurately, I think each other's disadvantages nulify each other.
Aimless Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Using a pointer is clearly more precise than an analogue stick in certain circumstances: RE4 Wii Edition is an absolute cakewalk due to the added ease of targeting. Theoretically this is also true of first-person shooters, but the reality is that contemporary shooters are designed around controllers: there's generally little call for placing successive, accurate shots, with games offering numerous subtle aids in regards to target acquisition and retention. I think an FPS designed around Move would be very interesting. Potentially it could control, on a basic level, more akin to GoldenEye or Perfect Dark on the N64, with a discreet aiming mode that more or less locks the player's viewpoint. More fiddly solutions might even be viable given a bit of acclimatisation, such as tilting the controller left or right to turn rather than relying on a bounding box. In either case I think it could lead to more interesting enemy encounters, the added accuracy allowing developers to step away from simple headshot mentality towards aiming for an enemies legs to trip them up so their vulnerable back is exposed, or even shooting grenades they try to throw at you. There's a lot of interesting places people could take the FPS, unfortunately most can't seem to look past CoD.
dwarf Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Played a round on every Killzone 2 map consecutively in Warzone at a friend's house and had an absolute blast, it was just so damn entertaining. The tekkers that got whipped out were stonking, and by playing it you further realise what a step back the 3rd one is. Just thought I'd post this if my opinion wasn't clear. People didn't give enough credit for what the second one did online. Partly because peeps just can't comprehend how to hip-fire and use the magnum to rape effect. Even so long after release, players don't understand.
Aimless Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I'll be sure to get some popcorn in for the 3rd when the public Beta is released and your opinion makes a massive u-turn.
MATtheHAT Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Played a round on every Killzone 2 map consecutively in Warzone at a friend's house and had an absolute blast, it was just so damn entertaining. The tekkers that got whipped out were stonking, and by playing it you further realise what a step back the 3rd one is. Just thought I'd post this if my opinion wasn't clear. People didn't give enough credit for what the second one did online. Partly because peeps just can't comprehend how to hip-fire and use the magnum to rape effect. Even so long after release, players don't understand.
dwarf Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I'll be sure to get some popcorn in for the 3rd when the public Beta is released and your opinion makes a massive u-turn. Well if you could buy the popcorn for me, be my guest, because I'd love to experience that u-turn. It's just looking unlikely right now.
dwarf Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Sound advice. You've asked me to do that before, and back then I had some interesting scipture fodder. Nowt at the moment though. Would you like to share some popcorn with me at the cinema?
dwarf Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Awesome, what was it you wanted to see? I'm easy, but 'Braincrusher Apocalypse' looked quite romantic and cheeky.
ReZourceman Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Are we getting sweet or salted? I prefer both, with salt on the bottom, or layered if the attendant is kind enough to offer.
Daft Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 I'm good with anything Rez doesn't understand. Edit: Speak of the Devil.
dwarf Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Are we getting sweet or salted? I prefer both, with salt on the bottom, or layered if the attendant is kind enough to offer. I'm sure I can accommodate your needs be they sweet or salty. If we push the boat out we could have minstrels as well but that depends on Galaxy's moral affliction for steep pricing. I'm good with anything Rez doesn't understand. Edit: Speak of the Devil. Ok we'll pull a film out of the hat then
The Lillster Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Played the Beta earlier. I'm using the Move controller and it feels really weird and awkward at first, but feels really good when you get used to it. Here are some tips on calibration and settings: When you are calibrating the motion controller, don't extend your arm out to the PS EYE, just hold it in a natural position and use slight wrist movements to point to the edges. - After doing it that way, the controls felt a lot better. For settings I use: DZ Width: 0 DZ Height: 30 Crosshair speed: 70 Turn Speed: 50
dwarf Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) M82 is now available for use with the Tactician. There's still hope. Edit: Scratch that, it's still balls. Edited February 3, 2011 by dwarf
Cookyman Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Killzone 3 review up at Joystiq. Killzone 3 review: Third time's the harm The Killzone franchise has always been caught in a struggle against early expectations. The first game fell short of its "Halo killer" billing, and the next console outing had to match a lofty, pre-rendered visual "target" -- while it came close, it couldn't silence sharp-eyed critics. With Killzone 3, developer Guerrilla has no new benchmark to beat except for the one it already set for itself: be better than Killzone 2. Critics, myself included, praised that last game, even though a few turn-offs still slipped through. Killzone 3 systematically addresses every complaint voiced: the graphics have become more colorful, the story has been greatly expanded, and the controls have been tweaked to feel less sluggish. But reactionary development doesn't always work. Fixated on correcting what wasn't necessarily broken, Guerrilla has forgotten to focus on what really matters in the solo game: making it fun. Set immediately after the events of Killzone 2, most of the game's major changes will go unnoticed until later in the campaign -- except for a major overhaul of the game's handling. As if someone hit fast-forward on the game engine, your character and your gun are both nimbler than ever. The noticeable weight of each weapon has been removed, letting you run around carrying an assault rifle and a sniper rifle, should you please. You can even rip out turrets, Master Chief-style, and still hit L3 to dash across the environment. This is meant to speed up the pace -- and it succeeds -- but as a fan of the last iteration, I couldn't help but feel like a crucial part of the game's spirit had been killed. Rectifying the control lag certainly makes the game more accessible to the mainstream standard set by Call of Duty. A consequence of removing that weight, however, is that it makes similar classes of weapons feel nearly indistinguishable from one another. A submachine gun feels like an assault rifle feels like a machine gun, whether you're playing on a DualShock or a Move controller. The only difference between the weapons you'll really consider is the size of its magazine, an unfortunate misstep for those who appreciated the tactical aspect of the last game's combat. Killzone is no longer a military shooter that simply happens to take place in space. Guerrilla fully embraces the sci-fi aspect of the franchise and, in doing so, finally gives the game a "gimmick" its predecessor sorely lacked: lots of robots and crazy alien stuff. Killzone 3 is a playground of new toys and new enemies that sounds absolutely delightful on paper. In one level, you'll fight intimidating Predator-esque enemies in the Helghan wilderness, while dodging a fire-breathing dragon-robot-thing. In another, you'll liquify electric-shooting soldiers while jumping around in a low-gravity space station. Oh, and let's not forget the jetpacks. But every brilliant moment is countered by another of frustration, anger, or boredom. For the most part, the gameplay devolves into a mindless shooting gallery, where the greatest threat isn't enemy intelligence, but a hilarious amount of grenade spam. It's not uncommon to come to a barrier and have three grenades land at your feet ... every thirty seconds. And even when you're not under explosive assault, the game lobs equally temperamental objectives your way that tend to be unclear and poorly communicated. Considering how much of the game is driven by set pieces, it's amazing how often you'll feel lost. The game's excessive reliance on rail-shooting segments quickly outstays its welcome. Sure, the vehicle you're in may change -- whether you're in a gunship, a tank, an ice plow, etc. -- but the tactics are mercilessly mindless. Just keep holding R1 until everything explodes. Don't think. Just watch the explosions! They're so pretty! It's easy to see why Guerrilla added so many of these rails segments. Not only do they give off the impression of variety, they show off how stunning the graphics are in Killzone 3. You'll be hard-pressed to disagree -- the stylized HDR lighting, the overabundance of color, and the sheer variety of locations really make the game a treat for the eyes. The most compelling reason to soldier through the campaign may be just to see where the game takes you next. Somehow, the levels seem to look better and better, and you'll never want the engine to render brown ever again. Unfortunately, the spectacle of the graphics can't rectify the travesty that is the game's narrative. Killzone 2 didn't have a story, some complained. I'd much rather have nothing than the heavy-handed, absurdly edited tale of Killzone 3. There's a feature length film's worth of cutscene tucked away onto the Blu-ray disc, and were it placed into theaters you would walk out in anger and ask for your $12 back. The performances are strong, but the script is miserable. The lack of characterization makes it difficult to care about the plot, and the cutscenes' inability to convey something as simple as cause and effect makes it impossible to even try. Stripping the game of its story actually makes for a better product, as evidenced by the stellar multiplayer mode. Whereas shooting becomes a chore in the campaign, I never tired of the multiplayer experience. The class system in Killzone 2 makes a return here, streamlined to make it much more accessible to newcomers. There's no "grunt" class anymore. Instead, you'll be able to play as any class with powers, making the game immediately more gratifying. Leveling up gives you access to "points" that you can use to strengthen each class: create stronger turrets for the engineer, earn a cloaking device, etc. If you focus on a specific class, you'll make progress rather quickly. Like its predecessor, Killzone 3 doesn't offer much in terms of modes, but the three included on the disc greatly expand the single option previously offered. Warzone makes a return, offering the same objective roulette that fans have come to expect. Each team competes to win as many constantly-changing objectives as possible: assassinating a specific team member, defending a certain territory, or just raking in kills. Killzone 3 fixes one of the biggest missed opportunities of the last title: vehicular combat comes into play -- and in a big way, too. Depending on the stage, you'll be able to commandeer a mech or a jetpack. It should be obvious that the dynamics of battle drastically change when these come into play. But the most effective new ingredient in the multiplayer is the Operations mode. Similar to Uncharted 2's co-op, Operations adapts pivotal battles in the single-player campaign and turns them into objective-based clashes between the Helghast and ISA. The objectives are widely spread across the map, meaning teams will have to really coordinate well to attack or defend. The victor is rewarded a rather satisfying outro, with the winning team humiliating the losing side, with screen names highlighted on both sides. Multiplayer does what the campaign simply cannot, which is to make you care. Despite that, I have to wonder if Killzone 3's multiplayer offers enough content to remain competitive with the other players in the space. There are only three modes to play through, one being a straightforward team deathmatch. The three maps available in Operations are a lot of fun, but I couldn't help but want more. And why aren't there more maps with jetpacks? Why aren't there more modes that use the mechs? What about a low-gravity mode, as seen in the campaign? (The answer is likely "DLC.") The feature set of Killzone 3 is impressive: 3D support, PlayStation Move compatibility, split-screen offline co-op campaign, and offline multiplayer with bots, but no amount of 3D waggle can change the fact that the Killzone 3 campaign is a miserable experience. Killzone 3 certainly offers more bells and whistles than its predecessor -- it's just a shame they've been affixed to an inferior game. IGN review Gamespot review Edited February 3, 2011 by Cookyman
The Lillster Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 M82 is now available for use with the Tactician. There's still hope. Edit: Scratch that, it's still balls. After getting used to the Move controls I thought it was good. What don't you like about it?
Zechs Merquise Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Although I don't own a PS3, I am actually interested in this simply for the Move controls. I'm a big fan of FPS games on the Wii as I love the pointer controls and find they make playing FPS games a lot easier and more fluid than dual analog controls, I'd really love to see anyone who has played a COD game or any other online FPS on the Wii give their thoughts on how the Move compares. I realise the controls for MOVE are very similar, but I also realise it took a while for some developers to totally nail Wii remote pointing in an FPS. I'm mainly intrigued by this for several reasons: Firstly, in COD:BO on Wii you can use standard dual analog controls as well as Wii remote controls. Basically those using the Wii remote seem to have a big advantage as the speed of aiming is much much quicker. I expect this to be the case with Move too. My question is, that as Move is not the standard control scheme on the PS3, do players think that it will give Move owners an advantage over dual analog users that could cause an imbalance in the community where good Move players literally dominate proceedings? Secondly, as the PS3 has a bigger FPS base than the Wii are their any players here who liked dual analog but have found that Move has won them over? At first I didn't like the idea of dropping dual analog, but after playing Metroid Prime 3 and later COD I was totally won over. Thirdly, it took developers a while to integrate good pointing controls in Wii games and cut excessive gestures. At first developers seemed full of crazy ideas that gestures should replace all button presses. As we've moved forward developers have kept the pointer controls and simple gestures for reloads and some melee attacks, but have gone back to button presses for other actions like zooming in and grenade throws. Do people think that this first generation of Move shooters have learned from mistakes made in this regard on the Wii, or are Move controls gesture heavy? Thanks!
flameboy Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 well I downloaded the beta...I will give it a go...was on one of the previous beta's early on but if I'm honest barely gave it any playtime. I will give this a bit more though.
Recommended Posts