Originally posted by Aelious Of course PCs are more flexible and no one is tossing out their PC. What I'm saying is that with all of the MMOs and multiplayer games coming I for one will be getting one where things like reticle/swing gameplay is native.
I can see how I could have hundreds or thousands of games on a PC while not so many on a console... and? How many possible games do I need or want to play at the same time. A handful of quality games are more important to me than hundreds of medicore ones. I honestly don't have the free time to play hundreds of games.
Not to mention EQN will likely be F2P.
I remember reading something recently from a game developer who was saying you need a PC with twice the specs to get the same performance as consoles. So it's misleading to say you could buy something with PS4 specs for $400. The specs alone won't get you the console's performance.
Well anyone who thinks you can get a PC right now that matches the PS4/Xbone in performance for $400 is making quite a stretch. The Tom's Hardware system builder marathon $600 gaming PC from Q1 this year was on par performance* wise to the PS4 (Which isn't even out yet). Granted that's custom built, shopping for deals, and knowing what to do, and it's still +$200.
Now, that gap will close by the time the PS4 actually released. By then you'll be able to buy a $600 or $700 pc from a pre-build site that will match PS4 performance. (That's still +$200 - $300).
Twice the specs comment? I'd like to read that because it's not that drastic. Not even close.
But my point was that once you calculate in the games, PC matches the price of the console within just a few sales. Once you start building a game library, PC becomes cheaper by far.
I'm not anti-console. I own them all and I still have my original NES hooked up in the living room lol. I even got a Wii U and 2x 3DS's. (Can't wait for the new smash bros and zelda!)
But I'm just stating a fact on price. PC is a money saver for most people and at worst, it breaks even. Most people just look at the cost of a console and directly contrast it to the price of PC hardware. That's like buying a car and not considering it's gas mileage, oil changes and maintenance fees.
Originally posted by William12 Originally posted by Aceshighhhh I sincerely hope so. Traditional MMO combat was good for its time but much too clunky and tedious for this generation. : I suspect the people who still cling to it are the veteran old-school MMO players.
action combat is also boring and predictable. In 3 years you'll be so sick of it.
Action combat has been playing out for years in single player games and nobody seems to be getting tired of it there.
The game being a sandbox doesn't imply any particular kind of combat at all. It could be "action", or "tab target" or it could even be turn based like Wizard 101. It won't be turn based, but it could.
Action combat with a cross hair worked fine in Global Agenda, even for healers. I had a variety of attacks and heals that made things interesting and challenging. Tab targeting worked fine in WoW, and same thing, I had a variety of attacks and heals that made things interesting and challenging. Whether the combat and healing is interesting and challenging depends more on their implementation of a particular style, not the style itself.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Aelious Of course PCs are more flexible and no one is tossing out their PC. What I'm saying is that with all of the MMOs and multiplayer games coming I for one will be getting one where things like reticle/swing gameplay is native. I can see how I could have hundreds or thousands of games on a PC while not so many on a console... and? How many possible games do I need or want to play at the same time. A handful of quality games are more important to me than hundreds of medicore ones. I honestly don't have the free time to play hundreds of games.
Not to mention EQN will likely be F2P.I remember reading something recently from a game developer who was saying you need a PC with twice the specs to get the same performance as consoles. So it's misleading to say you could buy something with PS4 specs for $400. The specs alone won't get you the console's performance.
Well anyone who thinks you can get a PC right now that matches the PS4/Xbone in performance for $400 is making quite a stretch. The Tom's Hardware system builder marathon $600 gaming PC from Q1 this year was on par performance* wise to the PS4 (Which isn't even out yet). Granted that's custom built, shopping for deals, and knowing what to do, and it's still +$200.Now, that gap will close by the time the PS4 actually released. By then you'll be able to buy a $600 or $700 pc from a pre-build site that will match PS4 performance. (That's still +$200 - $300).Twice the specs comment? I'd like to read that because it's not that drastic. Not even close.But my point was that once you calculate in the games, PC matches the price of the console within just a few sales. Once you start building a game library, PC becomes cheaper by far.I'm not anti-console. I own them all and I still have my original NES hooked up in the living room lol. I even got a Wii U and 2x 3DS's. (Can't wait for the new smash bros and zelda!)But I'm just stating a fact on price. PC is a money saver for most people and at worst, it breaks even. Most people just look at the cost of a console and directly contrast it to the price of PC hardware. That's like buying a car and not considering it's gas mileage, oil changes and maintenance fees.
Sorry for the formatting.. this editor got the best of me.
John D. Carmack II is an American game programmer and the co-founder of id Software. Carmack was the lead programmer of the id video games Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Rage and their sequels. Wikipedia
Originally posted by Aelious Of course PCs are more flexible and no one is tossing out their PC. What I'm saying is that with all of the MMOs and multiplayer games coming I for one will be getting one where things like reticle/swing gameplay is native. I can see how I could have hundreds or thousands of games on a PC while not so many on a console... and? How many possible games do I need or want to play at the same time. A handful of quality games are more important to me than hundreds of medicore ones. I honestly don't have the free time to play hundreds of games.
Not to mention EQN will likely be F2P.I remember reading something recently from a game developer who was saying you need a PC with twice the specs to get the same performance as consoles. So it's misleading to say you could buy something with PS4 specs for $400. The specs alone won't get you the console's performance.
Well anyone who thinks you can get a PC right now that matches the PS4/Xbone in performance for $400 is making quite a stretch. The Tom's Hardware system builder marathon $600 gaming PC from Q1 this year was on par performance* wise to the PS4 (Which isn't even out yet). Granted that's custom built, shopping for deals, and knowing what to do, and it's still +$200.Now, that gap will close by the time the PS4 actually released. By then you'll be able to buy a $600 or $700 pc from a pre-build site that will match PS4 performance. (That's still +$200 - $300).Twice the specs comment? I'd like to read that because it's not that drastic. Not even close.But my point was that once you calculate in the games, PC matches the price of the console within just a few sales. Once you start building a game library, PC becomes cheaper by far.I'm not anti-console. I own them all and I still have my original NES hooked up in the living room lol. I even got a Wii U and 2x 3DS's. (Can't wait for the new smash bros and zelda!)But I'm just stating a fact on price. PC is a money saver for most people and at worst, it breaks even. Most people just look at the cost of a console and directly contrast it to the price of PC hardware. That's like buying a car and not considering it's gas mileage, oil changes and maintenance fees.
Sorry for the formatting.. this editor got the best of me.
John D. Carmack II is an American game programmer and the co-founder of id Software. Carmack was the lead programmer of the id video games Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Rage and their sequels. Wikipedia
John Carmack is my hero. There might be some truth in what he says, but I don't think it's quite 2x. In the Crysis 2 benchmarks I saw, where they took a budget PC (about $650) filled with parts that launched around the same time as Xbox 360, then cross compared Xbox 360 Crysis 2 and PC crysis 2 and though the PC was only slightly more expensive, and just as old, it still outperformed the Xbox 360 in Crysis 2.
There are some advantages to creating programs around a single unified spec, but I don't think the benefits are really exactly 2x the performance. It might be close, but I think that was just an over-exaggeration on John's part, not to be taken literally.
He is pretty much genius-level though, so I'm not saying it can't be true. Just doesn't seem to match up to the hard data.
Remember, a lot of the performance you see from consoles comes from forced lower resolution, lack of AA/AF, and capped FPS (Almost all Xbox 360/PS3 games are capped at 720p/30FPS). You can do the same thing with PCs, it's just that players are given the freedom to set the game's graphic settings.
PS4/Xbone are aiming for 1080p/30fps standard on their games. They support 4k resolution, but only for future movies/TV video playback. Not for games.
To get that kind of resolution/FPS on a PC is extremely cheap, and will only continue getting cheaper.
Originally posted by Aelious Of course PCs are more flexible and no one is tossing out their PC. What I'm saying is that with all of the MMOs and multiplayer games coming I for one will be getting one where things like reticle/swing gameplay is native.
I can see how I could have hundreds or thousands of games on a PC while not so many on a console... and? How many possible games do I need or want to play at the same time. A handful of quality games are more important to me than hundreds of medicore ones. I honestly don't have the free time to play hundreds of games.
Not to mention EQN will likely be F2P.
I remember reading something recently from a game developer who was saying you need a PC with twice the specs to get the same performance as consoles. So it's misleading to say you could buy something with PS4 specs for $400. The specs alone won't get you the console's performance.
Well anyone who thinks you can get a PC right now that matches the PS4/Xbone in performance for $400 is making quite a stretch. The Tom's Hardware system builder marathon $600 gaming PC from Q1 this year was on par performance* wise to the PS4 (Which isn't even out yet). Granted that's custom built, shopping for deals, and knowing what to do, and it's still +$200.
Now, that gap will close by the time the PS4 actually released. By then you'll be able to buy a $600 or $700 pc from a pre-build site that will match PS4 performance. (That's still +$200 - $300).
Twice the specs comment? I'd like to read that because it's not that drastic. Not even close.
But my point was that once you calculate in the games, PC matches the price of the console within just a few sales. Once you start building a game library, PC becomes cheaper by far.
I'm not anti-console. I own them all and I still have my original NES hooked up in the living room lol. I even got a Wii U and 2x 3DS's. (Can't wait for the new smash bros and zelda!)
But I'm just stating a fact on price. PC is a money saver for most people and at worst, it breaks even. Most people just look at the cost of a console and directly contrast it to the price of PC hardware. That's like buying a car and not considering it's gas mileage, oil changes and maintenance fees.
I built a gaming computer for $600-700 last year and I run every new game on Ultra and likely wont need to change anything in my computer for 4-5 years. It's pretty awesome. Got all the parts off newegg.
Just out of curiosity what are your fps playing PS2 maxed out during large battles? The only reason I ask is that that's the same engine and there are no NPCs. Middle of the road GPU costs 1/2 of what a PS4 will.
My brother threw together a PC last year which cost him around 400$ ( ivy bridge i5, best non-K variant, 8 gb of ram, if memory serves it was a kingston model at 1600 Mhz, a new PSU and motherboard, the GPU was one he got almost 2 years before, a 6950 Radeon sapphire, this rig can run right now Metro Last Light on medium to high, the GPU not being nvidia borks the high end settings a little bit to much, comfortably now lets see a PS4 or Xbone do that).
Knowing that you can throw together a very good budget PC for 500-600 dollars which will work for 4-5 years if you don't mind playing things on medium after a (long) time playing at high and if you feel particularly frisky you can always just get another mid range GPU for your PC after a few years so that you can keep laughing at console users ( the Radeon x950s seem to be good in this respect and while I haven't had a nvidia GPU in nearly half a decade I hear good things about the 650-660s so yeah ). And do all this while continuing to save money, be able to tweak your own machine however you see fit without sony or microsoft deciding to ban your account for playing off a modded machine and enjoy many other things even next gen consoles won't be able to do as well.
In the end consoles are for people who either have too much money and to little time to actually think of how much "better" a console is vs a computer or people who just have to play a console exclusive. Mark my words though if consoles ever lose their exclusives their sales will drop like bloody rocks, especially once PCs get up to the level where they can start streaming multiple instances of a game to different devices (gaming graphics havn't stabilized enough to make that as of yet a viable alternative but people have been doing it for a few years on higher spec machines, I have one friend who plays a game with his girlfriend but after a while the game got a graphics upgrade and her machine couldn't render it well anymore so he just ran two instances of the game on his machine on medium settings and streamed one to his girlfriend).
I built my computer from parts in '08 for 1,200 and have made a few upgrades to keep up but have come to a point where I can't upgrade anymore. I can either put 1k+ into a new machine (I build years out and I dont Mickey Mouse from my old comp since I can give it away or keep it) or buy a 400.00 box that plays all the games I want (If EQN is one of them) plus more exclusives. I know PC fans, myself included, are sensitive when it comes to talking about consoles but it gets a bit silly. I wouldn't make blanket statements about who a person is by the gaming system they chooses to play.
The reason this relates to the OP is that a PS4 has native systems that make it possible for reticle based action gameplay to be tied to swing motion. That would be fantastic IMO.
Originally posted by Aelious I built my computer from parts in '08 for 1,200 and have made a few upgrades to keep up but have come to a point where I can't upgrade anymore. I can either put 1k+ into a new machine (I build years out and I dont Mickey Mouse from my old comp since I can give it away or keep it) or buy a 400.00 box that plays all the games I want (If EQN is one of them) plus more exclusives. I know PC fans, myself included, are sensitive when it comes to talking about consoles but it gets a bit silly. I wouldn't make blanket statements about who a person is by the gaming system they chooses to play.
The reason this relates to the OP is that a PS4 has native systems that make it possible for reticle based action gameplay to be tied to swing motion. That would be fantastic IMO.
Beyond the price of getting the peripherals (monitor, mouse, keyboard, 5.1 system and microphone headset) which won't change until you break them (monitor can be upgraded but if you get a good one it's almost a life deal) the tower's price varies but usually anything beyond 800$ is a moderate increase in performance for a disproportionate increase in price.
In almost all respects a PC is a better platform, the entire notion that consoles outperform them is at best a half-truth based on games specifically optimized for console units but even then if it is decently ported to a PC the PC version usually ends up being superior both in terms of graphics and, more crucially, controls.
Originally posted by Rhazmuz Skill based action combat (ala NW, ESO) >>>>>> boring tab target combat ala GW2, WoW etc
Action combat is the future, its more engaging, promotes better skill and fosters immersion. The sooner Devs realize this, the better
In GW2, the animation of skills simply has to connect with an object to register as a hit. You don't have to ever target a mob to hit them. Is why this mod works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g2yOAVEKec
So you might be wondering how to heal another player in such a system. All healing abilities are aoe. Ground target aoe, cone shaped aoe emitting from the player, etc. The spell will heal any player hit by it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3IP9ArkTw0&t=5m50s
Originally posted by Aelious I built my computer from parts in '08 for 1,200 and have made a few upgrades to keep up but have come to a point where I can't upgrade anymore. I can either put 1k+ into a new machine (I build years out and I dont Mickey Mouse from my old comp since I can give it away or keep it) or buy a 400.00 box that plays all the games I want (If EQN is one of them) plus more exclusives. I know PC fans, myself included, are sensitive when it comes to talking about consoles but it gets a bit silly. I wouldn't make blanket statements about who a person is by the gaming system they chooses to play.
The reason this relates to the OP is that a PS4 has native systems that make it possible for reticle based action gameplay to be tied to swing motion. That would be fantastic IMO.
Beyond the price of getting the peripherals (monitor, mouse, keyboard, 5.1 system and microphone headset) which won't change until you break them (monitor can be upgraded but if you get a good one it's almost a life deal) the tower's price varies but usually anything beyond 800$ is a moderate increase in performance for a disproportionate increase in price.
In almost all respects a PC is a better platform, the entire notion that consoles outperform them is at best a half-truth based on games specifically optimized for console units but even then if it is decently ported to a PC the PC version usually ends up being superior both in terms of graphics and, more crucially, controls.
You cannot include the cost of a monitor when comparing a PC with a console, a console does not come with a monitor you have to plug it into one (a Television), as most Graphics cards come with HDMI and Televisions come with HDMI a television can be a 'monitor' for a PC.
Originally posted by craftseeker Originally posted by DihoruOriginally posted by Aelious I built my computer from parts in '08 for 1,200 and have made a few upgrades to keep up but have come to a point where I can't upgrade anymore. I can either put 1k+ into a new machine (I build years out and I dont Mickey Mouse from my old comp since I can give it away or keep it) or buy a 400.00 box that plays all the games I want (If EQN is one of them) plus more exclusives. I know PC fans, myself included, are sensitive when it comes to talking about consoles but it gets a bit silly. I wouldn't make blanket statements about who a person is by the gaming system they chooses to play. The reason this relates to the OP is that a PS4 has native systems that make it possible for reticle based action gameplay to be tied to swing motion. That would be fantastic IMO.
Beyond the price of getting the peripherals (monitor, mouse, keyboard, 5.1 system and microphone headset) which won't change until you break them (monitor can be upgraded but if you get a good one it's almost a life deal) the tower's price varies but usually anything beyond 800$ is a moderate increase in performance for a disproportionate increase in price. In almost all respects a PC is a better platform, the entire notion that consoles outperform them is at best a half-truth based on games specifically optimized for console units but even then if it is decently ported to a PC the PC version usually ends up being superior both in terms of graphics and, more crucially, controls.You cannot include the cost of a monitor when comparing a PC with a console, a console does not come with a monitor you have to plug it into one (a Television), as most Graphics cards come with HDMI and Televisions come with HDMI a television can be a 'monitor' for a PC.
$Console + $Television
$PC + $Monitor
Easy comparison. Anyway.
But PCs are more expensive than consoles. There's no way you'd sell a console if it was more expensive than a gaming PC. Even the luxury XBone is less expensive than a moderate gaming PC. I know this because I don't build anything but moderate gaming PCs and I would spend more than it costs to buy an XBone.
The difference is that a gaming PC is going to outperform the console when dedicated to gaming, and offer more functionality than the console when dedicated to anything else.
The console has the advantage in usability by being a device dedicated to being hooked up to a television, with an interface dedicated to being used by someone looking at a television without the benefit of a keyboard & mouse. It is certainly possible to overcome this limitation, easy even, but not for your average consumer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The main reason why tab-targeting was common in mmorpgs, is because of past technology and coding available.
Client/Server action synchronization is a tricky beast and action combat requires constant synchronization and collision detection checks between all entities on the playing field. It can also be a bandwidth hog if not cleverly implemented.
Nowadays there is no advantage to a tab targeting system. It really only exists where people feel it is a staple of mmorpgs.
The main reason why tab-targeting has been common in mmorpgs, is because of past technology and coding available. Client/Server action synchronization is a tricky beast and action combat requires constant synchronization and collision detection checks between all entities on the playing field. It can also be a bandwidth hog if not cleverly implemented.
The effect is also heightened with geographic distance from the servers. Giving players an increasing edge the closer they are to the server.
I hope combat is something action yet traditional, something like Conan, where you could tab, but also spells and swings would hit whatever was in line of you
That's a very good point, craftseeker! Latency is so huge a factor in action combat. Especially when the combat has things like clutch interrupts and melee parrying. Seems we still have a ways to go to make action combat fair for everyone playing. I take back my last sentence in my last post. I didn't consider what you brought up when I was writing it!
this contradicts your title about skill-based combat and real time. Theres not real skill in these games you mentioned (except for TESO because we have not played it so we dont really know how well its excecuted).
Real time combat does not necessarily mean player-skill. Tera and NWO are good examples of that. You want player skill combat in mmos? bring dark souls (and demon souls) mechanics to mmos.
Originally posted by Aelious Just out of curiosity what are your fps playing PS2 maxed out during large battles? The only reason I ask is that that's the same engine and there are no NPCs. Middle of the road GPU costs 1/2 of what a PS4 will.
My wife's PC was originally built about 4.5 years ago with an original 1st gen i7 920 and a year later, about 3 - 3.5 years ago we put in 2x 480 GTXs, so you can say the system is about 3 years old and plays PS2, on max settings, 1080p without dipping under 60fps, even in huge battles. The forgelight engine amazingly well done for large scale battles with lots of on screen assets.
My PC is currently a water cooled, 3770k OCed to 4.9ghz and 3x 670 GTXs in Tri-SLI, 8GB of ram. I have a bunch of different monitor set ups, but I'm generally using my U3011 2560 x 1600 monitor. I don't drop under 60fps when playing PS2 on max settings at 2560 x 1600.
My PC is a bit on the extreme side though.
My advice, if you have any of the of Intel Core series CPUs in your PC, (Any of the i5 or i7 CPUs), just take those $400 you would have spent on a PS4 and buy an Nvidia 770 GTX (Or AMD equivalent). You'll be good for 1080p, even 2560 x 1440 , max setting gaming for next 3-5 years, no problem at all.
First, I'm happy to see consoles finally stepping up. Now they trail closer behind PC's so the ports will be better for PC's. I'm sorry, but consoles have changed from being effective game systems to home entertainment systems that trail way behind PC's.
But in the end, who cares. If new consoles get released faster or PC get more of it's own games, I'm happy. Even if the console cost less, I won't buy it, I need my PC and gladly pay the extra for a better PC. Now we can go on and on argue about price, performance/$, game cost and well go on and on, but that doesn't change the fact that I love my PC and hate controllers.
Now to the real problem at hand. The action combat vs tab targetting. Yes, it's an old system, created because old games couldn't handle action based combat. But RTS vs Turnbased strategy is the same, Real time games like the previous X-com vs the new or old X-com. Not because we finally can, we should. Some features will be lost in action based combat. Of course we could argue for one thing or another. And I laugh when people say action based combat is harder than tab target, you go play a bard in EQ1 and keep 4+ songs up without AA's and come back saying action based is harder.
The games are different and I know it's going to be action based, because smedley will want to use this, as everyone else has action based combat as well. But I'd prefer more a slow paced, tab target system. Time to go back to the roots of EQ, take your time to socialize, enjoy the world, hang out with friends and fight with a few buttons, that has to be strategized rather than to hit them fast enough.
And I hate dodge in action based games. They are too gimicky for my taste, I run out of telegraphs to get hit anyway because if you don't use the dodge and get the evade triggered, you just won't be able to dodge attacks (might be a bug or lag, but it's annoying and didn't happen in old school mmos). Also really hate to be rooted. I'm fine with being a caster and not being able to move (which is silly, but okay) but as a melee class I should be able to hit my target while advancing to him and then breng the pain when I'm close.
In the end, I think a good tab target system would find enough players to enjoy. An action based game will get enough. It's not about the system, people will enjoy both. It's more about the gameplay and the way it's executed and atm I don't see good executions of the action based system. Some are okay, some aren't too bad, but a lot just need to go. Still my preference will remain, tab target system, but I wouldn't skip a game because of the action combat. I'd just more than likely stop playing it sooner.
First, I'm happy to see consoles finally stepping up. Now they trail closer behind PC's so the ports will be better for PC's. I'm sorry, but consoles have changed from being effective game systems to home entertainment systems that trail way behind PC's.
But in the end, who cares. If new consoles get released faster or PC get more of it's own games, I'm happy. Even if the console cost less, I won't buy it, I need my PC and gladly pay the extra for a better PC. Now we can go on and on argue about price, performance/$, game cost and well go on and on, but that doesn't change the fact that I love my PC and hate controllers.
The main problem is that consoles take way too long to release a new generation and on they also launch at bare minimum or below standard PC specs. For example, when the Xbox 360 launched, 1080p gaming had already started to catch on for PC gamers. It wasn't extremely widespread, but 1080p was common among enthusiast gamers. Within a year's time 1080p had pretty much become standard for midgrade level PCs while the Xbox was capped out at 720p and 30fps. Fast forward 8 years, and PCs have already moved on to 2560 x 1440 (This year saw the release of $300 27" 2560 x 1440 monitors) and multi monitor display setups (5760 x 1080) and we're on the verge of VR 3D displays (Oculus rift) and 4k screens.... and what is the PS4/Xbone aiming for? 1080p/30FPS......and they're not even out yet....
1080p has been a PC standard gaming resolution for years now, many of us have already moved past it, yet the next gen consoles are aiming for dated specs just to keep the price low. Then we got to wait 7 or 8 years before they improve it? All the while, console ports will get worst and worst, and lag behind PC capabilities.... as always... and developers will have their hands tied down due to console limitations, as always...
I'm not anti-console. As I've said before, I own them all, including the Wii U, hand helds, Ouya...I still got my NES hooked up and watching friends at a get-together slog through Ghouls and Ghosts is always entertaining. I think they offer some good games and interesting experiences, which can allow me to look past their pathetic system specs.
I just wish they'd put a little more horse power into their systems, and I wish they didn't lag so far behind for so long before releasing a new set of hardware.
There was a time back in the day (NES) where the experiences you got on a console were way smoother, better looking and more action packed than anything on the PC (Until John Carmack came along and found a way to do it on the PC). That's certainly not the case any more. It hasn't been for many generations.
8 years before you get new hardware? That's an insult, really. Could you imagine getting a cell phone, and not upgrading to a new model for 8* years? That's like the difference between a Samsung Galaxy S4 and a nokia bar phone lol.
And only a few weeks ago they announce a 5 GHz possessor for the pc that i know is too expensive now but in 2 or 3 years you will be able to pick that baby up cheap and that is because of competition what competition does Sony have? . Don't say xboxone or Wii because it has nothing to do with specs on consoles it has all to do with the games that are on each console. So why would consoles be in a hurray to produce another upgrade for years to come when they can get $60 plus per game.
The basic facts are that pc games will always look better than any game played on a console due to PCs having to be competive and produce better hardware all the time.
Aside from Darkfall there isn't really any good real time action mmorpg, with swords/archery and a fantasy setting.
Tera is almost there, but it sitll relies on a hotbar skill system. GW2 is half in and half out and because of this it feels "sloppy" as hell, espeically when it comes to dodging and things.
Neverwinter night has a great "Feel" in terms of it's controls, the attacks, ability to use your left/right mouse, etc and everything feels good but the game still uses a soft-lock system and doesn't allow true free aim.
I have played mmo's since the UO/EQ/AC days, I have experienced many variations and slight combat tweaks , but by far the majority of rpgs use the EQ style of system with the hotbar focus and tab targetting.
I personally have grown tired of this, I never really found those combat systems fun back then and they have worn out their welcome for me.
I truly Believe that from all the games i have played the best implentation of Action Combat was made By TERA.
It was Action mostly but it was kinda hard to miss (not frastrating to hit something) and also there were some nice target lock skills. and many skills were target on the floor cyrcles which is kinda hard to miss too.. specificaly for healing. If they could manage to let the toons of being a bit less rooted that would be Amazing for any game.
for example
Darkfall was a bit too much of a FPS action...and for me it was really hard to kill any player even land a hit on them was hard...cause everyone was hardcore player and moving like crazy...i could partially aim and kill mobs though.. so for a game that is not niche as darkfall,that is EverquestNext i think Tera system is the best.
Also neverwinter system is a bit like tera but its very restrictive on spells/skills.you cannot have everything you might like..
and guild wars was a hybrid that tend more to the old alt tab system but with the ability to be able to move while doing anything.
but in the end of the day you couldnt avoid anything when your "dodge" button was on cd. and you couldnt kill a very hard elite by yourself although in Darkfall and Tera you could cause u had real action movement/dodge.
Also GW2 skills choise via weapons was really lame and restrictive. the GW1 was waaaay better.. you had all your skills and you could do any compinations you wanted.
Alt Tab was a forced system for mmos because of the network cap of the old days. before that our games were real time even back in the super mario days :P
People are very used now to WoW and they rather not look forward.. even WoW tends to be more fast paced and old timers WoW players complain... cause they want the old soup for ever..
Well my point is, this discussion will never end. I agree with PC>Console and consoles are keeping the PC from achieving greatness. But stating it doesn't help. People will go for their own system anyway.
But to get back to the discussion, well I prefer tab targetting, old school player and really enjoyed it back then, now got back into EQ2 and enjoy it again. EQ did a better system with only 8 spells and 1 hotbar of 10 buttons. Back then you didn't really have a lot of skills, but using the right one at the right time, conserving mana, time being the most important factor in the game, made the game feel very strategic. There was no button mashing, but careful planning. There was no spamming or macro'ing everything, but trying to max out while keeping your mana high, your agro low (or high as tank), positioning, working together.
I don't know what SOE did the last 8 years, but before that it was a great game. I'd rather have a healer who waits a bit too long to heal and then misses the important heal, get his group to wipe, or gets oom because he had to use his emergancy heal, than a healer who spams 20 buttons, tries to target the boss and the player with a crosshair and stuff like that.
But I don't deny others the option to play that kind of game. But both needs to exist next to each other. Like RTS vs turnbased, FPS vs 3rd, real time tactical vs turn based tactical. Every type of game should have a few games, so people can pick the one they like. But I don't expect every game to have both or to just go down the same rabit hole that got us in this mess to begin with. Copy WoW, now it's copy action based gameplay. It's not the solution for everyone, don't try to use it like the solution. Even instancing was once the holy grail and after a few years it was shot down by a lot of old school players, now you see a decent amount is okay, but some people really hate to be in instances all the time. And others like it, so make both types of games.
MMO's biggest problem is wanting to cater to everyone and they are failing at that. They should pick a target audiance and go for that. Eve is a niche, they are doing there best to be a niche and players like that.
Comments
Well anyone who thinks you can get a PC right now that matches the PS4/Xbone in performance for $400 is making quite a stretch. The Tom's Hardware system builder marathon $600 gaming PC from Q1 this year was on par performance* wise to the PS4 (Which isn't even out yet). Granted that's custom built, shopping for deals, and knowing what to do, and it's still +$200.
Now, that gap will close by the time the PS4 actually released. By then you'll be able to buy a $600 or $700 pc from a pre-build site that will match PS4 performance. (That's still +$200 - $300).
Twice the specs comment? I'd like to read that because it's not that drastic. Not even close.
But my point was that once you calculate in the games, PC matches the price of the console within just a few sales. Once you start building a game library, PC becomes cheaper by far.
I'm not anti-console. I own them all and I still have my original NES hooked up in the living room lol. I even got a Wii U and 2x 3DS's. (Can't wait for the new smash bros and zelda!)
But I'm just stating a fact on price. PC is a money saver for most people and at worst, it breaks even. Most people just look at the cost of a console and directly contrast it to the price of PC hardware. That's like buying a car and not considering it's gas mileage, oil changes and maintenance fees.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Action combat has been playing out for years in single player games and nobody seems to be getting tired of it there.
The game being a sandbox doesn't imply any particular kind of combat at all. It could be "action", or "tab target" or it could even be turn based like Wizard 101. It won't be turn based, but it could.
Action combat with a cross hair worked fine in Global Agenda, even for healers. I had a variety of attacks and heals that made things interesting and challenging. Tab targeting worked fine in WoW, and same thing, I had a variety of attacks and heals that made things interesting and challenging. Whether the combat and healing is interesting and challenging depends more on their implementation of a particular style, not the style itself.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sorry for the formatting.. this editor got the best of me.
John Carmack @ID_AA_Carmack
@Deepo Consoles run 2x or so better than equal PC hardware, but it isn’t just API in the way, focus a single spec also matters
John D. Carmack
Programmer
John D. Carmack II is an American game programmer and the co-founder of id Software. Carmack was the lead programmer of the id video games Commander Keen, Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Rage and their sequels. Wikipedia
John Carmack is my hero. There might be some truth in what he says, but I don't think it's quite 2x. In the Crysis 2 benchmarks I saw, where they took a budget PC (about $650) filled with parts that launched around the same time as Xbox 360, then cross compared Xbox 360 Crysis 2 and PC crysis 2 and though the PC was only slightly more expensive, and just as old, it still outperformed the Xbox 360 in Crysis 2.
There are some advantages to creating programs around a single unified spec, but I don't think the benefits are really exactly 2x the performance. It might be close, but I think that was just an over-exaggeration on John's part, not to be taken literally.
He is pretty much genius-level though, so I'm not saying it can't be true. Just doesn't seem to match up to the hard data.
Remember, a lot of the performance you see from consoles comes from forced lower resolution, lack of AA/AF, and capped FPS (Almost all Xbox 360/PS3 games are capped at 720p/30FPS). You can do the same thing with PCs, it's just that players are given the freedom to set the game's graphic settings.
PS4/Xbone are aiming for 1080p/30fps standard on their games. They support 4k resolution, but only for future movies/TV video playback. Not for games.
To get that kind of resolution/FPS on a PC is extremely cheap, and will only continue getting cheaper.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I built a gaming computer for $600-700 last year and I run every new game on Ultra and likely wont need to change anything in my computer for 4-5 years. It's pretty awesome. Got all the parts off newegg.
My brother threw together a PC last year which cost him around 400$ ( ivy bridge i5, best non-K variant, 8 gb of ram, if memory serves it was a kingston model at 1600 Mhz, a new PSU and motherboard, the GPU was one he got almost 2 years before, a 6950 Radeon sapphire, this rig can run right now Metro Last Light on medium to high, the GPU not being nvidia borks the high end settings a little bit to much, comfortably now lets see a PS4 or Xbone do that).
Knowing that you can throw together a very good budget PC for 500-600 dollars which will work for 4-5 years if you don't mind playing things on medium after a (long) time playing at high and if you feel particularly frisky you can always just get another mid range GPU for your PC after a few years so that you can keep laughing at console users ( the Radeon x950s seem to be good in this respect and while I haven't had a nvidia GPU in nearly half a decade I hear good things about the 650-660s so yeah ). And do all this while continuing to save money, be able to tweak your own machine however you see fit without sony or microsoft deciding to ban your account for playing off a modded machine and enjoy many other things even next gen consoles won't be able to do as well.
In the end consoles are for people who either have too much money and to little time to actually think of how much "better" a console is vs a computer or people who just have to play a console exclusive. Mark my words though if consoles ever lose their exclusives their sales will drop like bloody rocks, especially once PCs get up to the level where they can start streaming multiple instances of a game to different devices (gaming graphics havn't stabilized enough to make that as of yet a viable alternative but people have been doing it for a few years on higher spec machines, I have one friend who plays a game with his girlfriend but after a while the game got a graphics upgrade and her machine couldn't render it well anymore so he just ran two instances of the game on his machine on medium settings and streamed one to his girlfriend).
The reason this relates to the OP is that a PS4 has native systems that make it possible for reticle based action gameplay to be tied to swing motion. That would be fantastic IMO.
Beyond the price of getting the peripherals (monitor, mouse, keyboard, 5.1 system and microphone headset) which won't change until you break them (monitor can be upgraded but if you get a good one it's almost a life deal) the tower's price varies but usually anything beyond 800$ is a moderate increase in performance for a disproportionate increase in price.
In almost all respects a PC is a better platform, the entire notion that consoles outperform them is at best a half-truth based on games specifically optimized for console units but even then if it is decently ported to a PC the PC version usually ends up being superior both in terms of graphics and, more crucially, controls.
In GW2, the animation of skills simply has to connect with an object to register as a hit. You don't have to ever target a mob to hit them. Is why this mod works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g2yOAVEKec
So you might be wondering how to heal another player in such a system. All healing abilities are aoe. Ground target aoe, cone shaped aoe emitting from the player, etc. The spell will heal any player hit by it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3IP9ArkTw0&t=5m50s
You cannot include the cost of a monitor when comparing a PC with a console, a console does not come with a monitor you have to plug it into one (a Television), as most Graphics cards come with HDMI and Televisions come with HDMI a television can be a 'monitor' for a PC.
You cannot include the cost of a monitor when comparing a PC with a console, a console does not come with a monitor you have to plug it into one (a Television), as most Graphics cards come with HDMI and Televisions come with HDMI a television can be a 'monitor' for a PC.
$Console + $Television
$PC + $Monitor
Easy comparison. Anyway.
But PCs are more expensive than consoles. There's no way you'd sell a console if it was more expensive than a gaming PC. Even the luxury XBone is less expensive than a moderate gaming PC. I know this because I don't build anything but moderate gaming PCs and I would spend more than it costs to buy an XBone.
The difference is that a gaming PC is going to outperform the console when dedicated to gaming, and offer more functionality than the console when dedicated to anything else.
The console has the advantage in usability by being a device dedicated to being hooked up to a television, with an interface dedicated to being used by someone looking at a television without the benefit of a keyboard & mouse. It is certainly possible to overcome this limitation, easy even, but not for your average consumer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Guild Wars 2 is action combat.
The main reason why tab-targeting was common in mmorpgs, is because of past technology and coding available.
Client/Server action synchronization is a tricky beast and action combat requires constant synchronization and collision detection checks between all entities on the playing field. It can also be a bandwidth hog if not cleverly implemented.
Nowadays there is no advantage to a tab targeting system. It really only exists where people feel it is a staple of mmorpgs.
The effect is also heightened with geographic distance from the servers. Giving players an increasing edge the closer they are to the server.
I hope combat is something action yet traditional, something like Conan, where you could tab, but also spells and swings would hit whatever was in line of you
That's a very good point, craftseeker!
Latency is so huge a factor in action combat. Especially when the combat has things like clutch interrupts and melee parrying. Seems we still have a ways to go to make action combat fair for everyone playing. I take back my last sentence in my last post. I didn't consider what you brought up when I was writing it!
this contradicts your title about skill-based combat and real time. Theres not real skill in these games you mentioned (except for TESO because we have not played it so we dont really know how well its excecuted).
Real time combat does not necessarily mean player-skill. Tera and NWO are good examples of that. You want player skill combat in mmos? bring dark souls (and demon souls) mechanics to mmos.
My wife's PC was originally built about 4.5 years ago with an original 1st gen i7 920 and a year later, about 3 - 3.5 years ago we put in 2x 480 GTXs, so you can say the system is about 3 years old and plays PS2, on max settings, 1080p without dipping under 60fps, even in huge battles. The forgelight engine amazingly well done for large scale battles with lots of on screen assets.
My PC is currently a water cooled, 3770k OCed to 4.9ghz and 3x 670 GTXs in Tri-SLI, 8GB of ram. I have a bunch of different monitor set ups, but I'm generally using my U3011 2560 x 1600 monitor. I don't drop under 60fps when playing PS2 on max settings at 2560 x 1600.
My PC is a bit on the extreme side though.
My advice, if you have any of the of Intel Core series CPUs in your PC, (Any of the i5 or i7 CPUs), just take those $400 you would have spent on a PS4 and buy an Nvidia 770 GTX (Or AMD equivalent). You'll be good for 1080p, even 2560 x 1440 , max setting gaming for next 3-5 years, no problem at all.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
First, I'm happy to see consoles finally stepping up. Now they trail closer behind PC's so the ports will be better for PC's. I'm sorry, but consoles have changed from being effective game systems to home entertainment systems that trail way behind PC's.
But in the end, who cares. If new consoles get released faster or PC get more of it's own games, I'm happy. Even if the console cost less, I won't buy it, I need my PC and gladly pay the extra for a better PC. Now we can go on and on argue about price, performance/$, game cost and well go on and on, but that doesn't change the fact that I love my PC and hate controllers.
Now to the real problem at hand. The action combat vs tab targetting. Yes, it's an old system, created because old games couldn't handle action based combat. But RTS vs Turnbased strategy is the same, Real time games like the previous X-com vs the new or old X-com. Not because we finally can, we should. Some features will be lost in action based combat. Of course we could argue for one thing or another. And I laugh when people say action based combat is harder than tab target, you go play a bard in EQ1 and keep 4+ songs up without AA's and come back saying action based is harder.
The games are different and I know it's going to be action based, because smedley will want to use this, as everyone else has action based combat as well. But I'd prefer more a slow paced, tab target system. Time to go back to the roots of EQ, take your time to socialize, enjoy the world, hang out with friends and fight with a few buttons, that has to be strategized rather than to hit them fast enough.
And I hate dodge in action based games. They are too gimicky for my taste, I run out of telegraphs to get hit anyway because if you don't use the dodge and get the evade triggered, you just won't be able to dodge attacks (might be a bug or lag, but it's annoying and didn't happen in old school mmos). Also really hate to be rooted. I'm fine with being a caster and not being able to move (which is silly, but okay) but as a melee class I should be able to hit my target while advancing to him and then breng the pain when I'm close.
In the end, I think a good tab target system would find enough players to enjoy. An action based game will get enough. It's not about the system, people will enjoy both. It's more about the gameplay and the way it's executed and atm I don't see good executions of the action based system. Some are okay, some aren't too bad, but a lot just need to go. Still my preference will remain, tab target system, but I wouldn't skip a game because of the action combat. I'd just more than likely stop playing it sooner.
The main problem is that consoles take way too long to release a new generation and on they also launch at bare minimum or below standard PC specs. For example, when the Xbox 360 launched, 1080p gaming had already started to catch on for PC gamers. It wasn't extremely widespread, but 1080p was common among enthusiast gamers. Within a year's time 1080p had pretty much become standard for midgrade level PCs while the Xbox was capped out at 720p and 30fps. Fast forward 8 years, and PCs have already moved on to 2560 x 1440 (This year saw the release of $300 27" 2560 x 1440 monitors) and multi monitor display setups (5760 x 1080) and we're on the verge of VR 3D displays (Oculus rift) and 4k screens.... and what is the PS4/Xbone aiming for? 1080p/30FPS......and they're not even out yet....
1080p has been a PC standard gaming resolution for years now, many of us have already moved past it, yet the next gen consoles are aiming for dated specs just to keep the price low. Then we got to wait 7 or 8 years before they improve it? All the while, console ports will get worst and worst, and lag behind PC capabilities.... as always... and developers will have their hands tied down due to console limitations, as always...
I'm not anti-console. As I've said before, I own them all, including the Wii U, hand helds, Ouya...I still got my NES hooked up and watching friends at a get-together slog through Ghouls and Ghosts is always entertaining. I think they offer some good games and interesting experiences, which can allow me to look past their pathetic system specs.
I just wish they'd put a little more horse power into their systems, and I wish they didn't lag so far behind for so long before releasing a new set of hardware.
There was a time back in the day (NES) where the experiences you got on a console were way smoother, better looking and more action packed than anything on the PC (Until John Carmack came along and found a way to do it on the PC). That's certainly not the case any more. It hasn't been for many generations.
8 years before you get new hardware? That's an insult, really. Could you imagine getting a cell phone, and not upgrading to a new model for 8* years? That's like the difference between a Samsung Galaxy S4 and a nokia bar phone lol.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
And only a few weeks ago they announce a 5 GHz possessor for the pc that i know is too expensive now but in 2 or 3 years you will be able to pick that baby up cheap and that is because of competition what competition does Sony have? . Don't say xboxone or Wii because it has nothing to do with specs on consoles it has all to do with the games that are on each console. So why would consoles be in a hurray to produce another upgrade for years to come when they can get $60 plus per game.
The basic facts are that pc games will always look better than any game played on a console due to PCs having to be competive and produce better hardware all the time.
I am hoping it is something new/exciting.
Aside from Darkfall there isn't really any good real time action mmorpg, with swords/archery and a fantasy setting.
Tera is almost there, but it sitll relies on a hotbar skill system. GW2 is half in and half out and because of this it feels "sloppy" as hell, espeically when it comes to dodging and things.
Neverwinter night has a great "Feel" in terms of it's controls, the attacks, ability to use your left/right mouse, etc and everything feels good but the game still uses a soft-lock system and doesn't allow true free aim.
I have played mmo's since the UO/EQ/AC days, I have experienced many variations and slight combat tweaks , but by far the majority of rpgs use the EQ style of system with the hotbar focus and tab targetting.
I personally have grown tired of this, I never really found those combat systems fun back then and they have worn out their welcome for me.
I truly Believe that from all the games i have played the best implentation of Action Combat was made By TERA.
It was Action mostly but it was kinda hard to miss (not frastrating to hit something) and also there were some nice target lock skills. and many skills were target on the floor cyrcles which is kinda hard to miss too.. specificaly for healing. If they could manage to let the toons of being a bit less rooted that would be Amazing for any game.
for example
Darkfall was a bit too much of a FPS action...and for me it was really hard to kill any player even land a hit on them was hard...cause everyone was hardcore player and moving like crazy...i could partially aim and kill mobs though.. so for a game that is not niche as darkfall,that is EverquestNext i think Tera system is the best.
Also neverwinter system is a bit like tera but its very restrictive on spells/skills.you cannot have everything you might like..
and guild wars was a hybrid that tend more to the old alt tab system but with the ability to be able to move while doing anything.
but in the end of the day you couldnt avoid anything when your "dodge" button was on cd. and you couldnt kill a very hard elite by yourself although in Darkfall and Tera you could cause u had real action movement/dodge.
Also GW2 skills choise via weapons was really lame and restrictive. the GW1 was waaaay better.. you had all your skills and you could do any compinations you wanted.
Alt Tab was a forced system for mmos because of the network cap of the old days. before that our games were real time even back in the super mario days :P
People are very used now to WoW and they rather not look forward.. even WoW tends to be more fast paced and old timers WoW players complain... cause they want the old soup for ever..
Well my point is, this discussion will never end. I agree with PC>Console and consoles are keeping the PC from achieving greatness. But stating it doesn't help. People will go for their own system anyway.
But to get back to the discussion, well I prefer tab targetting, old school player and really enjoyed it back then, now got back into EQ2 and enjoy it again. EQ did a better system with only 8 spells and 1 hotbar of 10 buttons. Back then you didn't really have a lot of skills, but using the right one at the right time, conserving mana, time being the most important factor in the game, made the game feel very strategic. There was no button mashing, but careful planning. There was no spamming or macro'ing everything, but trying to max out while keeping your mana high, your agro low (or high as tank), positioning, working together.
I don't know what SOE did the last 8 years, but before that it was a great game. I'd rather have a healer who waits a bit too long to heal and then misses the important heal, get his group to wipe, or gets oom because he had to use his emergancy heal, than a healer who spams 20 buttons, tries to target the boss and the player with a crosshair and stuff like that.
But I don't deny others the option to play that kind of game. But both needs to exist next to each other. Like RTS vs turnbased, FPS vs 3rd, real time tactical vs turn based tactical. Every type of game should have a few games, so people can pick the one they like. But I don't expect every game to have both or to just go down the same rabit hole that got us in this mess to begin with. Copy WoW, now it's copy action based gameplay. It's not the solution for everyone, don't try to use it like the solution. Even instancing was once the holy grail and after a few years it was shot down by a lot of old school players, now you see a decent amount is okay, but some people really hate to be in instances all the time. And others like it, so make both types of games.
MMO's biggest problem is wanting to cater to everyone and they are failing at that. They should pick a target audiance and go for that. Eve is a niche, they are doing there best to be a niche and players like that.