All console shooters should be 60fps

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"][QUOTE="7ojistix"]

So much wrong.

7ojistix

Alright, let me ask you this first; why do you think CS and QIII are the only two FPS's that need 60FPS?

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"] Ooh...well enlighten me then. mo0ksi

Alright, let me ask you this first; why do you think CS and QIII are the only two FPS's that need 60FPS?

Well exactly. Any competitive multiplayer FPS on PC requires at least 60fps from your Unreal Tournaments, CODs, Battlefields, Day of Defeats, to your Team Fortresses etc. To say only CS and Quake3 require 60 FPS is absurd.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]You're a PC gamer and you only game at 60 frames? Wow, just wow. I mean a simple 5970 can run COD maxed with 110+.ohthemanatee

I seriously hope you're joking...

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Pbjb989"]

Are ANY console games 60fps and 1080p?

yugioh3ds

-Gran Turismo 5

-WipeoutHD

-MLB10

ALL PS3 EXCLUSIVES

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]You're a PC gamer and you only game at 60 frames? Wow, just wow. I mean a simple 5970 can run COD maxed with 110+.ohthemanatee

30fps is not disgusting. 60fps is better, but 30fps is just fine.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

Alright, let me ask you this first; why do you think CS and QIII are the only two FPS's that need 60FPS?

7ojistix

quick speed combined with no motion blur..... when fps rates are most noticeable is when snapping the camera around... with consoles you can snap the camera 180 degrees in a fraction of a second like on PC.

and with motion blur the framerate becomes negligible as it tricks the eye into seeing extra frames.

Lol what are you his minion? I'm talking to him, not you.

What you've said is ridiculous anyway. It's not about hiding the lower frames, it's about the responsiveness and accuracy of your aim. 60FPS = far more responsive gameplay which results in better gameplay. Going back to 30 is disgusting.

I actually play @ 120FPS. If you did too you'd understand how crappy it feels going back to console shooters at 30 when you're used to this kind of precision. It makes for a FAR superior experience.

what monitor are you using? my monitor cant even display 120fps.... are you using a CRT monitor?

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

quick speed combined with no motion blur..... when fps rates are most noticeable is when snapping the camera around... with consoles you can snap the camera 180 degrees in a fraction of a second like on PC.

and with motion blur the framerate becomes negligible as it tricks the eye into seeing extra frames.

markinthedark

Lol what are you his minion? I'm talking to him, not you.

What you've said is ridiculous anyway. It's not about hiding the lower frames, it's about the responsiveness and accuracy of your aim. 60FPS = far more responsive gameplay which results in better gameplay. Going back to 30 is disgusting.

I actually play @ 120FPS. If you did too you'd understand how crappy it feels going back to console shooters at 30 when you're used to this kind of precision. It makes for a FAR superior experience.

what monitor are you using? my monitor cant even display 120fps.... are you using a CRT monitor?

I have a 22" ViewSonic monitor @120hz refresh rate. It's pretty good but I do some minor screen-tearing.

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]You're a PC gamer and you only game at 60 frames? Wow, just wow. I mean a simple 5970 can run COD maxed with 110+.KHAndAnime

30FPS is disgusting for first person shooters. When it comes to FPS's, I mainly play on PC where they're supposed to be played with KB+M but I don't mind playing on consoles from time to time. At least COD was smart enough to do 60FPS; I think that's one of the reasons the COD series are so popular. It's too late for this gen since everybody wants OMFG GRAFIX but next gen I hope 60FPS becomes the staple from the start for first person shooters.

7ojistix

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

30FPS is disgusting for first person shooters. When it comes to FPS's, I mainly play on PC where they're supposed to be played with KB+M but I don't mind playing on consoles from time to time. At least COD was smart enough to do 60FPS; I think that's one of the reasons the COD series are so popular. It's too late for this gen since everybody wants OMFG GRAFIX but next gen I hope 60FPS becomes the staple from the start for first person shooters.

lawlessx

Man can you read? I said oneof the reasons. There are plenty of reasons that COD is a successful franchise but yes I'd argue that 60FPS gives it an edge over other console shooters. I know plenty of people who've said that one of the main things they like about COD is the 60FPS.

Well exactly. Any competitive multiplayer FPS on PC requires at least 60fps from your Unreal Tournaments, CODs, Battlefields, Day of Defeats, to your Team Fortresses etc. To say only CS and Quake3 require 60 FPS is absurd.

7ojistix

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="7ojistix"]

30FPS is disgusting for first person shooters. When it comes to FPS's, I mainly play on PC where they're supposed to be played with KB+M but I don't mind playing on consoles from time to time. At least COD was smart enough to do 60FPS; I think that's one of the reasons the COD series are so popular. It's too late for this gen since everybody wants OMFG GRAFIX but next gen I hope 60FPS becomes the staple from the start for first person shooters.

7ojistix

Man can you read? I said oneof the reasons. There are plenty of reasons that COD is a successful franchise but yes I'd argue that 60FPS gives it an edge over other console shooters. I know plenty of people who've said that one of the main things they like about COD is the 60FPS.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="lawlessx"] you think COD is successful because of it's framerate? seriously?lawlessx

Man can you read? I said oneof the reasons. There are plenty of reasons that COD is a successful franchise but yes I'd argue that 60FPS gives it an edge over other console shooters. I know plenty of people who've said that one of the main things they like about COD is the 60FPS.

PC version should run at whatever your PC is capable of. MW2 runs at 60fps on consoles.

If you have an xbox switch the video settings between 1080i (30fps) and 1080p (60fps) in the system menu and try it on each setting.

I couldnt tell the difference personally. You can probably do the same thing on a PS3, but i never tried.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="lawlessx"] you think COD is successful because of it's framerate? seriously?lawlessx

Man can you read? I said oneof the reasons. There are plenty of reasons that COD is a successful franchise but yes I'd argue that 60FPS gives it an edge over other console shooters. I know plenty of people who've said that one of the main things they like about COD is the 60FPS.

Eh, console versions were at 60 (Wii @ 30 I believe), PC version unlimited... depends on your hardware. If you have a decent card there's no way why you wouldn't be @ at least 60fps.

30FPS is disgusting for first person shooters. When it comes to FPS's, I mainly play on PC where they're supposed to be played with KB+M but I don't mind playing on consoles from time to time. At least COD was smart enough to do 60FPS; I think that's one of the reasons the COD series are so popular. It's too late for this gen since everybody wants OMFG GRAFIX but next gen I hope 60FPS becomes the staple from the start for first person shooters.

7ojistix

Not much difference in 20fps 30fps OR even 60fps. Who cares? I have owned everyone regardless

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

Well exactly. Any competitive multiplayer FPS on PC requires at least 60fps from your Unreal Tournaments, CODs, Battlefields, Day of Defeats, to your Team Fortresses etc. To say only CS and Quake3 require 60 FPS is absurd.

mo0ksi

Nope, you can't. And thanks, I play both, both of which are my two favourite competitive FPS's. My Steam games:

I now ask that you go play TF2 @ 30FPS and see what happens to you.

ZOMG STOOPD CONSOLE GAEMRZ ONLI HAV 30FPS!!!!ZOMG!!!! You know what console gamers also have? GOTY for the past 4 years, AAAA games, more high scoring exclusives (as a whole) but your right THAY ALL SUK COS THEY ONLY HAV TEH 30FPS!!!!gamebreakerz__

Haha look at you overreacting. I never said they sucked (I play them), I just said that I hope next gen 60FPS is the standard for consoles. No need to get so insecure bro ;).

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

Well exactly. Any competitive multiplayer FPS on PC requires at least 60fps from your Unreal Tournaments, CODs, Battlefields, Day of Defeats, to your Team Fortresses etc. To say only CS and Quake3 require 60 FPS is absurd.

7ojistix

Nope, you can't. And thanks, I play both, both of which are my two favourite competitive FPS's. My Steam games:

I now ask that you go play TF2 @ 30FPS and see what happens to you.

you are honestly overblowing the significance. I saw a video of fatal1ty playing average joes at some game show where they spun a wheel to determine which disadvantage he would play with.... one of them was a tiny screen, where they took a piece of construction paper with a 4x4 inch square cut out of the middle and placed it over his monitor so he could barely see anything... and he was still pwning them.

the difference between 30 and 60fps is a very slight advantage at best... and its mostly only with sweeping shots. As in being shot from behind, then quickly spinning and shooting in mid spin.

competitive gamers play at ridiculous fps because they take every advantage they can. Kind of like when swimmers shave their bodies... if michael phelps grew a full beard and you shaved every hair on your body... you still aint gonna beat him in a swimming race.

I've played GLQuake and Quake 2 LAN deathmatches using a Voodoo 2 SLI setup. I knew other players with much less powerful PC's (frame rates around 30-40 fps). They certainly had no problems tracking and fragging my character.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

Nope, you can't. And thanks, I play both, both of which are my two favourite competitive FPS's. My Steam games:

I now ask that you go play TF2 @ 30FPS and see what happens to you.

7ojistix

you are honestly overblowing the significance. I saw a video of fatal1ty playing average joes at some game show where they spun a wheel to determine which disadvantage he would play with.... one of them was a tiny screen, where they took a piece of construction paper with a 4x4 inch square cut out of the middle and placed it over his monitor so he could barely see anything... and he was still pwning them.

the difference between 30 and 60fps is a very slight advantage at best... and its mostly only with sweeping shots. As in being shot from behind, then quickly spinning and shooting in mid spin.

competitive gamers play at ridiculous fps because they take every advantage they can. Kind of like when swimmers shave their bodies... if michael phelps grew a full beard and you shaved every hair on your body... you still aint gonna beat him in a swimming race.

Do you even play PC games? I'm sorry but you guys are coming off as completely ignorant and clueless.

30FPS works on consoles because of the analog stick movement; to more casual players, the difference won't be so obvious because the analogs limit the movement of your FOV. It's very slow compared to the more natural movement of the mouse which allows you to look around significantly faster. 30FPS with mouse on PC actually feels choppy. I can't believe I have to even explain this. Anybody who's played FPS's on the PC knows this. If you've played multiplayer FPS's on PC you wouldn't even be arguing with me. 30FPS is freaking handicapped.

Anyway, gotta sleep now. I'm sure we'll continue this tomorrow.

no i completely understand, i was a huge PC gamer up until the past few years.

i understand the disadvantage, but the disadvantage is slight.... a professional CS player could probably trounce an average CS player if he was framelocked at 10fps. PC gaming has a culture of doing everything possible to gain a slight advanatge... i know... i paid $70 for my new mouse... when my old mouse worked just fine.... but i paid out the ear for a slightly better mouse to gain a slight advantage in SC2.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"] You can do perfectly fine under 60 with the games you just mentioned. I don't think you quite understand how competitive Q3 and CS really are.

markinthedark

Nope, you can't. And thanks, I play both, both of which are my two favourite competitive FPS's. My Steam games:

I now ask that you go play TF2 @ 30FPS and see what happens to you.

you are honestly overblowing the significance. I saw a video of fatal1ty playing average joes at some game show where they spun a wheel to determine which disadvantage he would play with.... one of them was a tiny screen, where they took a piece of construction paper with a 4x4 inch square cut out of the middle and placed it over his monitor so he could barely see anything... and he was still pwning them.

the difference between 30 and 60fps is a very slight advantage at best... and its mostly only with sweeping shots. As in being shot from behind, then quickly spinning and shooting in mid spin.

competitive gamers play at ridiculous fps because they take every advantage they can. Kind of like when swimmers shave their bodies... if michael phelps grew a full beard and you shaved every hair on your body... you still aint gonna beat him in a swimming race.

This one will be hard to beat, folks. :D

I've played GLQuake and Quake 2 LAN deathmatches using a Voodoo 2 SLI setup. I knew other players with much less powerful PC's (frame rates around 30-40 fps). They certainly had no problems tracking and fragging my character.

jun_aka_pekto

thats because nobody is good enough to shoot another player on the first frame they render in. No player in the world has the reaction speed necessary to shoot a target in the very first frame they render on their screen. Only aim bots can do that.

generally how it works is you see the player moving through several frames, you calculate the time in your head on how fast it takes to move the mouse to the player, and how fast the player is moving... then you decide on a space inbetween where those 2 calculations sync up. You shoot before the frame of the player's head in your crosshairs... not when. If you wait til you see the frame rendered of your crosshairs over their head... by the time you click the mouse, its too late. Our brain is constantly anticipating frames... the best fps players probably shoot about 100 milliseconds in the future... they dont shoot in the present. And no graphics card can render 100 milliseconds in the future... despite the fps.

The mod deleted my reply and I have no idea why. I'm simply not gonna bother. I'm sorry but you guys really have no idea what you're talking about. 30FPS on a PC first person shooter is like being handicapped. 30FPS works fine on console because the analog movement of your FOV limits the speed at which you can look around. With a mouse, 30FPS is downright choppy. Anybody who's played PC FPS knows what I'm talking about. If you think otherwise, I just can't take your opinion seriously.

Why? Unless you're running a crossfire or sli rig you probably aren't going to get a solid 60 fps in the best looking computer games out there. I'd rather have the eye candy than a few extra fps, as long as it doesn't dip too low.

Why? Unless you're running a crossfire or sli rig you probably aren't going to get a solid 60 fps in the best looking computer games out there. I'd rather have the eye candy than a few extra fps, as long as it doesn't dip too low.

topgunmv

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Why? Unless you're running a crossfire or sli rig you probably aren't going to get a solid 60 fps in the best looking computer games out there. I'd rather have the eye candy than a few extra fps, as long as it doesn't dip too low.

KHAndAnime

Crysis (not warhead) averages in the 40's with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 with no aa on my rig.

[QUOTE="yugioh3ds"]

-Gran Turismo 5

-WipeoutHD

-MLB10

ALL PS3 EXCLUSIVES

GT 5 is not full HD

don't know about the rest

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Why? Unless you're running a crossfire or sli rig you probably aren't going to get a solid 60 fps in the best looking computer games out there. I'd rather have the eye candy than a few extra fps, as long as it doesn't dip too low.

topgunmv

Crysis (not warhead) averages in the 40's with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 with no aa on my rig.

Crysis is not a game that needs silky smooth FPS. It's a single player. Multiplayer games are another matter if you want the best GAMEPLAY.

This is actually fundamentally a gameplay vs graphics thread. 60FPS = better gameplay. That's undeniable. As a console gamer, you have a trade-off between graphics and gameplay. I'm saying sacrifice graphics for better gameplay. These other kids are like "Nuh-unh! 60FPS is no different!" which is ludicrous.

The mod deleted my reply and I have no idea why. I'm simply not gonna bother. I'm sorry but you guys really have no idea what you're talking about. 30FPS on a PC first person shooter is like being handicapped. 30FPS works fine on console because the analog movement of your FOV limits the speed at which you can look around. With a mouse, 30FPS is downright choppy. Anybody who's played PC FPS knows what I'm talking about. If you think otherwise, I just can't take your opinion seriously.

7ojistix

i probably wont follow through with this, since im notoriously lazy. But give me a game thats free or cheap and allows frame locking and i will test it out. Im fairly convinced i could achieve similar performance at 30 or 60 fps.

I honestly never paid attention to my fps when i used to be hardcore into PC fps... because as long as it was serviceable i never noticed a difference. Pretty sure when i used to play SOF2 i hovered around 30fps and i owned serious face.

and im not trying to deny you your point... consoles are definitely better suited to lower fps because of slower movement speed... all im saying is you are overblowing the advantages of 30 vs 60fps... im not saying there is no advantage. Just that you are making it seem like you cant play at 30fps in a PC game and remain competitive.

you are right, you are 100% right in your point... you are just embellishing alot.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] What games can you not max at 60 FPS?7ojistix

Crysis (not warhead) averages in the 40's with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 with no aa on my rig.

Crysis is not a game that needs silky smooth FPS. It's a single player. Multiplayer games are another matter if you want the best GAMEPLAY.

This is actually fundamentally a gameplay vs graphics thread. 60FPS = better gameplay. That's undeniable. As a console gamer, you have a trade-off between graphics and gameplay. I'm saying sacrifice graphics for better gameplay. These other kids are like "Nuh-unh! 60FPS is no different!" which is ludicrous.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Crysis (not warhead) averages in the 40's with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 with no aa on my rig.

ocstew

Crysis is not a game that needs silky smooth FPS. It's a single player. Multiplayer games are another matter if you want the best GAMEPLAY.

This is actually fundamentally a gameplay vs graphics thread. 60FPS = better gameplay. That's undeniable. As a console gamer, you have a trade-off between graphics and gameplay. I'm saying sacrifice graphics for better gameplay. These other kids are like "Nuh-unh! 60FPS is no different!" which is ludicrous.

because crysis is alot more prone to slowdown... with all the advanced physics going on.

with a well done motion blur its virtually impossible to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

i could care less if games are 60fps.

markinthedark

Thats a bunch of crap, it may make the game look like it is running smoother but it does absolutely nothing about the responsiveness and the gameplay is still noticably smoother than on 30fps even with motion blur.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

with a well done motion blur its virtually impossible to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

i could care less if games are 60fps.

ferret-gamer

Thats a bunch of crap, it may make the game look like it is running smoother but it does absolutely nothing about the responsiveness and the gameplay is still noticably smoother than on 30fps even with motion blur.

meh old post is old.

we are currently arguing about competitive advantage rather than visual fidelity. That post was in response to visual fidelity.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

The mod deleted my reply and I have no idea why. I'm simply not gonna bother. I'm sorry but you guys really have no idea what you're talking about. 30FPS on a PC first person shooter is like being handicapped. 30FPS works fine on console because the analog movement of your FOV limits the speed at which you can look around. With a mouse, 30FPS is downright choppy. Anybody who's played PC FPS knows what I'm talking about. If you think otherwise, I just can't take your opinion seriously.

markinthedark

i probably wont follow through with this, since im notoriously lazy. But give me a game thats free or cheap and allows frame locking and i will test it out. Im fairly convinced i could achieve similar performance at 30 or 60 fps.

That's all I needed to hear. You've never/hardly played PC games.

I honestly never paid attention to my fps when i used to be hardcore into PC fps... because as long as it was serviceable i never noticed a difference. Pretty sure when i used to play SOF2 i hovered around 30fps and i owned serious face.

Soldier of Fortune 2? Are you serious?Whatever online community that game had could not have been even a quarter way serious. Try something like Unreal Tournament or Team Fortress 2 or any of the other games I mentioned and see how you fare.

and im not trying to deny you your point... consoles are definitely better suited to lower fps because of slower movement speed... all im saying is you are overblowing the advantages of 30 vs 60fps... im not saying there is no advantage. Just that you are making it seem like you cant play at 30fps in a PC game and remain competitive.

The disadvantage of 30FPS is ridiculous and not overblown.

you are right, you are 100% right in your point... you are just embellishing alot.

No I'm really not. You've admitted now that you've rarely played PC games. I play many PC games. There's a HUGE difference between playing a shooter on a console and playing a shooter on the PC. Mouse and keyboard controls are an entirely different ballgame to analog sticks, especially without the auto-aim. The framerate makes a dramatic difference.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

The mod deleted my reply and I have no idea why. I'm simply not gonna bother. I'm sorry but you guys really have no idea what you're talking about. 30FPS on a PC first person shooter is like being handicapped. 30FPS works fine on console because the analog movement of your FOV limits the speed at which you can look around. With a mouse, 30FPS is downright choppy. Anybody who's played PC FPS knows what I'm talking about. If you think otherwise, I just can't take your opinion seriously.

7ojistix

i probably wont follow through with this, since im notoriously lazy. But give me a game thats free or cheap and allows frame locking and i will test it out. Im fairly convinced i could achieve similar performance at 30 or 60 fps.

That's all I needed to hear. You've never/hardly played PC games.

I honestly never paid attention to my fps when i used to be hardcore into PC fps... because as long as it was serviceable i never noticed a difference. Pretty sure when i used to play SOF2 i hovered around 30fps and i owned serious face.

Soldier of Fortune 2? Are you serious?Whatever online community that game had could not have been even a quarter way serious. Try something like Unreal Tournament or Team Fortress 2 or any of the other games I mentioned and see how you fare.

and im not trying to deny you your point... consoles are definitely better suited to lower fps because of slower movement speed... all im saying is you are overblowing the advantages of 30 vs 60fps... im not saying there is no advantage. Just that you are making it seem like you cant play at 30fps in a PC game and remain competitive.

The disadvantage of 30FPS is ridiculous and not overblown.

you are right, you are 100% right in your point... you are just embellishing alot.

No I'm really not. You've admitted now that you've rarely played PC games. I play many PC games. There's a HUGE difference between playing a shooter on a console and playing a shooter on the PC. Mouse and keyboard controls are an entirely different ballgame to analog sticks, especially without the auto-aim. The framerate makes a dramatic difference.

no ive admitted i was hardcore into PC gaming... just not in the past couple years. You think SOF2 community wasnt hardcore because it wasnt popular.... geeze guess that means MW2 players are way more hardcore than CS players... since CS has such a tiny community in comparison.

i will get team fortress 2. I played quake team fortress alot... you know, the original one... so probably not too difficult. I can framelock in this game, right?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

with a well done motion blur its virtually impossible to tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

i could care less if games are 60fps.

markinthedark

Thats a bunch of crap, it may make the game look like it is running smoother but it does absolutely nothing about the responsiveness and the gameplay is still noticably smoother than on 30fps even with motion blur.

meh old post is old.

we are currently arguing about competitive advantage rather than visual fidelity. That post was in response to visual fidelity..

Um, no. You replied to my post with that response, apparently assuming I was talking about visual fidelity which I wasn't. I pointed out to you that it's NOT about "visual fidelity", it's about gameplay responsiveness. Really dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

As for "arguing" about competitive advantage, there is no argument. 30FPS is handicapped in a 60+FPS game. You say the advantage is only "slight", but it's not. You can keep whining from here on, I don't care.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i probably wont follow through with this, since im notoriously lazy. But give me a game thats free or cheap and allows frame locking and i will test it out. Im fairly convinced i could achieve similar performance at 30 or 60 fps.

That's all I needed to hear. You've never/hardly played PC games.

I honestly never paid attention to my fps when i used to be hardcore into PC fps... because as long as it was serviceable i never noticed a difference. Pretty sure when i used to play SOF2 i hovered around 30fps and i owned serious face.

Soldier of Fortune 2? Are you serious?Whatever online community that game had could not have been even a quarter way serious. Try something like Unreal Tournament or Team Fortress 2 or any of the other games I mentioned and see how you fare.

and im not trying to deny you your point... consoles are definitely better suited to lower fps because of slower movement speed... all im saying is you are overblowing the advantages of 30 vs 60fps... im not saying there is no advantage. Just that you are making it seem like you cant play at 30fps in a PC game and remain competitive.

The disadvantage of 30FPS is ridiculous and not overblown.

you are right, you are 100% right in your point... you are just embellishing alot.

No I'm really not. You've admitted now that you've rarely played PC games. I play many PC games. There's a HUGE difference between playing a shooter on a console and playing a shooter on the PC. Mouse and keyboard controls are an entirely different ballgame to analog sticks, especially without the auto-aim. The framerate makes a dramatic difference.

markinthedark

no ive admitted i was hardcore into PC gaming... just not in the past couple years. You think SOF2 community wasnt hardcore because it wasnt popular.... geeze guess that means MW2 players are way more hardcore than CS players... since CS has such a tiny community in comparison.

Okay... this dude just called the phemonenon that was and is Counter-Strike 1.6/Source a tiny community. I.e. the most played competitive FPS (both professionally and casually) of all time - a tiny community. Ten years and still going strong. I'm sorry, that analogy was grasping for straws anyway but now I'm thinking I'm arguing with somebody who's 15 years old at most.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

meh old post is old.

we are currently arguing about competitive advantage rather than visual fidelity. That post was in response to visual fidelity..

markinthedark

Um, no. You replied to my post with that response, apparently assuming I was talking about visual fidelity which I wasn't. I pointed out to you that it's NOT about "visual fidelity", it's about gameplay responsiveness. Really dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

As for "arguing" about competitive advantage, there is no argument. 30FPS is handicapped in a 60+FPS game. You say the advantage is only "slight", but it's not. You can keep whining from here on, I don't care.

your original topic was essential "fps are sposed to be played with m+kb because they are more awesome, why is everything less awesome?"

you are out of your mind.

Apparently you can't read either.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

7ojistix

no ive admitted i was hardcore into PC gaming... just not in the past couple years. You think SOF2 community wasnt hardcore because it wasnt popular.... geeze guess that means MW2 players are way more hardcore than CS players... since CS has such a tiny community in comparison.

Okay... this dude just called the phemonenon that was and is Counter-Strike 1.6/Source a tiny community. I.e. the most played competitive FPS (both professionally and casually) of all time - a tiny community. Ten years and still going strong. I'm sorry, that analogy was grasping for straws anyway but now I'm thinking I'm arguing with somebody who's 15 years old at most.

so in your mind CS has a larger online community than MW2? just want trying to understand this world you exist in.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

no ive admitted i was hardcore into PC gaming... just not in the past couple years. You think SOF2 community wasnt hardcore because it wasnt popular.... geeze guess that means MW2 players are way more hardcore than CS players... since CS has such a tiny community in comparison.

markinthedark

Okay... this dude just called the phemonenon that was and is Counter-Strike 1.6/Source a tiny community. I.e. the most played competitive FPS (both professionally and casually) of all time - a tiny community. Ten years and still going strong. I'm sorry, that analogy was grasping for straws anyway but now I'm thinking I'm arguing with somebody who's 15 years old at most.

so in your mind CS has a larger online community than MW2? just want trying to understand this world you exist in.

Um, was Modern Warfare 2 ever played professionally? Was it played in leagues like CAL? No and it never will be. CS Source is played professionally. This is entirely irrelevant anyway.

Let's go back to the root of this little sub-argument. Soldier of Fortune 2 was primarily a single player game. It was NEVER a hardcore multiplayer game and it's a ridiculous game to bring up. How can SOF2 compete with games like CS, Day of Defeat, Quake 3, Battlefield and Team Fortress? These MP destroy SOF2's crappy little MP segment. Hahaha, seriously kid how old are you? Are you actually trying to say SOF2 is a better multiplayer game and more "hardcore" than Counter-Strike? :lol:

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

Okay... this dude just called the phemonenon that was and is Counter-Strike 1.6/Source a tiny community. I.e. the most played competitive FPS (both professionally and casually) of all time - a tiny community. Ten years and still going strong. I'm sorry, that analogy was grasping for straws anyway but now I'm thinking I'm arguing with somebody who's 15 years old at most.

7ojistix

so in your mind CS has a larger online community than MW2? just want trying to understand this world you exist in.

Um, was Modern Warfare 2 ever played professionally? Was it played in leagues like CAL? No and it never will be. CS Source is played professionally. This is entirely irrelevant anyway.

Let's go back to the root of this little sub-argument. Soldier of Fortune 2 was primarily a single player game. It was NEVER a hardcore multiplayer game and it's a ridiculous game to bring up. How can SOF2 compete with games like CS, Day of Defeat, Quake 3, Battlefield and Team Fortress? These MP destroy SOF2's crappy little MP segment. Hahaha, seriously kid how old are you?

SOF2 had a pretty hardcore online following. How cant SOF2 compete with those games? the gameplay was relatively the same. Im 27, how old are you... because it seems like you lack a bit of knowledge in old school PC gaming. I played alot of quake team fortress... im guessing you never even heard of team fortress before valve turned it into a retail game. Used to be a quake mod.

EDIT: and yes MW2 is played professionally.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

Um, was Modern Warfare 2 ever played professionally? Was it played in leagues like CAL? No and it never will be. CS Source is played professionally. This is entirely irrelevant anyway.

Let's go back to the root of this little sub-argument. Soldier of Fortune 2 was primarily a single player game. It was NEVER a hardcore multiplayer game and it's a ridiculous game to bring up. How can SOF2 compete with games like CS, Day of Defeat, Quake 3, Battlefield and Team Fortress? These MP destroy SOF2's crappy little MP segment. Hahaha, seriously kid how old are you?

7ojistix

SOF2 had a pretty hardcore online following. How cant SOF2 compete with those games? the gameplay was relatively the same. Im 27, how old are you... because it seems like you lack a bit of knowledge in old school PC gaming. I played alot of quake team fortress... im guessing you never even heard of team fortress before valve turned it into a retail game. Used to be a quake mod.

"the gameplay was relatively the same. Im 27, how old are you... because it seems like you lack a bit of knowledge in old school PC gaming. I played alot of quake team fortress... im guessing you never even heard of team fortress before valve turned it into a retail game. Used to be a quake mod."

LMAO, okay, you're either a kid or you're a very good troll! You actually sound 12 dude. I've wasted far too much time with you. :lol:

i really dont know why you are so combative... i generally agree with all of your points. Im really not attempting to fight you in anyway. Ill admit im rather immature so i probably do sound 12. BTW im registering for quake live right now... gimme a like a week of practice to reacquaint myself KB+M and we can see if your 120fps monitor really does destroy my 60fps monitor.

[QUOTE="7ojistix"]

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

SOF2 had a pretty hardcore online following. How cant SOF2 compete with those games? the gameplay was relatively the same. Im 27, how old are you... because it seems like you lack a bit of knowledge in old school PC gaming. I played alot of quake team fortress... im guessing you never even heard of team fortress before valve turned it into a retail game. Used to be a quake mod.

markinthedark

"the gameplay was relatively the same. Im 27, how old are you... because it seems like you lack a bit of knowledge in old school PC gaming. I played alot of quake team fortress... im guessing you never even heard of team fortress before valve turned it into a retail game. Used to be a quake mod."

LMAO, okay, you're either a kid or you're a very good troll! You actually sound 12 dude. I've wasted far too much time with you. :lol:

i really dont know why you are so combative... i generally agree with all of your points. Im really not attempting to fight you in anyway. Ill admit im rather immature so i probably do sound 12. BTW im registering for quake live right now... gimme a like a week of practice to reacquaint myself KB+M and we can see if your 120fps monitor really does destroy my 60fps monitor.

Actually I was talking about 60 vs 30 but whatever.