Skill: Console vs PC

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] That's why I have a hard time taking you seriously where ever you go, Haber. "We're done with this point because I don't want to deal with it anymore but I'm right okay" essentially sums up what you just did there. That's not discussion. You brought it up, you couldn't adequately defend it, and then you move on when you got tired. But okay. We'll move on. I'm a bit confused on this "lazy bullet physics" argument. Mainly because what you just said there isn't true in the slightest. In every FPS game I've ever played, console or PC, burst fire is superior at mid to long range. Some more than others, certainly, but PCs aren't the holy grail of gun physics. Even Gears of War, a third person granted, had your bullets spraying inaccurately on full auto and longer range. Bad Company had bullet drop of all things! And while it's on the PC, truly, PC gamers have always been quick to dismiss it as a "consolized" game. I tell you now it's much better to burst than squeeze the trigger down. And. . yet again, we find ourselves coming back to the tool rather than the actual person. You are arguing that because you have a better tool you have more skill but if the keyboard is really doing all the work, what does that say about the person? The PC doesn't have all that in more, the PC merely has a more precise controls and that does not equate to greater skill. That IS like saying "I have a precision hunting rifle compared to your musket, I have more skill".AncientDozer

NO, lets get back to auto-aim, to me that is the key argument. I was simply conceding that you see auto-aim as a legitimate thing in a competitive environment, and moving on to other topics in the same vein.

So - auto-aim:

explain how an intentional computer assisted aim doesn't invalidate the skill requirement compared to PC? That still has not been effectively answered.

The controller as a tool limits your skills ability to shine through. A mouse removes that limitation so the players skill becomes the determinate factor.

You are stating a very obvious fact as a point in this argument, namely that being "new" at something takes time to master, controllers aren't immune to the learning-curve.

On the other hand, once you have learned one tool (mouse) and go to another tool (controller) it becomes apparent that one takes actual aiming skill and the other takes ... finesse, and manipulation of "assists".

As someone who knows both systems can you honestly suggest that Halo skill requirements are higher than CSS skill requirements? I've played enough online Halo to know the answer to this.

Does it matter? no

But this is SW, where we debate the merits of a system, and I'm suggesting that the console system caters to less competition by its various assists and other "handicaps".

those arguing that auto-aim isn't a handicap worth mentioning when discussing competitionhaberman13

In multiplayer games, a person's skill will be measured based on his performance in comparisonto other players, who more often than not use the same controller method. Whatever that controller method may be, the "skill" needed to success will depend on the people playing with you, not necessarily on the controller you use.

With little skill you could win almost every multiplayer game, if your oponents happen to be less skilled. It's a huge bunch of variables, that finally render any discussion about it invalid.

Whatever conclusion you may create from "the skill needed" to play a certain game, you can only create basing it on aperson in comparison to another person playing with the same method, not in comparison to a different method.

That's only one reason why talking about skill is a pointless argument.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]So find some other way to get an edge on your opponents other than raw aiming. Make sure you're consistently in a better position. Maintain better situational awareness. Learn to read your opponents' tactics and know where on the map you find the weapons that counter-balance them. Make better use of the ubiquitous VoIP to coordinate in team games. There are so many other dimensions of skill that you can leverage while playing FPS. Fixating on aim alone just shows you to be a one-trick pony.haberman13

Ok, we're done with aim-assist negating competition; I can accept that you guys like aim-assist and find it a legitimate handicap.

So, next topic in this same thread: lazy bullet phsyics

You can pretty much hold down "fire" in a console shooter and the bullets all stay within a small cone; compared to PC with its massive recoil, 1-3 shots max before recoil needs to be dealt with and the need to handle bullet travel time and drop.

In summation: PC has everything you mentioned, and then some. So PC skill > console skill from a raw perspective that the player needs to accomodate more in order to be successful.

Like i've said, console is a battle against the controller more than other players; on PC its a battle of skill vs skill where the limiting factor is the player and not the game/controller.

Bullet Physics? What in the hell does that have to do with Console skill vs PC skill (which doesn't exist BTW)?

Bad Company 2 is on consoles as well as PC. I've played both and neither have a difference in recoil and bullet drop. Call of Duty is on both PC (started on the PC might I add) and Consoles and the recoil between them is exactly the same. Ghost Recon 1 was on both PC and Consoles, again no change in recoil and bullet physics.

The only thing you can possibly argue with bullet physics is that there are far more combat simulators on the PC like ArmA and Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis that try to simulate combat as true to life as possilbe. All that means is that a particular genre is more popular on the PC just like fighting games and action games (God of War, Ninja Gaiden) are more popular on consoles. It has absolutely nothing to do with this skill gap you keep going on about.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"]Well, considering they operate in different ways I'd have to disagree. Maybe if they had similar form and function, then we can argue about "holding back a person". I know plenty of people who are good at both and plenty more who struggle going from one to the other. One of my best friends who is amazing at the keyboard and mouse is terrible on the game pad. I know game pad players who cannot pick up a keyboard. I personally am good at both and pay very little interest in the distinctions. The point here is that if people were truly held back, a person on a game pad should theoretically do greater on a keyboard and mouse and a person on a keyboard and mouse should do swimmingly with a game pad. Aim assist plays very little into this equation.AncientDozer

You are stating a very obvious fact as a point in this argument, namely that being "new" at something takes time to master, controllers aren't immune to the learning-curve.

On the other hand, once you have learned one tool (mouse) and go to another tool (controller) it becomes apparent that one takes actual aiming skill and the other takes ... finesse, and manipulation of "assists".

As someone who knows both systems can you honestly suggest that Halo skill requirements are higher than CSS skill requirements? I've played enough online Halo to know the answer to this.

Does it matter? no

But this is SW, where we debate the merits of a system, and I'm suggesting that the console system caters to less competition by its various assists and other "handicaps".

They both take skill.

One takes more skill.

Not all things are equal. Both games are the exact same overarching concept, one has aim-assists/regening health/shields and the other doesn't.

One creates a game artificially based on the controls limitations, the other creates a game assuming a 1:1 connectedness with the control method... ergo, Halo caters to the limitations of the control method (how else do you explain auto-aim?). CSS caters to a twitch based capability that is +/- depending on the player skill, and not the artificial limitation of the controller.

In multiplayer games, a person's skill will be measured based on his performance in comparisonto other players, who more often than not use the same controller method. Whatever that controller method may be, the "skill" needed to success will depend on the people playing with you, not necessarily on the controller you use.

With little skill you could win almost every multiplayer game, if your oponents happen to be less skilled. It's a huge bunch of variables, that finally render any discussion about it invalid.

Whatever conclusion you may create from "the skill needed" to play a certain game, you can only create basing it on aperson in comparison to another person playing with the same method, not in comparison to a different method.

That's only one reason why talking about skill is a pointless argument.

IronBass

I agree with this argument.

(------------ console required skill, equal playing field)

(------------------------------------------------ PC required skill, equal playing field)

This was my point from the beginning, on PC you have a higher skill requirement than console.

I agree with this argument.

(------------ console required skill, equal playing field)

(------------------------------------------------ PC required skill, equal playing field)

This was my point from the beginning, on PC you have a higher skill requirement than console.

haberman13

I would suggest you to read my post again, because it didn't have anything to do with what you're apparently agreeing with.

In fact, it was the opposite of that (that you can't measure skill that way).

[QUOTE="haberman13"]I agree with this argument.

(------------ console required skill, equal playing field)

(------------------------------------------------ PC required skill, equal playing field)

This was my point from the beginning, on PC you have a higher skill requirement than console.

IronBass

I would suggest you to read my post again, because it didn't have anything to do with what you're apparently agreeing with.

In fact, it was the opposite of that (that you can't measure skill that way).

You absolutely can measure skill that way.

In every possible system that could be called "competitive" there are things that require more skill than others.

In programming, when I started I thought PHP was hard, now I write C and see a new level... it seems that the argument here is:

everything is equal and has equal skill requirements.

That is obviously false: CSS / C++ require more "skill" than Halo / PHP

PC skill requirements are higher than console skill requirements, how that can be argued against is mystifying. Not everything is equal.

Console: regen health PC: no regen health

Console: auto-aim PC: no auto-aim

Console: no recoil PC: recoil

and on and on.

I've heard quite a few comments from consolers stating "m/kb is too hard to adapt to".

Question: does gaming on PC take more skill than console? Or are the aforementioned statements simply coming from people who haven't had enough "time behind the wheel"?

Would a console-only gamer be able to survive in BC2 PC or CSS for example? Has Gears of War and its auto-aim/cover/regen'ing health mantra created a generation of gamers that have lost the "competitive" capability of previous PC based generations?

Anecdotally I can tell you that Gears on PC was one of the easiest games I've ever played; compared to a competitive shooter you can basically hold down the trigger and run forward to beat the game. While fun for the story/cutscenes, it leaves much to be desired gameplay wise.

In summation, I'm thinking this dichotomy exists on the two systems:

PC - gameplay first, story second (skill checks to advance to next cutscene)

Console - story first, gameplay second (run forward holding trigger to begin next cutscene)

Skill is different for every preson.

I doubht a CS player will be able to jump into a match on Gears of war and be able to win

You absolutely can measure skill that way.

In every possible system that could be called "competitive" there are things that require more skill than others.

In programming, when I started I thought PHP was hard, now I write C and see a new level... it seems that the argument here is:

everything is equal and has equal skill requirements.

That is obviously false: CSS / C++ require more "skill" than Halo / PHPhaberman13

My post didn't have much to do with that.

I will repeat myself, since it seems I didn't explain myself clearly.

My point is not if a controller method is harder or more complicated to use or not (that depends on way too many variables to even start talking about it), but about the fact that in multiplayer games a person's "skill" is measured based on how it performs in comparison to other players, who use the same method.

That's why I pointed out that a unskilled gamer could succeed with either controller method, if his rivals happen to be less skilled. How he performs is not a question of how he performs by himself (since he's not playing alone, in a void), but in comparison to other players.

The "skill requirements" of a multiplayer game depends on the people that play with you, not on the controller you use.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

I've heard quite a few comments from consolers stating "m/kb is too hard to adapt to".

Question: does gaming on PC take more skill than console? Or are the aforementioned statements simply coming from people who haven't had enough "time behind the wheel"?

Would a console-only gamer be able to survive in BC2 PC or CSS for example? Has Gears of War and its auto-aim/cover/regen'ing health mantra created a generation of gamers that have lost the "competitive" capability of previous PC based generations?

Anecdotally I can tell you that Gears on PC was one of the easiest games I've ever played; compared to a competitive shooter you can basically hold down the trigger and run forward to beat the game. While fun for the story/cutscenes, it leaves much to be desired gameplay wise.

In summation, I'm thinking this dichotomy exists on the two systems:

PC - gameplay first, story second (skill checks to advance to next cutscene)

Console - story first, gameplay second (run forward holding trigger to begin next cutscene)

streetridaz

its the complete opposite for me

[QUOTE="haberman13"]You absolutely can measure skill that way.

In every possible system that could be called "competitive" there are things that require more skill than others.

In programming, when I started I thought PHP was hard, now I write C and see a new level... it seems that the argument here is:

everything is equal and has equal skill requirements.

That is obviously false: CSS / C++ require more "skill" than Halo / PHPIronBass

My post didn't have anything to do with that.

I will repeat myself, since it seems I didn't explain myself clearly enough.

My point is not if a controller method is harder or more complicated to use or not (that depends on way too many variables to even start talking about it), but about the fact that in multiplayer games a person's "skill" is measured based on how it performs in comparison to other players, who use the same method.

That's why I pointed out that a unskilled gamer could succeed with either controller method, if his rivals happen to be less skilled. How he performs is not a question of how he performs by himself (since he's not playing alone, in a void), but in comparison to other players.

The "skill requirements" of a multiplayer game depends on the people that play with you, not on the controller you use.

We are agreeing, but making different points:

Yes, competition is measured against who you are playing against.

Also yes, PC skill level requirement is higher than console skill level requirement.

So there is technically "competition" on console, much like there are competitive softball leagues.

[QUOTE="streetridaz"][QUOTE="haberman13"]

I've heard quite a few comments from consolers stating "m/kb is too hard to adapt to".

Question: does gaming on PC take more skill than console? Or are the aforementioned statements simply coming from people who haven't had enough "time behind the wheel"?

Would a console-only gamer be able to survive in BC2 PC or CSS for example? Has Gears of War and its auto-aim/cover/regen'ing health mantra created a generation of gamers that have lost the "competitive" capability of previous PC based generations?

Anecdotally I can tell you that Gears on PC was one of the easiest games I've ever played; compared to a competitive shooter you can basically hold down the trigger and run forward to beat the game. While fun for the story/cutscenes, it leaves much to be desired gameplay wise.

In summation, I'm thinking this dichotomy exists on the two systems:

PC - gameplay first, story second (skill checks to advance to next cutscene)

Console - story first, gameplay second (run forward holding trigger to begin next cutscene)

its the complete opposite for me

We are agreeing, but making different points:

Yes, competition is measured against who you are playing against.

Also yes, PC skill level requirement is higher than console skill level requirement.

So there is technically "competition" on console, much like there are competitive softball leagues.haberman13

I didn't say anything about it, I actually said the contrary (that skill is measured in comparison to other players, not based on systems)

[QUOTE="IronBass"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]I agree with this argument.

(------------ console required skill, equal playing field)

(------------------------------------------------ PC required skill, equal playing field)

This was my point from the beginning, on PC you have a higher skill requirement than console.

haberman13

I would suggest you to read my post again, because it didn't have anything to do with what you're apparently agreeing with.

In fact, it was the opposite of that (that you can't measure skill that way).

You absolutely can measure skill that way.

In every possible system that could be called "competitive" there are things that require more skill than others.

In programming, when I started I thought PHP was hard, now I write C and see a new level... it seems that the argument here is:

everything is equal and has equal skill requirements.

That is obviously false: CSS / C++ require more "skill" than Halo / PHP

PC skill requirements are higher than console skill requirements, how that can be argued against is mystifying. Not everything is equal.

Console: regen health PC: no regen health

Console: auto-aim PC: no auto-aim

Console: no recoil PC: recoil

and on and on.

Your argument is completely flawed as long as you're looking at the multiplayer componenet of these games.

Aim-assist does not make a game require any less skill *IF* the same advantages, disadvantages, rules and restrictions is evenly applied to all players. It would be like claiming that Football requires no skill compared to Soccer because in football players are allowed to use their hands.

Playing Golf with a handicap does not make it any easier, harder or require more or less 'skill' to win, if all the opponenet play with the same handicap.

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

22 pages to make that point clear enough! Car analogies FTW!

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

haberman13

Bad analogy, because it implies that the tools used (the nascar cars) are the same, just that one was put random assists and rules for the sake of it.

Controllers and KB/M are not the same, they're in fact, quite different.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

IronBass

Bad analogy, because it implies that the tools used (the nascar cars) are the same, just that one was put random assists and rules for the sake of it.

Controllers and KB/M are not the same, they're in fact, quite different.

Are they? They perform the same function.

One is just really bad at what it does.

I'm not saying a console GAMER can't attain PC levels of skill, but it would take moving to PC to accomplish that as the "tool" available on console precludes you rising above a certain skill point.

Much like the NASCAR driver being speed limited.

it is not that hard to go from Console to PC, what hard is what game you are going to, someone going from Call of duty to CS will have a harder time just like someone going from CS to Gears of war would probably have a harder time

Are they? They perform the same function.

One is just really bad at what it does.

I'm not saying a console GAMER can't attain PC levels of skill, but it would take moving to PC to accomplish that as the "tool" available on console precludes you rising above a certain skill point.

Much like the NASCAR driver being speed limited.

haberman13

Performing the same function doesn't make two things the same. They perform the same function, but they do it differently.

Which makes all analogies until this point forced and quite inaccurate.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]Are they? They perform the same function.

One is just really bad at what it does.

I'm not saying a console GAMER can't attain PC levels of skill, but it would take moving to PC to accomplish that as the "tool" available on console precludes you rising above a certain skill point.

Much like the NASCAR driver being speed limited.

IronBass

Performing the same function doesn't make two things the same. They perform the same function, but they do it differently.

Which makes all analogies until this point forced and quite inaccurate.

If they perform the same function, and controllers fail so hard, then its a pretty strong indictment against consoles.

Which is exactly my point: controllers being bad at what they do force auto-aim and other mechanisms to remove the challenge of the controller (and thereby remove the competition compared to PC)

how do they fail so hard?

also auto aim few games use auto aim, what most shooter use is when you are very close to a traget to moves towards it because its harder with joysticks. there is no magic flying bullets

how do they fail so hard?

also auto aim few games use auto aim, what most shooter use is when you are very close to a traget to moves towards it because its harder with joysticks. there is no magic flying bullets

gamer-adam1

Right, its more like a magnetic target. (the fact that this exists indicates a problem)

They fail compared to a mouse for FPS. (superior for fighters)

My keyboard skills are really bad and I'm jealous of anyone that can type freely without having to stare at their keyboard.

I own a Logi G110 keyboard and while i can map keys easy enough, I couldn't set up a macro if my life depended on it!

They say it's pretty easy but i don't think so.

This epic suck-fest that i suffer from keeps me from enjoying some of my favorite MMO's to the fullest unfortunately.

So yeah, i would say that it takes more skill to master kb/mouse than it does with a game-pad.

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

22 pages to make that point clear enough! Car analogies FTW!

haberman13

One driver would not necessarily be better than the other; instead they would develop different skill sets. By applying the special rules on the first driver you're simply changing the nature of the competition, you're not making it any easier.

If you took the driver who'd never raced with a 90mph restriction and after several years, forced him to compete under those restrictions he would most likely fail badly against drivers who had far more experience driving under those restrictions.

If they perform the same function, and controllers fail so hard, then its a pretty strong indictment against consoles.haberman13

It would be, if it made the game less fun. Which isn't the case.

Which is exactly my point: controllers being bad at what they do force auto-aim and other mechanisms to remove the challenge of the controller (and thereby remove the competition compared to PC)haberman13

I already talked about how the competition will always depend on the players you play with, regardless of controller method (assuming all play with the same method).

Mentioning Starcraft should have ended this "contest".

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

22 pages to make that point clear enough! Car analogies FTW!

Mazoch

One driver would not necessarily be better than the other; instead they would develop different skill sets. By applying the special rules on the first driver you're simply changing the nature of the competition, you're not making it any easier. If you too the driver who never raced with a 90mph restriction and forced him to drive under those restrictions he would most likely fail badly against drivers who had far more experience driving under those restrictions.

That is counterintuitive.

They are doing the same thing, one is doing it with assists and a slower speed; the other is using the full throw of the machines capabilities.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]If they perform the same function, and controllers fail so hard, then its a pretty strong indictment against consoles.IronBass

It would be, if it made the game less fun. Which isn't the case.

Which is exactly my point: controllers being bad at what they do force auto-aim and other mechanisms to remove the challenge of the controller (and thereby remove the competition compared to PC)haberman13

I already talked about how the competition will always depend on the players you play with, regardless of controller method (assuming all play with the same method).

You are in it purely for fun, and while I would argue I am as well, clearly I have a competitive bent in me bones; making PC the place to excersize my skills.

I also agree with your second statement; but lets be honest, one develops more skills than the other right?

Softball != baseball even though they are exactly the same conceptually.

but lets be honest, one develops more skills than the other right?haberman13

Different, yes. More? Impossible to know, since, as already explained, different methods.

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

22 pages to make that point clear enough! Car analogies FTW!

haberman13

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

22 pages to make that point clear enough! Car analogies FTW!

lowe0

I don't (but the name says a lot!); nor do i watch NASCAR! haha

The analogy stands.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]but lets be honest, one develops more skills than the other right?IronBass

Different, yes. More? Impossible to know, since, as already explained, different methods.

This is quantifiable:

Console: auto-aim, health regen, minimal bullet physics, sluggish controls

PC: no auto-aim, static health, heavy bullet physics, precise controls

Different? sure, in that one is a handicap and the other isn't; doing the exact same thing.

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

Let me phrase this with analogy:

NASCAR driver with a driving assist and a rule that you cannot exceed 90 mph

NASCAR driver with no assist and no speed limit

Will the assisted driver after years of that style of racing be as skilled as the non-assisted driver?

22 pages to make that point clear enough! Car analogies FTW!

haberman13

One driver would not necessarily be better than the other; instead they would develop different skill sets. By applying the special rules on the first driver you're simply changing the nature of the competition, you're not making it any easier. If you too the driver who never raced with a 90mph restriction and forced him to drive under those restrictions he would most likely fail badly against drivers who had far more experience driving under those restrictions.

That is counterintuitive.

They are doing the same thing, one is doing it with assists and a slower speed; the other is using the full throw of the machines capabilities.

But you're overlooking the most important aspect of the equation. Everyone is driving slower and with assistance. Those who are driving under those restrictions will be forced to adapt and acquire new skills. With the speed limitation new aspects of the driving challenge now becomes far more important. It might be far more important to take the lead in the first turn since it will be harder to overtake an opponent.

To use your own example, do you think Nascar drivers lack the skill of Formula One drivers? Nascar vehicles lack the top speed or the agility of Formula One cars, so by your reasoning, drivers in Nascar are going to be worse drivers than drivers in the European Formula One races? Or does it require less skill to fire a pistol accurately compared to firing a sniper rifle accurately? Just because one is more accurate than the other does not mean that it requires more skill.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

One driver would not necessarily be better than the other; instead they would develop different skill sets. By applying the special rules on the first driver you're simply changing the nature of the competition, you're not making it any easier. If you too the driver who never raced with a 90mph restriction and forced him to drive under those restrictions he would most likely fail badly against drivers who had far more experience driving under those restrictions.

Mazoch

That is counterintuitive.

They are doing the same thing, one is doing it with assists and a slower speed; the other is using the full throw of the machines capabilities.

But you're overlooking the most important aspect of the equation. Everyone is driving slower and with assistance. Those who are driving under those restrictions will be forced to adapt and acquire new skills. With the speed limitation new aspects of the driving challenge now becomes far more important. It might be far more important to take the lead in the first turn since it will be harder to overtake an opponent.

To use your own example, do you think Nascar drivers lack the skill of Formula One drivers? Nascar vehicles lack the top speed or the agility of Formula One cars, so by your reasoning, drivers in Nascar are going to be worse drivers than drivers in the European Formula One races? Or does it require less skill to fire a pistol accurately compared to firing a sniper rifle accurately? Just because one is more accurate than the other does not mean that it requires more skill.

But you are comparing two different styles of racing (so RPG vs FPS).

To be consistent, using your logic, are basically saying that console skill is typified by driving slower and with assists.... and the guy driving faster and with no assists wouldn't come in and destroy the competition?

Take BC2 console VS BC2 PC - same game, one requires you to use full aim and account for higher threshholds of bullet physics and recoil. The other "helps" you.

Thats like saying someone on welfare is similarly equipped for business than a business man.

The analogy stands.

haberman13

No, it really doesn't. Particularly since you just admitted you have no idea what a restrictor plate is.

Console: auto-aim, health regen, minimal bullet physics, sluggish controls

PC: no auto-aim, static health, heavy bullet physics, precise controlshaberman13

You have been already told about the bullet physics.

Ifhealth regen means less skill is subjective.

Different? sure, in that one is a handicap and the other isn't; doing the exact same thing.

haberman13

That's not the only difference between the two, it's obvious just looking at them how different they are. And that's is, one is a controller and the other is a keyboard and a mouse. Their very structure and way of use is different, even if they are meant to fulfil the same goal.

That's why this discussion (and all the analogies based on exact same design and way of use, like two cars) isvoid.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]Console: auto-aim, health regen, minimal bullet physics, sluggish controls

PC: no auto-aim, static health, heavy bullet physics, precise controlsIronBass

You have been already told about the bullet physics, why health regen would mean less skill is subjective.

Different? sure, in that one is a handicap and the other isn't; doing the exact same thing.

haberman13

That's not the only difference between the two, it's obvious just looking at them how different they are. And that's is, one is a controller and the other is a keyboard and a mouse. They very structure is different. Which has made all this discussion (and all the analogies based on same design) void.

Health regen vs no health regen is NOT subjective. One is harder than the other to deal with.

Give me a CSS guy with health regen and I'll show you a consistent win streak.

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

That is counterintuitive.

They are doing the same thing, one is doing it with assists and a slower speed; the other is using the full throw of the machines capabilities.

haberman13

But you're overlooking the most important aspect of the equation. Everyone is driving slower and with assistance. Those who are driving under those restrictions will be forced to adapt and acquire new skills. With the speed limitation new aspects of the driving challenge now becomes far more important. It might be far more important to take the lead in the first turn since it will be harder to overtake an opponent.

To use your own example, do you think Nascar drivers lack the skill of Formula One drivers? Nascar vehicles lack the top speed or the agility of Formula One cars, so by your reasoning, drivers in Nascar are going to be worse drivers than drivers in the European Formula One races? Or does it require less skill to fire a pistol accurately compared to firing a sniper rifle accurately? Just because one is more accurate than the other does not mean that it requires more skill.

But you are comparing two different styles of racing (so RPG vs FPS).

To be consistent, using your logic, are basically saying that console skill is typified by driving slower and with assists.... and the guy driving faster and with no assists wouldn't come in and destroy the competition?

Take BC2 console VS BC2 PC - same game, one requires you to use full aim and account for higher threshholds of bullet physics recoil. The other "helps" you.

Thats like saying someone on welfare is better equipped for business than a business man.

And you are comparing two diffrent types of controls (Controllers vs. Kyboard and Mouse).

Of course he would kill the competition if he was allowed to play by different rules, that wouldn't make him any more skilled though. If you allowed one boxer to bring a baseball bat into the ring, he'd most likely also win but it wouldn't mean that he's a more skilled boxer. If the Driver who was used to driving fast without assist was forced to drive slowly with assist he would loose against all the drivers who had more experience winning competitions between slower cars.

If you consider you example of BC2, sure the PC version might have a slightly diffrent ruleset (no aim assist) but those rules are evenly applied. While it might be harder for you to hit an enemy just as difficult for your enemy to hit you. Thus you could argue that it's easier to shoot another player on the cosnoles, but it also means that on the consoles it's harder to survive.

As for the welfare example, I'm sure that the business man would be better equipped for running a business. However the welfare recipient might be a lot better and surviving on welfare. Two different 'games' with two different rule sets, challenges and skill sets.

Health regen vs no health regen is NOT subjective. One is harder than the other to deal with.

Give me a CSS guy with health regen and I'll show you a consistent win streak.haberman13

That wouldn't be an indicative of it being objective. It would only mean you play better that him. Which wouldn't mean much to the topic of subjectivity versus fact.

[QUOTE="haberman13"]

[QUOTE="Mazoch"]

But you're overlooking the most important aspect of the equation. Everyone is driving slower and with assistance. Those who are driving under those restrictions will be forced to adapt and acquire new skills. With the speed limitation new aspects of the driving challenge now becomes far more important. It might be far more important to take the lead in the first turn since it will be harder to overtake an opponent.

To use your own example, do you think Nascar drivers lack the skill of Formula One drivers? Nascar vehicles lack the top speed or the agility of Formula One cars, so by your reasoning, drivers in Nascar are going to be worse drivers than drivers in the European Formula One races? Or does it require less skill to fire a pistol accurately compared to firing a sniper rifle accurately? Just because one is more accurate than the other does not mean that it requires more skill.

Mazoch

But you are comparing two different styles of racing (so RPG vs FPS).

To be consistent, using your logic, are basically saying that console skill is typified by driving slower and with assists.... and the guy driving faster and with no assists wouldn't come in and destroy the competition?

Take BC2 console VS BC2 PC - same game, one requires you to use full aim and account for higher threshholds of bullet physics recoil. The other "helps" you.

Thats like saying someone on welfare is better equipped for business than a business man.

Of course he would kill the competition if he was allowed to play by different rules, that wouldn't make him any more skilled though. If you allowed one boxer to bring a baseball bat into the ring, he'd most likely also win but it wouldn't mean that he's a more skilled boxer. If the Driver who was used to driving fast without assist was forced to drive slowly with assist he would loose against all the drivers who had more experience winning competitions between slower cars.

Where did the baseball bat enter?

This is a 1:1

Guy in a car, driving for years at max 90 mph would get obliterated in every fashion by a racer trained by 200+ mph.

Ergo - the 200 mph driver is more skilled. Just because the 90 mph driver didn't advance his skills and uses handicaps doesn't make the competition "equal".