The exploring parts would look shit with a mouse, the camera swings about way to fast.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Division Beta Thread: Make Manhattan Great Again
- Thread starter Smash88
- Start date
- Status
The exploring parts would look shit with a mouse, the camera swings about way to fast.
It's why there is sensitivity slider, you can get it just right for yourself.
You can switch sensitivity on the fly so that's no reason to not use mouse.
Even that doesn't apply to every KB&M gamer / streamer, there is plenty KB&M streamers that don't play with high sensitivity and show off environments and explore a lots. If it's more.. casual moment and you are friend playing game in which he uses high sensitivity it can be bad viewing experience for sure.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
I will never watch PC players' footage. Their screenshots are wonderful, but if I notice gameplay is pc (which usually is instantly obvious) I immediately close it. Nauseating camera and it's just not very fun to watch instant-headshot combat.
Others might like it, which is fine of course, but I don't bother with it. I much prefer the demos with gamepads, because I'll actually watch those.
Others might like it, which is fine of course, but I don't bother with it. I much prefer the demos with gamepads, because I'll actually watch those.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
You are free to make fun of me of course. Whatever makes you feel good, I guess. But I didn't say anything about it being cinematic. You're being weirdly reactionary. It's odd.
Just ribbing you a bit mate, it's all good.
Well if you are going to play with low sensitivity you might as well play with a controller, which goes back to the post I originally quoted.
Accurate yes but slower.
A controller is very accurate but much slower compared to the mouse.
Sleeping Lesson
Member
Yep. Better to watch, too. I can't stand the slidey camera movement that you get with dual analog controllers.
A joystick is inaccurate and floaty compared to a mouse. There's no arguing here.
You can even set up multiple mouse profiles for on-the-go change of sensitivity from 1 to 10.
So a joystick = Inaccurate and floaty
and a mouse = Accurate
This is if im understanding what your saying.
Game controls very differently with DS4 than it does with KB + [low sensitivity] mouse. I notice this just from playing Destiny on my PS4 and BF4 on my PC, or from playing MGSV on my PC with DS4 and then KB&M. Analogue sticks and KB&M create very distinct ways of input and control over character.
Low sensitivity mouse =/= Controller
Edit: One isn't better than another, they are different
Chronospherics
Member
Indeed.
I watched loads of trailers for Firewatch, then watched Streamers playing it on PC, and the experience is night and day. The rate of camera movement, and sheer manner in which the camera moves and fixates rapidly, looks absolutely absurd. Not to mention the field of view people play at, it makes the game look silly, more over, it breaks immersion, the sheer act of movement becomes a reminder that 'this is a video game', and I really dislike that.
Presumably the same would be true with The Division. People on PC move their camera almost as frequently as fast as they move their fovea, and that doesn't make for the best spectatorship of cinematic or explorative sequences.
FoV is mostly about not wanting to get headache or become motion sick from playing video game on screen that is basically less than 1m away from your face. First person games, even third person games for some, with something like 55 horizontal FoV are motion sickness inducing to play when monitor is so close. Edit: From viewers perspective, especially on something like Twitch, that FoV can seem absurdly high when pushing something like 90 to 110 horizontal.
People who do streaming on daily basis, maybe even for living, tend to be better with how they use mouse to look around. Less twitchy and fast, more spanning. CohhCarnage and DansGaming are good examples of this, they play fast yet not twitching around with mouse.
Chronospherics
Member
Well, part of it is also that they attempt to appeal to their target audience. Even games that are very popular on PC, like Battlefield 4, have several folds the userbase on console, when all platforms are considered.
Using the example of Battlefield 4 again (a game that I feel most likely has a similar target demographic to the division), if you total the number of people playing on console, it's far higher than on PC.
This data is old, but represents what I mean just fine
What that means is, in 2014, for every person playing on PC, there were more than two, playing on consoles, with a controller.
I think people get caught up with the idea that PC is the most popular platform for shooters sometimes, and forget the fact that, that's only true if we forget the console userbase is split across multiple hardware platforms. Indeed, shooters are very popular on PC, but for these triple A shooters, that aren't counter strike and the like, then consoles as a whole represent a much larger portion of the userbase. In turn, it makes much more sense to market the experience your game offers with footage that is representative of the experience the majority are going to get. As in, it makes sense to demo the game on a controller if they feel most people will be playing on a controller.
That's alongside the advantages of it just being easier to follow for spectatorship. Fast movement is easy to follow when you are in control of it, because you know exactly where the cursor is going in the environment, but when someone is is doing so, it can be a little jarring at times. Even PC centric games like Overwatch all demonstrate their trailers with slow movement, slow even for controller players in many cases. I imagine they just feel it's better to convey what's going on, and what their game is about. It also allows for more opportunity for the spectator to view the environments, textures, modelling and whatnot.
Fleshfeast
Member
I never get motion sick when playing games, even ones that have an FoV on the low end. I do get carsick if I'm not watching out the front window, and I get the exact same feeling watching videos with super high FoV. This is on a 22" monitor a little over 2 feet from my face.
These 2 videos from JackFrags make me feel quasy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FntD8TkFgfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUec6ecv7Ac
I've actually stopped watching as many of his videos lately, because he's making me physically sick.
Insane Metal
Member
SJRB: thank you. That's us right now lol
Why are you comparing cinematic demonstrations against gameplay? They are two different things.
Also why are you not talking about people that play with either a mouse or controller will play at different DPI and sensitivity respectively.
Did I miss something further up the discussion because it sounds like you're picking one example as if it's the only example and going "don't like thing".
You can absolutely have a smooth demo with a mouse and you can absolutely have people play with what you think only mouse players do, look up some black ops controller gameplay with high sensitivity.
If I misunderstood what you're saying I apologise but it looks like you're being ignorant to other setups and are focusing on what you don't like as if that's all that exists.
Chronospherics
Member
No, don't get me wrong you are right, you can absolutely have smooth gameplay with a mouse or vice versa but I do think it's less common. The sensitivities that people typically play at on PC are not necessarily smooth, while on console the default is usually really quite low, to a degree where it's next to impossible to make things appear jarring.
Even when people play smoothly on PC, with low sensitivities, you can still observe small twitches / micro adjustments that look visually odd when trying to something like a smooth camera movement. The twitch streamers that someone linked earlier are like that, while they're relatively smooth and play on low sensitivities, they still feature those persistent micro-adjustments that give the camera an unnatural feel.
Either way, the other points about accessibility and such (more people playing this on a controller) are also a factor in terms of gameplay. People are going to want to see it played in a manner that's familiar to their platform of choice and as most people will be playing this on a controller, it makes more sense to demo the experience in a way that looks like that.
Xcell Miguel
Gold Member
Well with this train of thought they should also have demoed it on consoles, as people would want to see how the experience is on a console.
Since the majority will play on one.
Chronospherics
Member
And they are, correct?
When I played this at EGX in September, all of the builds of all games Ubisoft were showing were on consoles. Siege, Division, Assassins Creed, all of them.
Or do you mean the trailers? I mean, they weren't even actual gameplay for the most part, so it doesn't really matter to me what they render it with if it's got 'not actual gameplay' noted at the bottom of the screen.
We are talking about the visualization of the videos they've posted and how "controller looks visually better" for the viewers, not the actual demoing (as in playing yourself).
Almost everything they've shown with a controller have been on a PC, at least recently. And if you argue a controller is better to use to display the experience most people will have (as you argue most people will use a controller), its also safe to assume they should have actually showed gameplay from a console itself and not using gameplay from a PC.
Chronospherics
Member
Well, I guess for them it's better to show the game as it's best presented visually at the same time.
I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, I think your addressing a different issue here. Ultimately when presenting their game to the public they want the best of all worlds, they want the familiarity that people have from perceiving the game as played on a controller, with the graphical presentation achievable only on PC.
I play games after I have played them at trade shows and such, and I'm a lot more invested in the experiences than some people, so I always know what the PS4 version will look like, or whatever, before I buy. So I don't feel deceived by the pre-release footage as I'm always aware that that might not be from the platform I'm going to be playing the game on, but I can see why other people might be, I guess.
With that said though, PC is pretty liberal with input support so it's not as though a keyboard and mouse is the only standard that this game can be played with on that platform. The game will have native controller support and I am sure that many will make use of that, especially those playing the game more for its RPG elements than its gunplay, in turn, it's not necessarily deceptive to represent the game like that, on PC. They've just chosen the input they prefer for the demonstrations.
Sometimes it also helps the demonstrators too, so if they make this amped up pre-release PC build for demos and shows, and they want people to control them on a stage etc, then a controller is much better for that.
Hype one?
I see point that Tecnniqe is making.
If game is demoed with controllers to demonstrate how game will control for most of the upcoming playerbase [read: people on consoles] why it's okay to deceive same playerbase at same time by showing graphical visuals that consoles won't reach? That select few know that from previous experiences [e.g. read a lots of GAF] or from visiting expos at regular basis where get to play real version of the game doesn't mean masses get real representation of the game.
Chronospherics
Member
I see the point, but I'm pretty muted to marketing and other nonsense. When I see a car advert, I don't expect the car to come with the women in the background, I don't expect to be able to drive it at the speeds driven, I don't expect it to look as clean, or as nice as it does in the video, after a short while.
I see video games in a similar way. The best way to experience them is to play them, for lack of that ability, watch other people play them. Ubisoft never demoed anything with a sticker saying 'actual PS4 footage', so it never surprises me when the game looks a little different than what they've shown. It's not like I'm only going to watch the trailer footage, so it really does not bother me. I always know what I'm buying when I buy it. If I ever felt genuinely deceived it might be different, but I don't think I've experienced that.
I've been disappointed in the past, but not deceived. I think you have to be almost intentionally oblivious to allow for that scenario to occur. Walking into purchases blindly, with only the publisher distributed add campaigns used as your 'research' on a product, is almost always going to lead to disappointment, and that's true for films, video games, electronics, cars, almost anything. However it's not as though they prevent you from conducting your own research, the beta was available for all to sign up to, there will be another open beta shortly, and there are a myriad of videos on youtube on each platform, serving to demonstrate its strengths and weaknesses.
Good shit. Thanks!
No, but enthusiast sites like GAF don't even realize this most of the time, how do you suspect the average Joe to see it?
We should build one but I suck at Photoshopping :|
How about this picture?
Not really
Sneaky edit; We need a Division train.
Photoshop wizards please!
- Status