|
The logitech G9/G9x mice have turned me off razer products forever.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
I had a G9 but it was way too wide. Made my wrist hurt. Sold it and bought a Mamba which perfect till I got the Razer Vespula mousepad which made my wrist hurt again. Then I bought an X8 but I don't like it that much, battery life is great compared to the Mamba.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
So does mouse acceleration get on everyone else's nerves as much as mine? The number of games that force it to be on without giving you any means of turning it off annoy the hell out of me, especially since it makes any game where you need to aim almost unplayable. I was actually unable to play a game I bought (Ghostbusters on a steam sale) because the mouse acceleration was so bad I couldn't really manage to aim where I wanted to. For games like this I may just give up an buy a xbox controller. Mouse deceleration/turn rate limiting can be annoying as well, although not as problematic as acceleration when it comes to aiming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
The reason PC gaming isn't doing so well is because nobody is releasing decent PC games anymore. It's all terrible console ports with crappy UIs and horrible mouse acceleration that pretty much require a gamepad. Nobody designs games with mouse and keyboard in mind anymore, at best you end up with a gamepad-style control scheme mapped to your keyboard. You're lucky if the developers even let you re-bind keys! God help you if you have a logitech controller plugged in to your computer instead of a 360 one, lots of developers can't even seem to handle that correctly and you gotta dick around with a 360 controller emulator. It seems like RPGs (and MMORPGs) are the only PC-centric genre left. The Witcher and Dragon Age are the only recently released games I can think of with a mouse and keyboard compatible UI. There's Bad Company 2, too. Can anyone recommend any others?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Most first/third person shooters are still going to be mouse and keyboard centric. And luck would have it thats most of the primary market right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
Coach Sport posted:You're lucky if the developers even let you re-bind keys! I've only played one game this year like that (can't remember which it was though, might have been Lego Batman) and I've played quite a few recent games that have had multiplatform releases. I've played a few which, if you did remap keys, didn't change the tips that pop up during the tutorial. That got confusing fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:I've only played one game this year like that (can't remember which it was though, might have been Lego Batman) and I've played quite a few recent games that have had multiplatform releases. That's been an annoyance since the dawn of remappable keys - to the point where I'm always pleasantly surprised when a game actually DOES change the tips and tutorial rather than being irritated that they haven't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
I've been getting back into PC gaming thanks to the steam deals. Picked up Alpha Protocol and I'm really enjoying it with the 360 controller. It's a real shame that Mass Effect 2 doesn't have native controller support too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
I'm still rocking an 8800GTS from three years ago. I'm playing Bad Company 2 from the Steam sale - it runs acceptably and seems much more optimised graphically than BF2 was - though I am using medium graphical settings and a modest screen resolution. I'm tempted to upgrade to the GTX460 - I know its not quite the right forum to ask technical questions, but what kind of performance increase can I expect from the change from the 8xxx to the 4xx series, born in mind I'm going to be bottlenecked by my E6700 Core2Duo? I've also got a little Samsung NC20 for my mobile needs, despite some iffy drivers it's been a top little machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
Falken posted:It's a real shame that Mass Effect 2 doesn't have native controller support too. Why would you want to aim using something other than the mouse on a PC? Plugging in a controller to play a shooter on a PC is like buying a Ferrari just to drive to and from church each sunday at 25 MPH, you're totally missing the best feature of playing it on a PC in the first place. (mouseaim owns everything)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
Red Baron posted:
That looks like something a robot puked up
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:14
|
|
|
Barrelfox posted:I'm still rocking an 8800GTS from three years ago. I'm playing Bad Company 2 from the Steam sale - it runs acceptably and seems much more optimised graphically than BF2 was - though I am using medium graphical settings and a modest screen resolution. Quick google gives this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3809/nvidias-geforce-gtx-460-the-200-king/6 For something like Crysis the GTX460 can potentially triple your frame rate. What do you mean by a "modest" resolution though? You might find that an ATI 5770 or even a 4850 can give you a boost without spending as much as you would on a 1GB 460. I'd head to the SH/SC building thread and post your full specs and what you want to do with it (specifically what games and exactly what resolution) and they'll set you on the right track. I was on an E6420 and an 8500 and they pretty much advised me tha a fresh build was probably the way to go at that point, and I'm more than happy with what I ended up with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
Coach Sport posted:The reason PC gaming isn't doing so well is because nobody is releasing decent PC games anymore. I think what you mean is that console ports of AAA titles are kind of half-assed a good deal of the time. There are some very good games out there that aren't sold at Target. Every Steam sale, I'm swamped in more PC games than I can conceivably play. PC gaming doesn't have to beat the poo poo out of console sales to do well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:22
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:Quick google gives this: Sound advice, i'll have to head over to SH/SC. I read that article a couple nights back doing my own research, it really boils down to either spending around £100 on a new card and prolonging the life of the build by another year or so, or putting the money towards a fresh build. I am certainly tempted, but I'm holding fire until i work out how much money I can put towards what is really serving as a games console with added function.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:23
|
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Why would you want to aim using something other than the mouse on a PC? Plugging in a controller to play a shooter on a PC is like buying a Ferrari just to drive to and from church each sunday at 25 MPH, you're totally missing the best feature of playing it on a PC in the first place. (mouseaim owns everything) Mass Effect isn't a twitch shooter, I just want to sit back and play, that's all man. Also my wrist cramps up horribly when using the mouse, and I like having analogue move. I don't really feel like sparking a mouse+keyboard vs controller argument, it's just the way I prefer to play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
Falken posted:Please don't do this. I definitely enjoyed Mass Effect 2 with the controller more than mouse/keyboard, so I can understand. All I really want is a reliable way to play old rear end games like Planescape or Fallout or KOTOR in windowed mode so they don't look like rear end stretched across my massive monitor. I know there are patches for Planescape widescreen at least, but when I install those the game ends up crashing regularly or has some horribly debilitating glitch, like in KOTOR the cursor doesn't line up with where I am actually clicking.. I always hear about how great some of these games are, but my fancy computation machine refuses to play friendly with them. Edit: on Windows 7 x64 if anyone is curious, and I am playing the GOG versions of these games. Chinaman7000 fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 00:28
|
|
|
Athropos posted:
Buy the Rocketfish (Best Buy brand) mousepad from bestbuy. Its huge, dual sided, costs $20 and is fantastic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
I've been helping a friend pick out parts to build his first computer, and a thought crossed my mind. Given that so many games coming out today on the PC are multi-platform games that are also designed to work on 360 and PS3, and given that Microsoft and Sony both want their consoles to stick around for another five years, is it likely that requirements for PC games are going to slow down as we hit the saturation point (so to speak) for consoles? I mean, eventually developers are going to hit a wall with the consoles where they can't make the graphics any nicer without some serious perforamance hits. And if they're not going to advance it past that point (at the risk of disparity between PC and console gamers), then it seems logical that requirements for the PC ports won't be getting much higher either. I just get the impression that a reasonable quad-core processor with a mid-range card and at least four gigs of RAM will probably be able to run new games fairly comparably for at least a few more years. Or am I just crazy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:I've played a few which, if you did remap keys, didn't change the tips that pop up during the tutorial. That got confusing fast. Try playing games that do this during quick time events. Boy oh boy do those games get impossible really fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 05:31
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Buy the Rocketfish (Best Buy brand) mousepad from bestbuy. Its huge, dual sided, costs $20 and is fantastic! This is the mousepad I had, but the adhesive feet fell off. It was kind of hard on the feet of some of the mice I used, too. You can probably get a better one for the money. Steelseries apparently makes pretty good mousepads (http://shop.steelseries.com/index.php/surfaces.html), but most suffer from the problem of being loving huge. I've also seen people recommending ratpadz (http://www.ratpadz.com/). I have very little desk space so I can't really buy any of these giant mousepads, but people apparently think they're good!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
404notfound posted:is it likely that requirements for PC games are going to slow down as we hit the saturation point (so to speak) for consoles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 05:43
|
|
|
Yup. Consoles are literally holding games back in every aspect. Graphics, difficulty, memory requirements, and so forth. Thanks, Microsoft and Sony.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
For everyone who has been wondering about the requirements issue, I'm still running a modest rig: - AMD Athlon X2 4850e - 2gb DDR2 RAM - Geforce 8600GT I can run most new releases on high settings, with AA and AF either enabled or forced. That being said, my monitor's native resolution is a somewhat low 1366x768, so make of that what you will. The Furious Pirate fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 06:43
|
|
|
Red Baron posted:
hahaha look at this loving mouse. I didn't know people actually used these. $70 transformice abomination
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 06:48
|
|
|
PC Gaming still has the best graphics for sure. If that is really important to you I would consider it. I have mostly been a PC gamer and I just now got a PS3. There is some cool poo poo about having a console, but man the lack of anti-aliasing can make your eyes bleed especially if you're used to PC gaming. Games like League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth are what make current-gen PC gaming for me. Ten years ago I would have said Counter-Strike, Tribes, etc. is what makes PC gaming and that FPS games are always going to keep PC gaming relevant. I never really thought people would somehow convince themselves controllers are better for FPS games but here we are. Luckily I don't care for FPS games that much anymore and there is always some cool stuff coming out on the PC that wouldn't work well on a console. I have a ton of fun with League of Legends because you can play with five friends on Skype and the game just demands a mouse and keyboard basically, it simply would not work on a console. The Civilization series is another series that is great for the PC, I supposed it could sort of work on a console but it just wouldn't be the same. I played Dragon Age on the PC and I'm pretty sure that was a better experience on the PC than on the console provided you can run it at high settings. It just felt right playing with a mouse and keyboard to me. RTS games are the ultimate PC genre, they will never work without mouse and keyboard. Starcraft and SC2 are really the only good RTS games unfortunately... but they are good enough that they can carry the genre on their own. It does kind of suck though how many games don't make it to PC anymore... I almost feel like you have to have a console for the most part of you will miss out on a lot of really good games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 06:55
|
|
|
systran posted:Starcraft and SC2 are really the only good RTS games unfortunately... but they are good enough that they can carry the genre on their own. Ummmm, no. There's a ton of variety out there and not to mention actual strategic gameplay. SC is one of the most plain and formulaic RTS games out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 06:58
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Yup. Consoles are literally holding games back in every aspect. Graphics, difficulty, memory requirements, and so forth. edit: While I have to some extent switched over to the PC game mindset of gameplay>everything, I am seriously considering buying the most consoley console game that ever consoled a console, Gundam Musou 3. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Ummmm, no. There's a ton of variety out there and not to mention actual strategic gameplay. SC is one of the most plain and formulaic RTS games out there. I've had this argument many times before and we don't really need to derail: but as far as an actual competitive multiplayer RTS games and not one that is fun to play through the single player campaign and dick around with your friends, it's really the only option. If you're going to try to argue that point, show me another RTS game with an actual competitive scene other than SC1 or SC2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:While I think I agree with you in spirit, I'd only call what you are talking about "holding games back" if by that you mean working to reach the largest customer base possible, and thus making the most money possible. The industry probably doesn't consider these bad things. People always say "Well they do it because it makes them money." So what? That doesn't mean I have to like it - even if it's rational for publishers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 07:21
|
|
|
Red Baron posted:
When you have the thing in one piece, do you like it? I have a wireless razer mamba and I loving hate this thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 07:22
|
|
|
Magnificent Quiver posted:People always say "Well they do it because it makes them money." Yeah, that's pretty much my attitude. Whether it's taking depth and complexity out of a game that should have had it in the first place, or favoring consoles over PCs, it all smells of poo poo to me. Sure, it's brilliant business sense, but I just don't care. I'd rather see a development house take a risk, create an incredible gaming experience and burn out overnight than see them compromise their values for the sake of chasing the dollar and live on for years and years as a "please every single crowd 100% of the time, even people who don't play games" shell of a studio. I know, I may sound ridiculous and extremist, but screw it. That's how I feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
Node posted:When you have the thing in one piece, do you like it? I have a wireless razer mamba and I loving hate this thing. Yeah, I love it. What I really like most is that I can change the shape drastically enough to make it feel like an entirely different mouse if I want to. So far it's worked wonderfully and I've enjoyed every minute of using it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 07:55
|
|
|
The Furious Pirate posted:Yeah, that's pretty much my attitude. Whether it's taking depth and complexity out of a game that should have had it in the first place, or favoring consoles over PCs, it all smells of poo poo to me. I mean, do you think that hardcore readers complain that widespread literacy killed good books? I mean, by your logic it should have, if every dumb fool is able to pick up a book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
systran posted:I have a ton of fun with League of Legends because you can play with five friends on Skype and the game just demands a mouse and keyboard basically, it simply would not work on a console. Does LoL have Chinese servers? If you're playing DotA clones across oceans anyways, you should give HoN another shot; they finally added working team matchmaking and I'm trying to put a team together again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I just think you are overreacting, I don't expect consoles/casual games/the almighty dollar/whatever to kill good games, I think the market will achieve a balance between products seeking every market, and products seeking increasingly smaller market segments therein, just like everything else. I never claimed my view was logical or rational, it's just the way I feel. You may be right and I might be overreacting, but that's what my life-long hobby has led me to thinking lately. There definitely are modern gaming gems here and there, I was never going to dispute that, it's just that sometimes I feel like I'm dying a little inside whenever I realize that the gaming industry has become more popular and more expensive than the music and film industries (perhaps even combined.) It's like a mass media nightmare-frenzy. I don't think good games will disappear entirely, though. Also, I don't want to poo poo the discussion up with this sidetrack, so I'll end it there. EDIT: Mouse fanatics, I'm using a cheap-rear end wireless Logitech mouse that came bundled with a wireless keyboard. $20 total. I really don't see the need in spending so much money on some of the unholy creations I've seen in this thread and elsewhere. Is there really that much of an advantage that it's worth it? The Furious Pirate fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:11
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:While I think I agree with you in spirit, I'd only call what you are talking about "holding games back" if by that you mean working to reach the largest customer base possible, and thus making the most money possible. The industry probably doesn't consider these bad things. Oh, I know it's the most profitable option so of course they do it, however I do know it's frustrating to a lot of developers that they're financially obligated to limit the potential of their games because of console hardware limitations. I'm tempted to judge them still, though, for just not taking the high road and designing a great game instead of sacrificing many areas of quality just for mass exposure. But sadly I know that would be financial suicide for a lot of studies, but... ugh. Gameplay > everything.  systran posted:I've had this argument many times before and we don't really need to derail: but as far as an actual competitive multiplayer RTS games and not one that is fun to play through the single player campaign and dick around with your friends, it's really the only option. If you're going to try to argue that point, show me another RTS game with an actual competitive scene other than SC1 or SC2. Oh, I'm not denying that SC has the biggest and best comp scene. But due to the largely inaccessible gameplay that's inherent to a good RTS game, the ones that are arguably the best are far from being the most popular. If you've played more than a couple RTS games you know that SC is one of the most simplistic and formulaic out there. Everything from the unit choices to the economy to the map design to the UI limitations is centered around making it simple. I'm not saying it doesn't require skill, obviously the top tier SC players are the best of the best, but it really is a skill that's centered around how fast you can click stuff, and not in the FPS way that requires amazing reflexes and accuracy. Because of its simplicity and hard-counter style, there's little room for improvisation or the strategic unexpected, almost every move is a memorized tactic or counter, and that makes the primary difference between players to be how fast they can execute the memorized moves. Sadly, SC is basically the only RTS that has a comp scene, C&C had a couple phases, and SupCom did for a while, but it wasn't built very well for comp play. Still, I'd put it before SC as far as how much skill it takes, albeit one of a different type. More complex economy, far more varied unit choices, a UI built around letting you perform complex actions with the least amount of click spam as possible, and of course - varied maps. Even still, it's not the best. It's predecessor TA was better IMO, less emphasis on the "epic battle" type stuff and more on fast actions, though it lacked perfect balance. Even better than that though its remake BA. The same, only with better balance and UI and graphics. Is it popular? No. But in my book, that's not what should define how good an RTS is. Doesn't float everyones boat but that's just how I feel about RTS. I wouldn't call SC a bad game, I just don't feel it does justice to the genre of RTS, which has way, way more potential than SC shows. It's just too bad the other games get so little attention. I'm still not sure if it's marketing, or just simply the gameplay, but I feel that SC is pretty weak as far as RTS goes. But with a giant like Blizzard behind them and a solidly entrenched fanbase, I know they're not going anyway, I just hope that along the way I can keep showing people what they're missing. And just to clarify, no, I'm definitely not the campaign RTS player, nor the turtle for 30 minutes type or "omg rushing is gay" type. I like a highly competitive and balanced RTS that puts demands on every area of skill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:13
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Because of its simplicity and hard-counter style, there's little room for improvisation or the strategic unexpected, almost every move is a memorized tactic or counter, and that makes the primary difference between players to be how fast they can execute the memorized moves. No offense, but you don't understand StarCraft at all. Both games have one of the least hard-counter oriented models in the entire genre, most counters are dependent on upgrade level, the number of units involved, positioning, etc. The UI and unit comp decisions that you claim make it "simple" actually do the exact opposite; every aspect of the game is designed to force you to make more discrete decisions, which is pretty much the definition of depth and complexity in an RTS. The only reason "improvisation" works in something like Supreme Commander or C&C and not in StarCraft is because people haven't played those games at a high enough level to discover ideal strategy. If those games were deep enough for there to be any interest in it, people would hammer out memorized counters and tactics pretty quickly - if they haven't already and we just don't know about it. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:23
|
|
|
The Furious Pirate posted:EDIT: Mouse fanatics, I'm using a cheap-rear end wireless Logitech mouse that came bundled with a wireless keyboard. $20 total. I really don't see the need in spending so much money on some of the unholy creations I've seen in this thread and elsewhere. Is there really that much of an advantage that it's worth it? Depends on the game and on the mouse. I have a fairly simple five-button (left, right, mousewheel, two on the thumb) mouse, and it's adequate for everything I play, with the thumb buttons generally being used for stuff I want to do while moving (i.e. voice chat toggle) and, in rare cases, when I just don't have enough keys, which barely ever happens in, say, an FPS or RTS. But if you're a serious MMO player, you might want a few more than that. Besides buttons, some mice also provide DPI adjustments and other things, which can be kinda useful for people who need extreme precision, like twitch-shooter and RTS players (and by RTS I mean Starcraft). One thing that probably sounds insane to a casual (this is not meant negatively BTW) player, but is actually pretty important in some multiplayer games, is the mousepad. It's not so much quality of the surface, but the size. If you're playing a twitch FPS, a big mousepad can be a huge difference - you can lower your mouse sensitivity for greater precision without having to constantly lift your mouse off the pad to turn around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:31
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I've been helping a friend pick out parts to build his first computer, and a thought crossed my mind. Given that so many games coming out today on the PC are multi-platform games that are also designed to work on 360 and PS3, and given that Microsoft and Sony both want their consoles to stick around for another five years, is it likely that requirements for PC games are going to slow down as we hit the saturation point (so to speak) for consoles? my computer from 2008 with a quad core, medium range graphics card and 4 gigs of ram can still run pretty much every AAA game on very high so I'd say its already happening of course as tech improves lovely port developers will get to be even more lazy with PC optimization so there will be more games like GTA4 and saints row 2 that need computers way beefier then you would think
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Anal Volcano posted:Depends on the game and on the mouse. I have a fairly simple five-button (left, right, mousewheel, two on the thumb) mouse, and it's adequate for everything I play, with the thumb buttons generally being used for stuff I want to do while moving (i.e. voice chat toggle) and, in rare cases, when I just don't have enough keys, which barely ever happens in, say, an FPS or RTS. But if you're a serious MMO player, you might want a few more than that. Thanks for the information. My most played genre tends to be RPGs, but FPS games are a close second. I haven't had a problem with this mouse, yet, but I suppose investing in a mousepad wouldn't be such a bad idea. I've only been using the wood that my desk is made out of as a surface for a while. 
The Furious Pirate fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Dec 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2010 08:38
|
|