Johnny-n-Roger's forum posts

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#1 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@Byshop said:
@MarkoftheSivak said:

Thank you @naz99, all valid points, I never considered the scrolling button for zoom ins.

My only thing is with switching weapons I like using the shoulder buttons, but I guess you could assign that to right button on mouse?

Anyway, @naz99 made some valid points and I appreciate it, feel free to close this.

So KB/M is kinda the fight stick to fps as the fight stick is to fighters. THanks guys.

The short answer is the degree of precision you get with a mouse. Correctly configured mouse movement is 1:1 to movement in-game, as opposed to stick based movement which "pushes" your perspective in different directions at different rates of speed depending on how far you've moved the stick away from center. A skilled FPS player with a mouse can turn to aim at whatever they need to basically as fast as their hand can move, which is something you literally can't do with an analog stick (or at least not as quickly as you potentially can with a mouse).

That said, if I'm not playing a game online I'm perfectly fine with using a controller even for shooters. Often I'd rather chill on my couch and play a game than sit at my desk or use a lapdesk for KB/Mouse. Also, just because a mouse is more precise that doesn't necessarily make it better for every type of game. Games where the ability to pan/spin continuously aren't ideal because the mouse has a limited range of motion, whereas a stick can be held down in a given direction indefinitely. Flight sims spring to mind, although there are modern ones that add mouse specific control schemes to help bridge that gap. Also, I'd take a force feedback wheel for racing games any day.

-Byshop

This. There's a minimum duration to perform certain movements with an analogue stick. Time costs efficiency.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#2 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@fedor said:

Bethesda is a joke and have been for a while. Its nice that people are finally starting to see this.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually understand how true this is or if they think it's just something people say. Bethesda GS game design has been shit since Oblivion. I'm not talking about glitches or poor execution, I'm talking about how much their games suck even when everything is working properly.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#3 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@cainetao11 said:
@Telekill said:

That's how it should be. What the hell is the point of different systems if they all play the same games with no exclusions?

What makes a person buy a Samsung TV over a Sony Bravia? They both play the same TV shows.

Price. Hardware quality.

Apples to Oranges, however, because the profit margin on console hardware is slim to none, whereas the profit margin on TV hardware is the entire basis of the manufacturers business model.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#4 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@ezekiel43 said:

I go to Smith's instead as much as I can. Walmart's backpack policy is terrible enough that I don't to go there. No other store I've been to has this policy. From my blog:

This makes so little sense to me. People are allowed to walk in with big purses and handbags, but I have to put my backpack in a locker? There is no difference. Actually, it would be far easier to steal with a purse than with a backpack. I haven’t asked how their locker system works, but I shouldn’t have to do it. In Germany, I would just show the cashier the inside of my bag and would be on my way. At least be consistent about it! If I have to take off my backpack, make EVERYONE take off their purses and bags. See what the backlash will be. Especially from women.

A bit sexist, isn't it?

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#5 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@n64dd said:

PC gaming is the reason alpha/beta/crowd sourcing gaming is so big. Now we have a whole bunch of incomplete piles of shit such as fallout 76, pubg and numerous others.

Thoughts?

You don't even make sense. Incomplete games seeing a release is the result of greedy publishers wanting to please investors. It literally has nothing to do with crowd funded games.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#6 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts

@theone86 said:
@Johnny-n-Roger said:
@korvus said:
@Jacanuk said:
@mrbojangles25 said:

Yup, just don't say "colored person"...."person of color" is actually politically correct now, but "colored" is like 1950's-style racism still.

Don't know why either are OK.

Hmm, think the correct term is African-American or African-European not "person of colour"

Same with Asian-american, etc...

Always found that strange as well. If you are born in Europe you're European, and if you were born in Africa you're African. If I moved to the US I wouldn't magically be European-American, not to mention a white person who moved from Africa to the US would never be called an African-American, even though that would be more correct than calling a black person born in the US African-American.

It makes sense if you think about it. They certainly didn't do it to desegregate or unify multicultural populations. It's actually the exact opposite. They do it to create an exclusive ethnocultural identity and social class for the purpose of playing identity politics and using broad terminology and rhetoric to pander and appeal to a large demographic.

Riiiiiiight, it's liberals who created identity politics, it certainly isn't the result of centuries of chattel slavery that were justified based on the assumption of inferiority of black individuals nor of the decades of race-based discrimination that followed.

No, the reason the term "African-American" came into usage was because black people were tired of being judged based on their skin color and wanted a label that reflected their unique cultural identity, i.e. being descended from people who were forcibly removed from Africa.

Arguing with yourself. Jesse Jackson pushed for black Americans to identify as "African American" in the late 80s. The term precedes that, but wasn't widely used until the 80s. Jesse Jackson was a political activist, so it's not reaching to imply that there was political activism behind it.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#7 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@joebones5000 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger: yeah, the government was afraid of a small group of country bumpkins. They were just a bunch of idiots, no threat to anyone but themselves, which is why Obama just say back and laughed. You're a nut if you think the government was afraid of any one of them.

I said:

"You seem to be ignorant to instances where people don't get arrested because the police just don't feel like dealing with them. If having a shootout with a farmer is "too much to deal with" then they leave."

There's obviously something you're not processing if you believe that I even imply that the feds are afraid of them.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts

@joebones5000 said:

@Johnny-n-Roger: lol. Dude, that is the dumbest shit I've read all day. Ahahahaha. Holy about!

Except it isn't. You seem to be ignorant to instances where people don't get arrested because the police just don't feel like dealing with them. If having a shootout with a farmer is "too much to deal with" then they leave. You're just not working it out for whatever reason. Must be tough.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts
@perfect_blue said:

@Johnny-n-Roger: Humans inherently have no nature. They are products of their upbringing via environment, parents, and other external and internal factors. Professing to know “human nature” shuts out any debate and means you have it all figured out, which is way more ideological than anything you call “leftists”.

That's a fallacy because by acknowledging "human nature" I am not denying environmental influences on human behavior. On the contrary, you're projecting this notion of "having it all figured out" by implying that all human behavior is entirely environmentally influenced. That's ideological.

It is understood that there is a hereditary component to not only physical traits, but to mental traits such as quantifiable intelligence, neuroticism, mood disorders, and anti-social behaviors as well. We can observe physical differences in men, women, and people of different races. No one contests that notion. For some reason, however, when someone suggests that there may be cognitive and behavioral differences between these groups, everyone throws a tantrum. That's ideological.

You're not saying that we should identify the differences between men and women and determine how to organize society in a way to compliment these differences. You're also not acknowledging that culture is a product of the people who built it and not the other way around. You're simply suggesting that if we organized society as if there are no differences between men, women, and people of any random culture from any geographic region on Earth that it will become true. This is without any historical evidence.

It really is funny until you consider that you're willing to jeopardize an entire society in the name of your progressive ideology. It has been tried before and has never ended well and I think that 100 years from now ideological people will look back on any failures and think "They had the ideology right, it was the people who failed," because that's how the progressive narrative goes.

Avatar image for Johnny-n-Roger
Johnny-n-Roger

15151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

22

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#10 Johnny-n-Roger
Member since 2003 • 15151 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Johnny-n-Roger said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Wrong again. My criticism of conservatives has nothing to do with late night comedians. I don't even watch them. As for politics.............they don't get the benefit of the court. That's ridiculous. Anyway when I read their stances I see very little education on any subject. In fact the party is emotion run. And that suits the uneducated fine. Why investigate issues when you can feel.

@Johnny-n-Roger said:

You folks are laughably ideological to a point of parody. You latch on to rhetoric and baseless criticism of conservatives from late-night TV comedians, but anything a conservative says that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law is not worthy of consideration. Never stop.

Pfft. The left is all about censoring and engineering society so that no one has hurt feelings or disagreement. Just because conservatives don't have solutions that conform perfectly to your egalitarian and cultural relativist world-view doesn't mean that they're inferior to your synthesized solutions.

Conservatives ignore facts.

Progressives ignore human nature.