If you're a devoted X-Box game player,why is it better for you than PS3 ?

[GBaxter]

If you're a devoted X-Box console game player and always have been, why for you has it always been than having and using a PS3 console, not unless you own both.

[thethird]

It was cheaper.

It had Mass Effect (one).

It had Allan Wake.

I don't play online and thus don't care about the online service.

My friends have xboxs, even those that also have ps3.

[Sheep Overlord]

I'll admit, this is probably a pretty terrible reason all things considered, but. . . I like the controller.

One of my friends has a playstation, which I've used, and I can't hold the controller for more than half an hour without my hand cramping up. On the rare occasions where I would want to play a console game for hours at a time (most recently with Bioshock Infinite's release), I can do that on an Xbox. I don't pay for online, but I don't really play many games with an online multiplayer component anyway so it doesn't make much of a difference. Exclusives have been pretty balanced in my eyes, so the controller - and as of the time I was purchasing my console, the relative expense of the Playstation - were big enough to matter.

Next gen, it's looking like I'm going to have to buy a Playstation. . . . and hope that someone finds a way to hack an Xbox controller to work with it, or something. Maybe a third party controller?

Basically, Xbox 360 was more convenient.

[KillingAScarab]

I am a PS3 owner and while I have played games on an Xbox 360, I have not owned one. Still, I wanted to respond to this.


I'll admit, this is probably a pretty terrible reason all things considered, but. . . I like the controller.

One of my friends has a playstation, which I've used, and I can't hold the controller for more than half an hour without my hand cramping up. On the rare occasions where I would want to play a console game for hours at a time (most recently with Bioshock Infinite's release), I can do that on an Xbox. I don't pay for online, but I don't really play many games with an online multiplayer component anyway so it doesn't make much of a difference. Exclusives have been pretty balanced in my eyes, so the controller - and as of the time I was purchasing my console, the relative expense of the Playstation - were big enough to matter.

Next gen, it's looking like I'm going to have to buy a Playstation. . . . and hope that someone finds a way to hack an Xbox controller to work with it, or something. Maybe a third party controller?

Basically, Xbox 360 was more convenient.Ergonomics is a legitimate reason. The controller is the one interface which is almost always a constant and if you don't like it, it will be difficult to get into any of the games which it is trying to connect you to. That said, I come down on the side of not liking the directional pad on the Xbox 360 controller, at least on the earlier controllers. I have not used the revised pop-up d-pad. I haven't ever tried a Kinect, (nor a Move) but I do own a Wii with the original remote, so I'm aware of how the integration of motion controls can vary between games. Also, let's not forget the legal battle for licensed components, during which Sony was lying to its customers to pass off the Sixaxis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixaxis).

There are people in the fighting game community who have found a way to make hybrid controllers. They cram the essential circuitry from one console's controller inside the body of one which already works with another console, so they can compete in fighting game tournaments regardless of which of the two systems the tournament uses without having to give up the comfort of their own controller. The peripheral manufacturers don't do this for us because the competing companies won't allow them; Microsoft would never license its proprietary wireless chipset to a manufacturer of PS3 controllers (regardless of what the body of the controller looks like). As for next gen, until the controllers come out, it is unknown how successful that tactic will be. I suppose there's still the Ben Heck route (http://benheck.com/11-29-2008/ps360-controller-from-dual-shock-3#more-453).

tl;dr
Controllers are srs bsns.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I'll admit, this is probably a pretty terrible reason all things considered, but. . . I like the controller.
Not terrible at all, it's the main reason I even have an Xbox. Even if I could play Halo on the PS3, I'd still choose the Xbox and if Halo was a PS3 exclusive, I wouldn't play it at all.

As for my friends, the more casual gamers usually play NHL/racing/whatever on the Playstation and the more hardcore ones (Halo/CoD/RPG's) prefer the Xbox. Numbers wise it's pretty evenly split.

[Giggling Ghast]

I'll admit, this is probably a pretty terrible reason all things considered, but. . . I like the controller.

Yeah, same here. Blech on your controller, Playstation fans. Blech.

[Logic]

Next gen, it's looking like I'm going to have to buy a Playstation.

You don't HAVE to buy any console. I dislike the direction some of console gaming is going, but not enough to divorce myself from console all together. You have the option to not pick a side this cycle, and remember that. But I assume you also realize that forsaking this cycle means either PC gaming (if PC gaming were as simple as console gaming, I would pick this option EVERY time) or not playing games at all (oh the humanity!)

[KillingAScarab]

...But I assume you also realize that forsaking this cycle means either PC gaming (if PC gaming were as simple as console gaming, I would pick this option EVERY time) or not playing games at all (oh the humanity!)No love for OUYA (http://www.ouya.tv/)?

[Spuddles]

You don't HAVE to buy any console. I dislike the direction some of console gaming is going, but not enough to divorce myself from console all together. You have the option to not pick a side this cycle, and remember that. But I assume you also realize that forsaking this cycle means either PC gaming (if PC gaming were as simple as console gaming, I would pick this option EVERY time) or not playing games at all (oh the humanity!)

I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a console. It's just an expensive DRM box with no way cheap way to get around HD limits, bugs, glitches, and virtually zero-modability, which means limited replay value.

It also has worse graphics, no way to upgrade graphics, extremely limited use in what you can do, and entire genres of games can't really be played on it. Namely strategy games.

And if you really need to use a controller, you can just buy one and plug it into a computer.

I can kinda understand the appeal of a gaming box 10 or 20 years ago, but with where the PC market is now, you can put together an $800 machine and have it do everything an xbox can do. Upgrade your parts as you can afford them and you have a "next gen" machine like a generation and a half before one of the big 3 roll out their next $$ grab DRM machine.

All the gamer hate (which is probably the second stupidest, irrational sort of hate in existence) leveled at xboxone doesn't really make sense in the context of why not just buy a computer.

Games are way cheaper on computers, too.

[snoopy13a]

I can kinda understand the appeal of a gaming box 10 or 20 years ago, but with where the PC market is now, you can put together an $800 machine and have it do everything an xbox can do. Upgrade your parts as you can afford them and you have a "next gen" machine like a generation and a half before one of the big 3 roll out their next $$ grab DRM machine.



Well, they don't have Madden for the PC and that might be the most popular video game among Americans.

[warty goblin]

The difference between $800 and $500 is also decidedly non-trivial. Plus it's no small advantage to be able to just go to the shop and buy a console, instead of spending a couple weeks reading guides and ordering parts and messing around with screwdrivers. For more than a few people, playing games is a thing they do because it's easy fun, not a strange combination of identity and cause that needs championing.

[Zevox]

I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a console. It's just an expensive DRM box with no way cheap way to get around HD limits, bugs, glitches, and virtually zero-modability, which means limited replay value.

It also has worse graphics, no way to upgrade graphics, extremely limited use in what you can do, and entire genres of games can't really be played on it. Namely strategy games.

And if you really need to use a controller, you can just buy one and plug it into a computer.

I can kinda understand the appeal of a gaming box 10 or 20 years ago, but with where the PC market is now, you can put together an $800 machine and have it do everything an xbox can do. Upgrade your parts as you can afford them and you have a "next gen" machine like a generation and a half before one of the big 3 roll out their next $$ grab DRM machine.

All the gamer hate (which is probably the second stupidest, irrational sort of hate in existence) leveled at xboxone doesn't really make sense in the context of why not just buy a computer.

Games are way cheaper on computers, too.
Consoles are much easier to deal with - just plug it in, put the game in, and play. Well, except for the X-Box One, but you can see for yourself how happy everyone is with all the changes it's trying to make. No need to worry about whether you've got the specs for a game, or any need for the technical ability required to put the machine together or upgrade it yourself - just get the new ones every six years or so and you're all set. They're cheaper, too, at least individually.

On top of that, a lot of games come to consoles that never get PC versions (legally, anyway). A solid majority of the games I play are made in Japan, and Japanese developers only port their games to PCs once in a blue moon. Almost none of my favorite games, save only those made by Bioware, would even be available to me if I were a PC gamer instead of a console one.

[Dante & Vergil]

Consoles are much easier to deal with - just plug it in, put the game in, and play. Well, except for the X-Box One, but you can see for yourself how happy everyone is with all the changes it's trying to make. No need to worry about whether you've got the specs for a game, or any need for the technical ability required to put the machine together or upgrade it yourself - just get the new ones every six years or so and you're all set. They're cheaper, too, at least individually.

On top of that, a lot of games come to consoles that never get PC versions (legally, anyway). A solid majority of the games I play are made in Japan, and Japanese developers only port their games to PCs once in a blue moon. Almost none of my favorite games, save only those made by Bioware, would even be available to me if I were a PC gamer instead of a console one.

This pretty much fits the bill for me, though if it was easier and cheaper to get a competent gaming PC I'd definitely get one.

[Squark]

Why do I have an Xbox 360 over a PS3? Well... It came free with my laptop, actually.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The difference between $800 and $500 is also decidedly non-trivial. Plus it's no small advantage to be able to just go to the shop and buy a console, instead of spending a couple weeks reading guides and ordering parts and messing around with screwdrivers. For more than a few people, playing games is a thing they do because it's easy fun, not a strange combination of identity and cause that needs championing.

To be fair, iBuyPower and CyberPower are pretty good brands for those who don't feel up to making their own. My $600 PC from iBuyPower is slightly worse than the new consoles, but still really good. And in a few years, technology advancements will let you get a $600 comp as good as these consoles. It's still a hundred dollars more, but the great amount of PC exclusives makes up for that in my opinion.

But yeah, dedicated PCs are mostly for dedicated gamers. PCs require setup (which you either have to pay for or do yourself), and you have to have good internet to download games.

[warty goblin]

But yeah, dedicated PCs are mostly for dedicated gamers. PCs require setup, and you have to have good internet to download games.
Or in my case, patience and a wireless connection to the coffeeshop downstairs.

[psilontech]

No love for OUYA (http://www.ouya.tv/)?

Just looked through the games catalog.

Did I find any love to give? No. HELL no.

The entirety of the catalog looks like mobile shovelware.

[KillianHawkeye]

The reason I got my XBox was for Halo 3 and Mass Effect. All the other games I wanted (Final Fantasy, Street Fighter, Tomb Raider, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed) were multi-platform. And while I didn't realize it at the time, I now vastly prefer the XBox 360 controller to Playstation's "same controller we've been using since 1994."

The only game I'm missing by NOT having a PS3 is God of War 3, and to be honest, one game is not worth buying an entire console for.

[Spuddles]

The difference between $800 and $500 is also decidedly non-trivial. Plus it's no small advantage to be able to just go to the shop and buy a console, instead of spending a couple weeks reading guides and ordering parts and messing around with screwdrivers. For more than a few people, playing games is a thing they do because it's easy fun, not a strange combination of identity and cause that needs championing.

You'd think that, but the internet is so LOUD with xbox hate, it's just like, why not buy a starter computer and upgrade it with parts as they come along? Slotting a gfx card isn't hard.


Consoles are much easier to deal with - just plug it in, put the game in, and play. Well, except for the X-Box One, but you can see for yourself how happy everyone is with all the changes it's trying to make. No need to worry about whether you've got the specs for a game, or any need for the technical ability required to put the machine together or upgrade it yourself - just get the new ones every six years or so and you're all set. They're cheaper, too, at least individually.

On top of that, a lot of games come to consoles that never get PC versions (legally, anyway). A solid majority of the games I play are made in Japan, and Japanese developers only port their games to PCs once in a blue moon. Almost none of my favorite games, save only those made by Bioware, would even be available to me if I were a PC gamer instead of a console one.

Yeah I guess the major exception are jRPGs. PS1 was worth it for FF7, but that got a PC port. I've got half a mind to find FF9 and boot up my PS1. Never got to play that one through.


To be fair, iBuyPower and CyberPower are pretty good brands for those who don't feel up to making their own. My $600 PC from iBuyPower is slightly worse than the new consoles, but still really good. And in a few years, technology advancements will let you get a $600 comp as good as these consoles. It's still a hundred dollars more, but the great amount of PC exclusives makes up for that in my opinion.

But yeah, dedicated PCs are mostly for dedicated gamers. PCs require setup (which you either have to pay for or do yourself), and you have to have good internet to download games.

You don't even need a dedicated gaming rig to approach console parity, or even pass it. Most people already have computers- I'm guessing all of you own computers.

I guess a gaming box makes sense if you're just using the macbook pro your parents bought you and don't have plans to put another grand into a machine.

A game box does nothing but play games and the games cost a lot more. Whatever your savings are in hardware are quickly lost in software. Steam ftw.

The whole debate really doesn't make sense to me, I guess. As far as I am concerned, the problems xbox have are virtually the same problems that all consoles have, and I suspect that's why Microsoft thought they could get away with them. Except that creepy always on watching you thing. And a box that always needs a connection. That seems to be needlessly limiting your target demographic. It's not like dropping the floppy drive on the iMac. I remember that got a lot of ridicule.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'd still like to know why consoles are DRM machines.

[Zevox]

You'd think that, but the internet is so LOUD with xbox hate, it's just like, why not buy a starter computer and upgrade it with parts as they come along? Slotting a gfx card isn't hard.
To you, maybe. Me, I don't even know what a gfx card is. And as long as consoles exist, I don't have any particular need to.


Yeah I guess the major exception are jRPGs. PS1 was worth it for FF7, but that got a PC port. I've got half a mind to find FF9 and boot up my PS1. Never got to play that one through.
Not just JRPGs, just about anything made in Japan. Action games, adventure games, visual novels, fighting games, platformers, strategy games, etc etc. Persona, BlazBlue, Fire Emblem, Ace Attorney, Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Bayonetta, Marvel vs Capcom, Disgaea, Mega Man - there's an absolute ton of such titles just among those I actually play, and I by no means play everything Japan makes. Of my favorites, pretty much only Devil May Cry is even available on PCs, and I hear the port of DMC3 (my favorite of that series) had some serious problems.


The whole debate really doesn't make sense to me, I guess. As far as I am concerned, the problems xbox have are virtually the same problems that all consoles have, and I suspect that's why Microsoft thought they could get away with them.
Can't imagine what "problems" you think those are then, because everything people have been complaining about with the X-Box One is absolutely unique to it. 24-hour mandatory online check-ins, the need to install the game to play it, the need to use an activation code to tie it to your account, the restrictions that consequently puts in place which heavily limit your ability to resell the game, none of that exists on any other consoles.

[warty goblin]

You'd think that, but the internet is so LOUD with xbox hate, it's just like, why not buy a starter computer and upgrade it with parts as they come along? Slotting a gfx card isn't hard.


I've made a remarkable discovery: not caring about people bitchng on the internet is like a superpower. It requires no irradiated arachnids, just carefully applied apathy, and suddenly your life is free of so much unnecessary noise and pointless drama.

[Logic]

No love for OUYA (http://www.ouya.tv/)?

But look at the games on Ouya. I can't find any typical AAA title on there. In fact, most look like they were developed for mobile devices and ported to the Ouya. Yes, I understand gameplay is important, but the gameplay in Assassin's Creed is pretty good, and I don't see anything like that on the Ouya list.

Just looked through the games catalog.

Did I find any love to give? No. HELL no.

The entirety of the catalog looks like mobile shovelware.

To be fair, there are some good titles on the Ouya, but nothing you couldn't get on a last gen console or earlier.

The difference between $800 and $500 is also decidedly non-trivial. Plus it's no small advantage to be able to just go to the shop and buy a console, instead of spending a couple weeks reading guides and ordering parts and messing around with screwdrivers. For more than a few people, playing games is a thing they do because it's easy fun, not a strange combination of identity and cause that needs championing.

I must also add an advantage to console gaming:
Graphics are usually prettier on the console vs a comparably priced PC.

I've made a remarkable discovery: not caring about people bitchng on the internet is like a superpower. It requires no irradiated arachnids, just carefully applied apathy, and suddenly your life is free of so much unnecessary noise and pointless drama.

I wish I had gotten that superpower. My username could appropriately be "Trollbait."

[KillingAScarab]

You'd think that, but the internet is so LOUD with xbox hate, it's just like, why not buy a starter computer and upgrade it with parts as they come along? Slotting a gfx card isn't hard.A video game console is not nearly the moving target which a personal computer is. People develop for them, they get better at it over the life time of the console and then they more or less collectively decide to move on, though factors like the cost to develop for the next system can lead to longevity in the previous. Did you know the PS2 still had games released this year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_2#Comic_book_and_video_game)?

Steam is the best current success story for games on personal computers. Yet, at CES everyone in reporting on video games jumped at the opportunity for there to be a Steam Box (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28software%29#Steam_Box). I couldn't find a relevant journalism outlet which didn't want there to be an official discrete unit of hardware which people would be able to purchase. This might not reflect your tastes, but it reflects someone's.


But look at the games on Ouya. I can't find any typical AAA title on there. In fact, most look like they were developed for mobile devices and ported to the Ouya. Yes, I understand gameplay is important, but the gameplay in Assassin's Creed is pretty good, and I don't see anything like that on the Ouya list.Just trying to point out another alternative to "never play video games." Different people want different things out of consoles, which is kinda what this thread was originally about. Personally, I'm interested in the level of experimentation in OUYA's approach.

[Forbiddenwar]

Just looked through the games catalog.

Did I find any love to give? No. HELL no.

The entirety of the catalog looks like mobile shovelware.

Yeah, the decision to require every game to be free kind of puts developers off from developing for it.

[Airk]

No love for Ouya. It can die in a fire as far as I am concerned. I fail to understand why anyone even thought "$100 console that plays games written for mobile phones" was a good idea. I'm sorry, but mobile games are STILL ASS, Angry Birds notwithstanding. The only decent mobile games are basically the ports of games from other platforms.

Re: Spuddles and his complete lack of understanding of the Xbox One hate; You know what? People are hating on the Xbox one because it is MORE LIKE A PC. Only with none of the advantages. So why would they want to spend a couple hundred dollars MORE for a PC that gives them many of the same issues they have with the Xbox One and a whole bundle of other random annoyances? I'm starting to hate my PC. If I have to upgrade an F-ing adobe product one more time, I swear, there will be blood. Also, what are these vaunted "PC exclusives" you speak of? I guess there are some good indie games that are exclusive to the PC, mostly because they don't have the budget to develop multiplatform, but the whole AAA space is basically a huge mess of cross pollination by now, where nothing releases exclusive on any platform unless it's bankrolled in some way by Sony or MS. There is basically zero reason for anyone who can afford to do so to make a PC exclusive instead of a cross platform title.

Me? I mostly play on the Xbox because that way I don't have to compete for the PS3. :P I purchased both systems (at different times) for games that could only be gotten on them. Some of those games were worth it, others were not. The PC Gaming Master Race really just needs to realize that not everyone is playing bland multiplatform shooters that yes, work better on the PC. ;)

[Eldan]

Spending a few hundred dollars more on a PC, for me, has one reason. I need a PC anyway. I do my work on it, my mail, my web surfing... so, you know. Good PC is cheaper than bad PC + console, and less work.

[The Dark Fiddler]

You don't HAVE to buy any console. I dislike the direction some of console gaming is going, but not enough to divorce myself from console all together. You have the option to not pick a side this cycle, and remember that. But I assume you also realize that forsaking this cycle means either PC gaming (if PC gaming were as simple as console gaming, I would pick this option EVERY time) or not playing games at all (oh the humanity!)

You could go portable, either with a 3DS, a smartphone, or a... *sigh* Vita.


No love for OUYA (http://www.ouya.tv/)?

No.


I'd still like to know why consoles are DRM machines.

Probably because you can only play console game on the console they were designed for. Which is a bit odd of a suggestion, since the only way to use a computer program is to... use a computer. Usually, at least.

[Reverent-One]

Can't imagine what "problems" you think those are then, because everything people have been complaining about with the X-Box One is absolutely unique to it. 24-hour mandatory online check-ins, the need to install the game to play it, the need to use an activation code to tie it to your account, the restrictions that consequently puts in place which heavily limit your ability to resell the game, none of that exists on any other consoles.

What's really funny about Spuddle's point is that all the things you mention are similar to how PC games work now (in some cases specific to popular digital PC game distribution methods, in some cases not), the complaints are about how they're coming to consoles. So he really has it entirely backwards.

[Forbiddenwar]

The PC Gaming Master Race really just needs to realize that not everyone is playing bland multiplatform shooters that yes, work better on the PC. ;)

Sorry, for the aside, but there are many PC exclusives in genres that just do not work without a mouse and keyboard. Such as RTS and Action RPGs. Blizzard is a company that is mostly exclusively PC, for that reason.

And it looks like the Witcher 3 will be a PC exclusive for the majority of people on the planet, since the Xbox 1 won't work in more than 21 countries (and Poland, where it is made, isn't one of them)

But maybe I am missing something. Does the Xbox 360 or One come with a keyboard and mouse?

[warty goblin]

Sorry, for the aside, but there are many PC exclusives in genres that just do not work without a mouse and keyboard. Such as RTS and Action RPGs. Blizzard is a company that is mostly exclusively PC, for that reason.

Action RPGs work just fine with a controller with just a very few alterations of the basic game design. Alterations that, I'd argue, are really for the better anyway. Dungeon Siege 3 is very much an ARPG, and plays really well on a pad.

[supermonkeyjoe]

The reason I went with Xbox:

more exclusives I was interested in at the time (Alan Wake and Mass effect)

More of my friends had an Xbox to play online with.

put off by too many hand cramps playing with the PS2 dual shock

It was cheaper at the time, and there was an offer on at the local game shop.

Saying that I'm planning on getting a PS3 for cheap when the next gens arrive to play through all of the exclusives I've missed, (God of war series, uncharted etc.). By the time i'm done with them hopefully the dust will have settled it'll be a bit clearer if Sony really do smell of roses and if the XbOne really is the gaming Antichrist.

[Airk]

Sorry, for the aside, but there are many PC exclusives in genres that just do not work without a mouse and keyboard. Such as RTS and Action RPGs. Blizzard is a company that is mostly exclusively PC, for that reason.

Nonsense. Yes, great, the RTS "genre" (how many RTS games have released in the past two years? There's Starcraft 2, and Starcraft 2... and...?) is only suitable for the PC, but action RPGs? Hogwash. Action RGPs are FAR, FAR BETTER on a pad than the "click and slay" nonsense that is Diablo. In fact, I think calling Diablo an "action RPG" is to do the genre (which grew up on consoles) a huge disservice. AND regardless, Diablo 3 is coming to a bunch of consoles, so it's clearly not impossible to make the game work. (In fact, Penny Arcade Report thinks it's BETTER on the console.)


And it looks like the Witcher 3 will be a PC exclusive for the majority of people on the planet, since the Xbox 1 won't work in more than 21 countries (and Poland, where it is made, isn't one of them)

You've defeated the whole point of the discussion by already admitting that it's not REALLY a PC exclusive, it's just that the console it's on has unusually restrictive region restrictions - there's NOTHING keeping The Witcher 3 from being a console title. It doesn't need a mouse and keyboard or something.

And, well, we'll see how long it STAYS an Xbox One Exclusive. (My guess is: Not very long.) Do please note that I have no fondness for the Xbox One. Currently, my interest in purchasing one is actually negative.



But maybe I am missing something. Does the Xbox 360 or One come with a keyboard and mouse?

Nope! In fact, I don't think they even support them.

[warty goblin]

Nonsense. Yes, great, the RTS "genre" (how many RTS games have released in the past two years? There's Starcraft 2, and Starcraft 2... and...?) is only suitable for the PC, but action RPGs? Hogwash. Action RGPs are FAR, FAR BETTER on a pad than the "click and slay" nonsense that is Diablo. In fact, I think calling Diablo an "action RPG" is to do the genre (which grew up on consoles) a huge disservice. AND regardless, Diablo 3 is coming to a bunch of consoles, so it's clearly not impossible to make the game work. (In fact, Penny Arcade Report thinks it's BETTER on the console.)

We're actually doing pretty well for non-Starcraft RTSs recently. Thank heavens, for a while there I was thinking I'd actually have to play a Blizzard game if wanted to issue some attack moves. This year we've already had the rather brilliant Wargame: AirLand Battle, which is rather unconventional in a lot of really smart ways, but certainly an RTS. Company of Heroes II drops in about a week, for which I'm psyched. Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion came out last year, and that was also a bit unconventional, but excellent.

Rome II: Total War probably halfway counts, and it's a fairly big deal.



While I think it's reasonable to distinguish between the Diablo style ARPG and the consolish sort, I'd agree the console variety is really a lot more enjoyable. Having combat that isn't quite so dull is an excellent place to start, and separating the move and attack inputs is far superior to Diablo's method IMO.

[Talderas]

I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a console. It's just an expensive DRM box with no way cheap way to get around HD limits, bugs, glitches, and virtually zero-modability, which means limited replay value.

It also means that for a console the game just works. There's no need to concern yourself with whether or not the game is going to work.


It also has worse graphics, no way to upgrade graphics, extremely limited use in what you can do, and entire genres of games can't really be played on it. Namely strategy games.

There's plenty of Strategy games that have worked on the console and worked perfectly fine. Civilization is a strategy game that has had many titles on the consoles. Starcraft and Command and Conquer both have had titles on consoles though they didn't garner much since the fans for those series already were PC gamers and had their fixes there.

Strategy games do not need to all be like Starcraft which have tens of hotkeys and as so twitch dependent that the game includes an APM counter.


Games are way cheaper on computers, too.

They're not. A $60 console game is $60 for the PC. A $5 indie game on the PC is going to cost $5 on the console if it's distributed. As a simple example. Portal 2 is currently $19.99 new for the PS3. It is currently $19.99 on Steam. PC gaming is vastly more expensively than console gaming and the available of Steam coupled with the amounts of HDD space you have actually costs you more since you buy a lot more cheaper indie titles. After all, what's $3-5 on a cheapo game that may or may not be good?

--


While I think it's reasonable to distinguish between the Diablo style ARPG and the consolish sort, I'd agree the console variety is really a lot more enjoyable. Having combat that isn't quite so dull is an excellent place to start, and separating the move and attack inputs is far superior to Diablo's method IMO.

It's very obvious to me that Blizzard had designed and built Diablo III so that it would be possible to integrate PC and Console players together fairly. D3 is what? 8 combat actions at most?

[Hiro Protagonest]

We're actually doing pretty well for non-Starcraft RTSs recently. Thank heavens, for a while there I was thinking I'd actually have to play a Blizzard game if wanted to issue some attack moves. This year we've already had the rather brilliant Wargame: AirLand Battle, which is rather unconventional in a lot of really smart ways, but certainly an RTS. Company of Heroes II drops in about a week, for which I'm psyched. Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion came out last year, and that was also a bit unconventional, but excellent.

Yes, what he said. Wargame and CoH could be the push we need to generate interest in the genre again.

Anyway, let me address some of your other arguments:

" I'm sorry, but mobile games are STILL ASS, Angry Birds notwithstanding. The only decent mobile games are basically the ports of games from other platforms."

...You have no idea what you're talking about. Trust me, I got an iPad 1, and I listen to The Game Station Podcast. Angry Birds isn't good, it's just popular. You know what is good? Crimson: Steam Pirates. Battle Nations (although it suffers from the grindy free-to-play model which is practically pay-to-win, but it's still good and rarely anyone actually stomps you in PvP with a team consisting entirely of premium units, especially since you get a few for free through the campaign and they are really expensive to heal up if they get knocked out of combat). Some of the Gamebook Adventures. Devil's Attorney.

"Also, what are these vaunted "PC exclusives" you speak of?"

Well, I am an RTS fan, but...
1. Every shooter is better on PC. Some people are happy with console shooters. That doesn't make this false.
2. Realistic shooters. Arma series, old Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, Insurgency, Ground Branch. All PC exclusive, and for good reason.
3. Indies, like you said. Frozen Synapse, Don't Starve, Sang-Froid: Tales of Werewolves, and the upcoming The Banner Saga, just to name a few.
4. Strategy games of all stripes and colors. The genre is practically dead on consoles, but it's alive and thriving on PC. Civilization, all the stuff by Paradox Interactive, the old X-COM, and, again, indies, like StarDrive, and the recently rediscovered gem of King of Dragon Pass.

And what do consoles have? Persona. The Sly Cooper series. Halo. And those are good. I loved the second and third Sly Cooper games (the first was quite different mechanically and graphics-wise, and I didn't like it as much). I still want to play Persona. And if I feel a sudden urge to play Persona, I can just buy a PS2, get Persona 3 and 4, and then emulate Persona 4 Golden on PC knowing that I've already bought Persona 4. And if I decide I absolutely have to play Sly Cooper 4, then I'm gonna wait until the price of PS3s go way down (I'm in no rush), and get it then. I'm just going to ignore Halo, because I don't care for it enough. And some of the Halo games are on PC.

[warty goblin]

There's plenty of Strategy games that have worked on the console and worked perfectly fine. Civilization is a strategy game that has had many titles on the consoles. Starcraft and Command and Conquer both have had titles on consoles though they didn't garner much since the fans for those series already were PC gamers and had their fixes there.

I thought Civ Revolution was the only console Civilization game, or was there a console Civ V?


They're not. A $60 console game is $60 for the PC. A $5 indie game on the PC is going to cost $5 on the console if it's distributed. As a simple example. Portal 2 is currently $19.99 new for the PS3. It is currently $19.99 on Steam. PC gaming is vastly more expensively than console gaming and the available of Steam coupled with the amounts of HDD space you have actually costs you more since you buy a lot more cheaper indie titles. After all, what's $3-5 on a cheapo game that may or may not be good?

It's ridiculously easy to get new PC games at serious discount. Last night I pre-ordered Company of Heroes II at 25% off, and it's pretty rare that I buy a new game without a sale on that order. Not since I gave up on buying physical copies pretty much permanently.

And remind me again how having lots of dirt cheap options is a bad thing? Sure some of the games I paid $7 for have sucked; so have more than a few of the ones I paid $50 for. The really cheap ones may be somewhat more likely to suck, but not the seven times more it would take to be the same risk as buying a game at launch. Plus, since I'm not buying really cheap games at launch most of the time, I have a pretty good idea of what I'm getting.


It's still an expensive hobby, but you could do worse.

[MCerberus]

Because when I got it, Sony was being stupid, the playstation didn't have any good games, and the 360 was cheaper.

[Airk]

" I'm sorry, but mobile games are STILL ASS, Angry Birds notwithstanding. The only decent mobile games are basically the ports of games from other platforms."

...You have no idea what you're talking about. Trust me, I got an iPad 1, and I listen to The Game Station Podcast. Angry Birds isn't good, it's just popular.

I have a friend who is a game developer who ASSURES me that Angry Birds is very well designed. Whether that makes it good? Eh. I personally have yet to encounter a mobile game that I found to not be a complete waste of time.



You know what is good? Crimson: Steam Pirates. Battle Nations (although it suffers from the grindy free-to-play model which is practically pay-to-win, but it's still good and rarely anyone actually stomps you in PvP with a team consisting entirely of premium units, especially since you get a few for free through the campaign and they are really expensive to heal up if they get knocked out of combat)

Can't say I've heard of these, but also can't say that sounds like much of a glowing recommendation, considering how much you enjoyed the "grindy free-to-play model." As someone with minimal tolerance for such BS, I doubt I'd last long.



Well, I am an RTS fan, but...
1. Every shooter is better on PC. Some people are happy with console shooters. That doesn't make this false.

Irrelevant. People can still play and enjoy them on consoles. I don't care about shooters, but clearly, many, many people are content with the console experience. You can't count this as "exclusive" in some way no matter -how- you try to twist the word.



2. Realistic shooters. Arma series, old Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, Insurgency, Ground Branch. All PC exclusive, and for good reason.

Okay. Some niche shooters don't come out on console. Fair enough.



3. Indies, like you said. Frozen Synapse, Don't Starve, Sang-Froid: Tales of Werewolves, and the upcoming The Banner Saga, just to name a few.

Of course, then you have Gaucamelee (Console only), Skulls of the Shogun (will eventually make it to PC), and a bunch of stuff that released console first, PC months or years later. (mmmm, Castle Crashers.)



4. Strategy games of all stripes and colors. The genre is practically dead on consoles, but it's alive and thriving on PC. Civilization, all the stuff by Paradox Interactive, the old X-COM, and, again, indies, like StarDrive, and the recently rediscovered gem of King of Dragon Pass.

Again, I guess we have different definitions for a lot of terms, because I think you might be surprised at how extremely niche this genre is, even on PC. What the PC does have going for it is relatively low licensing costs (especially compared to the 360, which is practically punitive), which allows less popular genres to continue to struggle along.



And what do consoles have? Persona. The Sly Cooper series. Halo. And those are good. I loved the second and third Sly Cooper games (the first was quite different mechanically and graphics-wise, and I didn't like it as much). I still want to play Persona. And if I feel a sudden urge to play Persona, I can just buy a PS2, get Persona 3 and 4, and then emulate Persona 4 Golden on PC knowing that I've already bought Persona 4. And if I decide I absolutely have to play Sly Cooper 4, then I'm gonna wait until the price of PS3s go way down (I'm in no rush), and get it then. I'm just going to ignore Halo, because I don't care for it enough. And some of the Halo games are on PC.

Wow. That's... a sadly out of date list, considering that most of it isn't even from this console generation. Also, I somehow doubt you're going to "emulate" P4: Golden unless you've figured out a way to emulate the Playstation Vita. :P And even you yourself are apparently considering purchasing a Playstation for...the games. So... why are you even trying to argue a point that you have clearly already conceded? Or maybe we've just lost track of the point of this discussion entirely?

But just to throw fuel on the fire, or, if you prefer "If you want to name a bunch of niche games, I can do that too." I can just summarize as "basically everything made in Japan" but.... Bayonetta. Tales Of (or pretty much any JRPG, really. Final Fantasy. Dragon Quest. Atelier. Star Ocean.). Practically any fighting game that isn't Street Fighter 4 or SFxTekken, including those made in the US (Injustice, MK9). Metal Gear Solid. Kingdom Hearts. Killer is Dead. I guess Demon's Souls counts, though the sequels have gone multi-platform (But don't say nothing new ever comes out of consoles). Dragon's Crown. And that's with me deliberately excluding anything that's "directly" created by MS or Sony.

There are games. That are on consoles. That people want. So people buy consoles. The end.

[Logic]

Civilization II was on the PS1, and Civilization Revolution was on the 360 and the DS. As far as I know, every other Civilization game has been PC exclusive.

I would say that the Strategy genre is just doing it's mandatory clock-in and clock-out. There are a FEW gems in recent years, but that doesn't make it "alive and well."

I wish the Space-flight sim were alive and well, and though it could be done fine on consoles, I'd rather see it on PC.

[warty goblin]

Playing my game list can beat up your game list is a fairly pointless sort of activity folks. If people want the sorts of games come out on PC enough, they'll pony up for a PC. If they like the kind that comes out consoles sufficiently, they'll lay out the cash for a console. If they like games enough, and have the dough, they can even do both.

About the only meaningful statement that can be made is "I use this Turing machine and input device to play my games because it has games I like." Which is certainly true, but also right up there with declaring your preference for breakfast cereal as some sort of defining characteristic.


Gaming folks: it's a way to spend some time. It's not an ideological cause that needs championing at the expense of all its other forms. If you want to sell somebody on a game or a way to experience them - which is what a console or PC is - try being enthusiastic. But squaring off titles like fighters going int to ring is both ridiculous and pointless.

[Gnoman]

Civilization II was on the PS1, and Civilization Revolution was on the 360 and the DS. As far as I know, every other Civilization game has been PC exclusive.


Civilization 1 was released for SNES.

[Zevox]

Sorry, for the aside, but there are many PC exclusives in genres that just do not work without a mouse and keyboard. Such as RTS and Action RPGs.
:smallconfused: Um, what? Action RPGs are a thriving genre on consoles. Dragon's Dogma, Kingdoms of Amalur, the entire "Tales of" series, Mass Effect - hell, Final Fantasy 15 is going to be an action-RPG.


And it looks like the Witcher 3 will be a PC exclusive for the majority of people on the planet, since the Xbox 1 won't work in more than 21 countries (and Poland, where it is made, isn't one of them)
The Witcher 3 will be on PS4 as well. Also, you might to see the latest news on the X-Box One.

[Eldan]

Of course there's tons of Strategy games for the PC. Europa Universalis. Hearts of Iron. Sins of a Solar Empire. Dominions. Elemental and it's colon-spawn. Civ. X-Com. Total War. Star Craft. Command and Conquer. Heroes. All PC-exclusive, as far as I know. Also about half of my favourite newer games.

The rest are iether indie titles, Portal II or point and click adventures. And looking at my favourites there, they also all seem to be computer exclusive.

Edit: and of course sandbox games of one kind or another. Kerbal Space Program is the third or second best game I played this year.

[Ozfer]

I love that this forum can discuss console debates without even a whiff of a flame war.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright Airk. Ranting time.

It is a sad state of affairs when the old Tom Clancy games are considered "niche", and so are the grand strategy games Paradox Interactive is notorious for. A major part of the reason these games aren't as popular as others is because they're complex. You could theoretically play Crusader Kings on console, but it'll be harder than on PC, and realistic shooters and RTS games simply have too many controls to be played without a keyboard. The unavailability on consoles and/or the amount of time that has to be devoted to them pushes casual gamers away. They don't want to spend hours of research and hundreds of dollars on a computer, then figure out what they need to actually play the games. You yourself said the reason you don't use PC is because you didn't want to keep downloading updates and restarting your computer for software maintenance.

The power imbalance between consoles and PCs exists simply because consoles are more accessible. That, and when Japanese devs hear the words "PC gaming", most of them go red in the face and start spluttering. They don't have better exclusives, they are lower powered, and they are simply more limited in what genres they can support. PCs are technologically superior, superior for playing one of the most popular genres, and have modding support. They are also more expensive, harder to find, and require more tech knowledge. Pretty much any PC exclusive is going to be niche compared to console games.

Calling a game "niche" is not a valid argument in favor of "not niche". Being niche doesn't affect a damn thing about single-player, except the ability to find a good walkthrough. And multiplayer? Just because millions of people play Starcraft, and only hundreds of thousands will play Company of Heroes 2 doesn't mean CoH2 multiplayer is going to be a ghost town. Not being known by console gamers may make a game niche, but that doesn't make it worse than console exclusives.

[Eldan]

I simply don't get this argument that apparently getting a good computer is some kind of complex long-term research project or that you need to build it yourself. I bought an off-shelf Lenovo laptop and even when it was a few years old it still ran brand new games beautifully. That's three clicks in an online shop and installing it is just plugging it in and pressing on.

For a console, I'd first need to buy an appropriate TV. I last tried that about six or seven years ago and informing myself on TV specs was a pain. Installing a console (I've done it at friend's places) involves crawling around behind TVs, nailing screens to walls and fiddling with dozens of weird cables.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I simply don't get this argument that apparently getting a good computer is some kind of complex long-term research project or that you need to build it yourself. I bought an off-shelf Lenovo laptop and even when it was a few years old it still ran brand new games beautifully. That's three clicks in an online shop and installing it is just plugging it in and pressing on.

Well, yeah, but it's relative. It's an hour or two of research as opposed to looking at a price tag.

[Eldan]

No. I've spent an entire day trying to find out which TV i need to buy in order to get a console or blue ray player to work with it. And then another few hours to try and find a way to mount it to my shoddy walls.

I need ten minutes to buy a new state of the art computer.

[Zevox]

[Consoles] don't have better exclusives,
That's a matter of opinion.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That's a matter of opinion.

Well, yes, I suppose it does depend on which genres you like. But for quality within the genre, I think it's about even.

[Gnoman]

No. I've spent an entire day trying to find out which TV i need to buy in order to get a console or blue ray player to work with it. And then another few hours to try and find a way to mount it to my shoddy walls.

I need ten minutes to buy a new state of the art computer.

That "type of TV" problem should have taken, at most, 2 seconds with any competent store staff. There hasn't been a TV that didn't have the necessary ports to connect any console manufactured in at least 10 years (even if you won't use the standard composite A/V, component inputs have been standard for at least six years), and the only additional question that you would need to know is "is this TV HD?", a question that can be answered by showing you the handy chart that all electronic retailers have handy, explaining the 5 different definition settings.

Determining what games a PC can handle will often take at least half an hour, for a competent user, per game. Even then, you have at least a 25-50 percent chance of being wrong. I've lost track of how many games I've purchased over the years that simply wouldn't work despite my computer having greater-than minimum spec hardware, or looked unplayable hideous on minimum settings, or displayed bad textures on *brand* graphics card.

For console, the only determining factor is "Is this for this console?"

[leafman]

I'll admit, this is probably a pretty terrible reason all things considered, but. . . I like the controller.


If you are interested in playing a PS3 there are third party controllers that are basically 360 controller shells with PS3 hardware.

On Topic:
I bought an X-Box for the exclusive games and because it's what most of my friends have. As far as being better than the PS3, when I bought my x-box I think I paid $200 for it and the PS3 was still in the $300-$400 range.

[Reinboom]

If you are interested in playing a PS3 there are third party controllers that are basically 360 controller shells with PS3 hardware.

As a PS3 owner and a (three time) X360 owner, this is very important.
In either direction.

Controller form is pretty neatly solved by third parties. You have to do a bit of research to find one that's high enough quality, but they do work and solve the issue neatly.

I own a 360 pretty much only for the Mass Effect series and a couple other random exclusives. Given I still haven't touched the Mass Effect games though since I prefer free roam western RPGs on the PC and I tend to play more JRPGs (which, due to Atlus, the PS3 wins out for me) when I'm looking for a long haul game I'm not sure if having the 360 has actually been 'worth it' for me. :smallconfused:

[warty goblin]

Calling a game "niche" is not a valid argument in favor of "not niche". Being niche doesn't affect a damn thing about single-player, except the ability to find a good walkthrough. And multiplayer? Just because millions of people play Starcraft, and only hundreds of thousands will play Company of Heroes 2 doesn't mean CoH2 multiplayer is going to be a ghost town. Not being known by console gamers may make a game niche, but that doesn't make it worse than console exclusives.
It's a perfectly valid argument for why a person doesn't want to buy a PC. If I wanted to sit around and shoot my buddies in Call of Duty, there's no reason to deal with PC gaming to do that. There's nothing wrong with that, anymore than there's something particularly right about ten year old soldier sims. Ultimately they're both ways to waste time, and that's really it.

As I said before, gaming isn't a cause, it's a hobby.

[Kitten Champion]

I own a PS2, a PSP, and a DS. I'm borrowing a PS3 for the foreseeable future due to a friend's vehement vow to avoid distractions in law school. It's okay. FFXIII was a let down and Dark Souls is pretty cool, but everyone knows that apparently.

I didn't buy an X-Box 360 because I'm relatively poor and Halo and Gears of War are utterly uninteresting to me. I like games which operate like books more than movies. I'd still rather play Final Fantasy VI (which I have in PSX form) over say, Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age 2. It has no voice acting, simple sprites, and good graphics for the early 90's, but seeing Terra trot to Narshe on a giant magical mecha is just riveting. There's so much about this world I simply invented in my head while playing. There hasn't quite been another FFVI, but I could talk people here to death about my love of jRPGs on the PS2 and handhelds not to mention my favourite game ever - Shadows of the Colossus - which told an epic with just images and atmosphere.

MS just seems to love these blockbuster-y popular games, and none of them seem to be aimed at me. Except Lost Odyssey, I thought that looked neat.

I use my laptop, which is around 400 dollars, to mostly play stuff from GOG.

[Logic]

Controller form is pretty neatly solved by third parties. You have to do a bit of research to find one that's high enough quality, but they do work and solve the issue neatly.Reina! It's good to see you again.

Third parties solve this problem for PS3 users nicely, but Microsoft's insistence on proprietary wireless controllers ensures that you will only get wired controllers that aren't Microsoft branded. Not that this is a HUGE issue for most people, even I was reluctant to go completely wireless, but when I did, I never looked back.

[Psyren]

I got my original Xbox and later 360 largely due to Bioware. I got the Xbox for Christmas, and soon afterward Jade Empire, which made brilliant use of the built-in hard drive (how many console games let you save anywhere back then?) and soon after upgrading to the 360 Mass Effect debuted. The original Xbox also had slightly better hardware than the PS2 at the time, and while the PS3 edged it out with Blu Ray and optical audio, those advantages came with both a hefty price tag as well as endless firmware updates and interminable loading times. And PC gaming was pretty terrible back then with DRM schemes like Windows for Games Live and SecuROM ruling the day.

Anyway - having said all of that, the PC is definitely my platform of choice now, thanks to Steam and GOG. With a gaming rig so much easier to build these days, I may just let this iteration of the console race pass me by.

[Zevox]

I got my original Xbox and later 360 largely due to Bioware.
Same for me, except only with the 360 (I never had my own regular X-Box, just played a few games on my brother's). I finally decided to get a current-gen system besides the Wii back when Dragon Age: Origins was coming out, and decided on the 360 because back then Mass Effect was exclusive to the 360 console-wise. Well, that and Tales of Vesperia, but at the time Mass Effect was the bigger deciding point.

Now though, Bioware has gone thoroughly multi-platform, the Tales series is mostly coming to Playstation systems, and the X-Box One hasn't shown anything remotely comparable to me yet, so it's looking like I'll go the other way around this generation, even with the reversal of the XB1's DRM policies.

[Spuddles]

I played Starcraft 64 and Warcraft 2 and Diablo 1 on consoles fairly extensively. All were difficult, quite difficult, to play without a mouse.

Turn based strat games can work on a controller, for sure, but a mouse is so superior.

I suppose when I said strategy games, I was really thinking "RTS".

Several kinds of simulation games also do better with a mouse, imo. I am sure the games could be made for a controller in mind, but the difference between keyboard & mouse and a controller are large enough that release on both platforms would require to much rework. And even then, the mouse is still a superior instrument.

Diablo 3 was designed with the PS in mind, which sucks, because I only get 4 active skills. In part, anyway. I am sure blizzard could add more if they wanted, but the design went a way with that game that I just couldnt get into.

[Eldan]

That "type of TV" problem should have taken, at most, 2 seconds with any competent store staff. There hasn't been a TV that didn't have the necessary ports to connect any console manufactured in at least 10 years (even if you won't use the standard composite A/V, component inputs have been standard for at least six years), and the only additional question that you would need to know is "is this TV HD?", a question that can be answered by showing you the handy chart that all electronic retailers have handy, explaining the 5 different definition settings.

Determining what games a PC can handle will often take at least half an hour, for a competent user, per game. Even then, you have at least a 25-50 percent chance of being wrong. I've lost track of how many games I've purchased over the years that simply wouldn't work despite my computer having greater-than minimum spec hardware, or looked unplayable hideous on minimum settings, or displayed bad textures on *brand* graphics card.

For console, the only determining factor is "Is this for this console?"

Not my experience. The most common answer I got to "Is this TV HD?" is "What kind of HD do you want?"

And I don't think I ever found a new game that I couldn't get to work. My last computer was four years old when I got Fallout New Vegas and it ran like a charm.

[Talderas]

Civilization II was on the PS1, and Civilization Revolution was on the 360 and the DS. As far as I know, every other Civilization game has been PC exclusive.

I have a copy of Civilization for my SNES. However, the reason for a lack of Civ games on the consoles has been that Firaxis didn't have developers to handle console. At some point after Civ 2 they didn't continue to invest in consoles. Civ Revolutions was one of the first products of when they did reinvest in consoles.

--


Alright Airk. Ranting time.

It is a sad state of affairs when the old Tom Clancy games are considered "niche", and so are the grand strategy games Paradox Interactive is notorious for. A major part of the reason these games aren't as popular as others is because they're complex. You could theoretically play Crusader Kings on console, but it'll be harder than on PC, and realistic shooters and RTS games simply have too many controls to be played without a keyboard.

I played a version of Rainbow Six on the N64 that was better than the PC version (I owned both). There is nothing that I'm aware of that would make Crusader Kings harder on a PC unless you complete ignore designing the UI around a console experience. I don't tie myself to a particular style of UI or command input so I'm a lot more flexible when it comes to games. What it boils down to is there are very very very few games that require a large number of simultaneous inputs. A game like that would on the surface, favor a keyboard over a game control. In practice it would make the game unplayable due to engineering since many keys are arrayed on the same input circuit and so only one of those keys may be active at any time and there's no standard for which keys are arrayed together. So you may be able to press QAZ simultaneously on one keyboard because it arrays keys by row, while another slightly more expensive keyboard may not permit QAZ to be pressed simulatneously because it's arrayed by columns. The normal design is for 8 keys to be lumped together on a single circuit but which 8 keys we're talking about can't be know without looking at the keyboard circuit board. I do know that typically QWER are on a single circuit, ASDF are on the same circuit, and XZCV are usually on the same circuit. That's not even touching QWERTY vs DVORAK. But that's mostly an academic argument since there aren't any game that leverage more than 2 simultaneous keys as it is and the number of games which have common keys that are outside of those twelve keys is rare so you're really talking about around 4 simultaneous keypresses on a keyboard. Those games that I've discovered that do use keys outside of those twelve usually are doing so as hot keys to bring up menus or options that can be accessed through other means and those keys are not meant for "active" gameplay. If you want to pay $133 for your keyboard you can get Das Keyboard, which uses a very different way of engineering to permit any 5 keys to be pressed simultaneously. It is wired though so if you want wireless you probably would be looking at $150 keyboards.

On the other hand, a console controller (XBox360 or PS3) has at least 7 areas of control which are all on their own circuits (Left bumpers, right bumpers, left control stick, right control stick, start/select, left control pad, and right buttons). Though reasonably you can only ever use 4 of these regions simultaneously.

The problem isn't one of whether PCs or Consoles are better. The problem is one of a lack of clever and creative UI designers or to phrase it another way, a glut of unimaginative UI designers. Everything else is just an individual's personal preference and prejudice.

[Gnoman]

Not my experience. The most common answer I got to "Is this TV HD?" is "What kind of HD do you want?"


Then you say "I don't know the difference." Then the salesperson either explains the difference, or just tells you that it doesn't matter that much. and sells you the cheapest model in whatever size you want. To put it bluntly, every TV in every store works perfectly with every console. The only possible way to spend large amounts of time trying to figure it out is if you are deliberately trying to be as stupid as possible in your search. As for wall-mounting, this is optional, and stand-mounting is usually better anyway due to better cooling.



The fact that you mentioned New Vegas illustrates my point completely. New Vegas wouldn't run playably on my good computer until the GOTY edition came out, because an incompatibility with my specific Nividia card dropped the FPS into single digits. It wasn't until a driver patch long afterward that the game actually worked. Consoles never have that problem.

[Airk]

People like to talk about how games work so flawlessly on PCs.

They are basically, still wrong. I've had games that just don't start (no error message, no nothing) because (as I eventually found out after surfing the web for like an hour) they don't like my antivirus software. I've had games that crashed until I updated to an OLDER driver version. I've had games that simply refused to run on my PC because they didn't support Windows XP anymore.

And that's leaving ASIDE all the random crash bugs and stuff that happen (these days) on consoles as well. Though at least on consoles, the developers are dealing with a standardized hardware configuration.

As for Jade Dragon's offense at calling Paradox strategy games "niche" - welp, guess what? Complexity has a pretty nice inverse correlation with popularity. This isn't a criticism, it's just a fact. This is one of the reasons mobile phone games have taken off amoung people who never played games before - because they're brainlessly simple. Complex games can be beautiful things, and I am a big fan of many of them, but you are deluding yourself if you think they're popular on a level with more simple actiony titles. I've basically accepted people that people don't like the games I do. :P