PC vs Console, an Interesting Observation [Archive]

JellyPooga

2007-06-15, 08:27 AM

Ummm...I would have to disagree with that particular article.

Consoles are all well and good for stuff like FPS, Racing games and Beat-em-ups, but as a rule, terrible for CRPG, Strategy (RT or otherwise) and almost anything else. That alone trumps anything that might be an issue concerning patches.

Then there's the fact that with a PC you can actually patch the game at all. A bug in a console game is for life, not just for christmas.

O.k, if you're particularly computer illiterate, going through the rigmarole of installing games and patches can be tedious/confusing, but if you're in any way interested in the game you're patching (and therefore, likely to be computer literate to some degree), then it's more than likely that the half-hour or so it takes to patch said game is a small price to pay for the improvements to gameplay.

Bryn

2007-06-15, 08:32 AM

O.k, if you're particularly computer illiterate, going through the rigmarole of installing games and patches can be tedious/confusing, but if you're in any way interested in the game you're patching (and therefore, likely to be computer literate to some degree), then it's more than likely that the half-hour or so it takes to patch said game is a small price to pay for the improvements to gameplay.

Not to mention that many games have built-in patching. Games on Steam, for example, will do it automatically with no input required, and other games provide easy options for downloading and installing patches whenever you connect to the internet.

Gungnir

2007-06-15, 09:02 AM

And interestingly, it forgets to mention that there are downsides not to getting patches etc. too. Whatever you buy for a console is what you get, forever, even if that something is bugged like no tomorrow.
Not anymore. Now that all of new consoles have internet connectivity, they can get patches quite easily. That's actually how the 360 can play older xbox games; developers actually have to make a patch that effectively makes the 360 into an xbox emulator. My Wii just updated itself yesterday after I hooked it up. Not sure exactly what changed, but I know it has parental controls now (seems a bit odd that they weren't in place to begin with, but meh).

Indon

2007-06-15, 09:33 AM

I wonder how precisely PC gaming is not doing well when I'm pretty sure there are more World of Warcraft players than there are people who purchased PS3's.

Erloas

2007-06-15, 09:35 AM

I think the article actually does a very good at describing the reason PC gaming is on the decline. For the most part people are complete idiots and can't do the simplist of tasks. That blog is a perfect example of this.

The last time I spent more then about 5 minutes finding a patch was when I needed to patch a game that is 10 years old and made by a company that no longer exists so I had to find the patch from non offical places. Even that didn't take very long.
The fact that the person didn't have DX9.0c installed on his computer is saying a lot, that version has been out for 2.5, almost 3, years now and is bundled and autoinstalled with a good portion of games. I mean that file's useful lifespan is almost the same as that of a console's hardware.

There are a few games with major problems, there are a lot of games with minor problems, but most of them get fixed in a timely maner and probably only effects you if you are purchasing a game right after it is released. Most people don't end up getting games the first month they are released anyway. The problem I guess is that even a minor problem, when put into the hands of an idiot, becomes a major problem. The problem I guess is that those same type people are the same ones dumping a lot of money into the industry because they buy everything thats hyped rather then looking at anything for themselves.
Not to say that all console gamers are idiots, just the ones that play console games just because they can't figure out how to do simple tasks on the PC.

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 09:42 AM

I wonder how precisely PC gaming is not doing well when I'm pretty sure there are more World of Warcraft players than there are people who purchased PS3's.

Because that ignores those who own Wiis, and those who own 360's, and all the people still buying and playing last gen systems...

Not to mention the portable market.

I think the real reason PC gaming is declining is because people are tired of having to upgrade. You buy a 360, buy games for it, you're done.

With a PC game, you have to make sure you meet the requirments, have the right video card, have the right sound card, make sure your drivers and updated, have the proper space avaliable....

It can be a hassle, especially if you end up having to basically rebuild your system every few years.

Its also harder to develop for PCs. A company that makes a game for a 360 knows that eveery 360 is pretty much identical, so they have to develop for one model.

A company that makes a game for the PC has to worry about comatibility with a dozen different video cards, hardware setups, sound setups...

Indon

2007-06-15, 09:57 AM

Because that ignores those who own Wiis, and those who own 360's, and all the people still buying and playing last gen systems...

Not to mention the portable market.

And I mentioned one game.

I think the real reason PC gaming is declining is because people are tired of having to upgrade. You buy a 360, buy games for it, you're done.

Until a new console comes out and you have to upgrade. Or a console game comes out for another system that you want and you end up having to buy that, too.

So, it's more like, You buy an X-Box, you buy games for it, you buy a PS2 for its' exclusive games, then you upgrade to a 360 and buy games for it, upgrade to a PS3 to buy games for it, then buy a Wii for its' exclusive games.

Console gaming is not cheaper. It is not less of a hassle.

Its also harder to develop for PCs. A company that makes a game for a 360 knows that eveery 360 is pretty much identical, so they have to develop for one model.

This is true... if you want to develop a game for a single console, forcing people to buy your system. It's catastrophically false if you want to develop for even one additional system, as you must then revamp your product for a completely different, proprietary model with no software portability.

A company that makes a game for the PC has to worry about comatibility with a dozen different video cards, hardware setups, sound setups...

This is also true... if you code purely in assembly language, without third-party solutions, anyway. Nowadays, however, programmers get a Direct X SDK, and Bam! All major third-party systems are present and accounted for. Or, if you run a Linux system, you could use... what's it called. Standard DirectMedia Layer, I believe it's called? (You could use it for Windows, too, so bam! Portability) You could even use OpenGL for your video and sound needs, you can still do some pretty impressive things with it, don't let the old OpenGL games fool you.

Saithis Bladewing

2007-06-15, 10:19 AM

I wonder how precisely PC gaming is not doing well when I'm pretty sure there are more World of Warcraft players than there are people who purchased PS3's.

There are more tap-dancing llamas than there are people who purchased PS3's.

Narkis

2007-06-15, 10:32 AM

That article is fairly idiotic. It compares the extremely uncommon, absolutely worst case scenario for PC gaming with the extremely common absolutely best case scenario for console gaming. I can easily make the same arguement as to why console games suck:

The PC Game Experience:
1. Insert DVD ROM.
2. Install the game.
3. Start playing the game.

The console game experience
1. Insert DVD ROM.
2. Wait for the console to load the game.
3. Wait some more.
4. After waiting even more, try starting the game
5. Find out that the "Disk cannot be read"
6. Google for “Disk cannot be read and discover it means that your console's laser "eye" has been inexplainably busted
7. Contact the shop from where you bought it. After many minutes of waiting, discover that it's not their fault, and you have to contact the manufacturer.
8. Contact the manufacturer. After many minutes of waiting, discover that they can't help you from the phone, and you'll have to send the console to them.
9. Send the console, paying of course for transport fees
10. Wait for days before they find out what's wrong with it. When they do, they tell you it's your fault and you'll have to pay half of the buying price to fix it. Agree, since you want to play and it's still cheaper than buying a new one.
11. Wait for days or weeks before they fix it and send it back. Naturally, you pay for transport fees.
12. Plug in the console. Discover that the game still doesn't work...
etc, etc.

See? It's obvious that console games suck.

Indon

2007-06-15, 10:45 AM

There are more tap-dancing llamas than there are people who purchased PS3's.

Touche. Still, the PC gaming business is clearly thriving, on both the stellar, super-power game level and the home-grown application level (how many of you play Bridge Builder or another small, freeware/shareware/cheap physics-engine game, eh?).

Erloas

2007-06-15, 10:47 AM

One of the issues as I see it is the "console vs PC" argumenets are almost always 3 against one. The cost of playing a single console to a PC is a fair amount different, the advantages are a lot different too depending which console you are comparing to. But usually everyone compares a PC against what is possible in all 3 of the console systems.

One thing that is also often overlooked with PC games, is that a lot of them are not actually the high budget $40-60 games that most gamers think of when they think of the system. There are a lot of non "gamers" out there playing simple games on the PC, such as solitare, scrabble, bejewelled, chess, poker, and many others. Even my grandparents are playing some of those games.

Now if you wanted to compare a single console to a PC that is able to play 1/3 of the games out there, well then the competition looks a lot different. I built a PC for my younger brother about 1.5-2 years ago for about $600 and it will still play the majority of the games out there, given not all of them will run amazingly, but there are very few that won't run on some settings at a playable speed. It will still be a long time before that computer will no longer be able to run 50% of the games out there.

A $1000 computer right now will run any game at a playable rate, and will continue to be able to for quite a few years baring some unforseeable dramatic change in PC developement rates. In fact the market pretty much demands that that majority of games will not pass that minimum requirement for years, even if the technology does trivialize it.

Given if you want to run every one of the newest games at very high settings you are going to be dropping a couple thousand on it. But if you want to be able to run every console game at high resolution you are going to have to as well. Just the 3 console systems will run 1200ish. But to run the games how they should be you need another 200-300 in controllers, you need 3 more Wii controllers at $50 each (40 controller 15 chuck last I checked), since the system is built around the party game aspects and you can't miss out on that, then you will need another controller or two for the other systems as well, 20 each, and probably one of the 6-axis PS3 controllers at $50. Is all of this necessary? Absolutely not, but if you want to compare what it takes to use a PC at 100% then you had better compare it to 100% use of the consoles as well. Then on top of that, since you want your high resolution in PC, you want it in console as well, thats about another $1000 for an entery level 1080p HDTV.

It all depends on how you want to look at it. If you are looking at it from a hardcore gaming standard the PC will probably come out costing more, but its not actually going to be that much more.
If you are looking at it from a casual gaming perspective and want/expect to do everything then the cost of each drops drastically.

Tengu

2007-06-15, 11:06 AM

Consoles are all well and good for stuff like FPS, Racing games and Beat-em-ups, but as a rule, terrible for CRPG, Strategy (RT or otherwise) and almost anything else.

Never played any good jRPG, have you?

I personally think that PCs are superior, but because of one reason - you can have a console emulator on a PC, but you cannot have a PC emulator on a console. Apart from that, they are roughly equal.

Joran

2007-06-15, 11:36 AM

One thing that is also often overlooked with PC games, is that a lot of them are not actually the high budget $40-60 games that most gamers think of when they think of the system. There are a lot of non "gamers" out there playing simple games on the PC, such as solitare, scrabble, bejewelled, chess, poker, and many others. Even my grandparents are playing some of those games.

A very, very good point right there.

Also, another point that might be overlooked is that playing a PC is inherently an individual one, while playing a console can be both individual or a group activity. For instance, I can play Halo on the X-Box with 3 of my friends in the same room. If I play Counter-Strike with my 3 friends, we have to either LAN all our computers together, or communicate using text or voice.

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 11:43 AM

Yikes. Why the savage assualt?

I personally don't know anybody who owns more thna one console. I personally only buy one console at a time.

Aren't a ton of games that were going to be exclusive to PS3 recently announce that they were also going to be on the 360? I think console excusitivty seems to be going the way of the Dodo. Or at least declining to a degree.

I agree that if you want to play every console came out there you'll spend a bundle and have a hassle, but is that a likely scenario?

My contention is that it is easier to get a 360 and play a game on it than it would be to buy that exact same game for PC and get it running. That's all I;m saying. Heck, take a look at Knights of the Old Republic. I keep hearing all the time about people having trouble getting it to run on their PCs. Never ehard anybody complain about the Xbox version.

Morrowind also had some slight problems running on some PCs. Never heard anyone complain about it on Xbox.

Now, this isn't true for every game. I've heard that console versions of Oblivion have some serious bugs that not only wreck the game but the system.

PC is still the best method of playing an RTS, and probably FPSs too. I own a pretty nice PC and enjoy it immensly. I can just see why consoles appeal to the average person more than a PC.

I think I want to sum up my argument with this statement: "For the average gamer, it is less of a hassle (and probably just slightly cheaper unless we begin PS3 or HDTVs) talking to purchase a console and use it that to purchase and maintain a PC of similar quality to that console."

I'm saying that if you take Joe from off the street, he probably won't know how to assemble and set up a PC. He could probably get a 360 running quicker and with less hassle. That's all I'm saying.

Indon

2007-06-15, 12:41 PM

Aren't a ton of games that were going to be exclusive to PS3 recently announce that they were also going to be on the 360? I think console excusitivty seems to be going the way of the Dodo. Or at least declining to a degree.

Which raises development costs above that of a computer game, and decreases quality as, in order to save development costs, producers will design games around the least-powerful console.

I agree that if you want to play every console came out there you'll spend a bundle and have a hassle, but is that a likely scenario?

For the same kind of gamer who would need to upgrade his PC constantly, yes!

My contention is that it is easier to get a 360 and play a game on it than it would be to buy that exact same game for PC and get it running. That's all I;m saying. Heck, take a look at Knights of the Old Republic. I keep hearing all the time about people having trouble getting it to run on their PCs. Never ehard anybody complain about the Xbox version.

Morrowind also had some slight problems running on some PCs. Never heard anyone complain about it on Xbox.

You don't hear Xbox users complaining about problems with their games because they're too busy complaining about problems with their X-boxes.

Meanwhile, while a computer may (but likely doesn't) have slightly more trouble in playing these games sometimes, you'll never have to snail mail your computer to Hong Kong to get it fixed on its' warranty.

PC is still the best method of playing an RTS, and probably FPSs too. I own a pretty nice PC and enjoy it immensly. I can just see why consoles appeal to the average person more than a PC.

To my knowledge, Sports games are the genre that is strongest on console compared to PC.

I think I want to sum up my argument with this statement: "For the average gamer, it is less of a hassle (and probably just slightly cheaper unless we begin PS3 or HDTVs) talking to purchase a console and use it that to purchase and maintain a PC of similar quality to that console."

I'm saying that if you take Joe from off the street, he probably won't know how to assemble and set up a PC. He could probably get a 360 running quicker and with less hassle. That's all I'm saying.

I partially agree. Of course, the PC is more capable than the console, and by the time you include the fact that the PC will be used for things like surfing the internet and downloading, *ahem* pictures, PC gaming becomes less expensive (as a console gamer is just going to own a PC anyway).

I do, however, agree that it does require somewhat more technical expertise to use a PC effectively over a console. On the other hand, the console industry has tended towards more of the PC's trappings, such as online patches and applications (the Wii calls them 'channels').

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 01:22 PM

Well, I personally have never had a problem with any system I have ever owned. Of course, I'm usually a late comer, and most of the bugs ahve been ironed out.

Perhaps this point is more an observation on how adopting any form of technology earlier, software or hardware, might not be the best idea.

I do personally feel that PCs messing up is more common than consoles messing up. If Xboxs/PS/insert console here really outright failed that often, why do they sell well? They aren't exactly cheap. I have always felt that my console, whatever it was, (I've owned an N64, X-Box, 360 as earlier mentioned, and very briefly borrowed a PS2 from a friend so I could play MGS3) was more reliable than my PC.

This is from personal experince. If you have industry reports that show a console is more likely to fail than a PC, I'd love to see it. I personally don't like arguing personal opinions and would like to see some hard facts. Even if it turns out I'm wrong, its better to have a proven truth than a vague eprsonal opinion.

I've had to update my computer more than once to run a game, but I'm not the type to own more than one system. This, of course, is a personal observation that may not apply to everyone.

I'd also like to point out that it is easier to upgrade with consoles than it is with PCs. Installing a new video or sound card takes a skill set not exactly abundaunt in the population.

Getting a new console is as simple as removing your old one and plugging the new one in. Well, and making sure you have online connectivity. That one can be a bugger sometimes.

I wonder, just how powerful is the average gaming PC? Valve has some data, here (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html). I can't draw any conclusions from it, maybe someone else could?

The Evil Thing

2007-06-15, 01:53 PM

I think the article is a load of rubbish. As Tom said, it's comparing worst case scenario for PC with best case scenario for console. Ergo, it's not really an interesting observation, more a childish 'rant' from someone who doesn't seem to have played a PC game before in his life. (He hadn't got Dx9c this far into 2007 - 9.0c was released sometime in 2004 with XP SP2) I'm genuinely shocked that his PC even has a DVD-ROM.

After whining about the CD key (maybe I just install games a lot but it's never taken me more than 20 seconds to put one in), he has a moan about the Dx installation. The publisher states on the box that his PC needs Dx9c and it is provided on the disk so I don't see what the problem is.

He then gets complains that he downloaded the wrong patch. Exactly how is that a fault of the developer anyone other than himself. It's not particularly difficult to compare the name on the box with the one you're downloading.

I don't know who this whinger is and I would like to think he's being satirical but I can't find any evidence to support this.

I wonder, just how powerful is the average gaming PC? Valve has some data, here (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html). I can't draw any conclusions from it, maybe someone else could?
To be honest, I wouldn't pay too much heed to these data. Valve may like to give the impression that they're an accurate representation of the game market but in reality, all they have in a census on the computers of Steam users.

People with slow connections who have heard the horror stories associated with Steam aren't going to go out and buy HL2 or any other game that requires Steam to play so we've already lost a potentially large chunk of the population. The same applies to those who aren't interested in FPS or don't feel they have the computer to run HL2.

Krellen

2007-06-15, 01:58 PM

I'd also like to point out that it is easier to upgrade with consoles than it is with PCs. Installing a new video or sound card takes a skill set not exactly abundaunt in the population.
Only because people are cowards when it comes to their computers. Installing a card - or RAM, for that matter - is really quite simple. It's not a complicated process. Heck, on most Dell Desktops sold in the past two or three years, you don't even need a screwdriver.

I wonder, just how powerful is the average gaming PC? Valve has some data, here (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html). I can't draw any conclusions from it, maybe someone else could?
I don't know if those are all "Gaming PCs", but based on those statistics, the average machine isn't that powerful. Most have less than a Gigabyte of RAM, which is going to be the largest choke point for most games.

Indon

2007-06-15, 02:05 PM

I do personally feel that PCs messing up is more common than consoles messing up. If Xboxs/PS/insert console here really outright failed that often, why do they sell well? They aren't exactly cheap. I have always felt that my console, whatever it was, (I've owned an N64, X-Box, 360 as earlier mentioned, and very briefly borrowed a PS2 from a friend so I could play MGS3) was more reliable than my PC.

Oh, I agree that PC's screw up more often. My point was, PC problems are comparatively child's play to fix; Almost no console problem can be fixed without intervention by the manufacturer, which often takes weeks and costs money.

It is impossible to upgrade with consoles like one upgrades using a PC. It is possible to upgrade to a whole new console, which while easier is also substancially more expensive.

Even then, upgrading a console can be problematic. Take the PS3's emulation of previous PS games, and how it doesn't always work. For a number of games, you need to pack your old system out of its' dusty box, unhook your PS3, and hook up your previous PS model just to get the ability to play, say, Final Fantasy 7 (which, while having poorer graphics, still works just fine on a PC to this day).

And the ability to operate computers competently should be a skill abundant in the population. Ours is a culture centered almost entirely around computing devices. The more you know how to operate one, the better off you are in far more than the world of gaming.

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 02:15 PM

Oh, I agree that PC's screw up more often. My point was, PC problems are comparatively child's play to fix; Almost no console problem can be fixed without intervention by the manufacturer, which often takes weeks and costs money.

It is impossible to upgrade with consoles like one upgrades using a PC. It is possible to upgrade to a whole new console, which while easier is also substancially more expensive.

Even then, upgrading a console can be problematic. Take the PS3's emulation of previous PS games, and how it doesn't always work. For a number of games, you need to pack your old system out of its' dusty box, unhook your PS3, and hook up your previous PS model just to get the ability to play, say, Final Fantasy 7 (which, while having poorer graphics, still works just fine on a PC to this day).

And the ability to operate computers competently should be a skill abundant in the population. Ours is a culture centered almost entirely around computing devices. The more you know how to operate one, the better off you are in far more than the world of gaming.

Good point. The only recourse for console failure is to ship it off.

Emulation is also an excellent point. I'd be quite upset if my computer lost the ability to play my favorite old games from years past. In fact, the one thing I regret about my 360 is that I can no longer play Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction, my favorite GTA clone. Why is it my favorite? Air strikes, including the visually awe inspiring carpet bombing. Ah, the memories.

I think most people can operate computers, I just don't feel they can take them apart and re-assemble them. Most people can operate software just fine, but I feel the average person is not hardware savvy.

Indon

2007-06-15, 02:17 PM

Emulation is also an excellent point. I'd be quite upset if my computer lost the ability to play my favorite old games from years past. In fact, the one thing I regret about my 360 is that I can no longer play Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction, my favorite GTA clone. Why is it my favorite? Air strikes, including the visually awe inspiring carpet bombing. Ah, the memories.

Mind that emulation is a problem for PC's as well, though to a lesser degree.

I need to run a DOS emulation program (Namely, DOSBox) in order to play Anvil of Dawn, for instance.

Hermit

2007-06-15, 02:28 PM

Given the choice I'll always pick a PC game over a console one, as I tend to find games available for the PC are deeper than a lot of what's available for consoles. That said, I'm an absolute sucker for Nintendo games, and I don't mind playing on either really. Fact is, there's quality games for PCs, and quality games for consoles. The two don't need to be mutually exclusive either, the only time consoles annoy me is when cross-platform development ruins a game (I still bemoan the xbox based destruction of Deus Ex: IW, which was like a terrible parody of the brilliant original. Seriously, universal ammo? No RPG development? I'd rant more but its off the point).

I always think people who moan about bugs in PC games are a bit stupid. Console games have bugs too, and often PC gets patches a console can't. Oblivion, for example, was released in the same state on both 360 and PC, and had quite a number of bugs which later had to be fixed. Plus, mods are something which are still a ways off for console owners. Yeah, I could get the 360/PS3 versions of Half Life 2 when they're released, but both consoles lack the excellence of multiplayer mod Dystopia.

Plus, I still remember Jedi Power Battles, a terribly buggy game for the PS1. My brother and I fought for ages against its poor quality in Co op, until reaching Coruscant, whereby about 2/3 through the level there was a bug which had about a 50% chance of freezing the game, forcing you to restart the level again.

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 02:32 PM

I always think people who moan about bugs in PC games are a bit stupid. Console games have bugs too, and often PC gets patches a console can't. Oblivion, for example, was released in the same state on both 360 and PC, and had quite a number of bugs which later had to be fixed. Plus, mods are something which are still a ways off for console owners. Yeah, I could get the 360/PS3 versions of Half Life 2 when they're released, but both consoles lack the excellence of multiplayer mod Dystopia.

To be fair, recent consoles have online connectivity that allows patching to occur. However, mods are an indisputable point. The sheer number of Half Life 2 Mods is staggering. My personal favorite is a mod for the famous SMOD (a mod for Half-Life 2), called SMOD Remastered Redux. (now in Beta 5.5 version)

Indon

2007-06-15, 02:34 PM

To be fair, recent consoles have online connectivity that allows patching to occur. However, mods are an indisputable point. The sheer number of Half Life 2 Mods is staggering. My personal favorite is a mod for the famous SMOD (a mod for Half-Life 2), called SMOD Remastered Redux. (now in Beta 5.5 version)

I'm sure consoles will end up getting the capacity for moddability eventually.

That is to say, with their games. The consoles themselves are already moddable, albeit with a bit of difficulty.

Erloas

2007-06-15, 02:42 PM

Upgrading a part in a PC is literally almost as easy as switching out a console. You generally unplug a wire or two (designed in such a way that you can't confuse them, you aren't going to accidently plug your power cord into your SATA connector) pull out the card and put a new one in. There is generally about 2-3 screws that need to be taken out and thats it.
Most people seem to be afraid of upgrading their PC, but for no good reason. Upgrading several things doesn't even require removing a cable.

Building a full system is a bit more work, but it doesn't take that much more to do.

As far as the number of consoles someone owns, at least of a generation, it is often more then one of them. This early on it is likely many people will only have 1 of the 3 next gen systems. But I know a lot of people that had at least 2, many times 3 of the previous generation of consoles. There are a lot of people that own 2-3 of the next gen systems as well, it is just not as many yet. On top of that everyone I know owns a PC.

Roderick_BR

2007-06-15, 02:45 PM

My personal opinion: Some games are better in consoles than PCs, and vice versa.
Most good PC games are RTFs, FPSs, and MMORPGs.
With the new WII-mote, we can now have good FPS console games, though. But even though many consoles have online abilities, I simply refuse to play MMORPs and RTFs on console (remembering bad experiences with Command & Conquer, and Diablo for Playstation)
In RTSs and MMORPGs, the high definition screen on PCs, and the better (and cheaper) keyboards are way better.
You can upgrade your PC, making it more powerful to run games smoothier, and run new and better games. With a console, you're stuck with it till the next generation comes.

In everything else, fighting games, racing, sports, adventure, and single player RPGs, consoles rules, though. SPECIALLY fighting games.

And while it's a downside to have to install a game before running it, that's just it, for dozens of games you can get from the internet. Yes, there are projects to do the same with the consoles, but PCs still rule.

PS: The guy in that review just don't know how to use his computer :P
PS2: Step 3 can not work when your console simply refuses to read the game (in my case, my PS2 haven't worked since January)

(...)
I do personally feel that PCs messing up is more common than consoles messing up. If Xboxs/PS/insert console here really outright failed that often, why do they sell well? They aren't exactly cheap. I have always felt that my console, whatever it was, (I've owned an N64, X-Box, 360 as earlier mentioned, and very briefly borrowed a PS2 from a friend so I could play MGS3) was more reliable than my PC.
(...)

Check PS3 sales. You need to spend a lot of money, it's a piece of crap, and after a while (supposedly), your PS2 will be obsolete. My PC will get a new 3D Video Card and get new games.
True about PCs having more problems, that's why more solutions are made for it. If your PC crashes, you can google the solution in minutes. If your console crashes... well, as I said, my PS2 haven't worked since January, I sent it to be fixed, and no one could do anything about it.

Erloas

2007-06-15, 02:46 PM

I'm sure consoles will end up getting the capacity for moddability eventually.

That is to say, with their games. The consoles themselves are already moddable, albeit with a bit of difficulty.

Ironically (or maybe not) I bet that 95% of the player made mods for the console games will be made using PCs.

Indon

2007-06-15, 03:35 PM

Ironically (or maybe not) I bet that 95% of the player made mods for the console games will be made using PCs.

I disagree. The X-Box is a PC already; the gap between PC and Console is already small and it continues to shrink.

Consoles used to develop console games are not too far off.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-15, 04:56 PM

Both have their uses. I used to prefer my PC for gaming, but I'm starting to like my 360 more and more. A lot of this is because while a lot of people are saying you can't patch a console game, in the new age of things like XBL, you actually can. Gears of War, probably the 360's most popular game, just received a patch yesterday in fact, one that solved a lot of the problems I was having, like people exploiting glitches. It also suped up the damage for a weapon that used to suck, making it a now viable option for use. Consoles are less of a hassle to use in my opinion, since you don't need to install games, you can play with more than one person on a single system, you don't need to constantly upgrade it to be competitive, etc.

Buuuuut...PCs are superior in several other regards. It's possible to have a system far more powerful than pretty much any current-gen game console. Also, let's face it, RTS and RPG games suck on consoles. If I want to play either, I use my PC. And sometimes it helps to be able to mod games, but as Morrowind and Oblivion. That's why are far prefer my PC Morrowind to my Xbox copy: true, PC version can be a pain, what with numerous times when it has bugged on me and refused to play, but I can also mod the hell out of it, which is one of the best parts of the game.

Overall, I think it depends on what your play style is, how much money you have (really, a PC is actually a lot more expensive to keep cutting edge), and what kinds of game you play. I have both, and I use both, though I'm starting to lean away from my PC and towards my 360.

Wojiz

2007-06-15, 05:05 PM

PC has Fallout.

Done and done!

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 05:06 PM

PC has Fallout.

Done and done!

As unthinkable as it may seem, some people don't like Fallout.

Chilling, I know.

Muz

2007-06-15, 05:13 PM

I'm curious to know just where patches for console games GO. Are they stored on the console itself somewhere so that the game has to patch itself while you play it each time, or does it actually rewrite the game disk? (I haven't owned a console since the SNES.) :smallsmile:

Tekar

2007-06-15, 05:15 PM

As unthinkable as it may seem, some people don't like Fallout.

Chilling, I know.
Well then obviously their opinion doesn't matter.

I have always considered the PC to be more for serious games and consoles are more arcade. I like the serious games more. And I'm going to stop here or some people might start finding me offensive.

Wojiz

2007-06-15, 05:35 PM

As unthinkable as it may seem, some people don't like Fallout.

Chilling, I know.

A laughable claim. That's just a scary story parents tell their kids to keep them from wandering away from their console at night.

Neon Knight

2007-06-15, 06:46 PM

Well then obviously their opinion doesn't matter.

I have always considered the PC to be more for serious games and consoles are more arcade. I like the serious games more. And I'm going to stop here or some people might start finding me offensive.

Define "serious."

Wojiz

2007-06-15, 07:12 PM

Like, philosophically challenging serious or Leisure Suit Larry serious?

FdL

2007-06-15, 08:11 PM

The linked article: Childish, oversimplistic, completely biased and thus wrong.

I'd also like to point out that it is easier to upgrade with consoles than it is with PCs. Installing a new video or sound card takes a skill set not exactly abundaunt in the population.

Getting a new console is as simple as removing your old one and plugging the new one in. Well, and making sure you have online connectivity. That one can be a bugger sometimes.

Sure. Throw the old console in the garbage and buy a new one. You're calling that an upgrade.
And chances are that the new one doesn't even play the games you own for the old one.

Not anymore. Now that all of new consoles have internet connectivity, they can get patches quite easily. That's actually how the 360 can play older xbox games; developers actually have to make a patch that effectively makes the 360 into an xbox emulator. My Wii just updated itself yesterday after I hooked it up. Not sure exactly what changed, but I know it has parental controls now (seems a bit odd that they weren't in place to begin with, but meh).

Yay, great! Slowly consoles are becoming more and more like PCs! :p Ahh...One day you will be able to browse the web, chat with your friends, use a word processor, send email, etc. with your console.
Then what's the point? PCs can do that right now.
If you're arguing that it's easier to do it with a console...well, then it follows that consoles are the equivalent of (gaming) PCs for idiots.

I'm sure consoles will end up getting the capacity for moddability eventually.

That is to say, with their games. The consoles themselves are already moddable, albeit with a bit of difficulty.

Er, I wouldn't really open any (latest gen) console, "mod it" and expect it to work. It's closed for a reason :p On the other hand, the PC can be "opened" with the software, OS, patches etc, and also physically to upgrade RAM, put new expansion cards and hardware, upgrade main components... All is pretty easy as it's modular.

Forthork

2007-06-15, 09:47 PM

My opinion, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you can't upgrade a PC, the stick with a console. But don't try to use that as a reason consoles are better. PCs are superior. Yeah, I have to upgrade, but guess what, I can upgrade. Right now, it'll be a helluva a lot cheaper to upgrade my PC that buy a PS3 (or possibly a 360), not even including the "HD" TV I'd need to get the full deal. My monitor's at least 5 years old, as is my whole computer sans a DVD drive I bought for 25 bucks a while back, and I have always gotten better than 720p, and my next monitor should easily outdo 1080p. Also, I don't care what anyone says, for most games keyboard and mouse is a better control scheme, and if not, there is a way to get any controller to work with a PC, and the 360 controller is already compatible, and the Wiimote is easy enough to get connected, which are IMO the closest controllers to perfection at this time.

But I guess consoles will be better. Heck, I bet next generation, they will all have hard-drives and internet compatibility as key features, will support keyboards and mice, will use a screen with better resolution than TVs, and they will be upgradeable. Man, its too bad there's not a gaming machine like that today...

Hungry Kobold

2007-06-15, 10:14 PM

I hate computers because I can never make them function as they are supposed to and I don't have the money to buy a computer that does. They crash whenever they want to, without warning, without reason, without save. I've lost more game saves than I can count and the killjoy factor I get from that is staggering. That's why I like MMOs: they may crash more frequently, but your information is stored constantly in their servers so it's impossible to lose your progress.

I have had roughly 4 console crashes in my considerable experience with them. This is why I love consoles and hate computers. I only use computers because there simply is no alternative.

I don't care about capabilities, or genre superiority; I only care about sitting down to a relaxing gaming session that won't end in fits of profanity. :smallfurious:

Edit: and don't tell me to just save repeatedly :smallyuk:

Wojiz

2007-06-15, 10:20 PM

Gralamin

2007-06-15, 10:21 PM

I disagree. The X-Box is a PC already; the gap between PC and Console is already small and it continues to shrink.

Consoles used to develop console games are not too far off.

There is literally no point in doing this. it takes a long time for a GOOD PC to compile a full game. A Console, statistically is much weaker and slower then a PC. It would take much much longer.

Some more points:
Interface - keyboard and mouse are practically needed to complete programming, not to mention designing.
Monitor - Monitor's generally have higher resolutions then TV's.

Now imagine if a console was to have both of those, then it could make games for consoles. Oh wait. Then It would be a PC, under a different name.

Hungry Kobold

2007-06-15, 10:24 PM

That's like saying that bikes are better than cars because cars are incredibly expensive, break down a lot more, you need to buy a new car more often, must be repaired much more frequently and expensively and you need to spend so much on gas for it.

But I'd still rather be driving a car.

By the way, save more repeatedly and lern2computer.

True but if you had read my post you would see that it would actually be like saying that I enjoy riding bikes more because they don't break down and are cheaper to acquire and maintain :smallannoyed: not that they were "better."

I also said "don't tell me to save more." :smallannoyed: That's all I need: another thing to do to remind myself why I hate 'puters.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-15, 11:04 PM

Yeah, I tend to see my consoles crash on me a lot less often than any PC I've ever seen. And no, it isn't because I'm stoopid, or have no skillz, or need to "lern2computer". It's because consoles are more reliable.

In addition, the fact that in a console all you need to do is stick the game in makes it a lot simpler to play. And yes, it can take time to patch a game on PC. I don't give a damn about your "1337 ski11z" finding a patch, making sure it's the right one, installing it, and making sure it doesn't crash your game or your PC is a pain. And yes, I do have a good computer, and know how to use it. Yes I know it can surf the net, and my 360 can't. But do I care? No. You know why I don't care that my 360 can't surf the net, or do well on RTSs and RPGs? BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I HAVE A PC!!!!

Seriously, no, comparing a PC to a 360 is not like comparing a bike to a car. Hahah, very witty, but no, it isn't. It's more like comparing your couch to your computer chair. Is the chair easily mobile and flexible in it's use? Yeah. How about the couch? Nope. But can the chair seat more than one person? Um, usually no. And can the couch seat more than one person, and be used to sleep on. Why yes, yes it can...

Both have their uses and niches in peoples lifestyles, and dismissing consoles as "PCs for dumb people" is stupid and ignorant of their uses. If I want to take a system to a friends house, or play an FPS, play with more than one friend in the room, or just happen to pick up a game I haven't played in a year and give it a try, or play Gears of War, I'll use my console. Because it's better for that. If I want to play an RPG or RTS, or surf the web, or play Starcraft, I'll use my PC. Because it's better for that.

Sorry for the rant, but the number of ignorant people saying "connsoals r dum PCs!!!!!!1!!" on this thread was getting dangerously high.:smallmad:

Setra

2007-06-16, 12:32 AM

My two cents.

I tend to prefer PC games to console. For a few minor reasons.

One: It's easier, and more fun, to play FPS games on the PC, not to mention having a better selection.

Two: For the most part, one online bill. Your standard internet bill. Wanna play Rainbow Six: Vegas online? Alright, why not. Wanna play Halo 2 on X-Box Live? Please pay an extra fee.

Three: I've heard more gripes about the attitude of console gamers, than the ones about PC gamers.

However, I will admit, I do love my PS2.

Erloas

2007-06-16, 09:26 AM

I don't understand all the people complaining about computers crashing anymore. I know it was an issue 10 years ago but it has only been a minor problem since then.
I can't remember the last time my PC crashed, even my PC at work (which usually have more issues) doesn't have any problems.
I do end up helping a lot of people with issues with their computers though and pretty much 99% of the time all of their issues come down to the fact that they seem to install and have on autorun every piece of software they could get. I mean, who needs 7 different toolbars for their browser anyway... It pretty much always comes down to users that have no common sense.

I have had a few games crash, but that is different then having the PC itself crash. Even then though its not all that common. There are a few (that I have at least, which is in no way a complete representation of all the games out there) that have more issues, but it really is the exception and not the general rule.
There is also the fact that installing and patching a game usually only happens once and after that it is just playing the game. Even if it takes 30 minutes to install the game, you only do that once, compared to the 100s of times you play the game without having to do anything at all extra.

LordVader

2007-06-16, 09:30 AM

That link is more or less a rant. For Dawn of War, for example.
1. Insert CD
2. Provide CD Key
3. Game installs
4. OPTIONAL registration
5. Play game.
It's hardly the 35000000 steps he claims it is. He's exaggerating the truth a bit. Also, RTS's are only good on the PC, which is why I mainly use it, but the best feature of PC games is patches. Most RTS's, at least, come with an auto-downloader- you just go to "Online" and it downloads the patch automatically for you, before you can get into the online lobby. I prefer PC, but that's just my opinion.

Wojiz

2007-06-16, 09:33 AM

The PC is the home of the PCRPG, FPS and RTS. The consoles have, what, JRPGs and platformers?

Not only that, but with a PC, you can pretty much play anything up to the 5th, maybe 6th generation if you've got a killer comp. Not that I would condone such actions. No, no, no.

LordVader

2007-06-16, 09:37 AM

Not entirely accurate. The PC/Mac is the undisputed master of MMORPGs, RTSs, and TBSs. But consoles have the two best shooters, Halo and Gears of War.

Setra

2007-06-16, 09:42 AM

Halo?

First off, it's on the PC (and, I find it's better on the PC, for that matter), second off, are you kidding?

I can understand Gears of War, sure, but Halo? Halo?!

Sorry, I've always disliked it, mostly because I found it overhyped, and Half Life 2 I found to be many times better.

On another note, as long as a person who prefers console doesn't say PC sucks.. I don't really care. I can see both sides, but there is no reason to bash the other.

Neon Knight

2007-06-16, 10:25 AM

Sure. Throw the old console in the garbage and buy a new one. You're calling that an upgrade.
And chances are that the new one doesn't even play the games you own for the old one.

Actually, I usually trade in my old console and receive a small sum for it. Nowhere near what I paid for it the first place, but more than if I donated it to a dumpster.

I didn't literally mean upgrading the existing console, I meant upgrading to the new console. Replacing my older console with a newer next gen console

When I was switching to my 360, I discovered that only roughly 40% of my Xbox library was transferable. Of that 40%, I only wanted to keep a few. Backwards compatibility was never really an issue with me anyway. I do pine for a few games, but the majority I could do without.

The consoles have several RPGs, western style and otherwise (Morrowind and Oblivion are on consoles for instance.) Secondly, you are ignoring the fighting genre, one of my favorites. Not that it matters really. It seems more and more games are being released both for PC and consoles.

Halo is vastly overrated. Gears of War, although lacking a coherent story, is still awesome.

You know, I've always wondered, where does the assertion that mouse and keyboard are a better set up for FPS come from? Personally I've always felt the controller was more comfortable for this genre.

On that attitude of console gamers: The further you get from Halo, the better. I've seen plenty of jerks online whilst on the PC, but the majority don't seem to have microphones. On my 360, everyone has a microphone. Someone's potential to annoy you increase tenfold when they have a microphone.

I'd like to inquire something: How often do you encounter lag whilst playing online, either on a PC or a console?

Forthork

2007-06-16, 11:18 AM

You know, I've always wondered, where does the assertion that mouse and keyboard are a better set up for FPS come from? Personally I've always felt the controller was more comfortable for this genre.

The fact that it is? I mean, there's no other way to explain it. It is much easier to aim. Movement might be a little worse, but having all the buttons I need right around there is more convenient than having to stop aiming to jump, or something like that. And having using numbers to switch weapons is easier than cycling, and I can still do that with the mouse wheel if I want. The only way you could balance a match between m/kb uses and controller users is by giving the controller users auto-aim. Now, when you get a gaming mouse and a gaming keyboard, its not even a contest.

Now, Halo as one of the best shooters? Interesting. I've found (legally) free games and mods I like better than Halo. Its a decent game, but nowhere near one of the best shooters. There's another reason I like PCs, free mods and games. Even if XBox and PS3 games can get modded, I can guarantee the mods will cost a few bucks.

Neon Knight

2007-06-16, 11:58 AM

The fact that it is? I mean, there's no other way to explain it. It is much easier to aim. Movement might be a little worse, but having all the buttons I need right around there is more convenient than having to stop aiming to jump, or something like that. And having using numbers to switch weapons is easier than cycling, and I can still do that with the mouse wheel if I want. The only way you could balance a match between m/kb uses and controller users is by giving the controller users auto-aim. Now, when you get a gaming mouse and a gaming keyboard, its not even a contest.

Now, Halo as one of the best shooters? Interesting. I've found (legally) free games and mods I like better than Halo. Its a decent game, but nowhere near one of the best shooters. There's another reason I like PCs, free mods and games. Even if XBox and PS3 games can get modded, I can guarantee the mods will cost a few bucks.

Why is it easier to aim? I've never had a problem jumping and aiming at the same time with a controller. You don't have to cycle in all FPS games. What about games where you only get two guns and therefore require a single button to switch between them?

I've used both extensively for FPS games, and have never felt a noticeable difference between the two.

Setra

2007-06-16, 02:20 PM

Why is it easier to aim? I've never had a problem jumping and aiming at the same time with a controller. You don't have to cycle in all FPS games. What about games where you only get two guns and therefore require a single button to switch between them?

I've used both extensively for FPS games, and have never felt a noticeable difference between the two.
My experience... is this

With the console, you have to push the stick where you want to aim, and fire.

With the PC, you can twitch the mouse to aim exactly where you want and fire with the same hand, not to mention you can move the camera left and right a bit more freely (ie. small twitch). Also, the aiming is a little more precise.

It's a bunch of small differences, really. The big thing, I've noticed, is that sniping is much easier on the PC.

Hades

2007-06-16, 02:21 PM

Why is it easier to aim?

I don't know if it's easier to aim, but I find a mouse/keyboard combo much more precise in aiming. For instance, I find it almost impossible to consistently be able to get headshots with a controller, but can achieve them with much more regularity with a mouse. While this could be explained as familiarity and practice with the mouse, I have spent my fair share of hours with a controller in hand.

Also, I think having to actually physically move the mouse (and the Wiimote? no experience there) in the direction I want it to aim, rather than just a joystick/d-pad allows me to be more precise.

This may in turn have something to do with the skillset needed for aiming a mouse being the same both in and outside of games. When I move the pointer and click on an icon, what am I doing? Aiming at it and "shooting" it.

Just a couple thoughts.

Neon Knight

2007-06-16, 02:24 PM

I'm not denying there is a difference, I've just personally never seen and/or felt a difference between the two.

Maybe its just me. Maybe I'm just really good with the controller or really poor with the mouse.

Indon

2007-06-16, 02:47 PM

Why is it easier to aim? I've never had a problem jumping and aiming at the same time with a controller. You don't have to cycle in all FPS games. What about games where you only get two guns and therefore require a single button to switch between them?

I've used both extensively for FPS games, and have never felt a noticeable difference between the two.

I have. Biggest difference? You can not pivot. I know of at least one console game (a Halo game) that fixed this with a button that you hit that makes you instantly do a 180; have fun regaining your bearings!

If you dropped PC players and Console players into the same FPS, the PC players would have an advantage because they can aim near-instantly in any bearing. Console... players... must... turn... to... put... their... target... in... view...

Now, the Wii, with its' mouse-like controller interface, has the potential to fix that and produce PC-quality FPS.

Other genres that the consoles have an advantage on are fighting and sports games.

Erloas

2007-06-16, 02:54 PM

I never did like playing any FPS on a console. I just didn't like the controls. Some games are much more critical about being a little off here or there though.

I love the duel analog sticks on the PS2 for some things though. I find they are great for most vehicle control and some other things.

As far as I'm aware they don't yet have any FPSs where you can play against both console and PC gamers at the same time. It seems like it shouldn't be too hard and they have games out released for both, but they seem to run them on their own servers. When they start doing that then we'll really see how much of a difference it makes.
Right now on a console all you can really say is that playing on a controller rather then a keyboard/mouse allows you to be competative with everyone else also using controllers.

I think if the contoller were a legitimate equivelent to a keyboard/mouse for FPS gaming then we would see more people using them on PCs since you can use most console controllers (or at least a close of the same design) on a PC. I don't see controllers being widely used on PCs though, and if there were any advantage you know people would use it.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-16, 03:11 PM

I have. Biggest difference? You can not pivot. I know of at least one console game (a Halo game) that fixed this with a button that you hit that makes you instantly do a 180; have fun regaining your bearings!
Um, what are you talking about? None of the Halo games let you do a 180 with the press of a button. You just turn, same as on PC.

As for the so called "slow turning" of the controller, um, no, you can turn at the same speed. That's what a little thing called "look sensitivity" is for, a feature that pretty much all console games have. If I want to twitch with a controller on Halo 2, I just set my look sensitivity to 10. And I actually find it a good deal easier to aim with my controller than my mouse. When I play Halo on PC, I consistently have a hard time getting headshots, and will frequently get killed when giving my position away with a stray sniper shot. On my 360, all I do is move the stick a little slower for a moment to bring it perfectly in line and "Boom! Headshot!"

Really, if you think it's easier to use a mouse for an FPS, then you don't have much experience with controllers. I've played FPSs on both PC (Halo and Counterstrike) and Xbox (Halo 2 and Gears of War) and have found it far easier to aim with the controller. An added advantage of console gaming is that when playing online, everyone has the same system, so lag is only a matter of how good your internet connection is. Pretty much all of the problems with consoles now have pretty easy solutions. Patching? If there's a new patch, it'll download the moment you start up the game. Twitch gaming? Set look sensitivity up higher, or just plug your keyboard in if you absolutely can't tolerate a controller. Guy annoying you with his headset? Mute him. I'd rather have the option of a headset and be able to mute people than to be forced to not hear them. A headset is a lot more convenient than a keyboard.

Yes, PC internet is cheaper. Yes, you can do a lot of other stuff with your PC. Yes, it's better for RTS and RPG. But denying that consoles have their own strengths is just stupid. Which is why I use both. Please, before you say PCs are better because a console can't do X, please confirm that, in fact, the console can't in fact actually do X. They're getting a lot closer in terms of power than people seem to think. And remember that while yes, a top of the line PC is maybe twice as good as a 360, it can cost up to five times as much.

Demented

2007-06-16, 04:05 PM

Really, if you think it's easier to use a mouse for an FPS, then you don't have much experience with controllers.

Really, if you think it's easier to use a controller for an FPS, then you don't have much experience with mice.

But! If you think it's easier to use a mouse for EVERYTHING, then you don't have much experience with controllers. Or keyboards. Or joysticks. Or trackballs. Or tablet pen...things.

In general though, PC games are designed to take advantage of the 100+ buttons the keyboard provides to make the interface more powerful, while Console games are designed to take advantage of how all of the few buttons you have available are within easy reach to streamline gameplay.

Thus, in a PC game you might be able to access an arsenal of 10+ guns at once (most FPSes), while managing a complicated inventory (Diablo) and using macros/commands to manage teammates or other concerns (Rainbow Six, World of Warcraft).
Meanwhile, in a Console game you only need to carry two weapons at a time (Halo) and there's only one or two buttons you need to press to give your teammates situational orders (Rainbow Six: Las Vegas, Battlefield 2).

Setra

2007-06-16, 04:16 PM

Please, before you say PCs are better because a console can't do X, please confirm that, in fact, the console can't in fact actually do X. They're getting a lot closer in terms of power than people seem to think. And remember that while yes, a top of the line PC is maybe twice as good as a 360, it can cost up to five times as much.
I'd just like to note something

The argumenet about FPS games in console vs. PC, at least this current one, is really not saying that Console or PC can't, it's really just about the personal preferance of the people arguing.

No one is saying console games suck, I think, just that they prefer PC.

On a different note, the PC has one of my favorite genres, Dating Sims.

It's quasi-hard to play things like that on a console one-handed. :smalltongue:

LordVader

2007-06-16, 05:01 PM

My preferred genre, RTS, is a nightmare on the console. The mouse makes it so much easier. That's why I prefer PC. Although I've never played a PC shooter, so I can't compare them.

FdL

2007-06-16, 05:16 PM

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-16, 05:44 PM

Call me old-school, but I certainly don't believe in playing FPS in a console with a gamepad. Nor any RTS in a console, that's for sure.

I do like some console-style game every now and then, and with my PC I get them. I have the best soccer game: WI:PES 2007. I also liked Fable a lot, and that was originally for the xbox (I really hated not being able to play that with a gamepad, that was really weird.)
BUT...Isn't the xbox the more PC-oriented of consoles? That's the trick. That's why it features games from genres the PC excels at, like FPS. To me, an xbox is basically a high powered PC that's locked to only play games. And that's it.

Yeah, though the 360 can actually do a lot more than just games now, which is why I like it. And I do personally think that some games, like a lot of FPSs like Halo, work better on console. Though I definitely agree that consoles are an absolute nightmare for RTS. The last console RTS I played was StarCraft 64, and while it was handled better than it could have been, the port was by far inferior to the original. There was no hot keying, it was annoying selecting new units, you couldn't zip the view around the map nearly as fast or as cleanly, etc. It's a large part of why even though my comp can't handle the new C&C game, I won't be getting it for 360 either, at least not for a long time.

FdL

2007-06-16, 09:18 PM

Yeah, though the 360 can actually do a lot more than just games now, which is why I like it.

For example?

LordVader

2007-06-16, 09:25 PM

DVDS! Wait, you can do that on the PC too. >_<
:smalltongue:

Neon Knight

2007-06-16, 09:33 PM

For example?

Aforementioned DVD player. You can also grab game demos/videos/movies/music from the Xbox live marketplace. Nothing super unique, but nothing bad either.

Logic

2007-06-16, 09:43 PM

At the moment, the only thing consoles have that PCs do not are the few exclusive titles available to them. Most of the time, X-Box & X-Box 360 owners cannot even claim that, since several of their that are "Only on X-box" or "Only on X-box 360" really mean "Not on any other consoles!"

I play games, and prefer consoles for the ease of play. However, to get the most for my money, I have to say that the PC is far superior in almost every respect.

The only thing that I can think of is a game that is for the PC and the 360 are going to cost a huge difference in terms of all components bought.

TV + console + game =~ $1000

Same game, and a PC and peripherals required to play it =~ $1200+ (usually)

Do you get more for your money on a PC? Absolutely. Which is why I think anyone that says "Get a console if you want to play games. That is not what PCs are for" is spouting absolute poppy****.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-16, 10:59 PM

For example?

DVDs, music, arcade games, and a few other things. Like has been said, nothing a PC can't do (well, except some of the arcade stuff), but it's still nice to have it on the system.

@Logic: No one is saying that PCs aren't meant for gaming. Well, technically they aren't, but they're extremely good at it. And yes, despite all appearances I do prefer my PC to my consoles in terms of gaming. I'm just making the point that consoles have a legitimate place in any gamers selection. As for the $1000 price tag you're putting on the whole console set up, for one my TV only cost something like $200, and it still works fine for me (though it's a bit small for multiplayer :smallannoyed: ). And most people already have a TV, so I don't really include it in the cost, since I'd assume you already have one.

Of course, by the same logic you can assume that a person already has a cheapy computer. The cost of upgrading it is higher, though not hugely so, than getting a Wii or 360 (not a PS3, but they suck anyways).

The main problem I have with people saying that the 360 has prohibitively limited selection is the fact that I don't feel confined at all. I can list a dozen games that the 360 has or will have within the coming year that won't work on my PC, but I'm really looking forward to playing. Gears of War, G.R.A.W., G.R.A.W. 2, Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Too Human, Mass Effect, Shadowrun, Halo 3, and that's just naming a few. My worry isn't running out of games to play on the 360, my worry is running out of the time and money I need to play them.:smallfrown: So yeah, I do prefer my PC to my 360, but the gap isn't nearly as big as some people seem to think.

P.S. Why does every post I make on this thread end up being super long?

Neon Knight

2007-06-16, 11:17 PM

Logic

2007-06-16, 11:27 PM

@Logic: No one is saying that PCs aren't meant for gaming.

Ask many a Mac user what computers are for, and they will assume you are using them for anything but gaming, since they apparently don't use them for such. One has even gone so far as to tell me to stop playing games on a computer, and get a console, since that is what consoles were designed for.

Beleriphon

2007-06-16, 11:58 PM

Ask many a Mac user what computers are for, and they will assume you are using them for anything but gaming, since they apparently don't use them for such. One has even gone so far as to tell me to stop playing games on a computer, and get a console, since that is what consoles were designed for.

Of course the appropriate retort is asking an Apple computer owner why they're using an Apple for anything other than graphics and video editing, since that's what Apple computer's were originally designed to be used for.

Also, Mac users don't play games on them because most companies can't be bother to produce games for such a small market share. So Mac users don't play games on their computers because they don't want to, its because they can't.

Logic

2007-06-17, 12:10 AM

Of course the appropriate retort is asking an Apple computer owner why they're using an Apple for anything other than graphics and video editing, since that's what Apple computer's were originally designed to be used for.

Also, Mac users don't play games on them because most companies can't be bother to produce games for such a small market share. So Mac users don't play games on their computers because they don't want to, its because they can't.

That inability to play games has made many Mac users seem like condescending snobs that don't think comuters are for games. (Look at any of the new Mac commercials to see my example of Mac snobbery.)

So, I can honestly say you are preaching to the choir Beleriphon.

Neon Knight

2007-06-17, 12:16 AM

I thought there was an application called Boot Camp that let Mac users run windows on thier machines, thus letting them play PC games.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-17, 02:36 AM

G.R.A.W. and G.R.A.W. 2 have been released for the PC. Since Halo is on the PC, and Halo 2 is coming to Vista, it is a safe bet Halo 3 will come out for the PC at some point.

Otherwise, a solid list of console only games.

Yeah, but none of those will run on my PC, and it would actually cost a lot more to upgrade than to get the 360. The biggest barrier on my computer is that whatever moron designed it didn't include and AGP for the graphics card, so what I have is about the best it'll support. Being only able to use a PCI card means that my graphics capabilities are on the low end of the spectrum.:smallannoyed:

Setra

2007-06-17, 06:44 AM

Prustan

2007-06-17, 06:51 AM

Shadowrun and Bioshock are also on PC. Plus Shadowrun (though being a horribly limited parody of the P&P role-playing game it's named for :smallfurious: ) looks like an interesting Counter-Strike style FPS that both XBox 360 and PC players can play - against each other.

Alex Kidd

2007-06-17, 09:31 AM

I vastly prefer gaming on a console to a PC. Primarily becuase I prefer the games on consoles. While I certainly agree most FPS games and RTS are far better on PCs sometimes if a company tries really hard they can go the other way (Metroid Prime and Pikmin I can't really imagine on a PC), but truly the PC is better for these(though the Wii could have been a contender if not for the reliance on graphics on most FPS' and RTS'). PCs simply don't have action games,J-RPGs, those wierd genreless games that populate consoles and these days hand helds are where adventure and sidescrollers are. Frankly PCs really only have multiplayer games, and I game for escapism, if I want to do something with people I go hang around with my friends.

The other problem(which has pretty much killed my PC gaming, I used to do it about 1/3 of the gaming I did) is maintenance, which is interesting on a PC shared with people who are pretty PC illiterate yet still use the internet.

LordVader

2007-06-17, 09:34 AM

... I play RTS's in single-player all the time. PC also has some great shooters, i.e. Battlefield 2142, Halo 2 (now), etc. If you think they only have multiplayer games, you need to look at the games that are out there for the PC. Almost all games are meant to be "multiplayer", even splitscreen, but PC isn't all multiplayer. Especially with TBS games.

Alex Kidd

2007-06-17, 09:54 AM

RTS' are okay single player, but it always felt like a warmup for the multiplayer to me, just with scripted melodrama rather than flaming. And while yeah there are some FPS with good single player on the PC (Half Life 2, the NOLF series, I still love Serious Sam 1) most are just boring and pretty. And while there are some good single player games out there, particularly among the older games (eg older RPGs, Dungeon Keeper, the earlier Sim, Tycoon and Theme games) there aren't really enough newer ones to justify the efort and cost of maintaining a functional good PC. I'd rather just have a 360 and get the exclusives as well.

Jibar

2007-06-17, 10:01 AM

...that both XBox 360 and PC players can play - against each other.

Umm... no.
No, don't believe that.
Because as it stands, the link between the two is horrible. The systems are poorly managed, and the methods of linking up can render many PC players at a loss, when playing with much faster running 360 users who will cause good lag on a high end PC, putting the player at a disadvantage.
It's a nice idea, really, but so far badly executed.

I've got to say, I like both the PC and Console equally.

Console games will generally run better, have improved graphics, and much simpler gameplay controls ("Hey, look, a keyboard, that's at least 26 buttons. Let's add something onto each of them, despite the fact that the player will be able to use the mouse to access these features far easier than they could be memorising the shortcut keys.").
Above this, my favorite genre, platformers, fail, bad, on a PC, yet find brilliant light on a Console.

PC has a wide range of games available, the problems in game can be fixed through patches and can do things Consoles can't through the mouse.
And then PC got something I absolutely love, modding. You can't mod a Console game without going to real trouble to do so, yet many PC games include software to mod the game with it. I've wasted hours designing maps on Warcraft III that only I will ever play, yet it's so much fun.
The PC is also superior in retro work. Sure, you can download old games on the Wii and 360, but for money, when I can find them for free on the internet. Plus, on a console if I want to play a NES game I have to actually find a NES. For a PC, I can just pop it in and get playing (except for Populos. Damn you Bullfrog.)

LordVader

2007-06-17, 11:55 AM

Oh yeah, mods are awesome. That's another reason I like the PC, there are some seriously awesome mods out there.

Lokey

2007-06-17, 12:17 PM

Yeah, but none of those will run on my PC, and it would actually cost a lot more to upgrade than to get the 360. The biggest barrier on my computer is that whatever moron designed it didn't include and AGP for the graphics card, so what I have is about the best it'll support. Being only able to use a PCI card means that my graphics capabilities are on the low end of the spectrum.:smallannoyed:
AGP is on the way out. Main boards made in the last year mostly don't have AGP anymore or it's included as an afterthought, and many video card chip sets don't have an AGP version or it's also an afterthought. It should be a relatively inexpensive thing to replace, but mother board is probably the trickiest to swap out and get everything running normally again.

For computers in general, I'm comfortable saying I can put together something more capable than the current consoles for the PS3 price tag, but it's close (the console tends to be a loss leader, but notice the price of console games inching up--but it's not easy to rent pc game titles either?). Putting a PC together from components is usually quick and painless, and will save you a chunk of cash. Getting the knowledge to do so is probably going to take a lot less effort than learning say DnD for example, there really isn't that much to know to be able to choose good components, put them together, know the signs of when something is going wrong and getting everything running crash/bug free (I think I've crashed WinXP three times and Ubuntu once in the past year, PCLinuxOS still crash-free :smallamused: ).

Quality of games usually comes down to the developers and what kind of time and money they have to make and test the game--or why did say Metal Gear Solid 2 look and run so much better than what was available on the PS2 at the time? Also I'm finding most games on pretty much all platforms just too derivative these days--X repackaged but prettier and you're lucky if it performs as well as the original (I like most game genres, but prefer multiplayer and tools unfortunately these are few and far between).

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-17, 01:39 PM

Actually, I upgraded my computer for roughly the price of the 360, and went from not being able to play Battlefield 2142, to being able to play GRAW 2

Yeah, but then I'd have to buy a whole new computer to do it, which would cost significantly more. It's just not within the capabilities of my computer to be upgraded much better than it already is. So while a bunch of those games will indeed run on a PC, they won't run on mine. I'll probably be getting another computer in a couple of years, but for now I can play everything on my 360.

Setra

2007-06-17, 01:46 PM

Yeah, but then I'd have to buy a whole new computer to do it, which would cost significantly more. It's just not within the capabilities of my computer to be upgraded much better than it already is. So while a bunch of those games will indeed run on a PC, they won't run on mine. I'll probably be getting another computer in a couple of years, but for now I can play everything on my 360.
I did get a new comp.. pretty much

New Motherboard, Processor, RAM, Video card...

Only thing that wasn't new was my soundcard, which I later found was broken, so I just use a built in one (which works just fine anyways).

Neon Knight

2007-06-17, 01:47 PM

Except most of those only apply if you're half-braindead and shouldn't be running a computer in the first place.

If you don't know how to work your computer, or can't fix it on your own, you don't deserve to have one.

Exceedingly harsh. Many people could not repair major malfunctions with their cars; do they not deserve to have automobiles?

LordVader

2007-06-17, 02:22 PM

That is an exceedingly harsh statement. For example, I doubt you know how to repair(at least one) your car, your pipes, your electrical system, or your heating/air conditioning system. By your logic, that means you shouldn't have any of these.

Setra

2007-06-17, 02:55 PM

I do agree that people shouldn't have computers if they don't know how to work them to some extent.

But that's because my Father used to work in Tech Support.

"I'm calling because the cup holder in my computer broke"

However, I don't see why they'd have to know how to repair every problem, that's what forums are for :smalltongue:

FdL

2007-06-17, 06:37 PM

Well, as I thought it seems like you can't do **** with a console other than playing it (watching dvds and listening to music is out of the question really).

Seems like the Xbox 360 has a pretty limited range of titles. I mean, what if you don't like FPS games?

Macs are for snobs, that's for sure. Snobs with lots of money (those two things seem to go together somehow).

Plus, on a console if I want to play a NES game I have to actually find a NES. For a PC, I can just pop it in and get playing (except for Populos. Damn you Bullfrog.)

Dude, you do know that Populous was originally a PC game, don't you???? :S :S :S
The very notion that there's a version for the NES adds infinitely to the PC side of this discussion. Geez... *shakes head*

I do agree that people shouldn't have computers if they don't know how to work them to some extent.

Yeah, I do too. The problem is that nowadays computers are designed to be used by people who won't know how to use them. Think about it.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-17, 07:00 PM

Except most of those only apply if you're half-braindead and shouldn't be running a computer in the first place.

If you don't know how to work your computer, or can't fix it on your own, you don't deserve to have one.

Um, yeah, so if my hard-drive breaks, and I don't have a degree as a computer technician, I shouldn't own a computer in the first place? There's a reason that businesses exist that repair your computer for you, that being that sometimes when a computer breaks it's something you can't fix unless you know exactly what you're doing. I can understand it if the problem is "huh, my computer just shut off during that power outage, I wonder what the problem is?" or "how do I use Microsoft Word?", but if it's an actual problem with the hardware being broken, you can't expect everyone to know what to do. I'd like to see you be able to fix every single problem your computer could potentially have. They idea that only people who can fix a computer in any mishap should own one is moronic.

Logic

2007-06-17, 07:28 PM

Except most of those only apply if you're half-braindead and shouldn't be running a computer in the first place.

If you don't know how to work your computer, or can't fix it on your own, you don't deserve to have one.

By that logic, I don't deserve to own an automobile, but I do deserve to own $250,000,000 aircraft.

As long as a product exists that require maintenance, the business to repair that product will be a neccesity. As long as the product is easier to operate than maintain, then someone is going to have to do the maintenance for those that cannot.

Alex Kidd

2007-06-17, 08:59 PM

Well, as I thought it seems like you can't do **** with a console other than playing it (watching dvds and listening to music is out of the question really).
What? Why? Being able to watch DVDs(and sometimes Blue Ray or HD-DVDs) and play games with one machine is pretty convienient.

Seems like the Xbox 360 has a pretty limited range of titles. I mean, what if you don't like FPS games? Action games, XBLA and an increasing number of RPGs both from Japan and the West. And of course that's just one system.

Macs are for snobs, that's for sure. Snobs with lots of money (those two things seem to go together somehow). Can't argue, except maybe add snobs that don't know what they're doing. I'm pretty sure
Alchemistmerlin covers snobs with some degree of competency.

Dude, you do know that Populous was originally a PC game, don't you???? :S :S :S
The very notion that there's a version for the NES adds infinitely to the PC side of this discussion. Geez... *shakes head*
What I think he was saying was that it's no longer pick up and play due to age, likely needing DOSBOX or something. Just guessing, but I think that's what he was saying.

Wojiz

2007-06-17, 09:02 PM

I love how you said the 360 has 'an increasing number of RPGs' from the East.
Let's see, there's Blue Dragon... Lost Odyssey... Hm, guess that's it.

And don't get me started about 'Western' RPGs on the 360, because I'd go into a rant screaming that Oblivion ain't an RPG, and then people who get upset, knives would be tossed.

Alex Kidd

2007-06-17, 09:19 PM

I love how you said the 360 has 'an increasing number of RPGs' from the East. Let's see, there's Blue Dragon... Lost Odyssey... Hm, guess that's it. Eternal Sonata, Enchanted Arms, a few other I forget the name of. True not many, more than on the PC though, which is what we're comparing it too.

And don't get me started about 'Western' RPGs on the 360, because I'd go into a rant screaming that Oblivion ain't an RPG, and then people who get upset, knives would be tossed.

Bah whatever...... it's getting Fallout 3 too.*runs*

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-17, 10:14 PM

And in terms of other games the 360 gets exclusively (for now at least), it gets Assassin's Creed, Halo 3, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Too Human (which, despite a rocky beginning is shaping up to be completely awesome), etc., and these are just the ones I'm personally interested in. True, not an enormous collection, but more than enough to keep me interested. There's also a huge number of non-exclusive games to pick from, such as Oblivion, the G.R.A.W. games, Shadowrun, BioShock, etc. As I've stated in the past, I'm going to run out of time and money before I run out of games on my 360. Now, the Wii I've heard is somewhat limited though, and don't get me started on the PS3. Seriously, if you're going to buy one of those you'd get more entertainment out giving me the $600 and telling me to dance like a monkey than you'll ever get out of that system.

Alex Kidd

2007-06-18, 12:08 AM

Jibar

2007-06-18, 02:53 AM

Dude, you do know that Populous was originally a PC game, don't you???? :S :S :S
The very notion that there's a version for the NES adds infinitely to the PC side of this discussion. Geez... *shakes head*

What? I'm talking about Populous: The Beginning. It's one of the few games that has managed to hold my attention for months at a time. I'm complaining that no matter what I try I cannot get it to work on my XP computer. It used to work on my 98 if I kept trying, but now it does nothing.

I'm actually going to spend some time this summer doing over our old computer to turn it into a retro gaming rig, then go and whore myself out on some of those £5 a go game stands.

Erloas

2007-06-18, 09:45 AM

As far as being able to fix a computer to use one, I think it comes down to what needs to be done. I wouldn't expect most people to diagnos a MB issue that only crashs the system once a month or a failure that leaves nothing working, or anything like that, but I would expect that anyone should be able to take a couple screws out of a CD drive and change it out or turn off a couple programs so you don't have 100 different things loading at startup that are rarely if ever used.

As far as tha analogy to fixing a car, I would say its much more like changing a tire, checking tire pressure and adding washer and coolient fluid. That is the sort of stuff everyone should be able to do but doesn't really seem to be the case.

The skills it takes to put a PC together are very minimal. In fact the major system builders hire people that don't know anything about PCs to put them together for them. Even some of the testing the manufacturers do can be done by people will absolutely no experience with a PC. I know first hand that Intel will hire people to test their motherboards (involving taking a blank motherboard and adding processor, video card, HDs, and PSU, and then running a scripted test) with no experience at all and have them doing it on their own on the first day. (I, of course, had experience doing it but most of the people I worked with did not.)

As far as costs, you can get a PC together for about $600 that will run everything out there today, maybe not at the greatest settings but they will run pretty well. You can save even more of that if you reuse a case and/or hard drive and CD drive, none of which have drastically changed and should all be compatable with a new system.

Mr._Blinky

2007-06-18, 01:32 PM

The 360 wasn't any better at this stage of it's lifespan either. I mean really you had.... nothing for 3 months then Oblivion..... then Dead Rising and Saints Row 3 or 4 months later..... then stuff started to appear. Patience, the Wii at least looks like it's gonna heat up in the second half of this year. MP3, Brawl, Mario Galaxy, Manhunt 2, Opoona...

Yeah, but on the 360 at least you knew stuff was on the way. Not so lucky for PS3, there being a grand total of like three interesting games on the way.

By the way, on the issue of reliability, has anyone had their 360 break on them? I haven't had any problems so far, and neither has anyone I know, but I have heard horror stories of people's consoles repeatedly breaking on them.

FdL

2007-06-18, 01:41 PM

What? I'm talking about Populous: The Beginning. It's one of the few games that has managed to hold my attention for months at a time. I'm complaining that no matter what I try I cannot get it to work on my XP computer. It used to work on my 98 if I kept trying, but now it does nothing.

Ahhh...You mean the third Populous game...The one with the 3D globe graphics. Well, it's weird that it doesn't work on XP. I'll check that one out. It was a great game, sure. I played MP quite a lot. There was an expansion, maybe they fixed compatibility with that. I'll give it a try in my older XP machine.