PC vs console gaming

Why, when I can play PC games on my Intel Mac now?

That's where you're wrong. Because gaming with a keyboard and mouse is better than playing Xbox titles.

<as he sites huddled in his dark windowless corner, eating potato chips and dreaming about the release of UT2006.... all the while keeping a close eye on his soaking retainer>

It's UT2007.


It's okay, Intel Macs can play PC games now, you don't need to pretend PC gaming is dead to feel good about yourself anymore.

If you played Call of Duty 2 on a PC, you'd realize that the shit looks more freaky real then it does on an xbox.

Can the PC-vs-console wang comparison please go elsewhere? Forum title: Mac OS. Thread title: Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs

If you want to talk about running a PC game with BootCamp on an Intel Mac, feel free, but otherwise, find another thread.

Thenk yew.

--Your friendly neighborhood Mod

"whatever the hell that is" = that little chip inside your computer that makes games run.

If you want to be honest, why the hell are you using a computer to play games? Gaming is great and all, but the whole idea behind the Mac is production. How productive are you playing Quake or someother ridiculous title? Not very. You're consuming air and space, thats about it. Congrats.

You win 'Worst Post Of The Thread'!

Congrats.

I'm sorry I have been using my computer in a way not approved by Apple. I was deceived that my activities were accepted by the fact that they have a games page on their website and install graphics cards in their computers.

I will try to better serve the republic of fun-free drudgery in the future.

Well that was original. Way to rationalize your own mediocrity. MOVING ALONG to other, more intelligent minds.....

We had nothing to do with your troubled childhood, so don't take it out on us.

Thanks.

Although the chances are relatively slim (although not completly out the door), My fantasy has for a while been to have a 'MacBox' or 'iGame' Because although I prefer the Xbox franchise, with 360 I'm starting to see some of Microsofts signature, "take something good and 'mess it up'"(for lack of a better phrase). And also because as a Mac Junkie, I have the natural disposition towards Microsoft and the desire to see Apple to succede.

F.E.A.R. is kinda freaky and cool. Is it available on consoles? HL2:Lost Coast was cool too, I'm waiting for HL2:Aftermath. HL2 was fun and intense. I just don't have an extra TV for console gaming and there's so many bloody titles to choose from. Plus it looks too addictive, console gaming...... Well that's my contribution. I guess I'm mainly into FPS on PC. A bit of CounterStrike with bots (my internet is crap) is kinda okay from time to time though I'm sick of CounterStrike by now. Also played too much UT2004 multiplayer so I guess waiting for UT2007. For the record, I got a nVidia 6600GT 128mb overclocked from 500mhz to 561mhz.

If you like gaming, all of the major platforms have their own exclusive titles. Plus, you don't have to upgrade your hardware every year, it's more like every 5 years that you get a new console.

Some games that are successful on the consoles just wouldn't work without a controller, and some games that are successful on a PC/Mac just wouldn't work without a keyboard or mouse. Both consoles and computers have their advantages and their drawbacks, it's too easy to dismiss one or the other out of hand.

Thankfully, I have a good HDTV for gaming and can get the full experience out of a 'next-gen' console. I'm not sure if I would have been nearly as quick to make the leap to get the Xbox 360 without the TV. I have heard (but still have not yet seen) that the 360 graphics are pretty much on par with the original Xbox when using a standard TV.

The MMORPG I've been playing for the last 3+ years, Shadowbane, was a PC/Mac Hybrid. It just wouldn't work on a console. It's really the only computer game that I've wanted to keep playing for any length of time, the others kind of sit there and aren't played. Unfortunately, Wolfpack Studios, the developer of the game, is being closed by UBI Soft on May 15th as they are becoming console exclusive (no PC or Mac titles at all). So who knows what the story with Shadowbane will be after May 15th.

I don't think Apple will throw their hat into the console ring, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. Consoles require a good amount of first party titles (meaning Apple would have to develop games). Take a look at what happened in the last generation of consoles with once successful Sega. They put everything they had into the Dreamcast and despite the PS2 launching with horrible titles and very few systems, it was enough to drive Sega under. Sega's games were better, they had an online service years before the PS2, and initially, their system had better graphics. But it couldn't play DVDs or old PS1 games and that's what ultimately killed it. Yes, Sega didn't have the warchest that other console makers like Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony had, but it's a really cutthroat business. Microsoft has lost money on the Xbox, Sony is going to have to take a bit loss, at least initially on the PS3, and Nintendo makes most of their money off of handhelds. Do you think Apple could really compete in that kind of market, and why would they want to?

Originally posted by Fran441
Thankfully, I have a good HDTV for gaming and can get the full experience out of a 'next-gen' console. I'm not sure if I would have been nearly as quick to make the leap to get the Xbox 360 without the TV. I have heard (but still have not yet seen) that the 360 graphics are pretty much on par with the original Xbox when using a standard TV.


That's the key issue about consoles. A regular TV would only give you what, 480x360 resolution max (and I'm being very generous here). You would really need a HDTV 720p (1280x720) to make the most of an XBOX360 and the graphics that's capable of.

That's one advantage PC games have over consoles - resolution, if you're using your console with a regular TV.

For the record, I'm not advocating PC over consoles or vice versa, just highlighting the resolution issue which still boggles my mind sometimes. That even the XBOX normal and PS2 can push out far more sharper, progressive pixels than a regular TV can display as interlaced lines.

As stated earlier, I think that while PC games and Console games do have some overlap, each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

It would be virtually impossible to play a strategy game on a console, you need a keyboard and mouse (hence Starcraft for SNES failed).

Also, First Person Shooters are much, much better on PCs. A controller joystick is simply not accurate or fast enough for hardcore competitive play. Some people might dissagree, but just try running, strafing, jumping, aiming and firing all at the same time on a controller, just doesnt happen.

RPGs are probably equally good on either a PC or Console, depending on the game complexity, etc. Same for racing games.

Flight Sims have more controller options on PCs. But a controller is far better than a keyboard and mouse.

For "Mario type" games and 3rd person games, you definetly need a controller. Im really excited about the Nintendo Revolution. The old games were really the best.

I dont understand why some people think the Xbox is so great. What games does it have that are better than the PS2 or PC? Halo? Dont make me laugh, it was one of the lamest FPSs Ive ever played. The story was actually pretty decent until it got to "The Flood", then it became so cheesy I couldnt stand it.

In contrast, Final Fantasy X was the PS2s killer game, which rocked.

But in reality, most games were/are available for both...

So I think the advantages of the PC are:

Strategy
Flight Sim
First Person Shooter


Console:

3rd person
Most RPGs
Most racing games

This is retarded...

Each system has its advantages and it is dependent on the game DESIGNERS to use them...

To be honest both platforms are equally able to play games.

Hear hear.

I still find a keyboard to be the worst game interface ever devised. Instead of thinking about how to produce the best interface from scratch, most UI 'designers' seem to be of the opinion "Throw it on a key somewhere... we've got over 100 of them..."

Many keys are fine, just please... come up with a better device or game-internal system that gives at least a nod to intelligent layout.

Ah well. Lowest common denominator and all that, wins the day every time I guess.

Well, unwritten rule of FPS: w for front, a for left, s for down, d for right, space for jump. left mouse for shoot, right mouse for alt-fire... But actually a lot of keys in FPS are user configurable so you're not locked in to a particular interface (except in that your stuck with a keyboard and mouse).

RealTimeStrategy and RolePlaying may be different though...

Nope, RTS is pretty much the same.

Yah uk i don't exactly understand why PC gamers say that their technology blows the stuff in the 360 away when the 360 has a three 3.2 gHz proccesors and the prototype graphics cards which will be in PC's in a few months-to a year.

I hate the keyboard and mouse, why? Because it takes no skill...Anyone can just play games with a keyboard and mouse as long as they know like the most basic fundemental things about playings games, like how the mouse aims and the keys move...give someone a console controller and see how much longer it takes them, even if they know the basics. Console gaming requires much more cordination is my opinion.

Try playing Oblivion on the 360...and then try playing on the PC...the 360 is a much better experiance, unless you put thousands and thousands of dollers into a top-of-the-line PC and even then the 360 will prolly run the game smoother. COD2 used 1 core of the 360. Oblivion is the only game that uses all 3 so far.

Don't talk to me about Final Fantasy X...I hate those games, but I love Halo, so I guess we are even, that's just a matter of opinion. And with the run, straff, jumping, aiming, and shooting all at the same time...easily done on a console. I also personally like how the trigger on the 360 controller is an actually trigger...gives the game some more real-world depth. You pull trigger, game shoots. Strategy games are much better on the PC, though I'm hoping that they will allow you to hook up a keyboard and mouse for STRATEGY GAMES ONLY!!! While I think that FPS on a console is a better experiance and more difficult, I also think that joystick would be crushed by a person with a mouse any day. Just cause its easier...

Must not retaliate against stupid post, must ignore, must, aaaaahhhh!

I use this, it wont be availble in the US until end of April.

Heh... "Mystify Claw"... sounds badass...

The Xbox 360 has 3 SPEs. And the graphics card is a last generation X1800. And I have played Oblivion on both platforms, and the PC looks noticably better. The designers had a lower the texture size in order for it to work on Xbox.

Hmm ok thanks for clearing that up. I guess microsoft just worded their way around stuff. Not that i care lol still the best console out there neways.

Certainly.

The only significant advantage computers had over consoles for gaming was networkability. The xBox 1 and PS2 technically had it, but I don't know anyone who actually got it set up. If the XBox 360 and PS3 are much easier to network and play online, then I can't see PC gaming going very far. Consider also that for every PC gamer out there who thinks games need to run with mouse and keyboard, there are ten hardcore console gamers who think that control pads are much more suitable.

Seriously: Let's say you have an XBOX360 or a hypothetical PS3 hooked up to an HD TV set. How in the world is a PC going to provide a better experience?

A 24" 1920x1200 display and a 7900GTX.

How is that going to be better than an HD TV and a modern console? It certainly costs more than an XBOX360, an HDTV, and a bunch of games all together, but last I checked it was better for cost to be lower, rather than higher.

Well you never brought price into the equation. A better experience would be a 1080p monitor and 2x 7900GTXs. No one ever said that PC gaming was cheaper, it it much more expensive, but it is a much better experience and much better IMO.

How is that Ferrari going to be better than a Yugo? It certainly costs more than a Yugo, but last I checked it was better for cost to be lower, rather than higher.

Um, you get what you pay for?

The car analogies continue to be stupid. An 18 wheeler also costs more than a car, has more power, and is probaby a lot more receptive to modifications, but which one would you rather have in a race? That's how I see the PC vs. console debate. Consoles are made for gaming, and they do a better job at it. Hence the experience is better. Until now there was a "performance" argument in favor of PC gaming, but that's fizzled away. Regardless of how many pixels the 7900 is advertised to push, it doesn't really do anything more for the user than does the XBOX360. I continue to be baffled at the pro-PC camp, and I can only figure that they're in a deep state of denial stemming from over-purchasing PC hardware.

You use a prosthetic foot to play games? WIld!

But seriously, with each generation of console there is less and less a point to cluttering up a computer with games aside from things like the sims and other simple time waster games.

PS3+online capability(when ever it gets here) will blow the water off anything else on the market right now.

.0001% of people think a keyboard is a good gaming option? Most of these consoles will undoubtedly offer a keyboard.

Buying one machine and just poping in disks is way better than installing a game or drivers and patches and stuff, for the average consumer(read: almost all consumers) this is way more convient and fun.

PC gaming isn't dead with you'd be lying out your ass if you said the market isn't dwindling, it's only a matter of time.