PC vs console gaming - Page 2

The 360 is super easy to get online. I just plugged it into my router. I have a wireless controller and the headset plugs into that. Now I can voice chat with other players in any game I play through Xbox Live. No 3rd party programs to install/configure, it's in every Live enabled game. Makes it a hell of a lot easier to give/receive commands and adds much to the immersion.

IMO. gaming wirelessly from my couch using a 42" 720p DLP is much more comfortable then sitting at any computer station.

PC vs. Console.

Interesting question, but it really boils down to opinion. Both the keyboard and the controller for consoles (Xbox, PS2/3, gamecube... etc..) take skill to learn and operate well. If you wanted to get really technical, i suppose one could say that the controller on an xbox takes a bit more time to learn due to the joystick problems some people have, while on the keyboard you press this button to go forward, and this button to go backwards. But thats splitting hairs, they both take skill to lern and be good at.

The price point is ineresting. PC gaming costs more than console gaming, no doubt. The games for each cost about the same, nothing major to report there. More on this later..

The games are the selling point, obviously. You cant have PC gaming without PC games, and the same for consoles. Battlefield 2 is the most realistic FPS that i have encountered on the PC, and CoD or Ghost Recon Advanced warfighter gets the same title for consoles. All three are excellent games, and all cost the same. CoD and GR: AW are on the 360, and BF2 is on the PC. You can say that it costs more to run BF2 than it does for CoD on the 360. My point here is, unless you have a good game to go with the hardware, having the most advanced Video card or the best processors doesnt matter. Personally, i would choose an awesome PC over a 360. Thats just me, however.

Which delievers the better graphics you ask? Right now, the PC does, probably because developers have barely scratched the surface of what the 360 is capable. (im not going to talk about PS3, its not out yet). If anyone can shed some light on why PC graphics are better than console graphics, please do; im not sure about this one. Anyway, the point is that PC graphics are better than console graphics, for the moment. This should be the primary concern of a hardcore gamer, after the gameplay is considered. Graphics dont matter without gameplay. However, i know it helps tremendously to have a good vid card with BF2, so its still a factor.

Like i said, it all comes down to which game you like the best, and which method of controlling you like the best. Im only posting this to try and make people see you cant argue about opinions. Ok, if you like consoles better, thats great. Ok, if you like PC's better, thats great. Anyone who answeres 'Which is better?' is going to have a biased answer.

For consoles, the argument is that there's less overhead, largely because there's no variance in hardware, so the library authors can tweak the bejeezes out it. For PC's, the argument is that you can buy a high end card for $500 that theoretically can push more pixels than the card in a console. Of course, more than just the GPU is required for graphics, and when the PS3 comes out, I think it's going to be A WHILE before PCs can even catch up on paper.

Obviously, gaming peaked with coin-op arcade consoles, and has only gone downhill since then.

Now let me get my walker, I'm late for my dialysis appt.

Thats why i didnt include the PS3 in my post, its going to be such an outlier to the video processing industry, and would also have made my post practically useless.

BattleFront 2 came out for the 360 either this week or last. Some of the people on my friend's list are playing the bejeezus out of the online demo.

Why's that, when the designer of the PS3 graphics hardware is also one of the two players in the PC graphics industry? And sorry, but I really don't thin the PS3 will surpass PC gaming, and if it does, it'll only be for one or two months.

Because there's more to processing graphics than just a GPU. The PS2 has a 333MHz MIPS, if I remember correctly, and otherwise a pretty normal GPU for the time of its release. Yet when compared to PC games on higher end hardware, it had much better graphics and speed. You seem to forget that the Cell, when clocked slower than what will show in the PS3, benchmarked at 250Gflops in a prototype IBM server blade. It should be able to feed the GPU much faster than any PC to show up for a while. The demos that people have seen do appear to confirm the hype.

You really have to appreciate the PS3: I don't think this much work has ever been put into a device meant to produce graphics or play games, and certainly not from a relative point of view since the 8-bit Nintendo. Keep in mind that aside from some of the exotic Macs of the late 80's, it really took until 1990 or so for PC's to catch up to it. I expect the same will be true for the PS3.

Why do people act like PC gamings better graphics even matter?

Does that really make the game sooooo much better?

360 COD2 and PC COD2 don't look that different if your using a sick pc, so why the effort for the pc version?

You can't rent pc games. I've played way more console titles than I own.

How many games do pc gamers end up playing and owning religously?

Like 10?

With console games I can play in person with friends, without lugging my computer over, I can play games like fighting games with family or people that don't game often. I can have someone watch as I play a game, or they play.

These are all things that console games can do, that pcs can't - at least not easily.

And not consoles can go online taking away the one plus pcs had.

Console gaming is much more sociable, while pc games aren't, it's more selfish.

More people will always choose the more sociable aspect vs the more personal one.

That's why people don't have 13 inch tvs in their living rooms, they have much bigger because it's meant for more people to enjoy than just one person hunched over a small screen themselves.

I've tried to watch a friend play a pc game before.
Not very fun.

Meanwhile I've had my entire family watch me play an interesting console game.

It's the ease of use and large screen size and huge variation of good title that make consoles a winner.

Hardware wise consoles are easily a match for anything but the top of the line PCs a launch. All you need to do is look at Oblivion on the Xbox compared to a mid range PC. As time goes on the downfall of consoles is they don't develop like PCs but then that means far less investment over time. Mind you developers eek more out of them with the 2nd gen of games that's for sure.

The only genre I think that is not designed for consoles are RTS games. I just don't think they do well on consoles. The rest I'd prefer to sit in front of a much larger tv and play from a comfy couch. Certainly you don't see social games like the eye toy or singstar on the PC either.

But I have a PC already so I just use that for gaming. Otherwise I'd need to buy a console and a HDTV or regular TV to play games. Is this a valid argument for PC gaming? Convenience and the fact that you ALREADY HAVE A BLOODY PC SITTING THERE Affordability mate.

Pc gaming is and always will be best:

1. you can upgrade your computer constantly to meet or beat new game requirements.
2. there are many ways of getting games for free... if you know whawt i mean.
3. keyboard and mouse control will always surpass single controller in maximum control and ease.
4. eventually ps3 and xbox technologies will be available to pcs
5. emulators let games run on pcs.
6. and you can do far more with pcs.
7. and if you have the 30" cinema display, it really looks amazing.
8. pcs you can upgrade over time rather than having to buy all at once like a console. and if you want a harddrive in the console, it costs more..
9. plus, FPS are sucky on consoles, they're meant for a mouse and keyboard.
10. eventually, smaller, but faster computers will come out. larger screens with better video support will come out as well..
11. plus, we have moore's law for pcs..
thats all for now..

Aside from the fact that Halo on the xBox has got to be the most popular FPS by far. It works great with the controller. The second most popular is probably GoldenEye for N64.

I'd be willing to bet more people would have a console and tv combo than computers capable of gaming. There's no contest on affordability.

Console's dream of becoming Pcs need I say more? Pc rules and really rules when mated to a top end video card. Consoles are for kiddies.

This reason is why more game companies (like Ubi) are switching to console-only releases. More people actually buy the games. With game costs reaching into movie territory, the game companies need to recoup their investment. Think about that the next time you pat yourself on the back for illegally obtaining a $40 game.

1. So what upgrade your computer so it can be up to date, and play games well? I don't feel like spending money every year to do that when a console will last me a long time, for cheaper.

2. I would rather be more legal.
3. Not in my opinion and all my friends. The hotkeys on a keyboard kill me.
4. Yah but you will have to pay more for them then you will for a console.
5. Again if your PC isn't upgraded all the time than many of the emulated
games won't work all to well.
6. Yes you can, but what i don't do is game on them. I use them for work
AIM and keeping in touch with people. I can do that with a low-level PC,
and get a console for cheaper than it would be to get a good gaming PC.
7. And spend more money?
8. I would rather buy all at once anyways.
9. I prefer FPS on a console. It takes more skill and the controller adds
another dimension to the game.
10. Err if PC's get smaller than won't consoles? And won't larger screens
come out for consoles too? lol

Conclusion that I got from your post: Pc's are for people with lots of money to throw away.

nah, xbox 360 is not much smaller than its xbox. if you build a sick pc or mac, it shouldnt need upgrading for some time, plus with modern system, an upgrade won't be needed for 2-3 years.. also, xbox, ps2, 360, etc can be modded to play burned games and thier HDs can be equipped with pre loaded games. my friend has an xbox with 50 pre loaded games on its HD. plus, i like listening to music off my mac while i play games. also, interfaces and menus in games are rather annoying and look bad in pretty much all games, but are easier to navigate with a mouse. you gotta pay to play online games on console, whereas most online games are a one time pay thing.. i play console games, but i prefer warcraft 3, counter strike, half life 2 (without the watered down graphics), starcraft, age of empires, age of mythology, cs: source, which are not available on console and aare perhaps the best games in my opinion. and many console games are realeased on pc anyway and vice versa, but more games are available for pcs.

Everybody who's tested out the Smartjoy Frag with Halo 2 and a decent mouse has concurred that it absolutely whips the hell out of using a controller.

It's somewhere between the original PS2 and the xbox. It's not as wide and way less high than the original xbox. It loses about 1.5 and 2 cm respectively.

It does. I could beat myself if i had a mouse vs controller battle...and i don't use a mouse for FPS ever! I use the controller all the time, so pretty much it takes less skill with the mouse. A lot less.

I've played both Console and PC games and own both types and I'll stick with my GameCube. My reasons are that all my favorite games are on Gamecube, Nintendo is and always will be the cheaper solution yet still be right up there with the best!

I bought my GC about 3 weeks ago and it was my best investment ever!

Oh and no one has mentioned Metroid Prime it's a FPS and it's easy and extremly fun to play, another point is that Graphics while important are not 'the' most important thing, that would should be actually having fun which is the reason games are made!

btw I writing this while playing Wind waker... Id like to see you you PC guys do this! (this is multi tasking)


Oh and one more thing... ZELDA ROCKS!!!

Halo has a relatively dumbed down shooting interface compared to some FPS that require you to have 2 pixel accuracy with your analog stick.

Is that more "skill"? Not really. Its compensating for a poor UI. I could buy it for gun games with an actual gun controller as more "realistic" (for pistols anyway) but mostly it just masks poor game design (or one designed for a mouse and a keyboard).

The biggest advantage for PC games IMHO is the ability for the community to mod more easily. I've gotten pretty good value from PC games because there is replayability when I DL community generated mods. Everyone that PC games automatically will have a keyboard, mouse and HD.

With regards to affordability most PCs can be adequate gaming rigs with the addition of more ram and a halfway decent vid card. Until you can do homework on a 360 the cost delta between a computer with integrated video and one with a low end card is the price of an XBox (around $200). Not as good as a 360 but more affordable and probably about par with most folks' rigs.

That said, I always thought that MS Office Edu would make a great 360 "title".

Vinea

That's like saying that steering your car using your knees requires more skill than using your hands because its harder.

"I could get so much better times on a SCCA race course if I used my hands to steer...and I don't use my hands for racing ever!. I use my knees all the time so it pretty much takes less skill with hands. A lot less."

If you were using a M4A1 mockup for a controller I'd give you realism and props for skill.

FPS's often irk me because too often the "skills" required are just bleeding stupid. Okay, I'm playing some semi-realistic FPS with real world weapons. The "tactics" required to succeed are to jump around like a moron while strafing because the game engine makes that better than full cover and interlocking fields of fire because the game mechanis makes it difficult to hit the moron jumping around even in open terrain at short ranges whereas in real life he's soon be a lifeless moron bleeding out.

I don't want realism (I prefer cinematic games) but I do prefer to not to have to suspend disbelief to that level in a genre game.

Vinea

OMFG I don't know how anyone can play Tomb Raider : Legend on a console. If you're using a TV, it's hard to see the details of the cracks to hold on to, etc. And console-style games, too bloody hard! Man Tomb Raider : Legend is soooo hard: it's like you die every five seconds Maybe I'm just an idiot. But I finished Half Life 2 and F.E.A.R. on moderate/easy settings. *sigh* I don't know what happened to my IQ, I thought Age of Empires 3, and Star Wars : Empire at War was just way too complicated and not really fun. Maybe I should just fucking ditch my PC, get a Mac mini, and a simple TV with a Nintendo GameCube. I get a great OS X experience, have lots of fun with the GameCube games, and well, maybe I'll just read the book version of Half Life 2 and F.E.A.R.


WTF.

Originally posted by vinea
FPS's often irk me because too often the "skills" required are just bleeding stupid. Okay, I'm playing some semi-realistic FPS with real world weapons. The "tactics" required to succeed are to jump around like a moron while strafing because the game engine makes that better than full cover and interlocking fields of fire because the game mechanis makes it difficult to hit the moron jumping around even in open terrain at short ranges whereas in real life he's soon be a lifeless moron bleeding out.


F.E.A.R. AI's pretty good, you gotta use cover real well otherwise you'll be gunned down pretty fast. And when you're ducking for cover while some of the bad guys are shooting at you, one of them can actually do a flanking manuever and start shooting at you from the left. F.E.A.R. does require "skills" IMHO.

Half Life 2 also requires a lot of smart use of cover, especially if you're taking on a gunship. Jumping around like a moron will get you killed fast.

Yeah, that ended with Doom 3 (Hopefully)

Originally posted by vinea
.......That said, I always thought that MS Office Edu would make a great 360 "title".

WTF? LMAO

Heh, I wasn't joking. The 360 has enough compute power that it would be better than a $299 dell for homework if it had office and explorer.

Might piss Dell off and you are losing a WinXP sale to lose money on a hardware sale...

Vinea

I don't doubt that this may be true, I'm just saying that the majority of people are more likely to buy a console and pick up a controller, and the statistics/economics prove that I am right. PC gaming isn't going to die as long as companies can profit on it, which should be for at least the foreseeable future. But all reports seem to show that the part of the pie consumed by console gaming keeps getting larger and larger, which should continue and even strengthen the trend for game developers to develop for consoles first, support consoles better than PCs, and devote more dollars to making console games.

I think the problem with the PC vs. console argument is always that "PC gamers" will always harp on some ephemeral facet of the PC experience (e.g. graphics cards, keyboard, mice) whilst the real engine driving the industry is the bottom line, which is driven by economics. Ultimately, it's not unlikely that a console developer could wipe out the last vestiges of PC gaming by providing similar or better solutions to these aspects that make the PC experience unique. The fact that Sony and MS dumped so much money into their consoles, and that it's likely the PS3 will provide an fluidness and experience far beyond what a PC will be able to achieve for some time, really indicates to me (and most market analysts) that the writing is on the wall for PC gaming.

Keep in mind that the writing is also on the wall for fossil fuel powerplants, so it won't do you any good to vent spleen about the inevitible likelihood of the demise of PC gaming -- or for that matter the demise of the PC as we know it. But to deny that the writing is indeed on the wall is hardly more than wishful thinking.

Pssssssh. That's just added realism: the character is a woman.

Tsk tsk y'all are so mean

To me the most important thing when gaming is how good it can look and how fast I can play it. Not how I can play for cheaper. If that's the case there is definitely no argument that you should get a console instead of a gaming pc.

But like I said...I only care about how good it looks. That is why I have never been happier with gaming on my fast pc. There is just no contest in that regard.

That's because you've never shot a rapidly moving target before in real life. It's VERY hard to hit even at a moderate distance of 60 years... 100 yards or more you can do it only laying down or if the weapon is fixed to a hard point.
With something like a handgun, forget it!

In real life jumping around usually doesn't help not because it's easy to hit, but because you get tired too fast, your gear weighs a ton, and you attract too much attention, and you're required to take and hold a certain postion.


Should be, wood be... we'll see when it happens. If history is any reference, PS3 will be outdated when it will come out just like ALL consoles before it.
The state-of-art moves on and you just can't come up with the state-of-art box when your hardware is locked in at least 6 months before release date!


Sure it does. For starters, I can play on dual LCD monitors through pure digital connections.
Can XBOX do that?