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)
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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!
Quote:
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.
Sure it does. For starters, I can play on dual LCD monitors through pure digital connections.
Comments
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!!!
Originally posted by Splinemodel
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.
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
Originally posted by Shadow Slayer 26
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.
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
WTF.
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.
.......That said, I always thought that MS Office Edu would make a great 360 "title".
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by vinea
.......That said, I always thought that MS Office Edu would make a great 360 "title".
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
Originally posted by Placebo
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.
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.
Originally posted by sunilraman
. . .
Man Tomb Raider : Legend is soooo hard: it's like you die every five seconds
. . .
Pssssssh. That's just added realism: the character is a woman.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Pssssssh. That's just added realism: the character is a woman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Sure it does. For starters, I can play on dual LCD monitors through pure digital connections.
Can XBOX do that?