I Don't Like Consoles

thelordofcheese

A lot of Zillah’s argument seems to hinge on the idea that the PC is "clearly superior" to any console, and that the only reason it's not more evident is that consoles have, in Zillah’s eyes, been hogging the money and effort.

Frankly, I’m not seeing this.

Firstly, the superiority of the PC over the console is doubtful. Without a clear frame of reference in what manner Zillah believes the PC is better than a console, I can only assume that it's raw power. This can be true, but this isn't a hard or fast rule, just how much of an edge your PC has is proportional to how much money you pump into it. The graphics of titles like crysis and such are indeed very impressive, but by the nature of the PC are also only available to those who have, or are willing to invest heavily in their machines.

I fail to see how the investment of more money into the PC gaming scene will improve the cycle of speccing users out of the market, unless Zillah is implying that a larger market would either standardise the PC hardware market, which is wishful thinking at best, or that more money would allow for more testing of hardware combinations to reduce the compatibility issue, which I think is yet more wishful thinking.

Seeing as we're throwing wild theories out there, I’d say that if consoles ceased to exist tomorrow, the PC market wouldn't see any real benefit. It's foolish to think that simply because there are no more consoles that people would move onto PC's. Most people would just pack it in, I’d imagine. The same people that baulk at the Ps3 price tag wouldn't be willing to invest the kind of money needed to keep up with the joneses in PC gaming. And without the market numbers to justify the investment that consoles have seen, why would companies bother?

As regards downloadable content, it's a double edged sword. Sure there is some great stuff out there, some of the Oblivion mods and the original CS spring to mind, but for every half decent addition, there are twenty terrible maps, and nudity patches, and lord only knows what else. Extra content like that, can be nice, but it's by no means a system sell.
Official content is usually of a higher quality, but traditionally, has been usually bundled with patches as a sweetener. "Sorry, we messed up, here are some fixes, and a few new maps to make up for it". Now, post release patching is a great thing, but it's a necessity of the PC market. A symptom of the fractured hardware scene. As I said before, I don't think that this can be fixed, even if all the money from the console scene was ploughed into PC's for the next ten years, it's just the nature of the beast. So once again, it's not a plus, really. It's been dressed up that way, but if there was no need for patches, you can bet your ass that we wouldn't see new map packs or such from the developers.

God this is a long post, isn't it... almost done

And the last thing is the customisable performance. I'm really not buying this one. Not that you can't customise your performance, I know you can, but why are you dressing up a method designed to cope with the infinite combinations of PC hardware as an advantage over consoles. It's not that PC games have out of the goodness of their hearts decided to allow you to tinker with stuff, but out of necessity have had to allow all manner of tinkering to account for as many likely eventualities as they can. Like patching and such, it's not a bonus; it's just a side effect of the PC itself. If PC developers could do away with it, I’m sure they would.

Look, at the end of the day, PC's do some things very well games wise. FPS, strategy games, and for the moment, online play. Consoles do other things better. Neither is superior to the other, just different. The PC is not superior to the console, or visa versa, and neither has the PC been cheated out of money or attention.

If you want to see how silly this is, just replace the word 'Console' with Xbox360 and 'PC' with Ps3. Do you see?

humanji

thelordofcheese wrote:

If you want to see how silly this is, just replace the word 'Console' with Xbox360 and 'PC' with Ps3. Do you see?

And so Mac is Wii?

parliament

"...That doesn't make my point wrong...."

Yes your point is wrong. There is no wrong or right in this argument neither device will appeal to 100% of the market, so you being 'right' in saying consoles are crap and should be gotten rid of is fundamentally flawed. The problem is you are useless at getting your point across. An argument that points out the obvious differences between the two consoles (that even us sun readers can figure out) it not a compelling reason to test the PC gaming waters and make your gaming wet dreams come true.

I challenge you to give lay down ONE aspect of PC gaming that would make a console gamer sit up and take notice, now, I'm not saying there aren't any I just want you to give us one valid thought out statement, sell PC gaming to the console masses. (and please don't use superior graphics capabilities as an argument)

K.O.Kiki

... and this is why I hate "hardcore" gamers...

evad_lhorg

nah this aint a hardcore gamer.... they understand that consoles are great. this is just being plain ign'ant:p

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote:

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

God that made my eyes bleed.


Just to be clear on this, there is no game on any console that could not have been released on a current high-end pc with the same or better graphics and gameplay. The problem is that it was Coded to work on the console or consoles it was released on.

There is however the limitations of the pc hardware. Different manufacturers, drivers, performance, a higher price and a far vaster amount of possible problems will keep consoles as a viable gaming platform.

The only problem is that besides the Wii, both the xbox360 and Ps3 are moving closer to a pc then a console. 2 of the above problems are arising with current gen consoles, and with chip die shrinks for cost cutting and hardware changes(cd drives etc) you might start seeing a third.


If as Zilla said, all the money from games creation was plowed into pc games, it is possible that any game could be run on nearly any pc. The only limit would be the graphics. If you don't believe me I'm sure I can dig up the thread on the guy who got Doom3 working on a 466mhz pentium.


I'm a avid pc gamer and the only console I have ever bought is the Wii. Why?
Because its a console, its quick, original and intuitive. When I see games released on the ps3/2 or xbox/360 I always become annoyed at the fact I cant get them on my pc. And the reason I cant get them is because the companys decided more money was to be made not releasing on the pc(through no development costs for re-coding or pc optimisation). Its the reason why I hate both consoles.

Cuddlesworth

parliament wrote:

I challenge you to give lay down ONE aspect of PC gaming that would make a console gamer sit up and take notice, now, I'm not saying there aren't any I just want you to give us one valid thought out statement, sell PC gaming to the console masses. (and please don't use superior graphics capabilities as an argument)

User generated content? Gameplay mod's (Cs, TF, POe{Bf2}, Oblivion to name a few.

Extremely original games that can be played in turns through out the day, on the machine that you are working on in work. Eg; Defcon? There are a few older ones.

Small developer games offered through download without influence from Sony or Microsoft for nominal fees?

Free online games with huge fan bases. Eg; Trackmania nations,

johnny_ultimate

While I think both sides are making valid point, this is the kind of arguement that will just go on and on without any reasonable conclusions.
Think about it this way - what would you say if someone came up and said "oh the cinema is rubbish. DVD all the way!" or vice versa. There is a place for both - they are completely different experiences. If you have the time, money and effort for the full experience go to the cinema (read: PC). If you don't have all that time for travel etc.. rent a DVD (read: console).
As many have said, there will always be a place for both. Me, I have never had the expertise to really make the most out of PC gaming, and hence I have stuck with consoles. But I have a place for both (if I could, for example, I would buy a really nicely pimped out PC).
For me the simplicity and accesiabilty of consoles will always win out. But thats my OPINION (apologies for caps) and I wouldnt put anyone down for playing a PC.

Zillah

aidan_walsh wrote:

That can work for markets there are other areas of revenue where the money lost on individual component sales can be recouped. That doesn't happen with PC hardware, but it does with consoles - which is why companies like Microsoft and Nintendo can afford to make losses on initial hardware sales.

Even still, you by no means need a cutting edge set-up to play 95% of modern games. My graphics card is going on two years old now and it still runs pretty much anything very well. Only upgrade in the last two years has been some RAM and I was just playing Supreme Commander at a nice FPS.

The fact that consoles are now network enabled and broadband connected means that this is no longer only the domain of the PC. However, console audiences do seem to be less demanding of it, presumably because it is not quite in the traditional mould of console gaming. That will change though.

So they're slowly becoming more like PCs. I'm not averse to the very notion of a console, just what they're like now. When consoles become as good as PCs then I'll fully support consoles

thelordofcheese wrote:

Firstly, the superiority of the PC over the console is doubtful. Without a clear frame of reference in what manner Zillah believes the PC is better than a console, I can only assume that it's raw power.

*Bangs head off wall*

Can you read? Seriously. This is ridiculous. I've explained three or four times now that its not the graphics of PCs that I love so much, but more the ability to modify and expand games.

Seeing as we're throwing wild theories out there, I’d say that if consoles ceased to exist tomorrow, the PC market wouldn't see any real benefit. It's foolish to think that simply because there are no more consoles that people would move onto PC's. Most people would just pack it in, I’d imagine. The same people that baulk at the Ps3 price tag wouldn't be willing to invest the kind of money needed to keep up with the joneses in PC gaming. And without the market numbers to justify the investment that consoles have seen, why would companies bother?

Oh bull. PCs are more expensive than consoles, yes, but unless you're some insecure twat that needs to keep his techno penis up to scratch then its quite affordable. Anyone that can afford a console or two can afford a PC that can run most modern games.

As regards downloadable content, it's a double edged sword. Sure there is some great stuff out there, some of the Oblivion mods and the original CS spring to mind, but for every half decent addition, there are twenty terrible maps, and nudity patches, and lord only knows what else. Extra content like that, can be nice, but it's by no means a system sell.

Thats one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

"In the bookstore were some stupid books and it was hard to find the good books so bookstores aren't worth it."

Read the back of the book before you buy it ffs.

So once again, it's not a plus, really. It's been dressed up that way, but if there was no need for patches, you can bet your ass that we wouldn't see new map packs or such from the developers.

You're just wrong. Who gives a crap what reason they're doing it. They DO do it is the point. Free additional content added to the game.

And the last thing is the customisable performance. I'm really not buying this one.

Buy or not, the point is still valid. They make the game with a medium level of acceptable performance. People with very good hardware can max it out and have extra-shininess, people who crappy hardware can have reduced shininess for better performance.

If I'm a rich XBox user I can't invest in better upgrades. If I'm a poor XBox user then I can't afford it in the first place. Everyone is stuck with the single degree of performance.

Consoles do other things better.

Like? Seriously. No one has answered that yet. Bearing in mind that you can use a console style pad with a PC if you want.

parliament wrote:

Yes your point is wrong. There is no wrong or right in this argument neither device will appeal to 100% of the market

See, there you go thinking that popularity determines right and wrong. 99.99% of the human population could insist something is right and be wrong.

The PC can do everything a console can, a console can't do everything a PC can. Objectively superior.

Is it just me, or are some of you not quite paying attention here?

so you being 'right' in saying consoles are crap and should be gotten rid of is fundamentally flawed.

I'm "right" saying that as a gaming platform a PC is objectively superior. The rest is opinion.

I challenge you to give lay down ONE aspect of PC gaming that would make a console gamer sit up and take notice

Considering I have never claimed that PCs will tempt console users I'll politely decline your challenge. That and the fact that my success or failure for the challenge will be determined by someone that I think has already shown bad decision making skills by being a console gamer over a PC gamer.

thelordofcheese

Zillah wrote:

*Bangs head off wall*

Can you read? Seriously. This is ridiculous. I've explained three or four times now that its not the graphics of PCs that I love so much, but more the ability to modify and expand games.

In my defense an entire page of a thread spawned while i was writing this post, so, i'll take your point and let this aspect go.

Zillah wrote:

Oh bull. PCs are more expensive than consoles, yes, but unless you're some insecure twat that needs to keep his techno penis up to scratch then its quite affordable. Anyone that can afford a console or two can afford a PC that can run most modern games.

It's not really, if your buying a PC for games, you tend to by big and then ride the curve untill it's time to upgrade again [or at least i do]. My machines tend to last for a good few years before i really need to upgrade.
But it's still more expensive than buying a console, granted as you build/buy more machines you can save on things like monitors, but for what i've spent on consoles this generation [one Wii], you'd be hardpressed to find a PC capable of playing modern games on.

Hell, i've spent more on my PC than i have on two sucessive generations of consoles, and mine is nowhere near cutting edge

Zillah wrote:

Thats one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

"In the bookstore were some stupid books and it was hard to find the good books so bookstores aren't worth it."

Read the back of the book before you buy it ffs.

I never said it wasn't worth it, i just pointed out that there is a high signal to noise ratio in user created content. Most of it is rubbish, it's not to take away from the good stuff, which i cited, only to point out it's not the greatest thing to happen to games ever, part 4.

Zillah wrote:

You're just wrong. Who gives a crap what reason they're doing it. They DO do it is the point. Free additional content added to the game.

No, the point is why they do it, and would they continue to do it if they didn't have to. Yes it is nice, don't get me wrong, but i don't see why a spoonful of sugar is a reason to claim a platform is superior to others.

Zillah wrote:

Buy or not, the point is still valid. They make the game with a medium level of acceptable performance. People with very good hardware can max it out and have extra-shininess, people who crappy hardware can have reduced shininess for better performance.

If I'm a rich XBox user I can't invest in better upgrades. If I'm a poor XBox user then I can't afford it in the first place. Everyone is stuck with the single degree of performance.

no they aren't depending on the age and the standard of a PC game, the degree of performance varies. besides you say a single level of performance like it's a bad thing. I don't see that myself

Zillah wrote:

Like? Seriously. No one has answered that yet. Bearing in mind that you can use a console style pad with a PC if you want.

Actually, several people have cited games and genres that work best on consoles, you've just rejected them out of hand, claiming that "yes they could work and be better" and leaving it at that.
Consoles tend to do the following genres of games better than on a PC
Sports, platformers, driving, adventure, shmups, fighting.
PC games do FPS, strategy and in my opinion, RPG's better.


Genre aside, they have the edge in ease of use, cost, and in multiplayer gaming, where as PC's are, with the right kind of money, graphically superior, better internet support, and despite the large volume of ****e, extended content.

Zillah wrote:

The PC can do everything a console can, a console can't do everything a PC can. Objectively superior.

4 player mario kart on one machine? infact more than one player on a single machine isn't really the PC's thing. So not quite everything, i'd suppose.

0ubliette

krazy_8s wrote:

God that made my eyes bleed.


Just to be clear on this, there is no game on any console that could not have been released on a current high-end pc with the same or better graphics and gameplay. The problem is that it was Coded to work on the console or consoles it was released on.

There is however the limitations of the pc hardware. Different manufacturers, drivers, performance, a higher price and a far vaster amount of possible problems will keep consoles as a viable gaming platform.

The only problem is that besides the Wii, both the xbox360 and Ps3 are moving closer to a pc then a console. 2 of the above problems are arising with current gen consoles, and with chip die shrinks for cost cutting and hardware changes(cd drives etc) you might start seeing a third.


If as Zilla said, all the money from games creation was plowed into pc games, it is possible that any game could be run on nearly any pc. The only limit would be the graphics. If you don't believe me I'm sure I can dig up the thread on the guy who got Doom3 working on a 466mhz pentium.


I'm a avid pc gamer and the only console I have ever bought is the Wii. Why?
Because its a console, its quick, original and intuitive. When I see games released on the ps3/2 or xbox/360 I always become annoyed at the fact I cant get them on my pc. And the reason I cant get them is because the companys decided more money was to be made not releasing on the pc(through no development costs for re-coding or pc optimisation). Its the reason why I hate both consoles.

jesus christ...i am aware that these games are developed on PC's. Thank you for pointing out the obvious for me professor science. Im not saying that they couldt run on the ****ing PC, obviously they could, the point im making is that these are exclusive games that will NEVER come out on PC (nintendo releasing zelda for PC?? come off it) and that by ONLY playing PC games you're losing out. Zillah claimed the PC was 'everything on the menu'. I pointed out that clearly it isnt as these games ARENT AVAILABLE on PC.
Is that a bit easier to get your head around? Eyes arent still bleeding are they??

monument

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

What is your arguement? That the PC is a better gaming platform in theory?

Communism worked... in theory.

PC gaming is too expensive. Not enough people have enough money to buy top of the line graphics cards and processors every two years. Therefore there isn't the developer backing because the market is too small.

That's the reality.

Console gaming offers a consistent platform, with product cycles of up to 7 years (PS2). The investment is less than a PC, there are fewer inconsistencies becuase everyone has the same machine and it allows developers to focus on gameplay - not on bugs.

End of thread.

CiaranC

I agree with the OP to an extent. The games library on 360 (for example), with very few exceptions, seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamer.

Where are the high brow games on consoles? Wheres the equivalent of Civ 4, or any strategy/sim/rts titles?

I have nothing against consoles per se, i like the form factor, the price, the lifecycle, the unified platform, the common dev platform, the big userbase, the online stuff. I'd just like to play something that doesnt involve shooting aliens/nazis/arabs or sport for once.

Retr0gamer

CiaranC wrote:

I agree with the OP to an extent. The games library on 360 (for example), with very few exceptions, seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamer.

Where are the high brow games on consoles? Wheres the equivalent of Civ 4, or any strategy/sim/rts titles?

I have nothing against consoles per se, i like the form factor, the price, the lifecycle, the unified platform, the common dev platform, the big userbase, the online stuff. I'd just like to play something that doesnt involve shooting aliens/nazis/arabs or sport for once.

Some people don't enjoy being bored to death by statistics. I like my games to be fun which is probably why I abhor KotOR.

RE*AC*TOR

CiaranC wrote:

I agree with the OP to an extent. The games library on 360 (for example), with very few exceptions, seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamer.

Where are the high brow games on consoles? Wheres the equivalent of Civ 4, or any strategy/sim/rts titles?

I have nothing against consoles per se, i like the form factor, the price, the lifecycle, the unified platform, the common dev platform, the big userbase, the online stuff. I'd just like to play something that doesnt involve shooting aliens/nazis/arabs or sport for once.

Viva Pinata, LOTR:BFME2, C&C3 soon.

Dont be at yourself

If you ask me, consoles - with their huge support of Japanese developers - frequently offer much more cerebral games than the beige box.

It's important not to equate high-brow with tedium. Okami, Killer 7 and company are at least equally as high-brow as the likes of Civ.

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote:

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

0ubliette wrote:

jesus christ...i am aware that these games are developed on PC's. Thank you for pointing out the obvious for me professor science. Im not saying that they couldt run on the ****ing PC, obviously they could, the point im making is that these are exclusive games that will NEVER come out on PC (nintendo releasing zelda for PC?? come off it) and that by ONLY playing PC games you're losing out. Zillah claimed the PC was 'everything on the menu'. I pointed out that clearly it isnt as these games ARENT AVAILABLE on PC.
Is that a bit easier to get your head around? Eyes arent still bleeding are they??

Your original post above was in response to a claim that a pc could play any game but that console exclusivity rights have made that impossible. Considering your reply in context I don't really think my post was un-necessary.

The pc is and always will be 'everything on the menu' because it is capable of being everything on the menu. Lack of support because of consoles and the common misconception that certain games were simply not good on pc's(sports, platform etc) lead by people just like you is the reason why games don't get released on a pc. That and underhanded exclusivity deals.

CiaranC

Retr0gamer wrote:

Some people don't enjoy being bored to death by statistics. I like my games to be fun which is probably why I abhor KotOR.

Thats great for you. Likewise, some people like their games to be a bit more involved than pointing a reticule and pressing a button. Consoles dont seem to cater for these.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Viva Pinata, LOTR:BFME2, C&C3 soon.

All good to be sure, but the exceptions which prove the rule.

nekkidbibleman wrote:

If you ask me, consoles - with their huge support of Japanese developers - frequently offer much more cerebral games than the beige box.

It's important not to equate high-brow with tedium. Okami, Killer 7 and company are at least equally as high-brow as the likes of Civ.

Ive enjoyed the few jap rpgs Ive played. Another genre sadly lacking on my current console, Xbox 360 though.

Retr0gamer

It may not look it but pure action games like Gunstar Heroes and Gradius V are ever bit as cerebral as civ or a boring stat heavy RPG. The only difference is that you are sorting out puzzles at a blinding speed and using reflexes.

I do like playing something slow and deep to relax. However in the PC market it's usually wrapped up in a generic sci-fi or tolkien-esque environment that puts me to sleep. Some games do get it right (blizzard games, civ) but the majority are bap. There really aren't that many great deep games released on the PC when you think about it. However great multiplayer, user content and usually a very long campaign keep the gameplay engaging for far longer, something consoles can do but it just hasn't caught on due to poor net service plagued with idiots or lack of custimisation due to fears of piracy.

Steven

Retr0gamer wrote:

It may not look it but pure action games like Gunstar Heroes and Gradius V are ever bit as cerebral as civ or a boring stat heavy RPG.

I understand where you're coming from, but even you must realise that it's a little silly to say that they're every bit as cerebral

Also, you'll bring out the civ players and this thread will be a battleground long after the PC/Console debate has been successfully contained

mcgovern

I have an Xbox 360 which cost €400.
I have a PC which cost €1200.

Guess which one I can stick in any new game in and play straight away?
Guess which one I can stick a new game in, and after an hour installation and half an hour setting up a steam or similar account, I can go watch it run at 20 FPS.

Retr0gamer

Steven wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but even you must realise that it's a little silly to say that they're every bit as cerebral

Also, you'll bring out the civ players and this thread will be a battleground long after the PC/Console debate has been successfully contained

You'll be surprised at how intelligently a good action game is made when you have played enough of them. I find trying to perfect combos in ikaruga or finding out how to avoid a nasty bosses attack pattern far more cerebrally challenging than knowing my expensive axe of smiting is more than a match for a troll thingy. I've often found that a difficult boss can be beaten after I've had a long think about it on the way home from college rather than hours of replay.

Most so called cerebral PC games require just using bigger weapons or more than the other guy to win. It's probably why I enjoy multiplayer starcraft so much. The perfect balancing means there are numerous ways of playing the game. The multitasking has to be carried out at a lightning fast pace and tactics made up on the fly.

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote:

Most so called cerebral PC games require just using bigger weapons or more than the other guy to win.

Now, there's a gross generalisation.

CiaranC

Retr0gamer wrote:

You'll be surprised at how intelligently a good action game is made when you have played enough of them.

This is just silly, sure there are tactical aspects to action games but essentially its just a test on twitch reflexes and hand-eye co-ordination. GoW is just glorified pong

Im not saying there is anything wrong with that, its just after 20 years of playing games, it gets a little old.

RE*AC*TOR

CiaranC wrote:

This is just silly, sure there are tactical aspects to action games but essentially its just a test on twitch reflexes and hand-eye co-ordination. GoW is just glorified pong

Im not saying there is anything wrong with that, its just after 20 years of playing games, it gets a little old.

I don't get the cerebral arguement. Most RTS games just come down to learning build orders and ammassing large amounts of over-powered units. With maybe the exception of the Total War series. But they are the exception to the rule as far as RTS goes. There's more actual strategy in something like Advance Wars than in most PC games.

The Civilization series has only gotten simpler as the series has evolved, in its current form Civ4, there is no reason it wouldn't work on the 360. (personally its something I would like to see). Add the Fire Emblem turn-based strategy games (new one on the Wii soon), Disgaea, Football Manager, Metal Gear Acid, Elder Scrolls etc etc.

The PC is not the home of the thinking gamer's games. Its a myth. The PC in reality is the home of bleeding edge technology, Counter Strike and MMORPGs.

I do love PC gaming, but it is becoming increasingly redundant for me. For example - this years big ass game - Crysis - my Opteron 146, and 1800xt graphics card will probably only hobble along in low res, with no AA etc. I'm not going to upgrade for it. I can't justify spending €300+ on a new GPU, and about the same on a new CPU, plus whatever for a new motherboard and DDR2 ram. Its madness.

CiaranC

Im kinda basing my argument on my PC days, where I played stuff like the Civ series, Sim City, Railroad Tycoon, Colonization, Republic: The Revolution, Dune, Starcraft, Ultima, Flight Simulator, Democracy, Age Of Empires, Myst, the Sierra stuff, Monkey Island, various war strategy titles etc.

All of these were engaging on a level other than simply the action onscreen.

Like you, I got out because I couldnt live with the upgrade cycle. I got into consoles. If the PC is no longer the home of the thinkers game, then it doesnt exist outside a handful of japanese titles on Playstation, a couple of dumbed down RTS games and the odd PC port.

Which is pretty sad IMO. That said, it doesnt seem to be effecting sales at all.

parliament

"I'm "right" saying that as a gaming platform a PC is objectively superior. The rest is opinion."

Now, in that statement you are WRONG. You are not looking at this objectively, I said do not use hardware capabilities as your only argument. Yes most people would go for the best of everything if they could, but people make compromises regarding cost, ease of use etc you keep omitting this is your argument, is this ignorance or stupidity, or both?

By the way what car do you drive,where do you live?

humanji

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

There's more actual strategy in something like Advance Wars than in most PC games.

It's amazing how many sweeping statements are being made in this thread. Supreme Commander and Darwinia. There, I've named two games that involve more strategy that Advance Wars. Does this prove that PC games are more intellectual that console games? No.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The PC is not the home of the thinking gamer's games.

I'd disagree with this only to the point of saying that the PC is the home of thinking gamer's games at the moment, but as pc's and consoles become more integrated, it'll even out.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The PC in reality is the home of bleeding edge technology, Counter Strike and MMORPGs.

Well I'd add FPS's in general and real-time strategies. But the reason I'd add these is simply the amount of control options versus the amount of buttons on a controller. If you have a console with a keyboard and mouse of some sort then these games will be a lot easier to play on consoles, but it's only a matter of time.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I do love PC gaming, but it is becoming increasingly redundant for me. For example - this years big ass game - Crysis - my Opteron 146, and 1800xt graphics card will probably only hobble along in low res, with no AA etc. I'm not going to upgrade for it. I can't justify spending €300+ on a new GPU, and about the same on a new CPU, plus whatever for a new motherboard and DDR2 ram. Its madness.

So you won't be buying the next next-generation of consoles when they come out in the future? It's just the same as upgrading your pc.

And if you actually plan out your pc you don't need to spend a fortune on it. A solid investment at the start will save you a fortune in the future. I've had my pc for 4 years and it still runs games perfectly. I might upgrade my gfx card for Crysis, but I don't think I'll need any other bits and bobs.

Oh, and that reminds me of one way a pc will always be better than a console. When a console breaks, unless you really know what you're doind, you have to send it off to get fixed (and you can go into the console sections here to hear all the horror stories about that), but every company has an IT admin so if you PC breaks down, you can just lump it onto them! (and if the IT admin in my company is reading this, I'm only joking, honest!).

RE*AC*TOR

CiaranC wrote:

Im kinda basing my argument on my PC days, where I played stuff like the Civ series, Sim City, Railroad Tycoon, Colonization, Republic: The Revolution, Dune, Starcraft, Ultima, Flight Simulator, Democracy, Age Of Empires, Myst, the Sierra stuff, Monkey Island, various war strategy titles etc.

The Sid Meier stuff is still hobbling along, with a sequel out every 5 years or so, I don't think much has changed though in the sequels apart from shiny graphics though. Republic the Revolution was a horrid game. Lots of ambitious waffle, ultimately delivering very little. I think I played it for about 8 hours straight before realising i hated it.

Myst? Really? Fun?

As for Monkey Island (amiga) - if the point and click adventure is going to make a comeback, my money would be on the Wii / DS. You can write it down that the episodic Sam and Max games will make it to the Wii where they will probably get a bigger audience.

You've listed a lot of games there that are well and truly dead. I assume by Sierra stuff you mean Dragon's Lair etc. Sierra are releasing a compilation of that stuff. I think they might be feeling out the reception for maybe bringing back the franchise.

CiaranC wrote:

All of these were engaging on a level other than simply the action onscreen.

True, and I suppose they have been the refuge of the PC for a long time. Various factors contribute to this, not the least in my opinion is resolution. RTS don't look well at 480i. (although I did play Dune on the Megadrive).

CiaranC

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

You've listed a lot of games there that are well and truly dead.

Well 'my PC days' were several years ago, so they would be.