I Don't Like Consoles

Retr0gamer

sprinkles wrote:

30 games a year! I pity the person who buys that many, they really need to get out more.

I buy more than 30 a year.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe I do need to get out more.

L31mr0d

sprinkles wrote:

30 games a year! I pity the person who buys that many, they really need to get out more.

I'd say the average gamer would buy somewhere in the region of 10 - 15 games a year, thus making your point a little less valid.

But then we can take into account the following year, when the console will still be able to run all the new releases but gamer B will be foreced to spend more money on upgrading the system to cope with the new develpments in physics engines etc...

Put simply PC gaming is a lot more expensive* and too much hassle for the casual gamer and those not interested in WOW esq games


*excludes gaming products by SONY

Your jab at gamers who play more than 30 games a year "need to get out more" is a bit spurious as how can you set a limit on what is an acceptable amount of games to play, 1? 10? Being a gamer yourself, i'm sure someone who doesn't game at all would tell YOU to "get out more". I play well over 30 games a year and I guarantee you I would labeled the n00b at a gaming convention because I DO get out more, and don't fit in with the architypal witty sci-fi slogan tshirt, glasses and expanding waistline gamer. Playing maybe 2 hours of games a night during the week to wind down when other people would be sat in front of their TV's does not mean I can't get out hiking on the weekend, or go on holidays snowboarding. Most video games have less than or around 20 hours of gaming. I rarely replay games unless the online content is excellent.

Thing is though a year from now, console graphics will be further out of date still, i'd like to see what the consoles answer to DX10 and photorealistic gaming will be and how long it will take them to get there. Its going to get to a point where games for the PC are so advanced in comparison to consoles, that they will set up 2 sectors of gaming to distinguish them (i.e. VR gaming for PC's, Party gaming for consoles)

steviec

L31mr0d wrote:

Thing is though a year from now, console graphics will be further out of date still, i'd like to see what the consoles answer to DX10 and photorealistic gaming will be and how long it will take them to get there. Its going to get to a point where games for the PC are so advanced in comparison to consoles, that they will set up 2 sectors of gaming to distinguish them (i.e. VR gaming for PC's, Party gaming for consoles)

You say that like its something new...

The gap from consoles to PCs is no larger now than its ever been, in fact when you consider the PS3 runs linux as standard, takes pc peripherals through its USB ports, takes a SATA hard drive etc., the gap is probably smaller than its ever been.

Not that it matters. The bigger budget developers have for console games(you think this might be slightly related to how you stated many PC gamers don't buy their games?) means the effort and care put into their development will always make up for the tech difference with few exceptions.

People talk about current PS3 and 360 games not pushing the consoles yet, because developers are getting used to them. In the world of PCs, developers never push the hardware fully ever, because its a world of constantly moving goalposts and creating games that must run on certain minimum requirements with infinite possible configurations. So just because the hardware is weaker, doesn't mean the software is.

sprinkles

Retr0gamer wrote:

Maybe I do need to get out more.

I bet the odds on you replying to that were low

L31mr0d wrote:

Your jab at gamers who play more than 30 games a year "need to get out more" is a bit spurious

My Jab at the gamer who plays 30+ games a year was meant as a joke, my point was that the average gamer won't play that much, and therefore it made the dubous point about the cost of a PC + free pirated games invalid.

L31mr0d wrote:

Thing is though a year from now, console graphics will be further out of date still, i'd like to see what the consoles answer to DX10 and photorealistic gaming will be and how long it will take them to get there. Its going to get to a point where games for the PC are so advanced in comparison to consoles, that they will set up 2 sectors of gaming to distinguish them (i.e. VR gaming for PC's, Party gaming for consoles)

I totally disagree. If you look at the gap between consoles and PC's it has always been substatial. The potential of the Pc is endless. You can keep upgrading and new hardware will come out next month and make it even better. The point is that it's not accessable to the mianstream market and that is who Sony/Nintendo/MS and the software devs are going to make their money from, not the hardcore gamers alone. The DS has proved this.

L31mr0d

steviec wrote:

You say that like its something new...

The gap from consoles to PCs is no larger now than its ever been, in fact when you consider the PS3 runs linux as standard, takes pc peripherals through its USB ports, takes a SATA hard drive etc., the gap is probably smaller than its ever been.

Erm... is that supposed to prove something? You don't really need that powerful a pc to run linux, and you can't really reference the PS3 which cost about the same as a medium spec PC anyway. The gap between consoles and pc's might be smaller, but the gap between high end pcs and the latest consoles is larger than ever.

steviec wrote:

Not that it matters. The bigger budget developers have for console games(you think this might be slightly related to how you stated many PC gamers don't buy their games?) means the effort and care put into their development will always make up for the tech difference with few exceptions.

I'm fully aware of this, which is why a lot of game developers (most recently ID) are putting a lot more emphasis on the console market as it offers less room for piracy. Still, they will always release games for the PC, whether they are just console ports or not is yet to be seen.

steviec wrote:

People talk about current PS3 and 360 games not pushing the consoles yet, because developers are getting used to them. In the world of PCs, developers never push the hardware fully ever, because its a world of constantly moving goalposts and creating games that must run on certain minimum requirements with infinite possible configurations. So just because the hardware is weaker, doesn't mean the software is.

erm... have you never been into the "display" section of a PC game? because the latest games are designed to have features to take advantage of the latest hardware. Most PC games now come with detection software that configures the graphics of the game to match the optimal performance of your system.

A great example in a game I played recently was Tomb Raider: Legend, the EXACT same game that was on the PS2, BUT they had added a nice "next gen" feature into the display section. When this was enabled there was volumetric smoke, better AA, AF, HDR, you name it... in fact I held off playing the game until I got my 7900GTX because the fps where too low with my previous 6800 Ultra. BUT this goes to show, for people with high end PCs, the game had features to make use of them, whereas a console is locked into a set graphical limit, one which isn't software limited, but hardware. A game developer for a PC has the freedom to make a game that will run with a 3 year old graphics card or take full advantage of all the features of newer hardware.

0ubliette

L31mr0d wrote:

A great example in a game I played recently was Tomb Raider: Legend, the EXACT same game that was on the PS2, BUT they had added a nice "next gen" feature into the display section. When this was enabled there was volumetric smoke, better AA, AF, HDR, you name it... in fact I held off playing the game until I got my 7900GTX because the fps where too low with my previous 6800 Ultra. BUT this goes to show, for people with high end PCs, the game had features to make use of them, whereas a console is locked into a set graphical limit, one which isn't software limited, but hardware. A game developer for a PC has the freedom to make a game that will run with a 3 year old graphics card or take full advantage of all the features of newer hardware.

oh, you mean those effects that are in the 360 version?

Retr0gamer

L31mr0d wrote:

A great example in a game I played recently was Tomb Raider: Legend, the EXACT same game that was on the PS2, BUT they had added a nice "next gen" feature into the display section. When this was enabled there was volumetric smoke, better AA, AF, HDR, you name it... in fact I held off playing the game until I got my 7900GTX because the fps where too low with my previous 6800 Ultra. BUT this goes to show, for people with high end PCs, the game had features to make use of them, whereas a console is locked into a set graphical limit, one which isn't software limited, but hardware. A game developer for a PC has the freedom to make a game that will run with a 3 year old graphics card or take full advantage of all the features of newer hardware.

Same game, shinier graphics. In other words nothing that couldn't have been done on a lesser system without affecting gameplay. I actually ended up playing it in the low spec graphics since everything looked less plastic.

L31mr0d

its not about whether or not the 360 has those effects, its about how well they can do them, i.e. there is a big difference between 2xAA and 2xAF then 8xAA and 16xAF. As long as games are developed for the PC it will always graphically outperform any console on the market.

Plus, and this is another angle not considered. PC gaming isn't just about the gaming, its about building the PC, overclocking it and learning about computers. The PC gaming experience imo is a lot more immersive, challenging and has a larger scope of interests. Its not just about the games, but the machine that you play them on.

L31mr0d

Retr0gamer wrote:

Same game, shinier graphics. In other words nothing that couldn't have been done on a lesser system without affecting gameplay. I actually ended up playing it in the low spec graphics since everything looked less plastic.

really needs another thread, but I don't know what you're talking about, the next gen content stopped the game looking "plastic" and cartooning, by adding depth to the textures, smoother lines and better water reflections. Lara's hair and skin where amazing with the next gen content, she looked like a doll, with rigid lines, no texturing and block shadows without it.

RE*AC*TOR

L31mr0d wrote:

its not about whether or not the 360 has those effects, its about how well they can do them, i.e. there is a big difference between 2xAA and 2xAF then 8xAA and 16xAF. As long as games are developed for the PC it will always graphically outperform any console on the market.

I don't think anyone would argue against that. Although often around new console launch the consoles can outperform the PC, for that brief window. Take for example Oblivion on the 360 vs the PC. You couldn't do AA and HDR on the PC version.

L31mr0d wrote:

Plus, and this is another angle not considered. PC gaming isn't just about the gaming, its about building the PC, overclocking it and learning about computers. The PC gaming experience imo is a lot more immersive, challenging and has a larger scope of interests. Its not just about the games, but the machine that you play them on.

= far too much hassle for your average consumer. Whatever about building a PC, which is something 90% of people wouldn't consider, overclocking is even a nerdier pursuit within that 10%.

Retr0gamer

L31mr0d wrote:

really needs another thread, but I don't know what you're talking about, the next gen content stopped the game looking "plastic" and cartooning, by adding depth to the textures, smoother lines and better water reflections. Lara's hair and skin where amazing with the next gen content, she looked like a doll, with rigid lines, no texturing and block shadows without it.

The over use of shiny shader textures on lara and the enviroment makes the whole level and lara look like they are made of plastic. Games TM made a good statement about this before saying it's like 'an explosion in a vaseline factory'.

L31mr0d

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

overclocking is even a nerdier pursuit within that 10%.

I'd say closer to 1%, if not less. But its a slow progression. Any serious PC gamer is eventually going to dabble in overclocking eventually, to get those last few ounces of performance out of their PC before upgrading. I don't disagree that more people like consoles and that their is more profit to be had for game developers to cater to the masses, but if the experience of gaming on a console and the experience of gaming on a pc where put side by side, pc gaming is a much richer and more immersive experience, not just because of the graphics but because of all the other "hassle" that goes along with it.

I agree with Zillah and likening the difference to the pc and console to the sun and the broadsheets, because it does take a lot more work and a lot more knowledge to game on a pc whereas anybody 3 y/o+ could game on a console, the learning curve is non-existant. This isn't an elitism on the part of pc gamers, its just a fact. Some people view the work needed before, during and after gaming on a PC as a hassle, others view it as an enjoyment.

Sand

And miss out on classics like Okami, Zelda, Shadow of the colossus and God of War? No thanks.

Im aware of most of those games - Okami being the exception which I assume is some Japanese anime RPG with a menu driven combat system involving 12 year old girls and adolescent male leads - but none of them have made me consider getting a console for them. The best bits of God of War imo seems to be the interludes which can be taken from youtube. But that just means we have different tastes in games - Id point out that from my perspective youre denying yourself some classic games by not investing in a PC.

EA is a massive publisher, on consoles and PCs. It's not the only one on either. I fail to see your point.

My point is that I'm a gamer. I 100% agree that if I was EA, Id love consoles. One set of tech specs to design to, feck all technical support, piracy not an issue, huge market for sports games which just require the odd database update and so on. But Im not EA, Im a gamer and I want the best gaming system and the best games I can get - hence PC. Volvo might be more efficient and better value for money than a formula one race car, but from my perspective feck efficiency and value for money. Dont get me wrong, I have owned, played and enjoyed consoles when I was younger - But PCs are just out and out better.

Exactly: it would cost a grand to upgrade my PC so I could play the latest games. (And just for games; my PC can already do that "whole lot more", and an upgrade to keep doing it won't be necessary for years.) I've never spent even close to a grand on hardware during any generation of consoles.

The latest games? You make it sound like PCs stop running games released 6 months after purchase. My PC is pretty much at the end of its useful life - 3 years ago it was ninja, now its average and even less than that. A month or two from now Ill be getting a new one, the best I can get. Despite that, I've yet to hit a game this system cant play to a good standard, due to the flexiability inherent in PC games. Yeah, 7 years from now PS3 games will still play perfectly well on a 7 year old system. The tradeoff is that it will be 7 year old technology. PC gaming involves tradeoffs too which youve homed in on - cost, possible technical issues, yadda yadda but as I said above - as a gamer I want the absolute best so PC ftw.

You can add an extra €20 on top of that for memory cards. And that's the most I've ever spent in a single generation.

And I've enjoyed a much, much greater variety of games than I would had I spent more money on keeping my PC up to date. Because consoles have a much wider audience, it's viable to publish a much larger volume of games with far greater variety.

Yep, plus the cost of whatever youre posting on currently - why not just be done with it and get the best gaming system? But yeah, I dont doubt console gaming is the cheaper option, but I enjoy gaming and Im not looking for the cheapest option. Im looking for the best, hence PC.

But in terms of variety and creativity of games - on the PC anyone, you or I, can release games theyve designed in their own time. Small, tiny two or three man operations or mod teams giving us the benefit of their creativity and vision. On a console, everything, absolutely everything has to go through Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo. Good from QA maybe, but good from a creative point of view? Nah - not from my perspective. In a world driven by a console model, there wouldnt be games like Counter Strike - which mightnt be a winning example but highlights how tiny PC teams spark huge gaming events. There are a hundred niche games available on PC that would never make it to consoles because they are niche products. The PC gives gamers the opportunity to find their niche games that arent mass market.

L31mr0d

Sand wrote:

... highlights how tiny PC teams spark huge gaming events. There are a hundred niche games available on PC that would never make it to consoles because they are niche products. The PC gives gamers the opportunity to find their niche games that arent mass market.

project offset is the one i'm keeping my eye on, independant company making what looks to be a fantastic game.

0ubliette

Sand wrote:

Im aware of most of those games - Okami being the exception which I assume is some Japanese anime RPG with a menu driven combat system involving 12 year old girls and adolescent male leads

And right there is where your argument falls over and dies on its arse. If youre going to slate something, at least try to sound informed.

SamoZlo

Zillah wrote:

Like I said, a PC can do everything a console can. A console cannot do everything a PC can.

wow
that's interesting
have you played GRAW on PC? have you seen it?
it looks rubbish comparing to XBox360 version
it needs graphics card that costs 2 times more than XBox360 core to run the game smooth (but still not as smooth as on console) - and there'll be still occasionally frame drops unfortunally
on the XBox360 you can play in front of your big big big TV, sitting in comfortable chair - while playing on PC means usually sitting at the desk and staring at the 19-22" monitor.
and now think about that: PS3 is more powerfull than XBox360. you probably had seen Gears of War for XBox360. it's second generation of games for that console. the first generation of games looked crap - like modern PC games. first generation of games for PS3 looks bit better than 1st gen games for XBox360. and now compare two games: Metal Gear Solid 2 for PS2, and Metal Gear Solid 3 for PS. compare Devil May Cry 1 and Devil May Cry 3. take a look at the God of War 2 for PS2. see how those games evolved in years - on the very same platform. and now try to imagine how will the games for PS3 look like when the console will be near its death. compare Time Splitters 1 and Black to see what I mean. the games for next-gen consoles look much better than games for todays PCs. there's no comparision. show me the PC game that looks better than Gears of War or Lost Planet. Oblivion to work as smooth and look as good as on XBox needs powerfull machine - at least GF7900 (would be nice if it was in SLI), 2 GB of RAM and fast processor. of course thanks to mods it can look even better than on XBox360 - but while you adjust settings, check how they work, trying different configurations -the XBox user just finishes the game without worrying about anything. got that?

Sand

And right there is where your argument falls over and dies on its arse. If youre going to slate something, at least try to sound informed.

What part of the sentence where I admitted I wasnt aware of Okami got lost in translation? Seriously, itd be nice to have the pointers because Id have assumed stating something in plain english would be enough, but I guess not.

I actually unleashed the power of google on it just there - my official comment on having seen screenshots/trailers - "meh". I stand corrected though, its a japanese wood art styled 3rd person rpg with what looks like beat em up style combat and a choice of 3 weapons. Still, I'm strangely uncompelled to purchase a console for it, which indeed is what I said just before.

Cunny-Funt

1st of all, I agree with everything L31mr0d and Sand have said.

@ SamoZlo, wow. I'll never understand how persistant some console gamers are even when faced with raw facts. Some just cant face the facts that they are not playing the most advanced gaming system in the world ever (even when the console is 5 years old in some cases) Ignorance is bliss?

SamoZlo wrote:

wow
that's interesting
have you played GRAW on PC? have you seen it?
it looks rubbish comparing to XBox360 version

Yes I have. Played it on my 3 year old pc and it still looked quite nice. The difference in GFX wouldnt even be noticed by most console gamers.

Can any 3 year old console play this game? I'm sure theres 3 year old PC's out there that could still play it on higher settings then mine even.

SamoZlo wrote:

it needs graphics card that costs 2 times more than XBox360 core to run the game smooth (but still not as smooth as on console) - and there'll be still occasionally frame drops unfortunally

Thats pure bollocks right there m8 lol

SamoZlo wrote:

on the XBox360 you can play in front of your big big big TV, sitting in comfortable chair - while playing on PC means usually sitting at the desk and staring at the 19-22" monitor.

Yes playing an FPS with a keyboard and mouse on a PC at a desk is a far far more imversive experience then playing with a pad on a TV...

SamoZlo wrote:

and now think about that: PS3 is more powerfull than XBox360. you probably had seen Gears of War for XBox360. it's second generation of games for that console. the first generation of games looked crap - like modern PC games.

ROFL

SamoZlo wrote:

show me the PC game that looks better than Gears of War or Lost Planet.

Crysis.


Your whole argument is based on the current stage where the next gen has just hit and the games look nice and but still even now. The best PC's on the market can pull off the same stuff. In 2 years time, PC will be doign things consolers can only dream of, until the next cycle begins...

K.O.Kiki

Fanboys, fanboys, fanboys -- STFU.
You're obviously never going to listen to the other side, can we just close this bloody thread already?

0ubliette

Sand wrote:

What part of the sentence where I admitted I wasnt aware of Okami got lost in translation? Seriously, itd be nice to have the pointers because Id have assumed stating something in plain english would be enough, but I guess not.

I actually unleashed the power of google on it just there - my official comment on having seen screenshots/trailers - "meh". I stand corrected though, its a japanese wood art styled 3rd person rpg with what looks like beat em up style combat and a choice of 3 weapons. Still, I'm strangely uncompelled to purchase a console for it, which indeed is what I said just before.

Oh wow you googled it, great, NOW you can pick holes in ti, without actually, you know, playing the game. THATS why your argument is completely void. Looking at a few screenshots wont give you an idea of what the game is like. Hell, im sure daikatan looked lovely in its screenshots too.
The problem with this thread is that most of the people slating console games are PC owners whove never played any of the games they're slating. I own a pc and consoles, so while ill be playing STALKER later this month, im playing Okami right now too, and i can tell you, a 5 minute googling of okami doesnt qualify you as being able to say wether the game is better or worse than anything on PC. Ive played msot recent releases on pc this year, and for innovation, playability, FUN, and art direction, nothing can touch okami. Not everything has to be photorealistic 16XAF 8XFSAA to be amazing looking. Okami succeeds in looking beautiful and unlike anything youll find on pc, and its on a 'tabloid' console for 'teh kiddies' :rolleyes:
It seems like the 'broadsheet PC' brigade think that EXTREME GRAFFIX are the be all and end all of games, and that having the latest and greatest hardware somehow makes all games jsut brilliant. Case in point Crysis. Everyones banging on about how amazing it will be and how it wil lblow console games out of the water. Remeber how amazing far cry looked when it was out? Those amazing jungles and draw distances? Remeber how AVERAGE the game was? It was fun for the first few hours, then it dragged on and on, and the mutants came into it, and it all went to hell. Running it at 1280x1024 with all gfx on high isnt making it any better. So unless crysis isnt a glorified tech demo like far cry was, ill remain skeptical. And play games for you know, fun. Not for thier awesome graphics.

Jip

This really is a pathetic thread. I'm getting on in years at this stage and have played games on consoles and P.C.s alongside each other for longer than some posters on this thread have been living (judging by the quality of their posts).
Having said that, some P.C. gamers here are the equivalent of the D4 set, stuck up and snobby with what they have and look down on console gamers with the retarded view that console owners have some sort of mental disability and simply don't understand P.Cs. You're just one step below whipping out your mickeys and comparing them.
It's all very amusing, it's just like the "My dad is bigger than your dad" arguments in the playground when we were kids.

SamoZlo

Cunny-Funt wrote:

1st of all, I agree with everything L31mr0d and Sand have said.

@ SamoZlo, wow. I'll never understand how persistant some console gamers are even when faced with raw facts. Some just cant face the facts that they are not playing the most advanced gaming system in the world ever (even when the console is 5 years old in some cases) Ignorance is bliss?

ok. let's take it from other side. have you seen Gran Turismo 4? can you play a game with such a superb graphic on... 7 years old PC? it would be something like Pentium 200MMX with GeForce MX200 or something like this. Windows 98 with DirectX 7 ;-) 50 frames per second, great lightning effects, beautifull cars models and perfectly recreated tracks. and over 700 cars to choose from. upsss... sorry - if there wasn't Test Drive Unlimited (which is port from XBox360 there wouldn't be even anything similliar)...

Yes I have. Played it on my 3 year old pc and it still looked quite nice. The difference in GFX wouldnt even be noticed by most console gamers.

1280x720, FSAA, HDR, max details, and that game on PC still looks much worse than on XBox360. and on my X1800XL it works fine, but in 1024x768. was there X1800/GF7900 three years ago? or are we talking about something like Radeon X800, which doesn't even has PixelShader3.0? and you're talking about "best gaming system"? I've got PS2, XBox360 and a PC with pretty high specs - Pentium D820@3800MHz, 2GB RAM, Radeon X1800XL. and GRAW looks noticeable better on XBox360 than on PC. even keeping in mind, that on XBox I'm playing on big TV, and on PC it's 19" monitor. the difference is so big, that it almost look like two different games. and yes, I've got everything turned on on PC. and it's still rubbish.

Can any 3 year old console play this game? I'm sure theres 3 year old PC's out there that could still play it on higher settings then mine even.

can 7 years old PC play games that look as good as God of War 2 or Gran Turismo 4? do you know what are the requirements for new Unreal Engine for PC? and it works without any problems on XBox360 or PS3. in high resoultion, stable frame rate, antialiasing, HDR, etc., etc.

Yes playing an FPS with a keyboard and mouse on a PC at a desk is a far far more imversive experience then playing with a pad on a TV...

I'd say that playing an FPS with keyboard and mouse is EASIER than playing the same game with pad. but it's much more comfortable to play it sitting or even lying on something comfortable than sitting at the desk with headphones or poor computer speakers instead of some decent home cinema system. much more "imversive" experience is to play Call of Duty 2 on 40" TV, with home cinema giving thilling sound effects in full Dolby Digital 5.1 than on small PC monitor with speakers on each side of it (even if you have some Logitech 5500 or smth similliar connected to the PC - where do you have front speakers?)... not to mention that you don't have frame drops occasionally without any reason, before playing the game you have to wait for Windows to start up, you've got to adjust hundreds of things in options just to start playing. and on console - you just put the disc into the drive and voila!

Crysis.

ROTFL.
where did you buy it? how does it work on your PC? are we talking about games from the future or the games, that you can play right now? for Crysis I'm giving you Metal Gear Solid 4, Devil May Cry 4, Killzone 2. I remember movies showing Oblivion befere it was relased. it caused jaw drops. it's so far best looking game available for PC at the moment. not Half Life 2 episodes, not F.E.A.R. - Oblivion. and I can bet every console I'vo got, that on XBox360 it looks and works better than on your PC. because it looks on my PC a bit better than on XBox (thanks to the mods made by fans of the game), but 3 years ago there wasn't Pixel Shader 3.0, so you don't have HDR for example. and even if you have it - you don't have FSAA with HDR. and you don't have stable 30FPS.

Your whole argument is based on the current stage where the next gen has just hit and the games look nice and but still even now. The best PC's on the market can pull off the same stuff. In 2 years time, PC will be doign things consolers can only dream of, until the next cycle begins...

but that's you, who is trying to convince everybody, that PC is the best gaming system available. the best PC's on the market COULD pull off the same stuff, if the games were designed to work ONLY on that best PC on the market. unfortunatelly, the games are made to work on as many configurations as possible. that means compromises. thanks to that GRAW on PC is a peace of rubbish, while on XBox it's brilliant and great looking game.
on the other hand - having only console - I couldn't play such a great games as Civilization, Dawn of War Warhammer 40.000, Flight Simulator X, etc., etc... and I understand that and that's the reason why I've got such powefull (I know it could be better). but I'm not crazy about Crysis - the Holy Grail of PC gaming, because I already know that it will be some kind of interactive 3D Mark in the jungle. and I know, that I won't be able to see all the special effects, all that bliss. unless I buy a new video card, more memory, and probably new processor. wait - will that cost more than Playstation 3? So I'll stand and wait.

you see - I started with C64, then I had an Amiga, then PC, and I played on PC for about 10 years, thinking, that it's best game platform in the world. and then I saw Silent Hill 1 on PSX. it was a shock. console - something for kids who can't turn on the PC - has a game that is much more complex, interesting, and mature than anything I've seen on PC - including all the adventure games (like Alone in the dark, Gabriel Knight from SIERRA, all the FPP and FPS). about 2 years later I've seen Silent Hill 2 on Playstation 2. back then there was Quake I - it made some standards and forced players to buy Graphic Accelerator. And Silent Hill 2 made my jaw drop - it looked so much better than Quake, it had so intensive and itriguing story, music, sound effects, that I bought PS2 only for that game. of course it was relased on PC. 2 years later. but there are still hundred of brilliant games, that are available only on some console systems - or thanks to emulators on PC. Final Fantasy serie, Metal Gear Solid 3, Project Zero serie, Ico, Shadow of the Collosus, Amplitude, Guitar Hero, Gran Turismo serie, SSX serie, REZ, We love Katamari, Tekken serie, Soul Calibur serie, Fight Night serie, Harvest Moon, Zelda, Metroid Prime, Jak&Daxter serie, Ratchet&Clank serie, Forza, Project Gotham Racing serie - you miss so much games limiting yourself to PC only. I know, that they don't look as good as PC games - low resolution, poor textures, simplicity of the world (like in GTA:SA for example). but they have something else, that counts: fun. there's much greater variety of game genres on consoles than on the PC, which is dominated by clones of FPS - including Crysis. and the only really innovate game in that genre (FPS) was relased on... consoles. it's Black. first FPS game which allows you to destroy almost everything - it's limited by the power of the console (which is something simillar to Celleron 400MHz with 32MB of RAM and GF MX400 (alomst exacly the same components are inside first XBox, which was more powerfull than PS2), but it gives the joy I haven't had since first Half Life or maybe even Duke Nukem 3D. I played most of FPS on PC since Wolfenstein 3D - Doom I, II, III, Quake I - IV, COD, DOD, HL1&2, FEAR, FarCry, Serious Sam 1&2 - if I missed something than probably I just forgot about it. because all those games were almost the same. Black gave me something new. destructable environment. you'll see it in Crysis
you may not like consoles. but it doesn't give you a credit to say that PC is best gaming platform. because it isn't. there's no such thing as "best gaming platform" - but if you'd like to make two worlds of gaming: PCs and consoles, than consoles are better, just because they have exclusive developers, that create unique games only for consoles. after buying a console I found out that gaming really is fun. and that there are genres I didn't realised about. such as music games (Singstar, Dance Dance Revolution likes, Amplitude, Frequency, REZ, on brilliant Guitar Hero finishing), puzzle-adventure games (like ICO for one, but above all PC gaming experience example, or Zelda - just in case you'd say "that's only one"), Shadow of the Colossus which is miles away from anything I've seen before, or even Killer7 which is for gaming world the same thing as David Lynch's Lost Highway was for the movie world. plus genres, that are already dead on PC such as fighting games (Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur, and even Fight Night), beat'em up (Devil May Cry, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, The Warriors), sporting (SSX, Tony Hawk, all the Rugby, Cricket etc.) - plus games that were ported into PC only because they were great success on consoles - Prince of Persia, Omnimusha, Resident Evil, etc, etc.

hope you understand my point of view - I'm a player for about 20 years, most of that time was with PC. and what would Monty Python say? "PC is not funny anymore"

SamoZlo

duplicate post

L31mr0d

dude you just wasted so much of your time, nobody is going to read all that, and if they do... they should be gaming more *hangs up arguing hat to play some flatout 2, Need for Speed: Carbon, CS:S then some GRAW*

Can't we all just game along?

Zillah

/me laughs in wicked delight. "Grow my pretty, grow!"

SamoZlo wrote:

I'd say that playing an FPS with keyboard and mouse is EASIER than playing the same game with pad. but it's much more comfortable to play it sitting or even lying on something comfortable than sitting at the desk with headphones or poor computer speakers instead of some decent home cinema system. much more "imversive" experience is to play Call of Duty 2 on 40" TV, with home cinema giving thilling sound effects in full Dolby Digital 5.1 than on small PC monitor with speakers on each side of it

Uh, I have 7.1 surround sound on my PC thank you very much. And the fact that a TV is bigger compared to a monitor doesn't mean anything, monitors have vastly, staggeringly higher fidelity than TVs. As for FPS drops, consoles of course get FPS drops. You just don't notice them as much because the TV has such bad display quality in the first place, not to mention the already awkward controls of a pad.

And for the love of God use paragraphs.

Cunny-Funt

SamoZlo wrote:

utter insanity

LOL man you are so totally off the wall. Its just a fact that a pc can do anything a console can do. Thats just the way it is. You may aswell be trying to tell me the world is flat...


I like PC gaming myself because I'm a big gaming fan, and into a very particular types of games.

Of course I used to game on consoles. Some of my top 10 games of all time would be PSone titles.

It just comes down to different tastes of games in the end. I'm not into many sports games, where as I like games such as Lock On. I'm not into platform games. I like online FPS's, Desert Combat is my fav online shooter of all time.
I'm not into tekken, I enjoy RTS. Supreme commader is one of the best games Ive ever played.

PC gamers can get pissed off at consoles because they know how good some games could have been if they had been made just for the PC. Such as GTA, if that had only been made for the PC, it woulda looked something like Test Drive Unlimited looks now, with online play.. and much more. But no, theres not where the money is.

Consoles players tend to be totally ingnorant about PC games and assume what they are playing is the top of the range stuff, such as Halo. Which was a joke compared to PC FPS's but xbox fans will swear by it. They dont know any better.

This is what causes this stuff.

Its like people who are into rock music talking to people into POP telling them how bad pop is. But the people into pop will just say ,"then how come more people listen to pop?".

A lot of it is taste really. No one in this thread is gonna turn around and say "woah ive been playing **** games all this time, time to buy a pc and try some truly interesting games" or "wow ive spent all this money for nothing when I could just buy a console and button bash, the games look just as good, so they must play just as good?" After reading this thread.

Jip

Cunny-Funt wrote:

Consoles players tend to be totally ingnorant about PC games and assume what they are playing is the top of the range stuff, such as Halo. Which was a joke compared to PC FPS's but xbox fans will swear by it. They dont know any better.

See, this is exactly the mickey swinging waffle I've been talking about..

thelordofcheese

Cunny-Funt wrote:

A lot of it is taste really. No one in this thread is gonna turn around and say "woah ive been playing **** games all this time, time to buy a pc and try some truly interesting games" or "wow ive spent all this money for nothing when I could just buy a console and button bash, the games look just as good, so they must play just as good?" After reading this thread.

Actually, i'm considering never gaming on my PC ever again just so i'm never in danger of uttering such pompus, misguided guff.
Do people actually believe this rubbish, or has this thread been moved under a bridge?

koneko

Indeed, very very very poor show old boys. I'm surprised some of you have your heads lodged so firmly up your own behinds. But hey, what do I know, I might be a PC-gamer but I also have lots of consoles so I must be dumb and only button-mash duuurrrrrrr. Elitism FTL.

0ubliette

thelordofcheese wrote:

Actually, i'm considering never gaming on my PC ever again just so i'm never in danger of uttering such pompus, misguided guff.
Do people actually believe this rubbish, or has this thread been moved under a bridge?

I really hope its the latter, but i have a sinking fgeeling its the former. Actually this thread is making me want to play my pc less and less for fear i end up posting sh!te like that. Having said that i had an enjoyable game of cod2 on the pc last night, after having a just as enjoyable game of R6V on the 360. So i guess cunny funt is right, us console gamers are just ignorant after all, and really dont know whats going on in pc land, i wish i wasnt so closed minded and uninformed when it came to gaming, i am cry.