Game Snobbery

steviec

challengemaster wrote:

I'm with Silverfish on this one - PC > Console for fps

thats great - Its coming to PC on day one too, with the Unreal Editor (the thing that actually makes the mods/maps/you name it) and will have about 20 mods within the week. you forgot to mention that UT3 for Console has auto-aim, basically making it a big crock of ****. Can you edit your config files on a ps3? the little things that can make a hell of a difference? turn off ambient sounds etc through config files? (and if you can do it, can you do it in less than 30 mins using a ****ty joypad & onscreen text editor)

For FPS games, PC is elitist - why? because you dont have auto-aim, you have to actually be skilled to play the game well, and learn things to play. not just pick up some joypad and rtfm page1 and be able to play well. all i can say is - good luck in UT3 trying to do a shieldgun(hammer) jump walldodge shock combo with a joypad.

You can plug a mouse and keyboard into the PS3 and the game will play exactly the same way (so Epic say). As for the config file stuff, who knows. I'll take the machine that can also play Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo et al, over one that gives you anal levels of control over background audio. My point wasn't that UT3 was better on Playstation, it's just that such a traditionally pure PC game is going straight to console(amongs others) while you don't see traditional console games going the other way.

Also the whole 'have to actually be skilled...' elitist rubbish gets on my nerves. A mouse and keyboard is more accurate - why does that make it more skillful? It just makes it easier in single player and it just means it's a slightly different skillset in multiplayer, but it's no less skillful. It's not like there's suddenly a dice roll that decides whether you hit or not, the better player will still win. At least with a console you know the guy on the other end isn't using a laser mouse and a crystal mousepad and disabling textures and whatever other cheap ways to get ahead they can find - it's a level playing field (or at least it traditionally was, but as I said new games are giving the mouse/keyboard option for those who want it now, presumably there'll be joypad-only servers to join too)

projectmayhem

Kharn wrote:

(ok, I don't believe that but I thought it might be funny).

you were wrong

i'm a fairly dedicated console gamer, but games i play on the console are purely to entertain me for a few hours in a given evening, and to give me a level of interaction you don't get from movies, music etc.

when i play the PC, though, specifically with online-based games (which i mostly stick to, since console "online" modes tend to be a bit wishy-washy, even on the famed xbl service) i strive to be somewhat good. i spent a fair amount of cash on my PC, so i want to justify it by being able to shoot someone in the face on counter-strike, etc. whereas on my PS3 or 360, if i suck i'm not overly bothered...

challengemaster

steviec wrote:

You can plug a mouse and keyboard into the PS3 and the game will play exactly the same way (so Epic say). As for the config file stuff, who knows. I'll take the machine that can also play Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Gran Turismo et al, over one that gives you anal levels of control over background audio. My point wasn't that UT3 was better on Playstation, it's just that such a traditionally pure PC game is going straight to console(amongs others) while you don't see traditional console games going the other way.

I'll be totally honest with you on this one, since getting a PC i havent touched a ps2 game - they're all so **** compared. single player just doesnt do it anymore. Some things like GT/MGS series are good i agree, but you can only play through a game so many damn times SP before it gets extremly boring. the reason PC games are going console is because they want more money for them is all (and ofc you could use some better games)

Also the whole 'have to actually be skilled...' elitist rubbish gets on my nerves. A mouse and keyboard is more accurate - why does that make it more skillful? It just makes it easier in single player and it just means it's a slightly different skillset in multiplayer, but it's no less skillful. It's not like there's suddenly a dice roll that decides whether you hit or not, the better player will still win. At least with a console you know the guy on the other end isn't using a laser mouse and a crystal mousepad and disabling textures and whatever other cheap ways to get ahead they can find - it's a level playing field (or at least it traditionally was, but as I said new games are giving the mouse/keyboard option for those who want it now, presumably there'll be joypad-only servers to join too)

you dont see why a mouse aim is more skillful than auto-aimer ? ....

also a laser mouse & CRYSTAL mousemat will totally feck up the laser and cause glitchyness/jumpyness with whats being read.

hardly anyone, ever, plays single player in fps games. i played through it in ut2k4 ONCE to see was it any good (when the power went and i was on my lappy), that said, i had it cleared in 50mins. it was pure ****e. The real gaming experience for fps games is online.

also if you find changing details in the game to get an edge, in proper e-sports, out of order/cheap - then i suggest you put away your pc in a box, give it to someone else. It's called playing to win - get over it or leave the gaming world.

Smellyirishman

challengemaster wrote:

you dont see why a mouse aim is more skillful than auto-aimer ? ....

He never said that. He said using a joypad requires a different skill than a M&KB, plus, not many FPS games have Auto-aim a few have an aid though (although I think this is mostly an old idea).

challengemaster wrote:

hardly anyone, ever, plays single player in fps games. i played through it in ut2k4 ONCE to see was it any good (when the power went and i was on my lappy), that said, i had it cleared in 50mins. it was pure ****e. The real gaming experience for fps games is online.

Hardly anyone ever? Hardly.

You're right though, a significant proportion of the fun in FPS games (I would argue for most games) is going online... but welcome to 2007, almost all console FPS games are online.

challengemaster wrote:

also if you find changing details in the game to get an edge, in proper e-sports, out of order/cheap - then i suggest you put away your pc in a box, give it to someone else. It's called playing to win - get over it or leave the gaming world.

Spoken like a true 1337z0r. :rolleyes:

Both consoles and PCs have their place in the gaming world. If you cannot see that, just STFU please . Although it won't be long until consoles can do exactly what PCs can (they are not far off) and offer it in a neater, more accessable package. You can see it happening already, how many good PC games have been released thus far this year, how many are coming? (With the exception of MMOs) Then compare that to consoles.

koneko

Oh no, not another thread like this.

Some of my favourite games of all times are on PC. Some of my favourite games of all time are on consoles. I don't believe in picking one or the other, I don't see why someone should have to pick one or the other, it's silly and means you're missing out on some of the best games ever made... either way.

I don't think people that play PC only games are elite, I think they're missing out. That's their choice. If they think that makes them "better" then they're deluded (not that I'm implying all "PC-only" players feel this way, but it's clear some do). The same applies to console-only players, but the "elitism" bug hasn't caught on there as much.

thelordofcheese

Man i love these threads, they attract morons and their half-assed dribblings like moths to a flame.

Stephen

I have a decent gaming PC, and have had several over the years. I have an Xbox 360. I had a PS2 and Xbox before that. I'll probably get a PS3 when its price drops to a reasonable level and it has more than 1 or 2 games worth playing. I have always preferred the PC over the consoles. If a game was available on all 3 platforms I'd always get the PC version (hello GTA).

What really boils my piss about consoles is that you have to pay for the likes of Xbox Live when you can play online as much as you like for free with PC games. None of this gold and silver tiered bolloxology. The fact that PC games are normally significantly cheaper than console games also incentivises me to buy them over the console versions of multiformat games.

The argument of the cost of upgrading PC's to keep up with the hardware arms race doesn't really bother me as I'll be doing that anyway - I use my PC for more than just games, so comparing its cost to that of a console that ONLY plays games does not make much sense to me.

Certainly consoles are better for some genres like beat 'em ups and sports games, and PC's are better for others such as FPS and RTS. Whoever said racing games are unplayable with a keyboard and mouse (well keyboard alone, actually) clearly hasn't tried one.

In short, I like both but I prefer PC. Weh.

Duggy747

I like PC's and consoles, though I favour towards PC's cuz of the freedom and flexibility. But at least you can fúck a game into a console and not on the odd time be greeted with "missing dx9_27.dll required" or "Xbox 360 has performed an illegal operation and will now close, would you like to send an error report?" To the person who said PC games are getting generic while consoles are taking the pace are woefully wrong. I think it's the other way around, in terms of generic games. The problem for developers on consoles is the pressure they receive to push these games out, a lot of times then we see buggy releases. Have you honestly ever heard of a console-only game that's being in development for years & years?

FEAR was never "dropped" from the PC community. It's a pretty good game, the only quiff everyone had was the same architectures used over & over again. Plain rule: FPS CAN'T be played on consoles, it just doesn't feel right without the precision of a mouse. You be flailing your crosshair everywhere as you try to hone in on a baddie while your being surrounded.

Anywho, personally I prefer a PC for gaming because of the vast genre of games we have. That and the ability to roll back to old classics like Duke Nukem 3D, Doom I & II, Quake 1, Blood 1, etc.

P.S. Consoles kick ass on racing games though.

Vegeta

having played both i prefer consoles

I am a casual gamer and prefer the comfort and no hassle approach of playing a console

Don't particularly like mouse and keyboard either

6ix

Having played both consoles and PCs for many years, I can see the merits of both. I once leaned more toward PC, but now that I'm working and have less time on my hands, plugging in the 360 for a quick Xbox Live game seems more accessible for some reason.

The one big difference I notice is that far more PC gamers have to "have a go" at console users for no reason. You'll rarely see it the other way around (unless provoked).

Eg reading the COD forum here when COD3 came out, someone would ask a question regarding the game, casually mentioning that they play a console version. Cue lots of "Why would you play that - keyboard+mouse is far better", blah blah. Fair enough, I can see the point, but stop bringing it order to look more elite.

Maximilian

I think its fair to say that in general the PC is better. Games tend to have more depth than console versions, there's a greater variety of games available not to mention the enormous back catalogue and games are cheaper.

Plus, console owners are poor and therefore don't contribute to society.

L31mr0d

Vegeta wrote:

having played both i prefer consoles

I am a casual gamer and prefer the comfort and no hassle approach of playing a console

Don't particularly like mouse and keyboard either

To me and I think everyone, its all about titles. I've been a devout PC gamer for quite a while, but as I see more and more good game titles slipping over to consoles and then being poorly ported to PC its shifting the tide imo. I'm not a fanboy and will move over to consoles if the games I want to play stop being released on PC.

Last generation, I would of said PC wins in all areas hands down.

But now, i'm not so sure, PC's now offer very little to justify the huge price tag thats need to keep them up to a reasonable spec. People are looking at around 1500 at least a year to play games at a better quality then can be found on consoles.

Consoles now offer:
1. Downloadable content (mods are being planned for the UT3 console version)
2. Online play (so you have to pay, so what, people do it anyway in the likes of WoW, and you don't have the extra cost of buying a €500 graphics card every few months)
3. The ability to use a keyboard and mouse (PC will lose their FPS crown once these become mainstream)
4. HD playback (how many of you PC gamers have a Bluray/HD-DVD player in your computers)
5. Upgradable HDDs
6. Can be networked to a PC to stream content and use it as a media center

As far as I can see, PCs now have nothing over consoles to make them better for gaming. If anything there a lot of features of consoles that make them even better now. You might argue that games "look" better on the PC, but imo, the extra little bit of shimmering on water is not worth a price tag 4 times more expensive than a console.

Creamy Goodness

i think it boils down to this for me...


PC multiplayer = best when you're on your own.
Console multiplayer = best when you have mates around.

humanji

My biggest gripe with consoles are PC games that are dumbed down in content and execution so that they can also be released on consoles. Luckily, with the current generation, this isn't happening too much, but it hasn't stopped me worrying about the likes of Bioshock.

But as many have already said, it's pointless claiming that one is better than the other. I love my PC because of the huge variety and range of games, and I love my consoles for their pick up and playability and, although I'm ashamed to admit it, Singstar is bloody good fun when you're drinking with your mates!

MOH

krudler wrote:

maybe because pc games dont have the legacy that console games have and theyre jealous:D

Huh?!


Anyway, PC ftw. PC gaming, in any genre, has completely kicked the ass of any console I've ever owned




(disclaimer: only console I've ever owned was an Atari 2600)

Kiith

L31mr0d wrote:

2. Online play (so you have to pay, so what, people do it anyway in the likes of WoW, and you don't have the extra cost of buying a €500 graphics card every few months)

People are really overestimating the cost of upgrading their pc. You do not need the absolute top of the range graphics card for the vast majority of games. I paid €1500 for my pc a year and a half ago, and it still plays everything, perfectly. I will probably upgrade my card next year, for about €250, and then that will play everything, perfectly. Plus, its also used for work, so i need to keep it upgraded

steviec wrote:

PCs have a never ending conveyor belt of uninspiring FPS games and shiny graphics, and expensive upgrades and hassle to go with them.

The only big PC game anyone seems to be talking about lately is Crysis, which falls snugly into the 'generic FPS with expensive technology' category.

And consoles have a never-ending conveyor belt of sequels, sports sequels, beat-em ups, etc...All formats have their ****, unoriginal games. Dont try and say that the pc has more of them. Theres plenty of **** to go around. And Crysis, if you had watced the video's / read about it, is definatly not some generic fps with expensive technology. Its, by a long shot, the best looking game coming out, and it has alot of new/re-invented features that i dont have the energy/time to write about. Then theres Bioshock (i'll pay on pc cause of mouse/kb), Warhammer, Age of Conan, etc...

I also recently started playing some decent xbox live games. Gears on Co-op is great. Rainbow 6 is great (although the controls ). Ace Combat 6, Mass Effect, Too Human, Assassins Creed etc, etc...will (hopefully) be great.

I play both consoles and Pc. I love both consoles and Pc. I prefer Pc. Thats my opinion.

Now can we please stop having this argument :rolleyes:

PeakOutput

both have upsides...........a pc is a better platform for gaming in almost every way IF you have the money to invest in it.

the players are no different imo

Sephiroth_dude

I play both console and pc games,even though I only mainly play rpgs on the my ps2 (eg ff7,grandia,legend of dragoon) I Dont like pc rpgs (eg,baldurs gate,diablo)anyone i've tryed,I found it unfullfilling and did'nt enjoy them,and I play fps and stratergy games on my laptop,and I find playing stratergy games and fps on my laptop more fulfilling and enjoy them more than I would if i was playing them on a console.Even though I do enjoy playing the odd shooter on my ps2,its very rare that i do anyway.So it works both ways with me,I like playing games on both =D

Zillah

johnny_ultimate wrote:

One of the things I dislike about alot of PC gamers is how elite they seem.

Haha! Why thank you, thank you very much.

Perhaps the word you were looking for was "elitist"?

Tar.Aldarion

PC>Console
I have both.
There is absolutely no need for the donsole game if the game is on the PC.

Tar.Aldarion

PC>Console
I have both.
There is absolutely no need for the console game if the game is on the PC.

Mark Hamill

Kiith wrote:

People are really overestimating the cost of upgrading their pc. You do not need the absolute top of the range graphics card for the vast majority of games. I paid €1500 for my pc a year and a half ago, and it still plays everything, perfectly. I will probably upgrade my card next year, for about €250, and then that will play everything, perfectly. Plus, its also used for work, so i need to keep it upgraded

So you start off with €1500 for your PC, then upgrade maybe 2 times over 5-6 years at €250 a go, so over all you have spent €2000 for your PC over 5-6 years to keep it up to date. The very first Xbox 360 bought in Ireland (they where about €400 i think when they first came out) will play the very last Xbox 360 game that will made in 4-5 years time (saving for the 360 breaking), so it will take a console player €400 to keep up to date with games.
So it is expensive to keep it upgraded. It might not be cripplingly expensive, especially if you need it for work, but its still a lot dearer than a console.

(Also, its not just graphics cards you need to upgrade, Halo 2 is only on Vista isn't it?)

Personally, I just like games. My PC and Laptop are crap so I don't play games on them, but that doesn't mean if I could afford a better PC I wouldn't get one.

Stephen

I'd put money on Halo 2 being cracked to run on XP. The vista only thing is a marketing exercise for microsoft's games for windows programme.

Actually, looks like its in the works already: http://nikon.bungie.org/news.html?item=18626

Kinetic^

I consoles!!!!

Just find their simplicity more appealing and I find playing FPS not a bother with the Xbox 360 controller. RTS can be a bit ghey on them though. I've tried playing CS on PC but just can't get used to the mouse and keyboard controls.

Tar.Aldarion

You can't play an RTS or an FPS properly on a console.You can do is adequately all right but it's not near the same. With an rts siuch as warcraft I have to consistantly press 200 keys a minute during the game, a console would kill me.

Change the keys for CS, I know I do!

Jazzy

o1s1n wrote:

Anyway, this isn't mouse/keyboard vs control pad. As they are readily available peripherals for games consoles.

but you cant play any games with the mouse and kb on the consoles... unless you do alot of modding.
whereas i have a 360 pad hooked up to my machine easy enough.

in my experiance i use the PC for RTS and FPS games almost exclusively and use the consoles for Sports games (Pro Evo & VT3) and RPG games. i dont play many driving games but id probably use a console for them. for games like Civilization and the Total War series it would be PC, for just about any other games outside of the afformentioned genres id probably go with the console.
i dont generally care what platform a game comes out on

0ubliette

They both have strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who completely dismisses either pc gaming or console gaming is missing out. I play both so i miss nothing, i get to play the pc exclusives, and i get the console exclusives.

You wont find games like Dead rising, or okami on a PC, both absolute classics. Yet you wont get stuff like 64 player games of battlefield on a console, its swings and roundabouts. Tho i do get annoyed with the seeming elitism of pc gamers in regards to console gamers. Trust me, if you play world of warcraft or something and think youre better than other people because of it, you really have nothing to be proud of.

MOH

Mark Hamill wrote:

So you start off with €1500 for your PC, then upgrade maybe 2 times over 5-6 years at €250 a go, so over all you have spent €2000 for your PC over 5-6 years to keep it up to date. The very first Xbox 360 bought in Ireland (they where about €400 i think when they first came out) will play the very last Xbox 360 game that will made in 4-5 years time (saving for the 360 breaking), so it will take a console player €400 to keep up to date with games.
So it is expensive to keep it upgraded. It might not be cripplingly expensive, especially if you need it for work, but its still a lot dearer than a console.

(Also, its not just graphics cards you need to upgrade, Halo 2 is only on Vista isn't it?)

Personally, I just like games. My PC and Laptop are crap so I don't play games on them, but that doesn't mean if I could afford a better PC I wouldn't get one.

I paid 1200 for my PC September 2004, so just under 3 years ago.
Without ever upgrading, played everything up to Stalker with it (quite playable - only real slowdown was lightning in storm scenes, but think everyone had problems at some point with it). Mightn't be playing at max res on the newest games, but on a 19" LCD I've as good details as I need.

Just added another 2 gig of ram and a fairly decent gfx card for about 200 quid, but that's largely cos I'll be messing around with some graphics heavy development.

John Kimble

0ubliette wrote:

They both have strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who completely dismisses either pc gaming or console gaming is missing out. I play both so i miss nothing, i get to play the pc exclusives, and i get the console exclusives.

You wont find games like Dead rising, or okami on a PC, both absolute classics. Yet you wont get stuff like 64 player games of battlefield on a console, its swings and roundabouts. Tho i do get annoyed with the seeming elitism of pc gamers in regards to console gamers. Trust me, if you play world of warcraft or something and think youre better than other people because of it, you really have nothing to be proud of.

Well said. The worst aspect of PC elitism is the assumption that everyone is in a position to afford a high spec PC. That's absolute rubbish. The true strength of console gaming lies in its accessibilty. If you're obssessed with the notion of better graphics and the whole "mouse & keyboard > pad" debate then you're missing the point of gaming. I'm glad to say that I still have a fully functional NES and SNES. Playing the original Mario Kart on the latter is an experience that still delights to this day.
Also worth noting is that some folk, like me, spend their entire working day glued to a PC. I'm damned if I'm going to spend any of my leisure time doing the same. Maybe I'm missing out, but I'm happy with my console.

jaggeh

is it caturday yet?