Game Snobbery

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?

unreggd

U shud have included an option in the poll statin that consoles are better


Console do it better IMO, cos that's what there made for. Apart from an XPS, PCs aint really designed for gaming as opposed to web/music etc

challengemaster

unreggd wrote:

U shud have included an option in the poll statin that consoles are better


Console do it better IMO, cos that's what there made for. Apart from an XPS, PCs aint really designed for gaming as opposed to web/music etc

You really have no clue.. do you? If consoles are better then why are consoles developing closer and closer into basically, a pc?

here's one for you. Where do you think all the consoles and the games on them are designed? hmmm?

also XPS only gamer pc? where did you pull that statement out of. never heard of alienware*/voodoo/custom builds/etc ? I suggest you read up before going 'NO WE R GRT' (Txt spk used because you're obviously used to it more than proper english/keyboard use)




*owned by dell now

MooseJam

this thread needs some love ...

Burning Eclipse

This again...

Why can't we all just get along?

Kinetic^

unreggd wrote:

U shud have included an option in the poll statin that consoles are better


Console do it better IMO, cos that's what there made for. Apart from an XPS, PCs aint really designed for gaming as opposed to web/music etc

No more talk from you sunshine, as you're bringing the rest of us console gamers down with you!!!!!:rolleyes:

jonny72

o1s1n wrote:

Anyone who thinks true gaming can only be done on a PC is more of an idiot than a snob.

They're all just machines. Only reason a PC would handle a FPS any better is down to the keyboard and mouse combination. They're peripherals for the machine. Not the machine itself. Some consoles can support them. So I really think that arguments falls flat.

Upgrade potential is the one true advantage PC gaming has. Which can be damn expensive.

Consoles can't support mouse and keyboard properly yet. When they do, every console FPS/RTS/MMO gamer with half a brain is gonna get a mouse and keyboard or get left behind. When mouse + keyboard becomes mainstream on a console, well then they are just gonna be bastardised PC's..

I mean look when Halo came out on xbox, they went nuts, I played it on both PC and console.. what an atrocious multiplayer game.. every single hardcore fps gamer I know thought exactly the same.. designed for tomy's my first run around a 3D map.. ooo..

I had a playstation 2, tons of games, xbox, tons of games, gamecube.. so bored with every game after just a few days.. a console game is one where you pretty much sit around with a few mates and play for a laugh.. PC gaming is generally much more immersive (and antisocial).. mostly because of the keyboard/mouse and the unlimited online aspect (demos, replays, patches, upgrades, new maps, mods, free games, forums, support, movies, etc) for all genres of games.

TheAlmightyArse

[Mod edit: This is the games board, do not create large replies correcting spelling and grammar.]

TheAlmightyArse

jonny72 wrote:

a console game is one where you pretty much sit around with a few mates and play for a laugh..

GOD FORBID.

MooseJam

dude, pointing out spelling mistakes is lame

Kinetic^

jonny72 wrote:

a console game is one where you pretty much sit around with a few mates and play for a laugh

Stupid comment imo, if that's what you use them for then fine but clearly you're not up to scratch with the next gen consoles.

jonny72 wrote:

the unlimited online aspect (demos, replays, patches, upgrades, new maps, mods, free games, forums, support, movies, etc) for all genres of games.

Have you played an Xbox 360? It covers pretty much everything you mentioned there.

Kinetic^

MooseJam wrote:

dude, pointing out spelling mistakes is lame

No capitalisation........no full stop :eek:

monument

Back on topic, please and thank you.

evad_lhorg

if their is 1 ting I h8 more that nerdey pc gamers its nerdey grammer freeks,


but anyway. I just dont like sitting in front of a pc playing games. saying an fps cant be played properly in front of a console is bull! And most of the best FPS and 3rd person shooters are on consoles. when was there a good FPS released on PC last? I work in a games shop and, in fairness, most of the pc stuff we sell would be budget or warcraft. thats about it. STALKER was the last one that sold ok but the likes of Rainbow 6 or Call of duty are definitely outselling their PC equivalents. Why would the devlopers NOT choose to make the games for consoles and why would the consumer not see that the best range of games are on consoles these days.

you can go on and on about mods and that crap but its not really a major issue. Only really for the nerds these days.

Lemming

I'm going to skip most of the cock-swinging in this thread and just post. I voted for PC gaming. Why? I own several consoles, I also own several PCs. I *rarely* use my consoles and have not in many, many years. I like FPS, RTS, TBS (turn-based Strategy), RPG, MMO-FPS/RPG, and then the ones that don't really fit into categories like GTA.

The only genre that console do better are beat'em ups. Racing games are on-par. But I don't particularly care for either genre all that much.

PCs are infinitely more versatile and have a far larger selection of good games to be perfectly honest. Most "big" console games these days are also dual-released on PC anyway.

And of course, online play? PC wins hands down no matter what drugs you're smoking to try and make consoles appear on an equal footing.

MMO games? PC. FPS online? PC all the way. You'll get f-v-c-k-i-n' slaughtered with a console controller. RTS online? PC again for interface.

You can upgrade your PC and move games between machines. Console A, B & C no likey play with each other. And that's a *BIG* down-side. That impressive collection you built for console A probably wont work on console B and you have to go build a new collection, possibly with the some of the same games again. Not good.

TheAlmightyArse

monument wrote:

Back on topic, please and thank you.

But it was relevant. Challengemaster made a series of baffling arguments, including a point about console gamers being too thick to type properly. That's quite a snobbish attitude about gamers, in a thread entitled "game snobbery". A point made hypocritical and even more ridiculous by his own consistently poor typing, which is why I pointed it out.

Fnz

Wow! What a great debate this has become. I think we've all learned something. [Linky]

jonny72

evad_lhorg wrote:

if their is 1 ting I h8 more that nerdey pc gamers its nerdey grammer freeks,


but anyway. I just dont like sitting in front of a pc playing games. saying an fps cant be played properly in front of a console is bull! And most of the best FPS and 3rd person shooters are on consoles. when was there a good FPS released on PC last? I work in a games shop and, in fairness, most of the pc stuff we sell would be budget or warcraft. thats about it. STALKER was the last one that sold ok but the likes of Rainbow 6 or Call of duty are definitely outselling their PC equivalents. Why would the devlopers NOT choose to make the games for consoles and why would the consumer not see that the best range of games are on consoles these days.

you can go on and on about mods and that crap but its not really a major issue. Only really for the nerds these days.

There are probably 10 times the number of consoles in Ireland than there are PC's used for gaming?? more consoles, more sales..

We're not talking about sales here..

Have you ever seen anyone good playing an FPS on PC?..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rzfmFM_lQM - some crappy movie but a good Russian player, you can't do anything close to this stuff on a controller.. pixel aiming.. complicated movement.. strafe jumping..

RTS - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSVFqOihMIE - This guy is doing close to 320 APM, thats like 5 clicks/keypresses a second..

PC gaming has so much more depth, its why the competitive scene is worth millions every year.

TheAlmightyArse

jonny72 wrote:

PC gaming has so much more depth, its why the competitive scene is worth millions every year.

Proof, if proof be need be, that the PC gamer snob-monster is very real.

The examples you're championing -- FPSs and RTSs -- unquestionably work best with a mouse and keyboard setup, so of course that puts them soley in the domain of PC gaming for the dedicated. It's a very blinkered of view of PC, but that's beside the point. The point is that only a snob would believe that depth is the crux of a good videogame, and only a snob would believe that there's anything deep about either FPSs or RTDs. The huge amount of homogenous titles in either genre has diluted them both to the point that in each, what matters above else is reaction and speed. Basically, reducing them to tarted up twitch gaming.

Have you seen any of those mental Japanese players perform superhuman feats in 2D shoot-'em-ups and brawlers? Does it prove that traditional coin-op games have "so much more depth"? No. It's a result of hours and hours of repitition and practice; nothing else.

super_furry

challengemaster wrote:

You really have no clue.. do you? If consoles are better then why are consoles developing closer and closer into basically, a pc?
[/SIZE]

It's called evolution. Consoles have taken the best aspects of PC gaming and left the rubbish behind. Fully intergrated out-of-the-box online gaming. No need to buy a server, set up a vent channel or any of that carry-on anymore. No more upgrading your machine when the latest games come out. No more prohibitively expensive rigs, hardware and software conflicts, massive zero-day patches, and games that work on one machine but not another.

Console gaming is much more streamlined and refined now and aside from the increasingly bland and generic FPS and RTS scene, and the admitedly more advanced MMORPG games (which consoles are catching up on), there are no advantages a PC has over a console.

TheAlmightyArse

super_furry wrote:

aside from the increasingly bland and generic FPS and RTS scene, and the admitedly more advanced MMORPG games (which consoles are catching up on), there are no advantages a PC has over a console.

There's more to the PC than dull FPSs, RTSs and MMORPGs. The best stuff is outside the mainstream and perhaps more difficult to get at, but it's out there. Namely the open indie scene, the scores of great, free games on the likes of www.the-underdogs.info and the excellent emulation scene. I thouroughly recommend checking them out. (Of course, that's not to say I'm advocating the use of the thousands of excellent illegal ROMs on the internet, which are excellent.)

brav

challengemaster wrote:

You really have no clue.. do you? If consoles are better then why are consoles developing closer and closer into basically, a pc?
...

I could say the same for you(with regards to consoles)

At the end of the day I think its all relative.
If I want a quick game with a few friends ill throw on nba2k7 or whatever on the 360. If i want a good fps game ill load up steam and play cs:s.

I was not a huge fan of previous generations of consoles because at the time my PC was always a better spec, however nowadays this has changed.

True PC's will continually get better, but so will games for the 360 etc, its the advantage of a console, the developer knows exactly what the end user has and can optimise it for the machine.

At the end of the day if you want to be able to play a game with minimal hassle and play against friends on-line I think 360 is the way to go.
On the other hand if you want run a game at the best possible resolution or have the control of a mouse(for rts games etc) then a PC is for you.

Saying one is better than the other is pointless as it depends on your needs. I used to be a PC man, but lately I find myself loading up the 360 for games/dvds on the projector, and using the PC for the odd Counter Strike and music/downloads.

Stephen

If console multiplayer games embraced the dedicated server concept (and didn't make you pay for the pleasure) I would play them so much more. Peer to peer is a load of bollocks. I like having a regular server in games like CSS where a regular community builds up. Still need me keyboard and mouse though

jonny72

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

.. and only a snob would believe that there's anything deep about either FPSs or RTDs. The huge amount of homogenous titles in either genre has diluted them both to the point that in each, what matters above else is reaction and speed. Basically, reducing them to tarted up twitch gaming.

Have you seen any of those mental Japanese players perform superhuman feats in 2D shoot-'em-ups and brawlers? Does it prove that traditional coin-op games have "so much more depth"? No. It's a result of hours and hours of repetition and practice; nothing else.

Only a snob would believe that there's anything deep about either FPS or 'RTS''s?

"Reaction and speed?"

What about aim (hitscan, prediction, tracking), movement, advanced movement (strafe jumping, bunnyhopping, circle jumping, double jumping, dodging, etc), intuition, item/ammo/health/armor management, strategy, tactics, map knowledge, multiple item timing, spawn control, map control, etc?

Not even mentioning, the psychology level, confidence, nerves...

There are thousands of uniquely different styles.. I go online and someone is using a fake name I can still usually tell if its someone I know just by watching their style of play.. even though after decade or half a decade the tactics are so refined..

If I had went through a 15 minute demo of a game between Avek and Toxic in Quake4 with a fine comb and explained every single thing they were doing and why there were doing it, what split second decisions they were taking and why, it would take me 15 hours! Button mashing? reaction and speed? you haven't the faintest clue..

I played SF2 for years and years in both arcades and on consoles in most of its various incarnations and is just a whole different story. The thought and effort I have to put into a competitive FPS to stay competitive is 100 times greater than anything I could possibly put into SF2.

An RTS like starcraft? well that is just on a whole different level.. its hard to even begin to explain the depth in that game.. no two games are ever the same.. the micro and macro management skill level needed to stay competitive is insane.. saying its just reaction and speed is pure ridiculous.. its like saying all there is to being a top F1 driver is just steering a wheel and pressing pedals..

I am only talking about online or LAN competitive games vs human opponents.

0ubliette

jonny72 wrote:

Only a snob would believe that there's anything deep about either FPS or 'RTS''s?

"Reaction and speed?"

What about aim (hitscan, prediction, tracking), movement, advanced movement (strafe jumping, bunnyhopping, circle jumping, double jumping, dodging, etc), intuition, item/ammo/health/armor management, strategy, tactics, map knowledge, multiple item timing, spawn control, map control, etc?

Not even mentioning, the psychology level, confidence, nerves...

There are thousands of uniquely different styles.. I go online and someone is using a fake name I can still usually tell if its someone I know just by watching their style of play.. even though after decade or half a decade the tactics are so refined..

If I had went through a 15 minute demo of a game between Avek and Toxic in Quake4 with a fine comb and explained every single thing they were doing and why there were doing it, what split second decisions they were taking and why, it would take me 15 hours! Button mashing? reaction and speed? you haven't the faintest clue..

I played SF2 for years and years in both arcades and on consoles in most of its various incarnations and is just a whole different story. The thought and effort I have to put into a competitive FPS to stay competitive is 100 times greater than anything I could possibly put into SF2.

An RTS like starcraft? well that is just on a whole different level.. its hard to even begin to explain the depth in that game.. no two games are ever the same.. the micro and macro management skill level needed to stay competitive is insane.. saying its just reaction and speed is pure ridiculous.. its like saying all there is to being a top F1 driver is just steering a wheel and pressing pedals..

I am only talking about online or LAN competitive games vs human opponents.

Wow. Just wow.
Bolded sections to highlight ultra pc fanboyness

Heres a mmorpg you should put a few hundred hours playtime into!

TheAlmightyArse

jonny72 wrote:

"Reaction and speed?"

What about aim (hitscan, prediction, tracking), movement, advanced movement (strafe jumping, bunnyhopping, circle jumping, double jumping, dodging, etc), intuition, item/ammo/health/armor management, strategy, tactics, map knowledge, multiple item timing, spawn control, map control, etc?

Reaction and speed. You memorize the map, then run about it methodically, pointing and clicking when you see a target. Things like "bunny hopping" are just awkward distractions. Just because something makes the game less fun to play doesn't mean it adds depth.

jonny72 wrote:

Not even mentioning, the psychology level, confidence, nerves...

Yeah. That's unique to PC gaming. None of that applies to anything else in life outisde of PC gaming.

jonny72 wrote:

Button mashing? reaction and speed? you haven't the faintest clue..

Button mashing isn't the same thing as being quick, or having sharp reactions. I never mentioned button mashing. Why associate it with them?

jonny72 wrote:

The thought and effort I have to put into a competitive FPS to stay competitive is 100 times greater than anything I could possibly put into SF2.

But if you have to think of it as effort, surely it's stopped being fun?

jonny72 wrote:

An RTS like starcraft?

The problem with real time strategy games is that they take place in real time. That puts huge pressure on the player to gets things done as quickly as possible, for fear of falling behind. Unlike, say, chess, where you have time to think and, y'know, strategise. When you put enormous time constraints on a player in any game, inevitably the strategy suffers. That's quite a deadly thing to do to a strategy game, wouldn't you think?

Now. What with you getting all indignant, you seem to have missed my previous point. You're putting "depth" on a pedastal and placing importance on it over all else in video games; you're saying that the "depth" you claim these games have ultimately elevates them above anything possible on a console; you snob.

jonny72

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

Reaction and speed. You memorize the map, then run about it methodically, pointing and clicking when you see a target. Things like "bunny hopping" are just awkward distractions. Just because something makes the game less fun to play doesn't mean it adds depth.

You can bash on and on about something you know nothing about, or you can open your mind a little and read about it. Drop the hate a little and just read ok..

http://www.sk-gaming.com/feature/670/1/

The problem with real time strategy games is that they take place in real time. That puts huge pressure on the player to gets things done as quickly as possible, for fear of falling behind. Unlike, say, chess, where you have time to think and, y'know, strategise. When you put enormous time constraints on a player in any game, inevitably the strategy suffers. That's quite a deadly thing to do to a strategy game, wouldn't you think?

What? they have clocks in chess, then they have speed chess, in an RTS the quicker you make good decisions the better, that requires such things as.. "BRAINPOWER".. "PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS"..

Now. What with you getting all indignant, you seem to have missed my previous point. You're putting "depth" on a pedastal and placing importance on it over all else in video games; you're saying that the "depth" you claim these games have ultimately elevates them above anything possible on a console; you snob.

Aaww don't call me a snob.

Consoles and console games (except the GTA series and a few driving games) completely and utterly bore me. They are just so limited.

Maybe someday someone will make a console that has a choice between mouse and keyboard (which actually function properly) and joypad, one which you can download music, media, videos, mods, demos, replays, whatever you want quickly and easily, that can emulate just about every game/arcade system ever made with nearly all the games ever made (for those platforms) available to download, that there is a broad variety of games both single player and mutiplayer (online)..

Thats a PC..

Its just what consoles are gonna evolve into..

I am living in a house with a bunch of people and the Wii is covered in dust, and the playstation has disappeared under a pile of books and crap.

Either way I'm not too concerned about all this, hey maybe consoles are better after all, seems to be riling up quite a few though.

DemonOfTheFall

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

The problem with real time strategy games is that they take place in real time. That puts huge pressure on the player to gets things done as quickly as possible, for fear of falling behind. Unlike, say, chess, where you have time to think and, y'know, strategise. When you put enormous time constraints on a player in any game, inevitably the strategy suffers. That's quite a deadly thing to do to a strategy game, wouldn't you think?

Yes, now think about what you just said for a few more minutes...






At the ultra competitive level you have players who can make strategic decisions at the highest possible level, while making tactical decisions at the highest possible level and to top it all off, crazy reflexes.

Your chess analogy is flawed in so many ways. Competitive chess is time limited :rolleyes:.

I voted PC gaming is superior because I favour FPS and RTS, two genres where consoles absolutely fail it. That doesnt mean that I don't love the 360 and the PS2 and Gamecube for alternative styles of games like Mario Sunshine, Dead Rising, whatever, but it does mean that I prefer the PC and think its games can have more depth.

Your arguments about RTS not having any depth come across the same way as any other person who sucks at RTS because they have no reflexes, no multitasking ability, no tactics, no strategy.

philip2066

Personally I think consoles often seem better for fps and driving games because they are easier to pick up and play.
Were the pc betters any console is in strategy games. Football manager, command and conquer, starcraft etc.
Using the mouse compared to a game pad is essential with these.
With pc's you can also download new maps, mods etc. Until a console can be played in windows format then this will be the case.

TheAlmightyArse

DemonOfTheFall wrote:

Your chess analogy is flawed in so many ways. Competitive chess is time limited :rolleyes:

In hours rather than seconds. Give me one reason why a reasonable amount of time to think and strategise should be abandoned in games entirely about thinking and strategising.

And why do you assume I'm bad at strategy games? Try to see beyond your preconceptions and argue without plucking stuff from thin air, otherwise it's an entirely pointless exercise.

TheAlmightyArse

philip2066 wrote:

Until a console can be played in windows format

*shudders*

dulpit

Ok, didn't really read the thread, but my opinion is that they are equal... The thing with PC gaming is that some games can be way better using the whole mouse and keyboard set up, some games benefit from being customisable etc. The thing that's good about consoles is that the more mainstream games available on them, plus the fact that if you buy an Xbox game, you're guaranteed it'll run as the developers envisaged, whereas with a PC, unless you have a real top-end machine, you're gonna lose out on graphics or something..

TheAlmightyArse

You're completely right, Dulpit, there's something to be for both. Neither console nor PC is ouright better and anyone with a broad interest in games really needs a selection of machines.

What this thread is about though, as I understand it, is the existence (or not) of a snobbery among some people who play using PCs exclusively towards consoles and console gamers. A good example is a poster in a recent thread concerning the two platforms who commented that PCs are like broadsheet newspapers and consoles like tabloids, with a corresponding audience.

BopNiblets

I am a PC gamer, FPS and RTS mostly, the last console I touched was a SNES in the 90s and didn't play many games on it due to budget restrictions (oh lawd we had it tough! ), but now I am interested in getting a Wii, forget all the Sonys and XBoxs (IDE drives, lol) none of them had any games that drew me into buying one, but the Wii interests me because of Paper Mario and Mario Galaxy and probably a few other titles that I haven't researched.

Soon, I will boldly venture into enemy territory, using my keyboard as a shield and my mouse to bludgeon and blind people (with the optical light)... If I don't come back in a few weeks, give my Steam ID to some poor gameless kid!

Creamy Goodness

philip2066 wrote:

Personally I think consoles often seem better for fps and driving games

sorry i stopped there...

i agree consoles are better for driving games but not fps not in a million years.

Bubs101

Maximilian wrote:

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

Without a doubt my favourite comment since joining boards.

As for which is better, it's a bit unfair on consoles because you can only compare FPS and RTS . After all, Sports games (bar champo) aren't exactly popular titles. Practically no platformers come out on the PC and that's consoles strongest area.The sports titles are also absent from the PC and most of the FPS games on consoles are ports so of course they're better on the PC. Deus ex on the PS2 wasn't a bad game, it just wasn't as good as the PC version. If the Ocarina of Time was brought out on the PC you could say the same thing in reverse

GrumPy

I think what people posting on this thread need to remember is that you cant have a valid opinion unless you are a regular gamer, ie. play both pc and console.

dent

The PC is a superior machine to the console.

Is it better for games?

Its definantly better for FPS, RTS and MMORPG and flight sims. It also has better graphics and sound.

You also get a constant stream of free games and additional content.

But it is expensive to buy. (I guess consoles are too if you include the HDTV)

Consoles are great for platform games and shoot em ups and beat em ups.

It also has its share of innovation such as the Nintendo Wii (Love this machine)

In terms of driving games I'd say consoles are equal to the PC.

Of course I'd be lost on my long commute without my PSP.

I'm primarly a PC gamer and thats my preference. I can also see why people are primarily console gamers. Each to there own I guess

dent

Cremo wrote:

sorry i stopped there...

i agree consoles are better for driving games but not fps not in a million years.

Totally agree, in terms of FPS there is no contest.

Creamy Goodness

dent wrote:

Totally agree, in terms of FPS there is no contest.

you can see this when you watch the likes of x-league.tv

they have so called professional gamers of games like GRAW and Resistance, and tbh with their reaction times, they wouldn't even last a minute on the noobiest pc fps server.

Leon11

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.

let the geek contest begin

FFS they're only games, who cares