Dude, I don't doubt you or your opinion. In fact I 100% agree with you.

My argument was that since the PS3 version of UT that I mentioned came with keyboard/mouse support, why don't other games? it's infinately better IMO to play a shooter with that setup. A controller just don't cut the mustard for many games. If the support CAN be added, why don't they add it is all I'm trying to say. As for GEoW beingbetter on a controller, well opinions are meant to differ. Personally i think all shooters - tps or fps - should have keyboard/mouse support. it's just so much better.

heh

imo.

PC games have a greater variety. And are the hardcore machines of the gaming world. Yes you have your technophiles in teh console world, but PC gaming in general is more hardcore. It has a full blown capable operating system. Tweaking specs and all of that. That's hardcore. They also do all games well.
PC = Versatility

Console games are the casual of the gaming world. They have minimal OS. Easy to get into. Easy controls. They are machines with a limited scope of use and do some game extrmely poorly. Like classic RTS(I'm excluding the Wii).
Console = Dedicated

Depends on what your looking for in the end. Unless your a fanboy of either of those concepts neither is better.

The answer to your dilemma is in your text :P. Having a better setup as optional, there are no servers which seperate keyboard/mouse users from control pad users. So unfair advantage? that kid with his xbox controller is sure gonna get his ass handed to him by some amatuer keyboard/mouse user. How is that fair, i understand ur gripe and i support you. but the majority of console users who play shooters dont have money/space/dislike the keyboard and mouse setup but they will be at a disadvantage.

Might aswell gimp all players to the controller rather than have a mismatch of skill and people with better hardware/peripheral setups. Consoles are all about having a level playing field IMO. if u want customization setups etc thats what a pc is for.

yeah i saw the guy that talks in the css cgs vids show he can play ps3 version ut on youtube

and as for mouse and keyboard games are more fast paced and harder = fun IMO... but for controller games are slower paced and easier = still fun but less IMO

cod4 is a perfect example of a mutliplat fps and its great on any gaming platform

UT3 is 30% slower on consoles FYI. Yes there are mods and whatnot out there but the out-of-the-box configuratino is set to 30% slower gameplay.

OT: This has been mentioned a lot so I will just parrot and keep it short. I'm an FPS/RTS/RPG fan, those are my main genres that I love and they are best represented on a PC. UT2004 is my favorite multiplayer shooter and I can tell you that it will be impossible to have it on a console without ruining the experience. There's just so much going on and it's so fast that there is no way the limited, awkward, slow inputs of a controller can handle it. There is a VERY good reason why UT3 is 30% slower on consoles and PC version of UT3 is much slower paces than UT2004. I have YET to find an enjoyable FPS that I can consider great on a console and I've given all of them a very fair try.

I really don't have to explain why RTSes are better on PCs.

RPGs. The computer has been home to RPGs ever since the days of Zork, yeah it has got no JRPGs but it has other RPGs that run circles around them. Here is an example, Neverwinter Nights was an epic RPG, it's basically D&D with ruleset 3.5 made easy for the public. It's storyline was massive and very very good, at least imho. On top of that it was a PC D&D game, they allowed you to make your own stories and to play as a game master. There is no way it would be able to be on a console. You can't mod a game worth a damn on consoles, meanwhile PCs have communities around every game making new free content for you, maps, or even full conversions which feel like a brand new game (Alien Swarm for UT2004 is deffinetly worth a look for anyone who has it). It's just that on PCs with an RPG done will there is an limitless amount of content for it. Not so with Consoles.

The graphics issue has been setteled so no point of going into it.

As stated above, any reason why an HD console is better than the Wii directly translates into why the PC is better than the consoles, except that there is also huge mod support for the PC, which is a huge bonus.

I might be flamed for this, but who else here believes that UT 2004(PC) had a much better multi-player than Halo 2?

Halo multiplayer sucks. And I don't mean "below the best" I mean it's lackluster. It's so slow, it's kinda sad that even genetically engineered super humans in the future will move at the speed of a 90 year old with Parkinson's. IMO UT2004 has the best FPS multiplayer all around. It's solely skill based and nothing more.

I agree with the OP on the point that it's bull to have to upgrade your system every so often just to be able to play the latest games. That's why I prefer consoles. Also, the range of genres of games on PCs is just too limited for me. Basically it's mostly shooters, racers, MMORPGs or strategy games.

Every so often being every 3-4 years for a few hundred dollars? The returns you get from this far far outweigh the costs in terms of graphics and all other computing mechanics. Also it's not just MMORPGs it's RPGs in general.

I view consoles as wannabe PCs with very few genres in which they are superior to the PC. All of them involve the fact that you cant have more than 3 keys sending input from your keyboard to your computer while there is no such limitation on consoles.

Oh yeah, because when Bioshock came out, I totally had to upgrade my system. And when Crysis Warhead came out, I had to upgrade again. And when Left 4 Dead comes out, I'll have to upgrade AGAIN!

Oh wait, no I didn't. I've been running off the same system for a year, and the only upgrade in the past 2 years was a $90 graphics card to keep my games on the high graphics level...oh teh noes!