Man, I couldnt aggree more, its like you read my mind!!!

A couple of points I'd like to add though... The main advantages of PC gaming imo are those:

- Strategy games will always be much better on PCs, mainly because of very high res monitor, input devices (keyboard and mouse), the target demography (PC community is usually older and prefer less action, more strategy etc) and the key concept of playability (PC gaming is generally a more adult environment, while video games are more action oriented and preferable for fast and simpler action).

- Online Gaming is always pioneered at PC. You have in control of the intantenous download and all the internet stuff. Even though the gap has drastically narrowed down this generation, the PC is still and will always be the leading medium.

- Flexible and Independent Gaming is thriving on PC as there are no loyalty fees etc.

- The PC audience is too large compared to consoles and the environment is very flexible, so there is always a big audience over there if you know how to reap the benefits. Also PC is a future-proof environment, at least for the foreseeble future.

I don't PC game anymore but I hang with a bunch of people who do. One of my friends last updated his rig in early 2007 (a mild update from a 2006 rig) and the visuals on L4D, Bioshock, CoD4, etc. absolutely blow the PS3/360 out of the water.

It's not even funny. The differences are painfully obvious within seconds.

Really, some people should actually try their hand at PC gaming for a few years, learn the ins and outs of it, and read up on how to build a nice computer on a budget before spouting off this inane tripe.

And just to quote a small bit of Rocketpig's post

Flat out untrue. If you spent $800 on a PC when the PS3 released, you'd still be able to play almost any game released (Mass Effect, CoD4, etc) on high settings and you'd probably be able to squeak out low/mid on Crysis, which still looks better than anything found on either HD console.

I spent about 700 on a PC christmas 2006, and I can play mass effect COD4, and bioshock fine and dandy, and they definitely have the graphical edge over their console counterparts on my PC which isn't very good at all by today's standards.

I was considering a long post, but I think rocketpig has hit the nail on the head.

It's interesting that people come into these threads and list overblown arguments against PC's and then yell that PC people are elitist bastards.

If you know what you're doing, PC gaming is a piece of piss.

If you're new to it and don't know how to fix problems, don't know where to look quickly when things go wrong etc then yes it can be a pain.

I've been messing around with computers for years and know exactly what I'm doing, I know exactly what the best bang for buck is. I know exactly what I should\shouldn't have running on my computer. I know exactly how to avoid virii\spyware\get rid of it if it ever appears.

Its all about knowledge, if you don't know what you're doing the OP is correct.

If you do, he's talking utter bullshit.

 I'd also like to comment on that in a similar line of thought.

When the Playstation 1 and the Sega Saturn, heck even the Megadrive\Snes was released...

They WERE a good couple of years ahead of the latest PC hardware.

The PS3\Xbox 360 were NEVER ahead of the latest PC hardware, they were based on the current latest PC hardware but using stripped down versions of it.

Xbox 360 = ATI X1800 graphics card with tosh CPU

PS3 = 7800GTX (this had been out well over a year on the PC) + over complex CPU that still couldn't stand up to a Quad Core Q6600 in real terms and still can't.

Any RTS will show the CPUs on the consoles aren't up to much and Crysis, although running like a dog even on the latest hardware this is only relative to other PC gamers games who EXPECT 60FPS+.

Compared to how a lot of games run on consoles, Crysis ran like a DREAM even on medium hardware.

So....In summary, the op doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't like reading people making sweeping statements that haven't been thought through properly.

Huh?? Bioshock and COD4 on the PC is exactly the same as on PS360.

The only thing you can do on PC versions is to up the resolution a bit and add some AA/AF.

But the essence of the game is the same - polygons, textures, bump maps, HDR, shadows and so on. <----- these factors are vast amounts more important than resolution and AA.

I have a nice PC with a 24 inch 1920x1200 res screen, but in games like CoD 4-5, Tomb Raider: Underworld, Bioshock, Fallout 3 etc the PC version don't look significantly better even at higher res + everything at max.

Right on the money!

If you get the right gear after doing your research - I don't mean a few hours I mean real reaearch, so you innately know what to look for not just some benchmarks. You can get a beast of a setup minus a monitor for the price of a little bit more than a PS3....

You will have to build it yourself though.

Texure detail is way lower on console versions of Bioshock, same for COD4. I think even gamespot did a photo comparison thing of it a while back with the 360 version and it was blatently obvious.

Also, FRAME RATE.

Bioshock on PC can run at 60fps+ on max with modest hardware = Xbox 360\PS3 - 30fps\lower res\less aa\less af\less detail.

Try plugging your Xbox 360 into your PC LCD with the VGA cable and you will be a convert I promise!

Wow, I disagree. I've seen several games run on PC (that I own for 360) and the 360 versions don't even compare.

You don't think 8xAA, improved textures (which most PC games enjoy), increased draw distance, and 60+ fps make a difference?

I sure do, and I'm hardly a graphics whore. A game doesn't have to look good for me to enjoy it but I'm not going to tell myself there isn't a difference if the proof is sitting right in front of me.

Then again, Mass Effect did look pretty sweet on the 360 if you waited 15 seconds for all the textures to load.