By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Fun Topic. Which are better for Gaming? PC's or Consoles?

yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:

Consoles are way better imo.  They are way more user-friendly, and with integrated communities like live, they are more fun.  They are way better for FPS, (It actually takes skill as oppossed to point and click) Co-op orientated games, Rythm games, (try hooking up Rock Band to your computer and playing with 4 people) and pretty much every other genre is just more fun with consoles.  Plus Pc's are more expensive, and their graphics for the most part are about the same as consoles.

PC is so better for RTS's, and MMO's (WOW!!!) but thats about it 

Post 'o Fail.

 

FPS better on consoles? Really? Point and click? The PC shooters are the only ones that take actual skill. By the time Master Chief turns around I can go take a piss. And don't give me that whole "strategy" crap either. Go play an RTS if you are dying for a stretegy. As it stands consoles shooters are extremely simple and easy.

 

I concede only party games (not lan parties) and platformers to consoles. Everythign else is better on the PC.

You've obviously never played a FPS on a console before.  So whats so skillfull about point and clicking?

The fact that the target moves about 3 times faster, while you yourself also moves 3 times faster. What's so skillful about moving the reticule slowly over someone who is basically crawling across the screen?

That only applies to Team Fortress (at least from what i've seen)  And team fortress is on consoles too so that logic fails.

And having played Counter Strike and Halo 3 before, I can easily say they move about the same speed (I think counter strike is a little faster)  

You saying stuff like this just backs up my point that you have never played a console FPS...

Yes... Unreal Tournament, Quake, Half-Life. They are no games at all, obviously. Why don't you try playing some true shooters then making those claims. Also, as Scoobes pointed out, consoles even need auto aim, which is kinda pathetic, but I uess necessary.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:

You've obviously never played a FPS on a console before.  So whats so skillfull about point and clicking?

The fact that the target moves about 3 times faster, while you yourself also moves 3 times faster. What's so skillful about moving the reticule slowly over someone who is basically crawling across the screen?

That only applies to Team Fortress (at least from what i've seen)  And team fortress is on consoles too so that logic fails.

And having played Counter Strike and Halo 3 before, I can easily say they move about the same speed (I think counter strike is a little faster)  

You saying stuff like this just backs up my point that you have never played a console FPS...

Yes... Unreal Tournament, Quake, Half-Life. They are no games at all, obviously. Why don't you try playing some true shooters then making those claims. Also, as Scoobes pointed out, consoles even need auto aim, which is kinda pathetic, but I uess necessary.

lol, all of those games made there ways to the Xbox through sequels.

Can you please name some games whose sequels are not showing up on one or both of the HD twins?



There is nothing a console can do that a PC cant.

Don't like a keyboard? Buy a controller for it.
Graphics not good enough? Upgrade your GPU
Surround Sound? Of Course.
Bluetooth? Any time
Blu-ray? Go and watch them Blu-rays at 8X speeds
Online? All the time
$60 games? We play them bad boys for $40

The PC can do everything the console can, it just might cost a little more.
The only advantage of the consoles are exclusives. And if you want all those you have to buy $700 worth of consoles anyways.



Username2324 said:
There is nothing a console can do that a PC cant.

Don't like a keyboard? Buy a controller for it.
Graphics not good enough? Upgrade your GPU
Surround Sound? Of Course.
Bluetooth? Any time
Blu-ray? Go and watch them Blu-rays at 8X speeds
Online? All the time
$60 games? We play them bad boys for $40

The PC can do everything the console can, it just might cost a little more.
The only advantage of the consoles are exclusives. And if you want all those you have to buy $700 worth of consoles anyways.

This last just isn't true - all of us have a limited amount of money. I'm a primarily PC/360/Wii/PS2 gamer with a heaping helping of DS thrown in there, so I think I have a pretty healthy perspective on each of the platforms, but I do believe that if I were limited to one console, I would not be able to afford all of the games that interest me.

Talking about ideals in consoles vs. PCs is kind of ludicrous, because ideals do not matter at all to the average consumer.



PC by a mile. Besides cost consoles offer nothing a gaming PC couldnt beat. You can always hook your PC up to an HDTV or large moniter and sit on your couch. PC >>> Consoles



Long Live SHIO!

Around the Network

For me consoles!



MY ZELDA COLLECTION
shio said:
 

1. Control schemes are not subjective. PC allows far more types of control than any console. PC clearly wins.

Do you understand what subjective means? It means that I can't prove motion controls are better than joysticks, and you can't prove mouse and keyboard is better than motion controls, and any combination you want to come up with. RTS and FPS are not the only genre of videogame, and even if they were, it would still be subjective. Period. I could say that Big Mama's House 2 is better than the Godfather, and I wouldn't be wrong, because it is subjective. Right? If you want to get into opinions...well, most people don't like when I do that.

2. You make little sense. The fact is that PC is getting less and less problems than ever before, while consoles are getting more and more problems than ever, and that is a big damage to the notion that consoles are accessible.

Consoles are more accessable to the HD gamer than PC. No one agrees with your assertion that they are not. No one.

3. If a PC gamer wants to play X game with a gamepad, they can go and buy a gamepad. If a Console gamer wants to play Y game with a Mouse+Keyboard, they can't. PC gamer have choice, console gamers don't.

The PS3 has the ability to hook up and play games via mouse and keyboard. That said, if I want to play X game with the Wii-mote on the PC, I cannot. If I want to play with the PSeye or the 6 axis on the PC, no games support it. I agree that currently the controls are better on PC for 2 genres, and equal in all others. This isn't a deal breaker, and in the future, it will likely change. Either way, the control argument is subjective, and non-factual.

4. Alright, I'll define.
Interface - PC allows for a more complex interface on games, there is no question about it. Compare the amount of information and interactivity available in a game like World of Warcraft and compare it to any console game.
Library - PC have far more games being developed than all Consoles combined. That is a fact, objectively speaking.
Lower price - PC games are atleast $10 cheaper than console games. The average retail PC game sold was $25, and that's counting game bundles as individual packages. The average Steam game is probably around $15. I bought 10 games on Steam for only $30 last time.
Ease of upgrading - Really?! You can upgrade PCs, you pretty much can't on consoles. Your argument is irrelevant when consoles even aren't included.
Lack of service limitation - Huh?! Just compare to what a gamer can do on Steam to what a console gamer can do...
Greater amount of services - Steam, Impulse, GOG,Gamersgate, Battle.net, Onlive, Gaikai, etc...

Miscommunication here. Those things I listed were from another post about the pros of PC gaming.

Anyway, PC gaming isn't cheaper than renting, renting isn't allowed, and in general, it's much cheaper to buy any console game used, than PC game.

Also, you are spinning numbers and facts, when they don't necessarily have the result a common person would assume. For instance, when you say that PC gaming has more games in development for it, those games are from independant developers, and they aren't comparable to any of the top exclusives being developed by Sony or nintendo. The PC has no barriers to entry for developers, so those user created games are counted to boulster the numbers. In truth, the PC has many less exclusive core games now than ever before.

There is so much spin here, it's impossible to counter it all, but that's your posting style. Spin everything, and hope the person your arguing with doesn't have any truth to refute you with.

5. I bought almost 50 games in the past 12 months, and still have all of them. I only bought 1 full-priced game, and I must've spent around $200 for all of them (50 games!). I recently bought 10 games on Steam for $30, and before that I bought 3 awesome games for $5 on Steam, and before that...

I've seen the games you link off steam. They are equivelant to PSN games and/or are 10 years old. Again, spinning the numbers.

6. Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Aion, Spore, Sims 3, Wrath of the Lich King, Crysis, C&C 4, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Guild Wars 2, 1701 AD, Dawn of Discovery, Football Manager, Empire Total War, Dawn of War 2, etc... PC has far more big budget games than any other platform. Also, it's cheaper to make a game on PC, so the "big budget" issue is actually irrelevant.

Sure, it has far more "big budget" games than any other platform because it's been around for 50 years. However, it doesn't have more upcoming big budget games. Try posting that list against a 2010 only exclusive list for the PS3 or 360.

7. Technology is cheaper and cheaper. Nowadays there aren't even Desktop PCs above $1000 unless you buy overpriced Alienware crap. Hell, Laptops are now cheaper than the Desktops of 5 years ago. PCs now have a higher life cycle than consoles.

I built a high end PC for 800 dollars. I know how much they cost.

8. A $400 is enough to play Crysis on High, including the OS... GTA 4 was a messwhen it came out, very unoptimized, but now has become much better with patches. Funny you talk about GTA4, because it is known that PS360 run GTA4 comparable to the low settings of the PC version LOL.

GTA4, plus many other HD games, are a mess when they come out on PC, and on the 360, you didn't even have to buy a new console to play it.

9. Publishers are retreating from their DRM experiment because it is pointless and only hurts their sales. Pirates will keep being pirates, while consumers will be hurt by DRM, that's why they're retreating from DRM.

Publishers are retreating, or they "will" retreat?

My answer, "No they won't." They'll probably just stop making games on PC, which is just as likely. We're already seeing games on 360 getting scrapped, and Crytek creating a HD console engine.

10. I'm currently at a friends' house, and we have 3 PCs connected playing Heroes of Newerth. The thing is that internet connections are so strong today, and most PCs now are laptops, that we don't even need LAN. Consoles, on the other hand, are still very retarded in terms of online connectivity, yet are losing many co-op support from developers.

Tell that to the 40 million users of Hughesnet satellite internet. Also, no, the internet will never replace splitscreen multiplayer, and trying to diminish it, is simple marginalization.

You see, the console can do split screen multiplayer, the PC can't.

11. The thing is, now consoles are pretty much PC-lite, and compared to PC they falter in much more ways while having little advantage over the PC. PC will keep winning share over them if this keep going.

They have uniform hardware, plug and play, first party development, cheaper price, less hassle, used market, rentals, and connected online mode, motion controls, and cross game support and achievements.

More HD large exclusive games, less piracy, no drm, less barriers to technical entry, and in general easier more user friendly user interfaces.

12. When photo realism sets in it will only be good for PC gaming because tech will be so cheap that consoles no longer are relevant in terms of "cheapness" since even the cheapest PC would be able to play the games awesomely. Infact, with Onlive you only need to buy their $100 micro-console to be able to play the lastest PC games.

In the mean time, we can argue over insignificant differences in graphical power, verses monumental price and hassle required to achieve that difference.

13. PC games require less and less upgrades, and I believe that gaming PCs now have a bigger life cycle than consoles. Hell, my brother's almost over 6 years old PC is still used to play many of today's games.

Console gaming requires no upgrades. Tell that to the people who saw that the recommended specs for GTAIV suggested a quad core processor.

14. PC is in constant improvement, and everything that's happening on consoles has already happened on PCs years ago. Motion controllers? Bah, that's already been invented on PC many years ago. The next big thing will be stuff like Onlive and Gaikai, which I doubt will see on consoles for many years.

Exactly how is PC in constant improvement, and consoles arent?

15. PS360 are now PC-lite and have only gained more problems. The biggest problem of the last 5 years in gaming industry? RROD.

I thought it was piracy, which nearly killed the PC gaming industry, cause developers like Valve to go mulitplatform, many other to go out of business, and which caused DRM.

How much did you spend on your rig, shio?

One of the major things that turned me off of the PS3 and the PC, is the elitism of those fans.

That, and non-uniform hardware is a major flaw for a gaming device, and the only viable option for anyone obsessive-compulsive is to have the best hardware, which is monumentally expensive.

 



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI said:
Senlis said:

To add to shio's post, which I completely agree with.

@ZenfoldorVGI

#10.  Did you just say that LAN is not local multiplayer.  I laughed at that.  Do you know what LAN means? Local area network.  When you hook multiple consoles together like in a Halo party, do you know what you just formed?  LAN based multiplayer (No joke, you just formed a LAN network).  LAN is local multiplayer.

LAN party is a commonly used pharse to refer to the connecting of PCs, Macs, or Consoles locally, over a small geographical area. Halo 3 via multiple connections and multiple TVs, for instance, is a LAN party.

Local multiplayer is a phrase commonly used in gaming, to refer to console gaming done via split screen on the same machine. Hero's of Might and Magic 3, for instance, is local multiplayer.

LAN is not a "commonly used phrase" for what you referred to.  That is LAN.  I don't know about the second paragraph.  I suppose it matters who you ask.  However, technically, LAN gaming is local multiplayer by definition. 

#2 (I know I go out of order).  You mentioned problems inherent to the machine.  How about the disk drive/ hard drive being inherent problems on a console.  Devices with moving parts are highly subject to hardware failure, no matter how well you make them.  This is why old cartridge based systems have a longer life than disk based systems.  On a PC, if you disk drive fails, you can buy a standard inexpensive disk drive to replace it.  The installation process is simple.  Can you say the same about consoles?

Dependability is a common issue with all hardware, and gives no advantage to either side. However, consoles do come with warranties, and built PCs do not.

I found this response odd in the sense it did not refute my original argument.  Dependability is not an issue with all hardware, some brands are known for their excellent dependability.  Built PC's do come with warranties through the company you bought the original parts for.  However, my original point was how much easier it is to get the parts and replace a HDD or optical drive on a PC  than on a console.

Of course, digital distribution will probably make disk drives obsolete soon.  I could apply the same argument to the HDD.

DD will first happen on PC, making it impossible for the market to set the price of games, as it does in the console gaming market.

This also I found odd.  It did not refute my statement that optical drives will soon become obsolete as the gaming market moves towards DD, and then my argument would apply more towards the HDD.  As for your comment, it can be considered a good thing digital distribution has done with prices.  Steam has shown with their own experiments that by lowering the price on games through sales they can dramatically increase revenue from the game (in dollars, not units sold).

#7 One poster proved you can make a PC more powerful than the XBOX360/PS3 for 350$ without pirating the OS.  It is difficult to compete with XBOX360/PS3's price because Microsoft/Sony tends to sell their consoles at a loss.

Unfortunately, a PC as strong as the 360, sucks, and can't even run WoW at 1080p. The reason for this is that console games are based upon uniform hardware specifications, and run very efficiently even on lower specs. If you build a PC with the specs of the 360, it won't run most HD games even on normal settings. I build PCs for money. I know how much they cost.

You can spin that crap somewhere else.

I can spin that crap somewhere else?  That sounds defensive.  Anyway, what I meant to say is that a PC for 350$ can run games better than XBOX360/PS3.  I guess I should have said that. My reference: http://vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=65891

My statement that it is harder to compete with XBOX360/PS3 prices because they sell their console at a loss still applies.  They can do that because they get money on the games they sell.  PC hardware manufacturers cannot do that.  I am just saying that contributes to a price difference.

You are right about how a PC with exactly the specs of the XBOX360/PS3 won't run games as well.  XBOX360/PS3 has specialized hardware which the game developers can take advantage of to help their games run better, and this is a good thing.  This is also an argument to how Mac is better than PC. 

 

 




 

PC... it has everything.

Everything but Ps3 exclusives.



dsister44 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:
vlad321 said:
yo_john117 said:

You've obviously never played a FPS on a console before.  So whats so skillfull about point and clicking?

The fact that the target moves about 3 times faster, while you yourself also moves 3 times faster. What's so skillful about moving the reticule slowly over someone who is basically crawling across the screen?

That only applies to Team Fortress (at least from what i've seen)  And team fortress is on consoles too so that logic fails.

And having played Counter Strike and Halo 3 before, I can easily say they move about the same speed (I think counter strike is a little faster)  

You saying stuff like this just backs up my point that you have never played a console FPS...

Yes... Unreal Tournament, Quake, Half-Life. They are no games at all, obviously. Why don't you try playing some true shooters then making those claims. Also, as Scoobes pointed out, consoles even need auto aim, which is kinda pathetic, but I uess necessary.

lol, all of those games made there ways to the Xbox through sequels.

Can you please name some games whose sequels are not showing up on one or both of the HD twins?

That was what I was thinking.  So speed is a moot point because consoles have them too.  And the auto-aim feature is very subtle, you still need skill to do good.  Its just that multiplayer console games take longer to get good at because they have a much higher learning curve.

And i've played the only true FPS series I ever needed to play....Halo...