Ah ok lol.  I'll agree with you that Halo's SP is somewhat lacking compared to alot of other FPS's.  I can see SP orientated people not really caring for Halo that much.

As I said to Kantor, I mostly agree with this. There are a few genres in which one control scheme is clearly inferior to the other, but for the most part each system is serviceable, so when someone says "I prefer dual analogues to keyboard and mouse" I won't pretend to understand, but I'm more than willing to accept it.

The thing is almost none of the PC's problems are in any way so innate to the system that they can't be fixed. You don't like the keyboard and mouse combo? Then use a dual analogue controller, which you stated was widely available for use on PCs now.

Don't want to spend money upgrading your rig every two or three years? I'm living proof that that fallacy is wrong, since I rarely upgrade and yet am almost never locked out of playing a game on good settings.

Frustrated with compatibility issues? This is valid, but again, it's much better now than it was even five years ago, and it looks to be improving even more in the near future. Also, keep in mind that this is only an issue if you insist on playing the most cutting-edge PC games: my 1999 PC could likely run new releases like Plants vs. Zombies and Osmos (if you haven't played those PC exclusives, do so!). And the crown jewels of PC gaming, i.e. stuff released by Valve and Blizzard, are deliberately designed to look good on almost any machine, making compatibility problems go away when you want to play Left 4 Dead 2, Starcraft II, and Diablo 3.

Yes, the consoles' ability to wipe the slate clean each generation can help make many problems go away: look at the Wii and its accessibility solution, for example. But you're nonetheless selling PC's ability to adapt way short. Every issue you complained about is an issue, but all of them have also improved, and it looks like they will continue to do so. In the meantime, many of the same complaints you level at PCs are creeping into the consoles this generation, because the consoles are deliberately trying to emulate the PC experience.

Are you saying Natal and Sony's Wand are going to fail?

Seriously though, two points. First, I believe Harmonix and Nintendo are proving that you can make standalone peripherals hit the big time if you do it right (Guitar Hero/Rock Band, and the Balance Board/Motion Plus?). Second and more importantly, not every system needs to have the same control scheme. The PC was completely different from the consoles before this generation, and it survived just fine. I'm confident that even if Natal and other motion controllers don't take off on the PC, the system will survive just fine. Please explain why, even if motion controls don't succeed on the PC, the PC will therefore be in some sort of trouble.

True, I didn't define my terms. "Lack of service limitations (it's an open platform)" means that no one has a monopoly on the system. All three current consoles have their own online systems, which you can use for online play and to download titles. The problem is that all three are closed systems: if you don't like the rules that the console manufacturer set up, you're SOL. That's not the case with PCs, where competition can improve prices and services. And THAT is an objective adcantage.

"Ease of upgrading" means what it sounds: if you're PC is deficient in one area, say lack of hard drive space, or crappy sound, or bad resolution, etc., you can upgrade it at any time, with little hassle, and often at a low price. This is not the case with consoles: if you're lucky, the manufacturer will let you buy a slightly bigger hard drive at vastly inflated prices, but other than that you're going to have to wait until the next generation before you can upgrade your system. I think that's a pretty objective advantage as well.

And again, you also need to explain why the consoles' inferiorities are "guaranteed" to improve in the future, while the PC's are not.

"Used market" and "rental market" are completely different, and it would help if you did not use them interchangably. To answer your question directly, renting computer games is illegal. But buying them used is perfectly legal, and in fact there's a very lively community that does just that. I have purchased several used PC games during my lifetime. But because PC games are often so cheap to buy, I usually buy a new version of a game for much less than Gamestop charges for a used console game. Nonetheless, I could have easily purchased each and every last one of those on the used market, which you claimed did not exist for PCs.

Hardly. Shio provided a pretty good list of PC exclusive titles (and he also missed out on several big ones, but then listing them all would have been cumbersome at best). I myself omitted to name them all in hopes of avoiding the list warz, and I hope to continue avoiding degenerating this conversation to that state.

While we're on the subject though, I'd like to reiterate an important point I made in my last post and which went unacknowledged: outside of first party games, there are only a small handful of big-budget HD console games that don't get a PC release. In four years, I can only think of one that I really care about myself, and its sequel is confirmed to be released on the PC. In the meantime, developers who had never before released major PC games are starting to do so.

Big-budget exclusives weigh in favor of PCs, not the HD consoles.

I repeat: the myth about PC gaming's price tag hasn't been true at any time this millenium. Shoot, there is a thread in the Hot Topics section of this very forum that proves that this statement is NOT true. And yes, I concede now, as I did in my last post, that the barriers of entry to PC gaming are still higher than they are on the consoles. Nonetheless, the trend in the past several years has been towards lowering those same barriers for PCs, while at the same time those exact same barriers have started to appear in the HD consoles. I won't reiterate the examples I made in my last post, but they are as true now as they were three hours ago.

Incorrect. To reiterate: even if you'd wanted a PC that performs better than the HD consoles ever will, you still paid less than you would for the most comparable console, the 80 GB PS3.

True.

False.

True. Most of us PC gamers don't want to spend the extra dough to get something that's so advanced that you can count the number of games that use that power with one hand. It's unnecessary to do serious gaming on a PC, so why do it? In fact, Crysis is such an outlier that, even though it cuts against your point, I still have absolutely no idea why we're discussing it.

If this were true (and it's clearly just a hypothetical), then I'd have to tell you that you got ripped off. My PC, which cost me far less than $500 even several years ago, can play GTA4 better than a 360 or PS3. No, I'm neither kidding nor joking. And I can guarantee you that you'll be buying a new console before I upgrade my PC. My last one worked fine for over a console generation, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that this machine will be any different.

To reiterate the same point I've been making all along, and likely will continue to make even after this, the idea that you have to upgrade your PC every year is a lie. The statement that PC gaming is much more expensive than console gaming is a lie. The allegation that PCs are obsolete before consoles is a lie. The comparison between a console and the most cutting-edge of PCs is essentially a lie, and one that still reflects in the PC's favor.

Your facts about the price of PC gaming are completely and utterly wrong. They have no basis in reality. They do not reflect what is really happening. They are more mythical than Wii HD, more wrong-headed than Jack Thompson, more incorrect than Michael Pachter, and more false than rumors of a Wii price cut.

Let me know if you have any more questions. I don't mean to be antagonistic here, really, but you and many others are just so far off about the basic facts of PC gaming. If, after knowing the true story, you decide that PC gaming is still not your thing, that's cool. I've got no beef with that. Truth be told, I do far more gaming on my Wii than I do on my PC, so you know I understand why you'd prefer a console to the PC. But I must ask that, when speaking on the subject, you stick to truths, rather than to un-truths.

No. No it is not.

I could tell you bits of my life story. Truth be told, I'm something of a technophobe. I have only a rudimentary understanding of electronic devices. When my computer at work quits on me, I immediately call IT and do nothing, out of fear of making things worse. Shoot, I'm so much of a technophobe that I only got my first cell phone a few months ago, and I still have no idea how to set up the message center thing. Before I went to college, I had to rely on friends and relatives to set up my games, and I often had to wait for them to return whenever I ran into even the simplest of problems. DOS scares me to this day. No, I am neither lying nor exaggerating about any of this.

I tell you all of this so you can understand what I mean when I say that I built my PC from scratch, on my own. It's ridiculously simple. I can walk you through it, if you want. If you can follow the instructions on a set of LEGOs, you can probably build your own PC, because both of them are literally the same thing: Thing A goes into Slot B. There is no magic behind it, no mysticism that requires consulting an oracle. Follow any of the simple instructions that you can find on the internet, and in ten minutes, you will have a new PC that's ready to go. Even installing the software is a matter of inserting a disc and following the prompts.

The days when PCs required a computer science degree just to pop open are long gone: they are simplified and streamlined to the point where even a luddite such as myself can build and operate them. There are still barriers, mind you, but thanks to the internet I haven't run into a single problem that couldn't be fixed within an hour. No, the real barriers behind modern PC gaming are twofold: fear and laziness. Many people are afraid of their computers, so they quit before they even try. Many people also lack the patience required to seek out and apply troubleshooting information. Were it not for these two things, modern PC gaming would be much more widely embraced.

Of course, just because they are few in number, it does not mean these barriers are minor. The thing is, both of these problems are ones of perception and commitment, rather than of skill. Zenfolder, I mean this seriously: if you want to learn the basics of your gaming PC, you can do so in little time and with little commitment. It is not difficult, so long as you can muster up the will to do so.

Alright, end pep talk, back to the subject.

Perhaps it is, but ask yourself, aren't you hearing the exact same complaints being used by developers and publishers of console games regarding the used and rental markets that you've been trumpeting? For every Chicken Little article written about PC piracy, I can give you another about how used gaming is killing The Industry. Using the same method you used to formulate this point, we can conclude either that piracy will kill PC gaming like the used market will kill consoles, or we can conclude that publishers and developers are terrible businessmen who would rather blame things that have always existed rather than face up to their failure.

Choose whichever you'd like, but in terms of consoles vs. PCs, they both have the same result.

I agree with your first two sentences: as I said in my last post, local multiplayer is still an area where the consoles have the advantage over PCs. As I also pointed out in that same post, the consoles' advantage there seems to be withering away on the HD systems, as the trend appears to be in excluding it more and more as time goes on. I stand by that point: it's an advantage for consoles, but one they're deliberately abandoning more.

I DO take serious issue with your last sentence though: you have far too limited a definition of "local multiplayer." It is not just about sharing one screen, it's about gaming with your buddies in the same room. From this one sentence I glean that you've never been to a LAN party before (no shame there, as I gather most gamers haven't either). Trust me on this one: physical location is what local multiplayer is really about, not just the number of screen you're all staring at.

I can agree with this, yes. But I ask you to also concede an important point, namely that most consoles are trying more and more to be PCs.

Again, this assumes graphics and modability are the only things that PCs are better than consoles at. I know you feel that way, but I (and millions of others) most certainly do not. I hope I've convinced you that there's more to the issue than you initially believed (that's my entire goal in entering this discussion). If not...hey, I'm always up for another round!

Actually, I said it was "easier" to upgrade your PC, which is quite different than saying they "require" same. My ultimate point, which I reiterate once again, is that PCs do not require upgrades more often than their console counterparts (who each require their own several-hundred-dollar "upgrade" every five to six years, and which unlike PCs abandon all backwards compatibility while doing so).

I already addressed this issue earlier in the post, and I won't repeat what I wrote again. However, I will add that you're wrong for another reason: the PC has changed dramatically just since I started playing games on it nearly two decades earlier. Abandoning the need to program your own games, then using more of the keyboard, then adapting the mouse, then leaving DOS and similar programs for Windows et. al., introducing more user-friendly features and software, permitting the use of console controllers, and much much more...Believe me, there is a very good reason why "the negatives of PC gaming have actually decreased."

The reason you don't realize this is that the change is much more gradual with the PC than it ever has been with consoles. Where consoles go through a dramatic, sudden shift every five to six years, the PC has gone through constant, slower changes during that exact same time period. If it hadn't, it would have been eclipsed by the consoles decades ago! It's like comparing the life cycle of a butterfly to that of a human: the former changes so dramatically in a very short period of time, while the latter matures so slowly that you almost miss the moment maturity occurs.

The PC does not have to be regularly reinvented overnight like the consoles do to progress. As a consumer with limited cash in his bank account, I personally think that's a good thing, rather than a bad.

Slightly incorrect. As a matter of honesty, I am compelled to admit that the PC is not a perfect machine, and that gaming on it still has its issues.

Now I ask you to extend the same intellectual honesty. Console gaming's problems have increased, and they have been for a long while. We've been discussing these all along: as the consoles try to emulate PCs, they necessarily encompass the exact same problems that PCs have. Anyone who compares the sheer simplicity, friendliness, and plug-n-play qualities of the NES with those of any modern system will tell you this is indisputable. Which is not to say it's been a uniform decline on the consoles' part, but as a man of integrity, you must admit that consoles now have major problems that they did not have even last generation, let alone at the dawn of their creation. We're not advocates of opposing sides, Zenfolder: we're forum members having a discussion about a single issue, so there's no need to deny the obvious truth.

Come now Zenfolder, every point you make is fair game. The same goes for me and everyone else on this forum. I addressed them all because I had issues with each of them, albeit in varying degrees. Some I felt were completely off the mark. I thought others had a solid foundation, but they were off in some important detail, or incomplete in a crucial way. I did not raise a single point that I did not honestly believe, just as I don't think you're discussing the issue with me in an argumentative manner.

Sorry to hear PC gaming's been treating you bad. Again, if you're looking for help, feel free to ask, on these forums or one of hundreds of others. There are folks who will be happy to get you gaming on your PC. Trust me, it's quite a treat.

I'd be happy to. For starters, I want to reiterate that I'm actually more of a console guy than a PC guy; I've always played my consoles more than I have my PCs, and I likely always will. That said, I love gaming on my PC: in past generations, it offered me games that you simply couldn't find on the consoles. Point and clicks were a personal favorite, as were FPS games (of course, this is before FPS took off on consoles). I also enjoyed the occasional RTS, and WRPGs were unparalled on the consoles. Long story short, before this generation I liked PC gaming because it offered me great things I couldn't find anywhere else.

This generation has actually increased my enthusiasm for my gaming PC. It's still bringing fantastic exclusives that I can't find elsewhere. I haven't kept a tally of how many hours I logged onto Civ IV, for instance, but if I did I'm sure I'd be slightly mortified. In addition, something's happening that's unprecedented: all the big third-party console games are coming to the PC. All those things I told Kantor about PCs being as capable as HD systems, and often even better, are completely true: the reason I haven't bought (and likely never will buy) a 360 or PS3 isn't that they don't have games I want, but that I can play almost all of those games on my PC.

Even better, I can do so with free online gaming, for much less money per game, and with an interface I'm used to and which I think is completely superior to dual analogues. Best of all, if/when I tire of a game, I can easily mod it without having to do more than go to a website and click on a link. For example, I tired of vanilla Oblivion after about twenty hours. If I'd had it on a console, I'd be bashing to friends, and I'd have sold it shortly after I purchased it. But because I have it on my PC, I was able to add the mods that dedicated users made for it, and that extended the gameplay for me by literally hundreds of hours. With mods, Oblivion has become one of my favorite RPGs this generation. Fallout 3 is similar, although I thought it was a great game out of the box (the mods just made it that much more awesome).

It's true that I also get graphically superior versions of the HD games, but to be honest I don't put that much weight into that. The fact that I'm primarily a Wii gamer should tell you how much pretty visuals mean to me. But one important thing about the PC is that it IS backwards compatible, which lets me play all those games I grew up with whenever I'm so inclined. For a stark example of how the PC lets me sample new and old gaming whenever I want, I went to Steam today and bought two games (for five dollars each). The first was Braid, a fantastic 2008 game which you're familiar with. The second was Fate of Atlantis, a Lucasarts adventure game from my early childhood which I hadn't beaten then, and which I'm really, really looking forward to playing with fresh eyes. And unlike the Virtual Console, I can pop in any CD game I have and run it flawlessly, or download a freeware (or cheap) version of almost any game that was only available on disk. Having access to the complete PC gaming library at any time is like having access to every consoles' complete library at only a moment's notice: it is, in short, bloody awesome!

Mostly though, I'd like to repeat what I said earlier. I'm not trying to push you into PC gaming. I'm okay if, after all's said and done, you still hate PC gaming. All I ask is that you get the facts straight: if, after doing so, you still feel the same, more power to you my good man. As someone who honestly feels that the Gamecube's library was better than the PS2's, I'm really in no position to judge subjective tastes.

Ugh, I get crap like that in Killzone 2. Sometimes the auto-aim will screw up and I'll be trying to aim at somebody and the auto-aim pulls down my crosshairs for no reason screwing up practically all my shots. I either have to cheese it or hope that they take enough damage to their feet that they die.

I've also had people walking infront of me ruin shots in Call of Duty 4 as well.

ps3 support mods too, UT3

I can see how just one game can beat out all the PC games that have had mods made for them.

:P

It'd sure make playing the singleplayer campaign of a Call of Duty game quite different.

So you are saying I can directly blame the consoles for the fact the sequels of those game SUCK HORRIBLY. UT3? It ruined the UT franchise. Quake 4? Same. TF2? Is that even remotely playable on the consoles? Not a single sequel that has appeared on the consoles has been as good as their predecessors, they all suck. I blame consoles for ruining the quality of shooters. It's quite sad that in 2009 I have to play UT2004 and Half-Life 2 to get good multiplayer and singleplayer FPS experiences, don't you think?

Also I can't believe you can call Halo a good game. It's a piece of garbage. If in the future even our genetically modified selves walk slower than 90 year-olds then we are truly fucked.

Other game franchise that went dowhill after it went to consoles: Fallout. Play Fallout 2 then come back and tell me 3 is the bes thing to ever happen to gaming. It's good, it was just outdone 10 years earlier (minus graphics, yes).

You know what is THE saddest part about this? This concerns PCs as much as consoles. X-COM: UFO Defense, Deus Ex, and System Shock 2 STILL remain and are better than ALL games that have come out in the past 5 years, PC or console. Tha is VERY sad. Honestly, dont bash them until you play them. If you call them shit you have obviously neve touched them and just come out as an ignorant idiot, that or you just aren't into strategy, shooting, stealth, story, or any "hardcore" gaming.

Hyperbole does not suit you.

It's 2 AM and I'm doing AI projects. Cut me some slack, I'm seeing parantheses all over the place from lisp.

I should have added this to my post too:

Tell you what.

I haven't played System Shock 2, but I will soon, after I get finished with a couple of other games.

When I'm done with it, I'll let you know if I think your "better than any game in the past five years" thing holds water.