- Mar 29, 2011
Define Superior. Don't just say "Better". What is better? Is dying better than living? Many will tell you it is, many will tell you it isn't. Is an old, broken boat better than a new shiny one? Why? Why Not? Why are these things important, and an objective measure rather than a subjective opinion of what is important?AuronFtw said:Yes, which is why "objectively superior hardware,
Why are these facts important to determining "Better". What is "Better". Why are these not subjective criteria that matter to you, and instead objective criteria that everyone will observe to be of equal importance and value in determining this "Better".objectively bigger library of games, objectively more competitive market driving prices down for consumers, and objectively more hardware/software available" is the argument. None of them are a matter of opinion. One number is greater than another number. One list is bigger than another list. Lower prices are lower than higher prices. This isn't rocket science.
Here at least you begin to define things. "Better" apparently is defined as having mods and better hardware. Why are these criteria relevant in defining 'Better'.People can "prefer" to game on a console, but even that's something "done better" by PC: by plugging a controller in (360 wired controllers are available for cheap and are pretty sturdy) you can play the PC versions of games "as designed" for a controller, on a system with better hardware, access to game mods, etc, all of which is "objectively superior" to a console. Unless your preference is literally seeing the PS3 logo come up when you start the game (for... whatever reason) the experience can be matched and beaten on a PC.
Which numbers lists and prices? Why are these relevant, and not other numbers/lists/prices? Why are these an objective set of criteria to determine 'Better'?The "objective" argument has merit. All you have to do is compare numbers, lists, and prices. One is objectively better than the other. Personal preference matters for a lot, which is why the majority of PC gamers even in this thread have said "we're cool with people playing consoles," but if you're trying to come up with a list of reasons why consoles are better, you are going to fail, because they are not.
Congratulations on saying "More powerful" rather than "Better". This is the main point I am making.Addendum: A big part of the console crowd literally doesn't know better; they don't know that the services they pay for, the games they play, etc are all available, typically for less money, on PC. Another part of the console crowd is tied to their library; if you have 30 games for PS3, it's kind of a ***** "giving it up" and trying to swap to a PC (although right now would be a great time to do it, since PCs are going to be objectively more powerful than the next gen consoles and they haven't even come out yet). Some console gamers are in in a gamer circle of friends that all play on a specific console, making it harder/not feasible for them to "swap" to PCs. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to play a console. But please, PLEASE don't try to say that consoles are "better" for any of these reasons; they're merely circumstance. Side by side, one gaming machine is "superior" to the other. It's not even a competition, given how far ahead PCs are at this point.
You failed the class at the end when you again said "Superior". What is "Superior" and "Better" is purely subjective. Which is more powerful is objective, but why is this a criteria in determining "Better"?
Thankyou for switching out the original 'fanboi' argument. Especially considering I haven't owned a console since the N64. I will grant that consoles have a lot of problems. However, they are relevant to me personally. I really would look up on nihilism, as that is behind a lot of what I am saying here. There are no objective set of values everyone has to universally agree on as good or better objectively. Why is spending less money better than spending more? Why is having more power better than having less? It all, in the end, boils down to a subjective point. The more reasons you come up with, the more times the question is asked; "Why is this relevant?". The only answer you can give to that is that you personally, subjectively, see such a criteria as relevant. Hence why the objectively "Better" argument falls to pieces. "Better" is defined by whoever is judging. Whether its you, or someone else. Hence "Better" changes with who is judging, and is inherently subjective. "More Powerful" is objective. "Better" is not.There used to be two big reasons in favor of consoles; painless plug-and-play and exclusive titles. Now that consoles update about as frequently as PC programs, and given that you have to pay for online services (in addition to... paying for the internet in your house), and given how far PCs have come in terms of automatic driver installation and auto-detecting USB controllers/equipment, that plug and play reason is totally demolished. That leaves publishers holding their game hostage on a console as the only reason "in favor" of consoles. They want someone to shell out $360 for a game they want instead of $60; but if you consider hostage titles "in favor" of consoles instead of "highlighting one of the reasons the console market is hurting the entire games industry," you might want to think about it a little harder.
And how do we determine who's criteria for "Better" are objective?DoomyMcDoom said:Actually, when conducting an objective comparison, you CAN determine, from a purely objective standpoint which of a group of things is better, especially if they have so much in common as consoles and PCs, this isn't an apples and oranges debate, this is about hardware with definable and numerically quantifiable statistics, and specifications.
Are Arina Love's?
Who's criteria constitutes "Objective" and how do we, objectively, arrive at this conclusion?
So PC is the objectively superior option if I want fewer game titles available on the one system, as I for some reason see that as better?Number of available games, average game prices, and available control options, are just SOME of the ways that "Objectively" PC gaming is the superior option.
Which direction do these criteria flow in? Is more better? Is less? Why? Why is this relevant objectively?
Whether power matters is subjective, it doesn't count.Whether a person wants to learn to use a system or not, is purely subjective, whether something is "convenient" to someone is subjective, and "What kind of games are available" and "what do you like playing" are subjective, they don't count.
Whether number of control schemes matter is subjective, it doesn't count.
Whether cost is a factor is subjective, it doesn't count.
Seriously, we could be here all day. What you are doing is saying "My criteria matter, anyone else's do not". Provide an objective reason why this is the case.
And before you say "Such things can be objectively measured" - Correct, but why does measuring it as either higher or lower make it, objectively, better? Is a higher number always objectively better? Therefore more bugs and glitches in a game is objectively better? Or is there some subjective reasoning coming in to define better?
You make objective statements, then you ruin it with "These are what matter". Why are these what matter? Why are these relevant to "Better". Yes you can decide which is more powerful, which has more games, which costs less [For you, as prices vary greatly by region. Another subjective point], but why do these make something objectively better?So when you look at purely numbers, what's more powerful, how many games are available for purchase and what they cost, these are what matter in a purely objective comparison, as such, you won't find a platform, with more, or cheaper games, than the PC.
*sigh*Not saying someone is wrong in any way to prefer a console, or what have you, as that is purely subjective, and trying to argue this subjectively is a purely infantile shouting match.
I say like what you like, play what you want to play.
However, if you intend to argue a point, at least do some research before you step up to the podium.
When comparing two limited constructs, with very specific variables, to say that the one with less options is somehow superior, is the standpoint of the uninformed, or of someone who doesn't understand the meaning of objectivity, and subjectivity.
To again clarify my point, nobody is wrong for choosing to game on a console instead of a PC, but you are choosing the option that is subjectively better, for YOU, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.
Please, look up nihilism. I even referenced it in my previous post. Sometimes I have to wonder if people read them. As you said, do your research.
I would argue that "More options is better" is the argument of someone who does not understand objectivity and subjectivity. That is a subjective statement. It is your opinion that more is better, and it only applies in this case. other people have different opinions, and if it were a different situation more is better would stop applying for even you.
You can state objective facts. You can state that, judged by a certain set of criteria, something is objectively better. You cannot say that, judged by all sets of criteria, something is objectively better - yet that is what you are trying to do. Well, actually you're probably trying to argue that it is objectively better by one set of criteria, then argue that that set of criteria is the only relevant one - an inherently subjective viewpoint.
It may seem like I'm being a pain here, but think about what I have posted. Why is your criteria the one and only god-chosen criteria for selecting objective facts? Why is your criteria not in the slightest bit subjective?
You are trying to make an argument that cannot be made. Your argument ATM is boiling down to "I'm right, everyone else in the world is wrong" - don't believe me? Why is Ariana Love's subjective definition of "Better" not valid, but your subjective definition of "Better" is? Would this be the same for anyone who disagreed with you? 'cause everyone in the world is going to disagree with you on something.
You can take all the objective facts you want, and use them to make objective statements about something. You cannot make a subjective statement such as "Better", even supported by objective facts, and call it objective. That's like calling a game's review score an objective measure of how good a game it is. Sure, by a certain set of criteria, it is possibly an objective judgement. Why are those criteria relevant and not any other reviewers?