A question for PC Gamers. Why all the hostility towards console gamers/gaming?

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
AuronFtw said:
Yes, which is why "objectively superior hardware,
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?

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.
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".

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.
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'.

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.
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'?

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.
Congratulations on saying "More powerful" rather than "Better". This is the main point I am making.
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"?

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.
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.

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.
And how do we determine who's criteria for "Better" are objective?
Are yours?
Are mine?
Are Arina Love's?
Who's criteria constitutes "Objective" and how do we, objectively, arrive at this conclusion?

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.
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?
Which direction do these criteria flow in? Is more better? Is less? Why? Why is this relevant objectively?

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 power matters is subjective, it doesn'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?

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.
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?

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.
*sigh*
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.
Subjective.
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?
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
ParsonOSX said:
Hello again Escapist

Now I must say I am finding out more about the gaming community each day and a lot of things has gotten me curious. I have seen several comments around how PC is the "Greatest gaming device" and how several PC gamers consider themselves to be "elites", or those on console calling them "elitist". Even with the recent launch of GTA V, a lot of PC gamers are pissed off, maybe rightly so, about the game not being on that platform. Some in the very small minority even say GTA V is "shit" just because it's not on PC. So with all of that collectively, what is there even any hostility towards Console gamers from PC gamers? It's like me hating Halo because I have a PS3 only.

Why is there this big separation and how in the heck did this all start and even the whole "Glorious PC gaming master race" attitude (I know the quote is from Zero Punctuation but I am talking about the attitude not the phrase).
Most of the people talking about the "glorious PC gaming master race" are doing it to ridicule and belittle PC gamers, including its first usage by Yahtzee on ZP. Now some PC gamers have decided to own the word in order to fight back against the abuse.

It is much more often to find console gamers talking about how elitist PC gamers are then it is to see PC gamers actually being elitists. In fact I have seen MUCH more hate and rabidity from console fans towards PC gamers, for no real apparent reason, than the other way round.

Most PC gamers I know game on consoles too, or least used to. While I don't game on consoles anymore I still have my hacked original Playstation from when I was a kid and my Dreamcast and PS2 as well. I just don't have time to game on anything besides my PC now that I am an adult but think it is great that they exist as platforms.

There are a few complaints some PC gamers have, mostly the fact that consoles tend to get games first and that sometimes the graphical fidelity of games on PC seems to be held back by the consoles but at the end of the day good people are good people and assholes are assholes, it doesn't matter what they play their games on.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
clippen05 said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
AuronFtw said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
Because of that, I think a lot of PC gamers blame consoles for great IPs such as 'Syndicate' being turned from a strategy game into a FPS, and the same thing happening with "X-Com: The Bureau" (some hardcore enthusiasts were also turned off by a lot of the simplifying that took place in "X-Com: Enemy Unknown"). I know some were also mad at them turning "Dragon Age 2" into a much more action-oriented game than the original Dragon Age (which was supposed to be something of a revitalization of the 'Baldur's Gate' type of RPG). Whether justified or not, I think a lot of PC Gamers blame console gamers for these sorts of things happening.
Ehhh... kind of? Honestly, that's going to happen anyway. A lot of those games were overly complex (Baldur's Gate, for example) because they tried to create a ready-to-play D&D campaign for PC, and didn't trim any of D&D's unnecessary mechanics. I love BG to death, and I still herald it as one of the (if not the single) best RPGs for PC, but there's no doubt it suffered because of its complexity, especially today. Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding, so when they're forced to not only read dialog for quest clues, but also read sometimes wall-of-texty entries in their journal, a lot of them lose interest fast. I'm not a huge fan of the hand-holding, but regardless of it existing, that's the "norm" for games these days, so players trying to pick up that old classic are often turned off by the lack of it.

Dragon Age tried to bridge the gap, basically; take a story as epic and immersive as Baldur's Gate, strip down as much of the "needless" complexity as possible, and capture the attention of a new generation of RPG gamers. That idea had great merit... unfortunately, they stripped out pretty much all of the complexity, and also the story and world weren't quite as immersive. Bit of a letdown, even looking at it from a "baby's first baldur's gate" perspective. Oddly enough, I think Mass Effect succeeded where Dragon Age failed; the characters, story and setting were easily as immersive as Baldur's Gate (despite the vastly different setting), and the combat was "new" (>.>) and "refreshing" (<.<) to the RPG crowd, basically taking a moderately well-designed shooter and setting it in an RPG universe.

Games are going to evolve, and I think trying to keep it accessible to a new crowd is an important aspect of design. The truly legendary games will be easy to get into yet deep as an ocean, giving players plenty to learn and explore after the initial "woo this is neat" phase wears off. The old fogeys bitching about "ermagerd games are 2 ez" and ignoring the benefits of that design aren't really being realistic.

And, as you said, there are plenty of difficult and complex games being made even today. Hell, FTL is a good example; not the biggest game, and definitely not the prettiest, but wow that shit is hard. The library of PC games is just too massive to not find any "hard" games, really; anyone claiming games are too easy just aren't looking at all.
I think you kind of hit the nail on the head when you said " Gamers these days are used to hand-holding and spoon-feeding," because I think some PC Gamers think that console gamers are the ones who need the spoon-feeding and hand-holding, and thus it's causing games as a whole to be "dumbed-down" for the lowest common denominator. It's really no different than people saying that TV is getting worse because of the success of trashy reality shows.

Again, I don't really agree with the idea, and it's not like there aren't tons of hyper complex PC Games out there for those who really want them, not to mention that (thanks to sites like GOG) all your old-school complex games are still available.
I mostly agree with you in saying that you can't attribute the decline of more complex games with the success of less complex ones, however, just because all of the old games are readily available does not make the decline of more complex games ok. No one wants to be stuck with old material for the rest of their lives, even if that old material was top-notch... it gets old eventually. I disagree with your notion that there's still a lot of games of this nature out there. I don't have any exact figures, but the amount of strategy and simulation games coming out today is definitely a shrinking number. Sure, there are indie games that are filling the void, but the quality of some of those games is debatable.
I think there are less big name, $60 strategy and simulation games coming out now than there were in the past, but I think there are tons of much less graphically enhanced and cheaper strategy games on the market now, especially via Steam. The nice thing about big, complex strategy games is that fans of those types of games tend to not care too much about how great the graphics are, and thus games like "Endless Space", "Dominions 3", and "Fallen Enchantress" can become successful.
 

DoomyMcDoom

New member
Jul 4, 2008
1,411
0
0
Joccaren said:
AuronFtw said:
Yes, which is why "objectively superior hardware,
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?

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.
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".

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.
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'.

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.
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'?

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.
Congratulations on saying "More powerful" rather than "Better". This is the main point I am making.
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"?

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.
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.

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.
And how do we determine who's criteria for "Better" are objective?
Are yours?
Are mine?
Are Arina Love's?
Who's criteria constitutes "Objective" and how do we, objectively, arrive at this conclusion?

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.
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?
Which direction do these criteria flow in? Is more better? Is less? Why? Why is this relevant objectively?

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 power matters is subjective, it doesn'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?

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.
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?

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.
*sigh*
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.
Subjective.
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?
So, you are trying to say that even if BY THE NUMBERS, it is more capable of doing all of the jobs the other one does, but with more options, and less overall cost to the consumer, is somehow worse... in ANY WAY.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
DoomyMcDoom said:
So, you are trying to say that even if BY THE NUMBERS, it is more capable of doing all of the jobs the other one does, but with more options, and less overall cost to the consumer, is somehow worse... in ANY WAY.
It does not have a lot of JRPGs. Worse in one way.
Largely solvable by emulation? Illegal, and not everyone wants to be a criminal.
They are more expensive than consoles if you want all the advantages [Otherwise count your multiple control schemes, your incredible power, your convenient load times, and most other features moot]. Worse in another way.
They take up more space than consoles unless you get a relatively low-power rig in a reasonably expensive ATX chasis.

There are ways that, for certain people, a console is 'better'.
My argument is not that the PC does not do a vast majority of things better than consoles, but that there is no objective measure of "Better" and hence you cannot say a PC is objectively better than a console. Period.

And, for the sake of this point, why is having more options better?
Why is less overall cost better?

What if someone's goal was to be restricted, or to spend an unnecessarily large amount of money for relatively little gain?
Whilst they are not perceivable goals to you, they are potential goals that must be considered for an objective analysis. You can't say "Nobody would think like that [Subjective opinion on subjective opinions]" and remain objective. You must consider these infinite possibilities of what an infinite number of hypothetical people would consider 'better' to be, and arrive at an infinite number of contradicting answers. This is why you can not say "PC is better than console". It is better when judged via certain criteria. Rather than creating strawmen and dodging the argument, why is your set of criteria the only "Objective" set of criteria, and nobody elses? Why are you right, and everybody else is wrong?
That is, essentially, what you are saying when you say something is objectively better. Anyone else's opinions of what constitutes better are irrelevant, yours is objective and therefore you are right. Incorrect. Your criteria are not objective. There are no objective criteria for "Better" or "Worse". You can state facts about how much faster the hardware is, but that does not make it "Better".

Dear god, its like talking to a brick wall sometimes the number of times I've had to re-iterate this point only to have it ignored. Please, no strawmen, false dichotomies or red herrings. Look at the argument being made, and respond to that if you choose to.
 

Funyahns

New member
Sep 2, 2012
140
0
0
I do not have the console gamers, I do think it is their fault we can't have nice things though. Imagine if Skyrim could have had wide open huge cities without "Zoning in". The graphics hardly matter anymore, what does matter is the amount of things that you can place on the screen at once and combine it with draw distance.

Another good reason to own a pc though. Is my pc does not answer to share holders. Any time you are a consumer, and by from a company that is publicly traded, it means that you are the very bottom of what they care about.
 

Pariah Dog

New member
Sep 21, 2013
17
0
0
Hello there, long time lurker, first time poster. Registered because this is an issue I felt like speaking up on. Anyways, hostility towards console gamers. Now don't get me wrong, I started on a console myself (Atari 2600 and an NES when I was a wee lad) However my rage towards the current generation of console gamerdom is fairly multifaceted (full disclosure, I own a PS3 and have several games I enjoy on it, namely the Ratchet and Clank Series, Infamous, and Sly Cooper)

First of all. The control schemes of games. I am fully aware that complexity != depth but going from http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=37313&tab=controls to the current gen "Press X to do pretty much everything" is a little aggravating. Recent example, Splinter Cell Blacklist, with the your main action keys being mapped to multiple functions you end up in situations like you're crouched up against a door frame as a patrolling guard comes over to investigate. Your "apply grievous bodily harm" key is also your "close door" and "flip the light switch next to you key" so you have a situation where you press your key and rather than silently murdering our unaware patrolman you stand up in front of him and close the door with comically disastrous results. With console gamers limited to effectively ~10 buttons you find they have to overlap controls like this.

Secondly, with the age of the dudebro gamer becoming the norm, games are designed for consoles with a console gamer's limitations in mind since that is where the money is. Older PC gamer shooter fans may remember the whole Modern Warfare 2 incident which spawned memes like "It's not balanced for lean" and so forth. But the current age of "2 gun, regenerating health shooters" took over when the shooters took off on the consoles namely a little game called "Halo". I've played Halo (found it in a bargain bin for the PC not long after Halo 2 came out) and I am still baffled to this day with what the console crowd saw in that game. It played like a very slow, not very hard Quake (on legendary no less). Whereas backpedal to the 90s with games like Duke Nukem 3d/Unreal. You had a game where you carried a small arsenal of weaponry with you and you had to manage your health and the ammo for your various guns with the pickups on the map. This video sums up a lot of my points on the matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q6UQ2QlRH0. There has also been a lot of bad blood between the two camps with shooter games too over the whole mouse/gamepad situation.

There is more I could say on the matter but I'm pretty tired and I can already see the TL;DR's coming in from the pack of hooligans that think that kind of thing is "edgy" and "cool".
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Charcharo said:
Emulations is a grey area. Treat it as such. Besides, one day, only by emulation will you be able to play older console games (Most big console makers dont seem to do backwards compatibility and port only very few bestsellers to new consoles) so I guess we should accept it. One day the older consoles will become mueseum pieces or stop working and very few will be able to play their games on the same consoles.
Emulation is a moral grey area.
Legally, using the ROMs emulators run on is illegal and counted as copyright infringement, regardless of if you own the game physically or not. So long as you downloaded that ROM, you've broken the law.

I've got nothing against emulation personally. Hell, I'd love for lazy publishers/devs to just release a downloadable ROM that people have to buy, but that they can use to emulate a console game, making it a fully legal practice, but sadly that's not going to happen any time soon. For the sake of my argument, however, emulators are not a be-all-end-all solution to console exclusives for the PC. They are illegal, [Ok, the emulators themselves aren't, the ROMs are] and there are a lot of people who take that seriously.
 

miketehmage

New member
Jul 22, 2009
396
0
0
First of all, GTA 5 WILL release for PC 6 months from now.

Mark my words.

Secondly, the PC is just better in every way. I'm sorry, but it is.
They are more powerful,
They are more customisable,
They are capable of more than just running games (I know consoles are too now but they still can't do what a PC can do.)
The controls are great.(Don't like keyboard and mouse? Plug in a pad. You can do that!)

This is the most important point for me coming right up, so listen up console fans.

*They CAN be cheaper than consoles.*

Yes, that's right, your console isn't cheaper than my PC, stop using that as an argument against PC, because it is outright wrong.

The only real argument I guess you could make against PC gaming is that consoles are easier to use and more convenient.

But I'm simply not willing to give up all the benefits of PC gaming for convenience.

EDIT: Btw I own both a 360 and PS3 aswell
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
The hostility has nothing to do with elitism. PC gamers feel threatened by the console dominance which of course is made possible by console players. Sony's recent corruption of The Chinese Room's Everyone's Gone to Rapture is a good example. The game would have come out on PC, and indeed The Chinese Room is a traditional PC developer, but now we're effectively locked out to the benefit of console players and Sony.

Indeed, consoles as an invention has only served to cripple and limit the entire gaming industry to the benefit of a few oligopolistic giants (Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony), who are using their full weight to cut out PC players whenever possible.

And yes, in some cases, the realization of these truths will lead some PC players to "hate" consoles, or perhaps even console gamers.
 

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
miketehmage said:
First of all, GTA 5 WILL release for PC 6 months from now.

Mark my words.

Secondly, the PC is just better in every way. I'm sorry, but it is.
They are more powerful,
They are more customisable,
They are capable of more than just running games (I know consoles are too now but they still can't do what a PC can do.)
The controls are great.(Don't like keyboard and mouse? Plug in a pad. You can do that!)

This is the most important point for me coming right up, so listen up console fans.

*They CAN be cheaper than consoles.*

Yes, that's right, your console isn't cheaper than my PC, stop using that as an argument against PC, because it is outright wrong.

The only real argument I guess you could make against PC gaming is that consoles are easier to use and more convenient.

But I'm simply not willing to give up all the benefits of PC gaming for convenience.

EDIT: Btw I own both a 360 and PS3 aswell
That's really cool and all for a story but regardless of what you say about your PC, not everyone will always agree on it being the greatest thing to ever happen nor want to invest in it, everyone has their own choice and decisions to make for what they buy and it's why some buy a PC and some that buy a console.

trying to say it's simply the best/better/superior/greatest/outstanding/marvelous/unbeatable does not mean everyone on this planet will suddenly trash their consoles and acquire immediate knowledge of how to build their PC.

I own both a PC and consoles and I see them both as equals, I don't see one as the weakest of shits and one as the superior master race (like how a certain country saw themselves), I see them as two entities, nothing more nothing less.

TomWiley said:
Also known as victimizing oneself.

No the PC's do not feel threatened by consoles seeing as how most of this thread is nothing but "PC'S ARE THE SUPERIOR TECH, CONSOLES SUCK HUR DURF" mentality.

PC's are used to create console games so I can't see your logic being a form of "truth", especially when this thread shows the exact opposite of this.
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
sneakypenguin said:
Is it elitism if its right? A solid 200 dollar gfx card is going to get more than double the pixels, 4-8-12 times the video ram, at twice the framerate with AA, SSAO, AF, dx11, tessalation, better shadows, lighting, massively more draw distance. Much less if you build a 1000 dollar beast computer. Mods, fixes,community balance patches, texture work etc. Outside of consoles exclusives PC is so far ahead of this gen its not even funny.

Its not that I hate consoles, or console gamers its just that i hate the backwards console experience, the so easily eclipsed tech, games designed like corridors so they can fit into 256 v ram, keeping the console gui in ports, ports that don't allow for basic PC features(dark souls, darksiders) and the graphic stagnation to where a 6-7 year old game still is held up as a graphical benchmark(crysis)

Imagine your ps3 but everything was still made for a ps2 would there not be some tension or frustration there, both with devs who are giving you a ps2 or 2.5 quality experience, and with the ps2 owners who say, "looks good to me, not everyone has the money for a ps3".
This entire post, in my opinion. Is why console gamers get miffed off with PC gamers.

Everyone DOES KNOW that PC is by far a graphically and performance-based superior cousin to the console. No matter which way you put it. Yes, the PC IS SUPERIOR to the console.

HOWEVER. People DON'T LIKE having that fact rubbed in or brought up over and over and over again. Especially in such painstaking detail ( Tesselation indeed ).

As both a console and PC gamer.

From a console gamer stand point. I DON'T NEED to hear precisely WHY the PC is so gosh-darned superior to the console, because by extension, that is an insult to any good games that are console exclusive or developed for console that I happen to enjoy. I don't know about you, but I play consoles primarily for the games, and not much else.

For example. Guy A states how PCs are obviously superior to consoles, in both performance and graphics, Guy B is miffed at that as he loves game K which is console exclusive, argument ensues.

From a PC gamer standpoint, I see no reason to repeatedly exemplify the same fact that LOL PC IS SUPERIOR. Its a fact, pretty much everyone knows it ( Even the unreasonable ones, who, deep down, still probably know that ). I think we should toss this entire line of argument altogether. For the same reason why we don't compare the financial state of beggars and millionaires, its painfully obvious. And insulting to repeatedly point out the same mistake over and over again despite the best of intentions. Say it once, leave it.
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
miketehmage said:
First of all, GTA 5 WILL release for PC 6 months from now.

Mark my words.

Secondly, the PC is just better in every way. I'm sorry, but it is.
They are more powerful,
They are more customisable,
They are capable of more than just running games (I know consoles are too now but they still can't do what a PC can do.)
The controls are great.(Don't like keyboard and mouse? Plug in a pad. You can do that!)

This is the most important point for me coming right up, so listen up console fans.

*They CAN be cheaper than consoles.*

Yes, that's right, your console isn't cheaper than my PC, stop using that as an argument against PC, because it is outright wrong.

The only real argument I guess you could make against PC gaming is that consoles are easier to use and more convenient.

But I'm simply not willing to give up all the benefits of PC gaming for convenience.

EDIT: Btw I own both a 360 and PS3 aswell
Another example of my earlier post. Everyone KNOWS that the PC is a superior piece of hardware. But NO ONE likes having it rubbed in their faces or constantly said over and over and over again. If your friend is in crutches you don't keep asking him "Hey buddy, did you break your leg?". Because it is extremely obvious that he broke his leg, thus he does not require constant reminders that he broke his leg because that is just obnoxious.

Or. The fact is, he chose the console because of his own personal reasons , he does not require constant reminders of how flawed or stupid that decision is because he is already pretty happy with his decision.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Lictor Face said:
miketehmage said:
First of all, GTA 5 WILL release for PC 6 months from now.

Mark my words.

Secondly, the PC is just better in every way. I'm sorry, but it is.
They are more powerful,
They are more customisable,
They are capable of more than just running games (I know consoles are too now but they still can't do what a PC can do.)
The controls are great.(Don't like keyboard and mouse? Plug in a pad. You can do that!)

This is the most important point for me coming right up, so listen up console fans.

*They CAN be cheaper than consoles.*

Yes, that's right, your console isn't cheaper than my PC, stop using that as an argument against PC, because it is outright wrong.

The only real argument I guess you could make against PC gaming is that consoles are easier to use and more convenient.

But I'm simply not willing to give up all the benefits of PC gaming for convenience.

EDIT: Btw I own both a 360 and PS3 aswell
Another example of my earlier post. Everyone KNOWS that the PC is a superior piece of hardware. But NO ONE likes having it rubbed in their faces or constantly said over and over and over again. If your friend is in crutches you don't keep asking him "Hey buddy, did you break your leg?". Because it is extremely obvious that he broke his leg, thus he does not require constant reminders that he broke his leg because that is just obnoxious.

Or. The fact is, he chose the console because of his own personal reasons , he does not require constant reminders of how flawed or stupid that decision is because he is already pretty happy with his decision.
Clicking on console VS PC threads is a deliberate, voluntary action.

It's mostly friendly rivalry between console gamers and PC gamers who seek it out. Fun and games. Don't want any reminders? Then you can safely ignore those threads.
 

BleedingPride

New member
Aug 10, 2009
375
0
0
I remember posting a similar thread to this a couple months back, from the answers I got they don't really hate consoles themselves, but the poorly optimized and streamlined PC ports they could stand to go without. They have the capacity to have much better looking/running games, but they can't because of the way consoles have sort of streamlined the whole industry.