Joccaren said:
Oh god, why did a Objective/Subjective argument pop up -.-
Lets settle this here. When you say 'Good', 'Bad', 'Better', 'Worse' you are no longer talking objectively. Full stop.
"The PC has better hardware" is not an objective statement. You have not qualified 'Better'. The PC has more advanced hardware? Sure. Stronger hardware? Sure. Hardware with greater technical capabilities? Sure. 'Better' hardware? Define better.
An example. Murder is not, objectively, a bad thing. It is a thing. That is all that you can objectively say about it; Murder is the act of taking another person's life. It is not objectively bad. Welcome to nihilism. Now, we all understand murder as bad as that is our subjective moral code, and judged by our moral code we can say murder is bad, however that is not an objective statement. The only objective statement that can be made along those lines is 'Murder is considered an evil act by the moral code in question'.
Continuing from this, we can therefore not call either the PC or console objectively better. We can state facts about that, and how a majority might perceive those facts, but there is no objective measure here. A PC has more options for peripherals, a far larger library of games, often cheaper games, more powerful hardware and several exclusive genres, however that does not make it 'Better' objectively. It means, objectively, it has those qualities. Subjectively you can perceive those qualities to be important or unimportant dependant on who is judging. This is, conveniently enough, why you cannot make an objective statement about these sorts of things; because people's opinions of what constitutes 'better' differ, and hence so does what is 'better'.
Now, back to you forum, and the rest of this... debate...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.