Altered Allegiance

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
RTS and FPS ill stick with the PC thanks. Until they manage to do both without it sucking or making it cheat on the console, RTS and FPS respectively. (and don't act like Autoaim isnt cheating <.<) But yes I will in all likelihood spend more on Console games than i will on PC games from now on. It does help that i have both XB360 and PS3 so yeah duh i'll spend more since they are the lion's share of my entertainment pie. XD

why limit yourself to just one platform :p if u have it all than you can't lose! (only money)

Wii is for suckers! XD

Dedicated Servers > peer to peer matchmaking. Unless you have Dedicated servers upon which you send all the matches like on the Consoles. and some kind of latency filter :p...on PC
 

rileyrulesu

New member
Jun 15, 2009
247
0
0
The main problem is that computers are expensive. well, let me rephrase that, gaming computers are expensive. computers alone you can surf the web, play flash games, process words, and mess with the various utilities and programs you get for it for 400$. But once you through gaming into the mix, that single largest use of memory, to get it to run decently, your looking at 1000$ especially if you want it to last for a couple years. now consoles are 200-300$ so it seems like you can save a few hundred dollars by just getting a console. now don't get me wrong, i would love to enter the realm of p.c. gaming, but we are merely middle class, and just bought a 700$ computer. unfortunately, its a mac, so that doesn't help me. i could rant about how the should stop making their games p.c. exclusive but thats for another post. but as i was saying before its kind of up to the opinion of whether the mods and better controls are worth the 600$
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
theultimateend said:
elvor0 said:
This is the attitude of the majority of people who play games these days, I long for the days when gaming was a shut in thing, at least then we could rely on Devs having to be creative given the majority of players were geeks, and we're extremely critical bastards, so they had to make a great game or else be shunned for evermore, these days bring out a shiny game that's shite and the Nu-gamers will eat it up, given they seem to have a pleasing factor of that of an excitable magpie.

and i've gone massively off topic, screw it Imma be late for work if I try to get back on track ><
For every million people that buy a really pretty shitty game, 10-20 million people don't.

It isn't that gamers these days like shiny graphics. It is that there is another group of people who will buy anything that is shiny and are thusly easier to market too.

Basically the gaming developers know that it is easier to make things pretty than to make things good.
Oh I quite agree, I know it isnt Gamers that succumb to that, it's just given the fact that gaming has opened to the masses, that seems to overwrite anything gamers want. I would've refined my post to make that point clearer, but was gonna be late for work.
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
Woodsey said:
And this whole thing about the PC being the smallest platform in the market (not in the article but others on here have definitely mentioned it), as far as I'm aware, PC sales form over half the industry, whilst the consoles form share the remaining percentages.

Retail sales may not be as necessarily large but download clients such as Steam and Direct2Drive make up for it.
PC does quite well considering the console business includes the
Wii
360
PS3
and probably the DS/PSP as well 5 different devices all considered to be the console market
 

Chaos Marine

New member
Feb 6, 2008
571
0
0
Knight Templar said:
Yet another chance for me to not understand the PC gamers point of view. I never got why it was considered that some games belong "here" or "there", apart from RTS which makes sense if only due to the low number of good game for the genere on console.

But that "rule" was killed by Halo Wars and EndWar, both of which were easy and fun. I was I could understand, but I don't think that I do.

Dobrev said:
So you've bought 6 games in the past month. I'd say that puts you more closely to the yahoo moms than the core of PC & console gamers.
Hang on, are you saying a person who spends what could be around $700 on games isn't close to "the core of PC & console gamers"?
That's one of the things that differs between consoles and PC games. You might pay anything upwards of 50 or sixty euros or dollars or sterling for your games. I can pay something like 30-35 euros for my games. The thing is, I can keep playing those games for years after thanks to the excessive backwards compatibility of my PC and if a game doesn't work natively, that isn't a problem. I can use the backwards compatibility mode with the launcher or failing that, I can just boot up one of my virtual computers and play it on that. But I digress.

For me, six PC games for a year is next to nothing because for the amount of money I'd be spending, it isn't. But a console gamer, six games is a lot. Particularly when each of those games can be twice the price of the games I'd pay for. Hades, I found a place that will be selling CoD4 MW2 for about 32 euros compared to everywhere else where it will be for something like 40 or 50+.
 

Slider2k

New member
Oct 23, 2009
31
0
0
Some games are better suited for PC, some for consoles. PC (with it's standard mouse+keyboard controls) is best suited for: FPS (actually anything FP), RTS, Strategy, MMO; Well any game that are complex, have many controls and/or a lot of information on screen, or need precise/fast aiming. Consoles (with standard analog sticks gamepad) are best suited for: 3rd Person Action/Adventure, Platformer, Sports, Driving, Fighting. The main reason behind this is the control scheme. You can ace joysticks aiming of course, but it will never beat more natural pointing device - mouse. RTS on consoles will never get as complex as on PC.

The main advantage of consoles though, is ease of use. Not price, consoles themselves maybe cheap (because they are often sold at below/equal cost), but games are not (company should compensate for cheap consoles prices somehow). Gaming PC may cost more than console, but it would be able to do not just gaming but a lot of other stuff too. And games on PC could be bought cheaper than on consoles. Plus nobody forces to upgrade often unless you're graphics addict, visuals could be almost always scaled down in games.

I say: take the best from both platforms.

The bad thing is that many publishers now may be aiming more on games for console than for PC.
 

Worsle

New member
Jul 4, 2008
215
0
0
MiodekPL said:
Worsle said:
MiodekPL said:
Ok - find me a flight-sim and a good RTS on a console. There's no such thing? That means that there's nothing of interest on consoles for me, so I'll stick with my PC then. Wake me up, when there will be some more complicated console games, because there are only dumbed down no-brainers at the moment.
Or you know fun? This whole pc master race thing is kind of old, making controls complicated is not making a game better. People don't go about making books better by making them harder to read and just giving your self a complex set of controls does not make a game better or even that smart. Most rts are not that smart and while flight sims are complicated you know what? Most people don't want or need a full recreation of a plain the will never fly, it is not dumbing down it is just ignoring the fluff.
It's not like that. I really like complicated stuff like flight sims. Actually, simplifying a helicopter controls is making things worse for me. And I don't think I'm better in any way (nor I said that), so it's only your martyr's thinking. Never said that I'm better because I can memorize a hundred controls for a flight sim, or command units in StarCraft. It's what you said. So stop whining, and have fun with your games, while I have fun with mine ok? And don't say that your games are worse (maybe they are, but I probably haven't played them), just because they're simpler.
Bolded something for you. Might want to read what you type, when you start calling things dumbed down you are setting your self up as the superior. Maybe you did not intend to do it but that is how that comes across. You can have fun with flight sims if that is what you want and they will require specialist controls to really pull it off but that does not make them a smarter form of gaming. That is what I take issue with.

Fasckira said:
Sorry, you're kind of reading too much into the post which is why you're seeing it as flawed. The point I was making is that the simple action of playing a game makes you a gamer, not specifically the games you play. Just because you switch to console to play a different game doesnt make you anymore or less of a gamer, just means you're using a console, do you see what I mean?
I would just say I am taking a different meaning from it, works in English lit where the authors intent is kind of meaningless after all. I would agree that getting overly clannish is a silly thing but people do invest a lot of money in there respective medium of choice and we are also a group animal by nature so it is only natural as well (and why it is wise not to mistake natural for good).
 

Falru

New member
Dec 3, 2008
33
0
0
My theory is that the line between consoles and PCs is forever becoming thinner and thinner. The xbox allowed you to play music cds and DVDs. The xbox 360 now comes with a fully functional dashboard and media manager.

The xbox 1337 will probably come with some sort of advanced file manager for media files. I'm sure some intelligent people will be able to manipulate this into allowing it to run separate programs than just games.

Once consoles gain an intuitive OS interface, and the ability to run programs apart from just games. They've essentially become PCs of their own. Except that the OS would be "Xbox" rather than "Windows"

The only things I really find more attractive in a console than a PC is, obviously, game selection and pricing.

Building a PC that costs less than $300 that's guaranteed to run all the latest games is just not possible.

Why Microsoft/Sony have not realized the possibility of connecting a mouse to a 360/PS3 is absolutely beyond me however...
 

mrx19869

New member
Jun 17, 2009
502
0
0
with a console u get almost a guarantee that you will be able to play games on it for the nest 5- 10 years

with a computer its good for 3 to 5 then u have to spend money on a newer graphic card or something else,

worried that your console might die... spend 40 -60 and get it under warranty
 

MiodekPL

New member
Apr 5, 2009
96
0
0
Worsle said:
Bolded something for you. Might want to read what you type, when you start calling things dumbed down you are setting your self up as the superior. Maybe you did not intend to do it but that is how that comes across. You can have fun with flight sims if that is what you want and they will require specialist controls to really pull it off but that does not make them a smarter form of gaming. That is what I take issue with.
Actually, that's what I mean. Most (if not all) console games are dumbed-down and simple. But I don't mean that's better or worse. That's worse for me, but for You it's not. I don't think (judging by your previous posts) that You would like flight sims. And unfortunately it makes them smarter, but I don't think of it as compliment. They just have to be - if they weren't they wouldn't be flight sims. It would be something like Ace Combat or HAWX - definitely not my kind of game.
 

szaleniec1000

New member
Nov 11, 2008
196
0
0
mattman106 said:
I am going to blow some minds here; you can use controllers with PCs. Also IMO the only reason to own a console is for console exclusives
Not even that if you're willing to wait a few years for an emulator to be developed.

Where consoles really shine for me is local multiplayer (great memories of playing Pro Evo with the lads back when I was an undergraduate) but otherwise I prefer PC.
 

NickCooley

New member
Sep 19, 2009
425
0
0
If I had the money for a PC of monster specs right now I probably would buy one. There are some fairly decent PC games coming up soon that unfortunately I'm going to miss. I have a laptop right now that isn't really good at playing games at all. Thankfully all the games I enjoy are quite old.

Which brings me to the games issue. Quite simply there is no game ever made that is so amazing you MUST purchase the appropriate platform. Yes that means your favorite game too "PC Elitist" and/or "Console Fanboy" Never. Full stop. End of story.

Another issue I have with PC's is yes they are very expensive for an up to date rig anyway. Sure they might be cheaper building your own but it's still not going to be as cheap as a console and you have to build it yourself! I'm far too lazy for that shit! You can just plug in a console.

Yes I'm ranting now I'm perfectly aware of it and at this stage I've spent so long writing this up I'm not sure what my point was so I'm going to end with this.

If money were no object yes I would have an obscenely powerful rig. Not because PC itself is superior. Not because the games are superior. But so I can enjoy a wider variety, a wider spectrum of games, if you will. The same goes for any console you care to mention too, not just PC.
 

Typecast

New member
Jul 27, 2008
227
0
0
I think the PC is resurging in the casual area. But I know that casual games are blasphemy against gaming :p

So I wouldn't say it was dead, I'd say it's found a new, tangible, marketplace to keep itself going, and perhaps, given time and technology, it will have a reneissance.
 

Slider2k

New member
Oct 23, 2009
31
0
0
People saying that console gaming are cheaper don't understand that companies making consoles do not make money on consoles, they make money by selling overpriced games. PC gamers can get major titles as cheaply as $2.49 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95817-Get-Team-Fortress-2-For-2-49-for-the-Next-40-Minutes].