I'm merely representing the misrepresented side in as civil a manner as possible by showing that neither side can claim the 'Perfect system' title. It's all about preference.theultimateend said:
Console games have lost the advantage.
- Thread starter CrysisMcGee
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll admit a nice PC can be a bit pricey.Spudgun Man said:
About 1 thousand dollars or so.
But I haven't had to upgrade my system in over two years and the system before that lasted for almost 6 without needing more than a hundred dollars in upgrades over that time.
This also taking into account that I don't just use my gaming rig for gaming I also do graphics work, music making, officer work, internet browsing (and forum ranting), as well as watching terabytes of...educational programming <<.
Regardless. The you only have to spend money every 9.2 seconds if you were a cheap ass out the door. Even then it is likely because you routinely are a cheap ass with the upgrades.
"WUT! My 20 dollar GFX card won't run crysis!"
Had you basically just said this you would have been far more successful. But at least you know what you did.wouldyoukindly99 said:
In case it wasn't clear I was referring to The first RainbowSix on PlayStation, not the modern LasVegas ones (although they are good too). Just making sure that is clear.
In case it wasn't clear I was referring to The first RainbowSix on PlayStation, not the modern LasVegas ones (although they are good too). Just making sure that is clear. And by the way, I agree with your point.ThePeiceOfEden said:
I have always defended PC but I bought a PS3...yes I actually did it...but what the hell I had tons of fun...it was sooo worth it
Agreed with you last sentence, and totally disagree with the rest (which then proves the last sentence).wouldyoukindly99 said:
It's all a matter of preference. I can play on either, but I find it far more interesting to play on a PC , and find that there is an unfortunate number of myths surrounding PC gaming.
You don't, for example, need to update your PC every few months like many console gamers seem to believe. Like the guy I quoted said, people seem to think PC games are riddled with bugs - I've got around 40 in my collection (from over several periods of time) and none have major (and most don't have minor) bugs.
You could say I'm dead lucky, but again, it's more down to rumour and a few bad experiences. Then there's the idea that PCs are riddled with bugs and what not - only if you're an idiot or, again, unlucky. A free edition of AVG is more than enough to protect you.
The most important thing is what you're comfortable playing with. If it's a gamepad, then fine. If its a mouse and keyboard, then that's fine as well.
Man, you have no idea. Started with Doom and Wolfensetin 3d. Quest for Glory, King's Quest, Diablo, Half-Life, Fallout...these are a few of my favorite things.IrirshTerrorist said:
Played Diablo, Fallout, Doom and Wolfenstein in my earliest of earliest gaming experiences and later came back to play them again when I was older. What brilliant games.CrysisMcGee said:
It must be chilly on such a high pedastal. As you will see by later posts I am merely representing the console side of the argument and showing that neither system can claim the 'Perfect system' title.Reuq said:
The only games I can think of that require that many buttons would be RTSs (Which are the only games I have on my PC) or MMOs (Which I don't play) but I wouldn't like to play a game such as Far Cry 2 on a PC because a console has all the same functions in a smaller, less-cumbersome format. Simply saying 'The mouse is superior' is not that great an argument, yes long-time PC players may be more accurate with a mouse but I'm much more proficient with a controller, it's all about preference (As you should've read in my first post). My laptop not being good enough raises another negative about PC gaming, you can't just buy any old $2,500 laptop like mine you have to buy the top-of-the-line gaming PC, that will cost much more, just so you can play a game whereas a console is specifically designed for games and games only and costs about $300.
I may be a console 'tard' but at least I can spell 'Criticizing'.
Coupla your points are groundless. Loading times? I never usually have a problem, on either of my consoles. Bugs? Yes, they can release patches, that's what most of the game updates on 360 are, as well as on PS3. Seems to me like you're a bit far into PC, and can't deal with the fact that console gaming is what's at the centre of the market now.CrysisMcGee said:
i'm a pc fanboy, so basically the reason i don't like consoles is because i'm not familiar with them. I bought one of the newest ps3's though, for a blu ray player.
I assume you don't own an xbox 360... because those you play immediately and patches take like 30 seconds max.CrysisMcGee said:
In addition the install is an option to lower loading times and disc spinning noise.
Finally, SPLITSCREEN MULTIPLAYER! that is why consoles will always be better than pcs IMHO
not to mention that for 299 you can buy a console capable of playing games you would need a 1500 dollar computer for, and one you know will be supported for a while (the xbox360 has been around since 2005, games still work on it, I can't say that about my computer i had in 2005)
Am I the only person whose PC does everything asked of it?
Some would claim that it's because I shelled out loads, but my PC was no more expensive than your average home desktop pre-build, along with some energy expenditure akin to following the instructions for a lego model (a little one).
of course, there's no point starting topics SUPERIOR GAMING PCs, as all it does is descend into flame wars.
SO here's some more fuel for the fire:
I dislike console games, because there are certain series, and even whole dev houses, that are just plain better on PC- Ascaron/Paradox, makers of Mount and blade, Darkstar one etc are pretty interesting. Not ever game is a masterpiece, but they do have fun concepts. Though IIRC, Sacred 2 was on consoles, but you can have it- the first one sucked. Valve, of course, seems to have forgotten about console gamers, what with the lack of updates. And of course, GSC, developers of my beloved STALKER.
And strategy games. The keep trying on consoles, but it never works.
In other news, Section 8, which is currently assaulting my eyes on this very website, is apparently better on PC- I read a review in PC gamer giving it almost 90%, while some 360 mag I read (I swear, it wasn't my idea!) gave it closer to 60%, a strange reversal of fate considering the crap ports we PC gamers have had recently. I put it down to PC's long tradition of multiplayer only games meaning that we're more accepting of a game that holds two fingers up at single player (the 360 mag complained about the lackluster single player campaign)
Some would claim that it's because I shelled out loads, but my PC was no more expensive than your average home desktop pre-build, along with some energy expenditure akin to following the instructions for a lego model (a little one).
of course, there's no point starting topics SUPERIOR GAMING PCs, as all it does is descend into flame wars.
SO here's some more fuel for the fire:
I dislike console games, because there are certain series, and even whole dev houses, that are just plain better on PC- Ascaron/Paradox, makers of Mount and blade, Darkstar one etc are pretty interesting. Not ever game is a masterpiece, but they do have fun concepts. Though IIRC, Sacred 2 was on consoles, but you can have it- the first one sucked. Valve, of course, seems to have forgotten about console gamers, what with the lack of updates. And of course, GSC, developers of my beloved STALKER.
And strategy games. The keep trying on consoles, but it never works.
In other news, Section 8, which is currently assaulting my eyes on this very website, is apparently better on PC- I read a review in PC gamer giving it almost 90%, while some 360 mag I read (I swear, it wasn't my idea!) gave it closer to 60%, a strange reversal of fate considering the crap ports we PC gamers have had recently. I put it down to PC's long tradition of multiplayer only games meaning that we're more accepting of a game that holds two fingers up at single player (the 360 mag complained about the lackluster single player campaign)
They are a lot of PC games that lag the living heck even if the hardware you have theoretically succeeds the system requieremtns.
GTA IV and Saints Row 2 for the PC for one.
They are a lot of games for the PC that are almost released in a Alpha Build state (S.T.A.L.K.E.R-series) that can't be run at a decent framerate or get any descent gameplay out of it unless you have a Quad-SLI system.
GTA IV and Saints Row 2 for the PC for one.
They are a lot of games for the PC that are almost released in a Alpha Build state (S.T.A.L.K.E.R-series) that can't be run at a decent framerate or get any descent gameplay out of it unless you have a Quad-SLI system.
The biggest problem i have with a PC is that the updates are constant as well as graphical card updates. As a kid who only buys a game one every few months or so the idea of buying more RAM, sound, HDD, Drivers as a whole, Screen, and a game that is also around 40 bucks does not seem worth it at some times though i find PC games harder and more use of thought then console; at my point in life console games are what you need to veg out not some complex RTS games.
Also i call flame war
Also i call flame war
