Console games have lost the advantage.

[irishstormtrooper]

Alas, it really suits your idea of "fun" if you want to spend about a thousand dollars for a high-class computer and possibly more for improved accessories, but have long, high-quality, complex games, a PC is for you. If you want cheaper thrills and can stand shorter, arguably lower-quality, simpler games, a console is probably better.

I am a console gamer, because I can't afford a gaming PC and whatever games I get for it have a framerate of about 2.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

As for me, I mainly play consoles because I can't afford to upgrade my computer every time a new game comes out--and even if I could afford it, I wouldn't want to.

 

[You_have_a_name]

i think that i would hate pc gaming mainly because im on my the internet on my laptop while playing my xbox most of the time, and i prefers controllers than mouses. Also all my friends have and xbox and most PC gamers think their "hardcore gamers" and are normally pricks about it.

 

[delet]

My motto:
FPS, puzzle, MMO : PC
Just about everything else (especially platformers): Console

 

[Zildjin81]

My motto:
FPS, puzzle, MMO : PC
Just about everything else (especially platformers): Console

What about RTS TBS?

 

[delet]

My motto:
FPS, puzzle, MMO : PC
Just about everything else (especially platformers): Console

What about RTS TBS?

I knew I'd forget something... RTS belongs on the PC, and TBS(I assume it is turn based strategy) can go just about anywhere, really, though it's more traditionally on Consoles and can work quite well on handhelds.

 

[CrysisMcGee]

What I mean is the advantages console games had over PC games, is not so prevalent.

Such as bugs. Console games had to make a finished product, because there was no way to release a patch. Or release an unfinished game, and get poor sales. Superman 64, anyone? PC games have always, and still suffer from this problem. Mostly It is due to the large differences in hardware the game needs to work with. Consoles have, and still have, one set of hardware it needs to work with. But it seems lately that they are relying too much on the internet. Updating the game, patching it, waiting half an hour to play your game.

Seems we are trying to bridge the gap. I don't like it.

Load Times. Okay, this went out the window ever since disc-based media became the norm. PC will always dominate here.

Plug-and-play. This seems to still be an advantage with consoles, if you like longer load times. I heard a couple years back they tried to make this available for the PC. Seems people will stand up with an installation to get much shorter load times. Actually, I'd rather install my games on a console to get shorter load times.

Personally, i think console and PC games need to stay far away from each other. If I want intelligent, lenghty, highly immersive, and very rewarding, I will go with PC.
If I want a game that is just plain fun, I will go with Console.



Okay, it seems I need some clarification. What I'm saying is the advantages Consoles had over PC games are lessened. Not as Prevalent.

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.

Gah. You are correct. I am used to PC and Console being divided. Not this mediocre crap they try to throw at everybody.

 

[Zildjin81]

My motto:
FPS, puzzle, MMO : PC
Just about everything else (especially platformers): Console

What about RTS TBS?

I knew I'd forget something... RTS belongs on the PC, and TBS(I assume it is turn based strategy) can go just about anywhere, really, though it's more traditionally on Consoles and can work quite well on handhelds.

Yeah that's what I meant. Which TBSs have you seen on handhelds? I'm actually quite curious.

 

[delet]

My motto:
FPS, puzzle, MMO : PC
Just about everything else (especially platformers): Console

What about RTS TBS?

I knew I'd forget something... RTS belongs on the PC, and TBS(I assume it is turn based strategy) can go just about anywhere, really, though it's more traditionally on Consoles and can work quite well on handhelds.

Yeah that's what I meant. Which TBSs have you seen on handhelds? I'm actually quite curious.

Well, there's always Pokemon and the Final Fantasy remakes for DS...

I'm more of a SRPG guy, really. I LOVE Disgaea since it came to the PSP. So much replayability, it took me months to beat everything in it.

 

[zombflux]

When exactly did consoles ever have the advantage, in the past 10 years?

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

PC: Valve, MMOs, Mouse and keyboard, mods, and arguably graphics
Consoles: Lots of exclusives, more convenient, more cost efficient, controllers, play on your TV, Local multiplayer

Both have their advantages, but if you're like me and don't like MMOs, valve, or mouse controls, the PC has little to no appeal. Plus the PC is way more expensive and suffers from a lot more problems if you dont have the right parts for it.

 

[Rayansaki]

Loading times on consoles are not necessarily longer than a PC (depends largely on the performance of the machine), specially if the console is a PS3, which can seek data from disc and installation, reducing the loadings a fair bit.

On the finished product mention, I don't agree, and actually pc is still and more so over time at a disadvantage because of variations between systems. PC games have to be made to work with literally thousands of hardware combinations, and that's where most of the bugs and crashes come from. The consoles run on very few hardware and OS differences, and game testing picks most of the glitches before release, because basically a handful of tests can approve the game for virtually every machine.
Tests on pc games have to be done in dozens of machines, and it still will only cover less than 50% of the most popular hardware combinations, and that's why typically a console game is less likely to suffer from bugs and glitches, not because the developers release the game too early and patch later.

Don't get me wrong, I love PC gaming, but for games that are released on both ps3 and pc, I typically prefer to get the PS3 version, unless the PC version is clearly superior in terms of versatility (Like Fallout 3, with mods making it a whole greater experience)

 

[zerzxes]

Why can't people just shut the fuck up about stuff like this already? It all depends on wich games and control systems YOU find more compelling!

[small]PC > Consoles![/small]

 

[JTLW]

I would just like to make a small point for those who are concerned about the price of gaming.

Over here in the UK, I can pick up a PS3 for about £200. About £250 with a game and a controller thrown in. In this deal you also get a basic web browser, and a blu-ray player. What a bonus.

A standard 360? £150-£200. Normally including a game and a controller. I haven't had any experience with 360s outside of actually playing the games, so I dunno about any fun extras.

A Wii? Let's not really go there. >.> Cheap, fun, not apparently a subject at hand.

My current PC? The tower, with all the parts inside that lets me max Fallout 3 out (which, incidentally, looks nicer than either of the console versions) @ 1680x1050, would cost about £300 right now. About £360 if you include a fresh copy of XP Pro SP3. Sure, it's a little more expensive than the consoles, but I've found that most of the games I can play tend to look prettier than the console versions. Not only that, but I prefer the keyboard and mouse.

By the way, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that you CAN in fact connect joypads to PCs. Y'know.

The only game I have experienced any issue installing or running has been Mass Effect. And that's because it was a terrible port. Eventually, when Nvidia fixed the game (Bioware I am disappointed in you) it ran perfectly. Not only could I enable anti-aliasing on my PC (something the 360 version BADLY needed) but the pretties were prettier, and I liked the control scheme better.

I guess what I am saying here is that I prefer PCs. But it boils down to what you as a gamer want. Do you want Metal Gear Solid, blu-ray playback, and annoyingly erratic motion control? PS3. Do you want a huge library of current and previous generation titles that can be easily accessed with no hassle? 360. (Can you see where I am going?) Do you want a good library of current gen games, previous gen games, and games from pretty much every generation? Wow, it seems like the PC is a good choice.

I also enjoy the fact that having a PC as my primary gaming and entertainment machine compresses everything I need. I can do work on it, I can play games, I can use it to record music, I can post on forums where nobody will care about my opinion, I can watch movies, listen to music, chat to my friends, record videos that will cause me massive embarrassment later on in life, and I can do all this just by hitting Esc and pausing the game I am playing... could be Half Life 2, could be Mass Effect, could be The Sims, alt-tabbing out, and then alt-tabbing back when I am done.

Wow that was a lot, incoherent post.

So, in summary: Everyone in this thread has their opinion. They will not change it because they think their logic is perfect, and it is true. Their logic is perfect FOR THEM. Please bear this in mind.

I'm a PC, and I'm a condescending bastard.

 

[Fallingwater]

Load Times. Okay, this went out the window ever since disc-based media became the norm. PC will always dominate here.

As a self-admitted PC elitist I would definitely like it if that was the case, but I'm afraid things are headed in the opposite way. Several console games install themselves, or large parts of themselves, on the console's hard disk. Not that this is an ideal solution, considering the tendency of console manufacturers to sell with their consoles hard drives of piddling capacities that aren't easy to upgrade... man, HD manufacturers must love consoles considering how much old surplus stock they allow them to get rid of.

Personally, i think console and PC games need to stay far away from each other. If I want intelligent, lenghty, highly immersive, and very rewarding, I will go with PC.
If I want a game that is just plain fun, I will go with Console.

If by "just plain fun" you mean "casual gaming", I wholeheartedly agree with you.

 

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

I can't game on a PC, although that I can pin down PURELY on having to run sodding vista on it. Fallout3 runs fine... until vista autominimises it and fails to restore it -.-

 

[CrysisMcGee]

I would just like to make a small point for those who are concerned about the price of gaming.

Over here in the UK, I can pick up a PS3 for about £200. About £250 with a game and a controller thrown in. In this deal you also get a basic web browser, and a blu-ray player. What a bonus.

A standard 360? £150-£200. Normally including a game and a controller. I haven't had any experience with 360s outside of actually playing the games, so I dunno about any fun extras.

A Wii? Let's not really go there. >.> Cheap, fun, not apparently a subject at hand.

My current PC? The tower, with all the parts inside that lets me max Fallout 3 out (which, incidentally, looks nicer than either of the console versions) @ 1680x1050, would cost about £300 right now. About £360 if you include a fresh copy of XP Pro SP3. Sure, it's a little more expensive than the consoles, but I've found that most of the games I can play tend to look prettier than the console versions. Not only that, but I prefer the keyboard and mouse.

By the way, everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that you CAN in fact connect joypads to PCs. Y'know.

The only game I have experienced any issue installing or running has been Mass Effect. And that's because it was a terrible port. Eventually, when Nvidia fixed the game (Bioware I am disappointed in you) it ran perfectly. Not only could I enable anti-aliasing on my PC (something the 360 version BADLY needed) but the pretties were prettier, and I liked the control scheme better.

I guess what I am saying here is that I prefer PCs. But it boils down to what you as a gamer want. Do you want Metal Gear Solid, blu-ray playback, and annoyingly erratic motion control? PS3. Do you want a huge library of current and previous generation titles that can be easily accessed with no hassle? 360. (Can you see where I am going?) Do you want a good library of current gen games, previous gen games, and games from pretty much every generation? Wow, it seems like the PC is a good choice.

I also enjoy the fact that having a PC as my primary gaming and entertainment machine compresses everything I need. I can do work on it, I can play games, I can use it to record music, I can post on forums where nobody will care about my opinion, I can watch movies, listen to music, chat to my friends, record videos that will cause me massive embarrassment later on in life, and I can do all this just by hitting Esc and pausing the game I am playing... could be Half Life 2, could be Mass Effect, could be The Sims, alt-tabbing out, and then alt-tabbing back when I am done.

Wow that was a lot, incoherent post.

So, in summary: Everyone in this thread has their opinion. They will not change it because they think their logic is perfect, and it is true. Their logic is perfect FOR THEM. Please bear this in mind.

I'm a PC, and I'm a condescending bastard.

Agreed. I may love consoles, but I use my computer for everything. Which is why spending 1800 on a rig makes perfect sense to me. Plus the 25 inch monitor makes everything better.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I wish my PC would let me play my copy of Jazz Jack Rabbit 2. I definitely have the specs and I can't figure out what's going on >_<

At least with consoles, you put a game in and it plays, unless it's a faulty console or game.

 

[JTLW]

*Big Ass-Snip*

Agreed. I may love consoles, but I use my computer for everything. Which is why spending 1800 on a rig makes perfect sense to me. Plus the 25 inch monitor makes everything better.

My current PC is a weed, and I can still run quite a few games at nicer pretties than their console brethren. I am currently saving my arse off to build a computer that will run me nearly £3000. While this may seem excessive, not only will it be a bast for gaming on multi-monitors, but it'll have the grunt to let me record and produce music to a standard I would consider releasable, let me edit the HD files my family records, and actually get it done in under a day, all whilst messing around on Crysis in the background. XD

Plus, as a hardware geek, I like getting down and dirty with my computer, and building it myself is fun!

 

[Callate]

Both have their merits. I'm primarily a PC person; until recently, I haven't owned a console since the Atari 2600. I'm planning on getting a Wii soon, which is about as big a step over the chasm between the two as one can get.

There is absolutely nothing any of the current generation of consoles can do that a quad-core PC with a decent video card cannot. And I will note that in the present generation of computer hardware, one can put together such a computer in the $500-$700 range (U.S.), which isn't such a leap over the console hardware.

But "can" is not the same as "does". Games that are developed from the start as multi-platform do well; games that are converted from console to PC later on, often less so, though there are exceptions. Many would say the PC version of Mass Effect is superior to the XBox 360 version; most would argue the opposite about, say, Saints Row 2 (though the current version runs quite nicely on my computer, thank you.) There seems to be more effort being put into console-to-PC conversions recently. I think it's a good trend, and I hope it continues. A good portion of the A-list games make it to the PC these days in equal or better form than their console predecessors; it's also true that there are some games that only come to PC, or only play well on PC (I'm sorry, I've never seen a Real-Time Strategy game than played well on console, and don't expect to any time soon.) Likewise, some titles like Bioshock and Fallout 3 that once would have been PC-only are now being made with console interface adaptions very much in mind. We seem to be coming to a point where PCs aren't so much alone off by themselves, but a platform with their own stable of games comparable to the consoles, with a level of cross-platform overlap similar to the consoles.

It's true that you're highly unlikely to play a game on a console that simply doesn't run from the outset from hardware incompatability, or ever have a clueless tech support person tell you to flash your console's BIOS because they've completely run out of ideas and hope it will make you to go away. But it's also true that, having made your investment in PC hardware, you are unlikely to find that you've bought this year's Dreamcast or Gamecube.

I think the original author has a point, and it shouldn't be dismissed as merely PC snobbery. As games get bigger, with larger teams, more complex engines, and online components, it is perhaps inevitable that more technical snafus will raise their ugly heads. For now, the "patch" issue still favors consoles slightly, but I think both sides have their benefits and downsides.