Jimquisition: Xbox 360 and PS3 Are Just Very Crap PCs

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
thanatos388 said:
Um...pcs are expensive and require upgrades to the pc itself to play new games. They are still a bigger hassle. That outweighs anything a pc can do as most gamers wont spend 15000 dollars to have higher definition graphics that add fuck all to the game itself.
I WAS WAITING FOR THIS.

I have a very basic system, it's almost 6 years old. Was refurbished when it was bought for me (So we're probably looking onto about 8 now), I've spent about £30 on second hand hardware (Yes it does exist) and about £40 on some new Ram.

The computer was £200 to start with. Oh and last time I checked I was playing Mass effect 3 (It's just an example of a recent game) on medium graphical settings.

So what, it's cost me about £270 and I'm still a head of current gen consoles.

So I dare someone to run up to me and say that you need to spend thousands of pounds/ dollars to get a decent gaming computer.

Oh also, I completely agree with everything said in this video. :3
 

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
portal_cat said:
I know this sounds strange but I multi-task. Playing a game on the PC I can only do that but with an Xbox I can write or chat with friends on the PC while playing a game.
Multitasking? You say you can't do it on a PC?

What is your PC running, DOS?
 

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
exobook said:
Sorry to side step the PC vs console war but does anyone know what that live action battelstar/halo space opera thing at the end was?, it looked rather interesting.
It's a live action trailer for Halo 4 if I remember correctly. It's the Crew of the ship that crashes in the trailer and game play shown at E3 being briefed on their mission.
 

Daveman

has tits and is on fire
Jan 8, 2009
4,202
0
0
Oh God Jim. What have you done? We all knew it, it didn't need to be said.

SonOfVoorhees said:
PC gamers care more about graphics and physics than the actual game....these things are not important. Making the graphics better with a mod dont make the game better. The game is what it is, the story etc can not be changed. Each to their own i guess. Just buy the games you love to play and you will be fine.
That is codswallop. There are a few that care about epic graphics but that is not the vast majority. I think it's just good to show that a community can accommodate those that care for impressive graphics and advancing the technology as well as those who appreciate, well, all the shit Jim said.

Anyway... the one thing consoles still have is local multiplayer... though no developers seem particularly keen on that for some inexplicable reason.
Bigsmith said:
portal_cat said:
I know this sounds strange but I multi-task. Playing a game on the PC I can only do that but with an Xbox I can write or chat with friends on the PC while playing a game.
Multitasking? You say you can't do it on a PC?

What is your PC running, DOS?
It's extra bizarre because not only can he perform both tasks on one PC but he can also do both on the Xbox. ALSO what's wrong with a mobile phone? Last I checked you could get one of those for like £10.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
672
4
23
I guess this depends on what kind of games you play on the Console.

I still think the Consoles have the upper hand over PC games for play ability. However, Jim does have a point, but I think he doesn't know what point that is. The games that have given me the biggest problem on my PS3 have been made by PC developers. Bethesda doesn't know how to make a game that doesn't require massive amounts of patching to get it to work. Because the PS3 and 360 have hard drive options this enabled unskilled PC game devs to write games on Consoles using their poor QA, and poor programming skills with the Patch Later mentality. I did warn my wife Skyrim was a made by PC devs, and well... the incessant crashing finally destroyed any chance of getting a future game from them.

All of my Console exclusive titles still work and function just like games of the past.

In terms of PC gaming it may have become easier for some. For me I use Linux and my wife uses a Mac. I've learned more about a Mac than I ever wanted to trying to Debug Diablo 3. If a game has excessive DRM chances are it wont work at all on my Linux Box so my gaming options are limited to games that actually work.

The only advantage I see PC games as having are still Genre based. FPS, RTS, and a few other types work far better on the PC than what a Console can do.
 

Emergent System

New member
Feb 27, 2010
152
0
0
Terminate421 said:
Emergent System said:
The only reason I even own any consoles is because of exclusives.

SonOfVoorhees said:
PC gamers care more about graphics and physics than the actual game....these things are not important. Making the graphics better with a mod dont make the game better. The game is what it is, the story etc can not be changed. Each to their own i guess. Just buy the games you love to play and you will be fine.
'Cuz games like minecraft just blow everything else out of the water when it comes to pure graphical orgasmictude.
First, He wasn't just talking about Graphics. Second, Minecraft is on Xbox too (YES I KNOW ITS NOT PC'D BUT AT LEAST ITS THERE)
Do I really need to point out that minecraft doesn't exactly feature amazing physics either? And the xbox port is a poor shadow of the PC version, lagging behind in features, and limited in world size, which is practically infinite on the PC.

Terminate421 said:
There are times where I just like to sit down and enjoy the base game that the industry gave us. Consoles allow that option. PC's allow you to tweak it.

Even better, did anyone even think of MASS MARKET APPEAL?!? How would you like to see a commercial for say....Dead Space: Terrifying Nightmare Version and think "Oh wow, this will look fun on my xbox!" Then you find out that its available for PC only. Fair enough, you get it and find out your computer cannot handle the game since you have the same PC you've had since 2010. So now you bought a game you cannot use unless you spend more money to UPGRADE the PC.

Consoles allow flexibility. They allow the games that you buy to age well (Not graphically but in use). I still have my old N64 and sit down to enjoy Starfox 64 on there, I turn it on and there I am doing a barrel roll in less than 30 seconds.
I'm not sure why you say that the ability to use old consoles to play old games is "allowing flexibility", since it does the opposite of that.

You may be able to dedicate space in your home to storing all your old consoles, then drag them out and plug them in to play whichever game you feel like, within the fancifully claimed 30 seconds (which assumes you have access to the hardware in the first place, which isn't necessarily the case for someone who isn't at least as dedicated to gaming on their consoles as I am to gaming on my computer), but I can do the same for decades old games on my computer right now, and I don't need to maintain a shrine to my various old consoles to be able to do that.

It may take longer than 30 seconds to install Baldur's Gate again (though not much longer), and probably a while longer to get over any technical difficulties involved in playing it on a so much newer computer (I remember getting Icewind Dale 2 to work a year back was fairly troublesome), but problematic software is easier to deal with than problematic hardware. I can also get the full BGtutu experience, if I wish (as clearly I would)!

Incidentally, I just realized Baldur's Gate is almost 15 years old. Man, times sure does fly.

Anyway. As for price, yeah, PCs are more expensive, at least when console generations are 7+ years, but I haven't had to replace mine in 5 years yet (except to add more RAM and HD space), and it still runs new games just fine on max settings. Granted, it was a very expensive PC for its time (I could probably buy 5 of them for the same price today - totally wasn't worth the price by the way, at least not for what I was using it for, but I digress), but if you buy cheap ones and you are satisfied with playing games on lower settings (which'd still be far superior to anything a console could put out) when it gets old, it's not that much more expensive.

I could go on for a while, but I'm out of time. TL;DR: Consoles don't have any upsides other than a low initial cost and ease-to-use (which, granted, includes the ease with which games are made for them), while PCs have many advantages, not the least of which is flexibility - which consoles do not have, and I'm not sure why anyone would think they do. My PC could play damn near every game out there if not for anti-consumer barriers keeping it from happening. "Anti-consumer" may sound a bit hyperbolic - maybe it should be called "pro-capitalism" - but it is what it is.

You may feel good pluggin in that N64 and playin' sum starfox, but even without access to the hardware I could do basically the same with an emulator right now, and I'm pretty sure you can't fire up BG without a PC. Well... maybe if someone really knew what they were doing they could pull something like that off...
 

demonflowers

New member
Dec 4, 2010
9
0
0
The benefit is simple. I'm a student living at home and I can afford to pay a few hundred bucks for a console. I can't afford a gaming PC, and I know virtually nothing about computers, so building one is out of the question. Also, I've had my PS3 since just after launch and it WORKS. I've never had to take it in to get fixed, it hasn't got any viruses, it just works and always has without any maintenance whatsoever. My PC, however, has needed to be fixed multiple times in the year and a half since I got it.

Oh, I almost forgot. My PS2? Also still working fine and has been for almost a decade.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
SonOfVoorhees said:
PC gamers care more about graphics and physics than the actual game....these things are not important. Making the graphics better with a mod dont make the game better. The game is what it is, the story etc can not be changed. Each to their own i guess. Just buy the games you love to play and you will be fine.
Oh really? Is that the reason so many PC gamers still play Counter Strike 1.6, Team Fortress 2, Baldur's Gate, Morrowind etc.

Anyway, I said the exact same thing about the negative aspects of consoles at least 3 times in the last year, here on The Escapist. And I think people called me a PC elitist for it. It will be interesting to see what people will say about Jim.
 

Orekoya

New member
Sep 24, 2008
485
0
0
FistsOfTinsel said:
==== Better Integration with Home Theatres ====

Consider all the stuff you'd have to do to a PC to get it to:

- be quiet, cool & small enough to fit in with the rest of your AV components & not be a big ugly box in your living room.

- have wireless controllers that also power it on & off wirelessly

- be able to launch your games without using a mouse or keyboard

- know that the games will actually play on your AV setup and be able to handle the "odd" resolution of 720p or consistently use the surround sound setup and not just revert to stereo. It's ironic you use footage for Legends of Grimrock, a game I recently bought & tried to play on my setup; it failed on startup with a directX error - I found (after googling & forum reading) that the problem was that it didn't like my projector as a monitor when running fullscreen - I had to edit the config file manually to get it to launch in windowed mode.
Powering the machine on and off is easier than you think with proper setup. I have my blu-ray set up to power up my pc with my blu-ray's remote (which mind the pc is on the other side of the house from my bluray) and it can pull music/video files to play through the wifi. This took me 40 minutes to set up including playing with the settings to get it the way I wanted it. Granted for more elaborate functions pcs still need the mouse and keyboard, although I wonder why you would NOT want to have those tools available when, as pointed out in the video, they offer greater depth of control. I'm sorry, I have tried controllers and all but dual-analog is still inferior to a mouse.

Also I want to point something out, you fixed the problem of incompatibility on your own. You didn't have to wait for the publisher to fix this for you, taking weeks to months to release a proper patch; you got help from the community and fixed it yourself, probably within hours. How is this a bad thing?

FistsOfTinsel said:
==== Getting online play to work ====

- I have to worry a lot less (or not at all) that my opponents in online games are using hacked clients or various cheats

- I don't need to worry about how to get voice features to work with the games, or getting my friends to use the same voice software as I do; granted, I haven't even looked into this, but the last time I did, there were several different systems out there, none of which were compatible. The point it, like all of this, it takes some effort.

- There are numerous apps that run on Android and iOS that will tell me who is online in my friends list, what they're playing & other notifications.

- Portability: I can take game disks over to a friend's house with the same system and I know the game will be playable; I can log in with my Live account on their machine, and now I have access to all my XBLA games.
Steam unifies the voice chat and you can use said voice chat on any game you play through it. Since steam controls it you don't even have to be playing the same game all the time, you can close game, go to a new game or start a new session and your voice chat goes with you. You can log onto steam friendlist from Andriod and iOS that will allow you to see who is online from your friends, what they're playing, allows you to text chat with them & other notifications. Steam allows you to log in on other pcs and access your games as well.

FistsOfTinsel said:
==== Cost ====
- Consoles cost less to get the same experience that everyone else is having for that game.

- I almost always end up playing games months or years after they launch, so I can get games cheaply on either platform, either from sales (PC) or discounts or buying used games (consoles). I haven't paid more than $20 for a game in years.
This is actually an old truth that's not true anymore. The average console cost ranges from 250 to 400 dollars depending on how many bells and whistles you want it to have. You can buy perfectly fine gaming pcs in same price range. Here's an on sale $370 pc [http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103447] that is a quad-core pc whose specs squashes the performance comparable to similar priced consoles and would meet any requirement settings current games would ask. Also while it's great you don't buy your games new, I don't either afterall, but pc games typically launch for cheaper than their console counterparts(although some do launch for the same price).

FistsOfTinsel said:
Granted, if all I ever did was play Steam games, I'd have a console-like experience, minus the compatibility guarantees.
That's fine, I'll have thirty plus extra frames per second to keep me company. But you are greatly overstating the cons of pc gaming and pros of console gaming.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
trollpwner said:
P.C. gamers, could you please note that consoles are bad now, not because of weak processing or worse controls, but because of how they are being used by publishers. Therefore, they are not inherently evil and wrong, as some elitist minority jerks seem to insist.
Worse controls? Subjective. A controller in my hand is almost useless in a RTS or in a FPS if I'm on a PC but I grew up as a Sony fanboy. Controllers are really useful for sports games (yeah, I played them regularly from 2005-2007) and some third person games.

I grew up with GTA being played with a controller. I could have enjoyed Saints Row The Third even more if I had a controller with me.

Weak processors? The CPU in that PS3 is more powerful than mine. Shame it cost at least 500? (a shit ton of dollars) on launch - and it was selling for a loss!

Consoles have convinced people that games are simple and will be simple forever. Nothing wrong with that, if it was actually true. People will wait for patches and updates, insert 25 digit (or 20? don't remmeber) online passes/DLC codes on a controller - but if you happen to have to update your graphics card then hall hell breaks loose.

I still love my 360, I just feel that I am having as much hassle as in the PC for no benefit.


thanatos388 said:
Um...pcs are expensive and require upgrades to the pc itself to play new games. They are still a bigger hassle. That outweighs anything a pc can do as most gamers wont spend 15000 dollars to have higher definition graphics that add fuck all to the game itself.
3 years ago, I bought a computer for 250?. It's still running recent games even though it's not exactly up to date.

On the other hand, I did not have to spend money on a console (back then two-fiddy was cheaper than a PS3), didn't have to buy a new TV, and I didn't have to buy a new computer for college.

That's right. People still need a computer if they have a console. Add 45? as a launch price (compared to 70?) and mods and I think that playing Skyrim at 1024x800 is worth it if I cut my losses.

i.e. I do my math, I tailor my gaming experience to my needs. Why the fudge would I want Max Payne 3 or LA Noire on my PC? I'll play it on 360.

I don't generalize and say "PCs/consoles add fuck all to my experience so I will refuse to rethink my choices!"


SonOfVoorhees said:
PC gamers care more about graphics and physics than the actual game....these things are not important. Making the graphics better with a mod dont make the game better.
"I have no idea what I am talking about so I will just make a wild accusation and hope other people like me back me up with their lack of experience."

Fuck graphics.

Seriously. I remember that it was the consoles pushing for the HD bullcrap, so don't pretend it was the PC market that was using graphics as bait. We had Crysis in 2007, which was after the PS3 launch. If it wasn't for that game PC gamers would sit tight on their standard definition.

My TV only does 720p and it's seriously outdated, but to hell with 1080p, it's not worth the money and I rather play my 360 in 720p than buying a new TV.

Also, I see you have no idea of what a TC (or Total Conversion) mod is. Basically you can make a whole new game based on an engine.

Which is the case for Counter Strike - a game that emerged from a mod.
 

mfeff

New member
Nov 8, 2010
284
0
0
Hrmm... some interesting post... not the artillery lobbing one would of thought, and I have a suspicion as to why...

PC Rig... home built, custom CNC milled water blocks, SLi OC'd beast rig and award winner in class...

Latest game played any amount of time...

Terraria, Day Z

Sony PS3... 7.1 DTS/AC3 1000 watt sound system, HD HGP display... latest game played...

NetFlix, Some Blu-Rays

2 game I am looking forward to... Planetside 2 (Sony), and Phantasy Star 2 Online (Sega). Both PC exclusives (atm). Yet being developed by classically console producers...

2 other games, Ni No Kuni and Last Guardian... (vapor ware?)... so the Sony games on system I am interested in a relatively/demonstrably "Japanese"...

I guess what I am getting at is there is a lot of identity crisis out in "game development" land... an ugly ugly head that keeps rearing up... "we have no engine - so sorry", "Pirates!", "My Vision!", the list is long and distinguished... like a porn star's Johnson.... It has all worn pretty damn thin over the years.

We ask for FF7 with a paint job... well, you got it... a rom with some achievements...

We ask for PC games with decent memory management... well F'U here is Skyrim locked down to a console friendly architecture...

I like all my systems... even my dust collection device... (see Wii)... but when I find myself firing up the Ole' Sega Saturn to pass the time... something is wrong, and I don't know if I am able to (with a straight face) say that any system has any more competent a strategy for product, and delivery than any other... cause by my estimation, it's all pretty crap.

Mostly from the dry humping between the publishers, developers, and console producers... It's all looking a tab bit inbred.
 

templar1138a

New member
Dec 1, 2010
894
0
0
1st thought upon seeing the title: No shit, Sherlock.

Now that that's out of the way,

When I bought my Xbox 360, I did so because my XP laptop was deteriorating in terms of its capability (no, literally, it wasn't just obsolete, it was getting worse as time passed). And it was fun for a while. But now I have a Windows 7 PC and am having a love affair with Steam. For pretty much all the reasons you've mentioned. Hell, I've already bought some games via Steam that I already had for Xbox on the cheap simply so I can enjoy better graphics and the precision that comes with aiming with a mouse rather than an analog stick. The only games I intend to buy on Xbox at this point are games like Rock Band that require large peripherals and are best played with groups that won't fit into the nook where I keep my PC.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
demonflowers said:
The benefit is simple. I'm a student living at home and I can afford to pay a few hundred bucks for a console. I can't afford a gaming PC, and I know virtually nothing about computers, so building one is out of the question. Also, I've had my PS3 since just after launch and it WORKS. I've never had to take it in to get fixed, it hasn't got any viruses, it just works and always has without any maintenance whatsoever. My PC, however, has needed to be fixed multiple times in the year and a half since I got it.

Oh, I almost forgot. My PS2? Also still working fine and has been for almost a decade.
Like I said a billion times on the internet, a decent rig can be achieved for little over the price of a console. Take the long term into account: launch prices at 45-50? at most, or the console's 70??

I also didn't know shit about computers (still don't), that didn't stop me from choosing the right parts and paying 25? to have it assembled by tech people.

I have a 1995 computer in the basement. It still runs games developed at that time - remarkably it is more reliable now than it was in the 90's. Is your PS2 supposed to prove anything?
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Oooh, I was mad when I saw the title, but Jim came through...mostly. I can definitely see mr PC elitist using this in future to say "LOOK HE SAID CONSOLES SUCK! I WIN!", but the general message isn't this literal.

Fact is, consoles are still more convenient to use than PCs. Even with brilliant services like GOG and steam making aquiring the games easy, even with the amount of support you can gain from just a quick google, PC gaming is still hard to enter for someone who isn't familiar with the technical ins and outs of a computer, not to mention flat out intimidating. I more readily buy PC games now I've actually made the first steps into PC gaming, I have a little more faith that my system can in fact handle some games, but at first it's difficult to buy a game with the known risk that it might not work, and, with it not being faulty, you'd have no right to a refund.

That said, I do agree with Jim. Console devs/pubs have realised the monetary potential of the PCs drawbacks, and are trying to artificially put them into consoles.

DISCLAIMER: I don't hate PCs. I just know some idiot's gonna quote me saying I do, but I don't. PC gamers are more than free to their advanced gaming, they deserve it for the amount of effort they put in, but in a console, I want to be able to put in a game and play, and devs need to realise this is why consoles are popular, lest they lose business to people saying "screw it" to gaming altogether, unable to come up with the money/technical know how for proper PC gaming.