PC Gaming is Cool And All... But...

[Balobo]

PCs are technologically superior, but they can be a bit more troublesome than consoles; fiddling with graphics, more framerate problems, problems installing (I find having to install third party software like Gamespy just irritating), whereas with a console it's just pop the disk in and play. No installations, no framerate issues (mostly) and everything is just simplified. Generally, if the game has a good modding community (see Elder Scrolls and Fallout games) I will generally get it for my pc because they mods can really liven up the vanilla game. However, I prefer consoles for my multiplayer fix because a) I have more friends on XBL and b) I'm better with a controller than a mouse and keyboard.

Most console games DO have frame rate problems as most console games run at 30 fps, half of what they should be running at.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

PCs are technologically superior, but they can be a bit more troublesome than consoles; fiddling with graphics, more framerate problems, problems installing (I find having to install third party software like Gamespy just irritating), whereas with a console it's just pop the disk in and play. No installations, no framerate issues (mostly) and everything is just simplified. Generally, if the game has a good modding community (see Elder Scrolls and Fallout games) I will generally get it for my pc because they mods can really liven up the vanilla game. However, I prefer consoles for my multiplayer fix because a) I have more friends on XBL and b) I'm better with a controller than a mouse and keyboard.

Most console games DO have frame rate problems as most console games run at 30 fps, half of what they should be running at.

I haven't really noticed, console games run smoothly for unless I try and detonate 50 explosives at once or something along those lines.

 

[Spitfire]

For starters, they're machines designed to play all sorts of games and whatnot. And these games that go multi-platform to the PC community, typically look as good, or almost as good as PC games, without the need to buy some new high performance parts every couple of years.

Consoles (to me) are preferred because they tend to be cheaper to start, and don't need to be upgraded constantly.

Yeah, but in a market that's dominated by the aforementioned multi-platform titles, that's not much of an argument.

At the end of the day, though, we're all gamers doing what we love, so does it matter which console is your preference? I personally think that cross-platform multiplayer would be pretty cool. But it won't happen if we keep bickering about whose machine does what better.

No, the reason why it won't happen is because if you're playing a competitive game using a gamepad, against someone using a mouse and keyboard, then you're going to lose. There's no way around this, and that's why cross-platform multiplayer with PC's is problematic, to say the least.

 

[Balobo]

PCs are technologically superior, but they can be a bit more troublesome than consoles; fiddling with graphics, more framerate problems, problems installing (I find having to install third party software like Gamespy just irritating), whereas with a console it's just pop the disk in and play. No installations, no framerate issues (mostly) and everything is just simplified. Generally, if the game has a good modding community (see Elder Scrolls and Fallout games) I will generally get it for my pc because they mods can really liven up the vanilla game. However, I prefer consoles for my multiplayer fix because a) I have more friends on XBL and b) I'm better with a controller than a mouse and keyboard.

Most console games DO have frame rate problems as most console games run at 30 fps, half of what they should be running at.

I haven't really noticed, console games run smoothly for unless I try and detonate 50 explosives at once or something along those lines.

No, almost all of them run at 30 fps, which isn't really pleasing. Less than ten frames less and it will turn into something nearly unplayable

 

[twistedheat15]

Console, PC.

Ain't nothin but forks and spoons. There are things eaten with a fork, things eaten with a spoon, some things can be eaten with either, but no real conflict amongst silverware.

Till Mr Spork shows up throwing gang signs laughing at the both of them!

 

[Brutal Peanut]

It never fails. "I don't want to start an argument (that most of you will eventually have).." yeah and I was just crowned Queen of Candyland, gum-drops, peanut butter cups, and lollipops for all!

Though I do have a new favorite argument, 'PC's cause diseases.'

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Here is how I see it. Gaming is gaming it doesn't matter if it's tic tac toe on a graphic calculator, or Call of Duty on the latest and greatest gaming machine (console or PC). Anyone who sits there and says "My method of entertainment is better then yours" is not a gamer in my eyes end of story. You can love your system of choice, and you don't have to touch a console/PC; but the ones who sit their and talk down on others need to have their system smashed. I play consoles, PC, and handhelds and I don't feel like I'm "better" or "worse" then someone else. I just have different games I want to play at that time.

End of my post:If you feel you need to bash someones method of gaming you are not a gamer.

 

[Bang25]

I like p.c gaming, because it allows a larger variety of games than consoles usually do (and by that, I mostly mean in the strategy and adventure sections). I also like my p.c because, unlike my 360, my p.c isn't broken. Also, if you prefer controllers to the keyboard and mouse, you can always just buy a gamepad. Their are playstation and xbox controllers that you can use on your p.c. I was tempted to buy one today, but really it just doesn't matter to me. Gaming is gaming no matter what platform you play it on, and to me, this argument is more like whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla. It really doesn't matter. (not to me anyway)

P.S- What does me being a "Beat Writer" mean?

 

[SirAroun]

one thing you did not said on the PC side is that PC's are more reveis countable with older games. any game on a C.D. (and floppy disk for some) within a computers spectes can be played on that computer.

 

[Fledge]

Even when a member of each side tries to make a compromise they always throw their side in your face whether they want to o whether you like it or not.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Consoles are not cheaper.
I've spent probably... $1200 total on PC parts for my setup near the beginning of this console generation, including my monitors, all 3 of them. It's not amazing, but it far exceeds the recommended specs for new games today even though the hardware that matters is a couple years old now.

My console gamer friend has purchased a Wii, when it was new. $250.
Purchased an extra Wiimote and nunchuck thing. About 40 bucks.
Purchased an Xbox 360 at launch. $400.
Purchased extra controllers. 50 bucks at the time I believe, so 100 bucks total.
Purchased a PS3, the 60gig backwards compatable one, at launch. $600.
Purchased extra controller. Again, about 50 bucks.

A couple years later, due to the power supply on the ps3 failing and it no longer being under warranty.
New Ps3, 40 gig version. $400.

That's already a total of 1840 dollars, over the course of the last generation alone.

I've bought for my PC: A new Motherboard, a quad core processor, and 16 gigs of ram, and a 750 watt powersuppy.
Cost of all those, about 350 dollars.
Bringing my total to about $1550.

If I include the TVs he had to purchase over the generation as well the cost would be nearing $2500 for the consoles.

That's in America, in England, Computer parts are so expensive, most people have to buy them overseas.

I know someone who went on a holiday to Canada, mainly to get a new processor, because it ended up cheaper to go on a holiday, and get the processor, then buying the processor in the UK.

I forgot about that. I remember the last time I was over there the hardware seemed to be the same price but with a pound sign instead of a dollar one.
The games were cheaper though, I picked up 2 DS games for the same price as one over here.

Yeah, we pay nearly double what you pay.

And we pay nearly double for consoles too, the argument still doesn't hold water.

It's does when you can't personally afford it, at this moment in time. Money is an important factor, when it comes to these sort of things.

I'm sorry, but when i'm in these kinds of arguments i can't take account of every single persons personal financial situation, i have to work from some sort of general template, and the template i use is "I wanna play the most and best games for the least money" and in this case every single arguement favours the PC, i can't go from a situation like "I already have all the consoles and a low-end PC" of course buying a high-end PC is going to be expensive as fuck.

lol I'm not missing out on anything without playing J-RPGs. All the latest ones suck anyways (cough FF).

1 word why PC > Consoles: Minecraft.

GG sir. GG.

Oh, did you know...

Minecraft is coming out for the Xbox 360!

... I've always wanted to use this pic.

Except that Minecraft is going to be garbage on the 360, because it won't have mods, and minecraft without mods is like a book with only vowels in it.

What!, mods make a game? I thought it was a optional thing.

It is also coming out when the final version comes out, so fans will have a lot to do with or without the mods.

Yes in many cases mods do make a game, but yes mods are optional, much in the same way putting salt and pepper on your steak is "optional" you CAN choose not to do it, but why the balls would you want to?

And Notch isn't gonna add something if there's already a mod for it, so people who for some ungodly reason decide to play it on the 360 will be sit outta luck.

Mods are like after market add ons, and if mods make a game better I think something is wrong wit the game itself. Don't get me wrong I love mods in my PC games, but if it's one saving grace is mods (or argument that it would make it better) then it isn't worth it.

 

[Treblaine]

For starters, they're machines designed to play all sorts of games and whatnot. And these games that go multi-platform to the PC community, typically look as good, or almost as good as PC games, without the need to buy some new high performance parts every couple of years.

This here pisses me RIGHT OFF!

As you have on one hand:
-sacrifice in graphical fidelity on consoles
-upgrade on PC TO GET BETTER GRAPHICS!!!

You UPGRADE IN NOT MANDATORY! Only if you want better graphics do you upgrade, there has yet to be a game that requires an upgrade yet ran games well in 2006/07.

This double standard I can't stand, console games constantly get away with dialing the setting RIGHT DOWN where the "typically look as good" yet it's unacceptable for PC to do the same it's as if there are only two options
-Upgrade at huge cost to play games at the highest settings
-Fuck it and buy a console

Because there is NOOO middle ground[/sarc] oh wait, there is. You Can have graphics way better than console just not the absolute maximum settings all while using hardware from 2007.

Just look at what an 8800GT (2007 card) can do with Crysis 2:


That is not in 720p, that is 1080p. Something no console FPS offers.

Consoles (to me) are preferred because they tend to be cheaper to start, and don't need to be upgraded constantly. It takes about 6 years, give or take, before a new generation of consoles is released and takes over the current gen.

Didn't the Playstation 3 start for $600 back 2007? Have you any idea what kind of kick-ass PC you could get for $600 in 2007? Hell in the UK it didn't come out till March 2007 and cost £420! Back then that was the same as $840!!!! Mondo mega PC for that much! And PS3 is probably the single best console this generation in terms of exclusives.

What about how Xbox 360 hard-drives upgrade is pretty much mandatory now and lookee here... old proprietary hard-drives discontinued. Only option is to buy a new 360. But the main annoyance is Gold Membership $50 then $60 per year adds up to a LOT! Since 2005 that is $310 for a service that should by all logic be free.

PS: 360 always cost £40 per year of gold membership, which in American over the past 6 years would have cost $432.

Also, and this is where I'll probably lose most people, I think controllers are more natural feeling than a mouse an keyboard.

It's probably because I grew up with controllers as opposed to mouse and keyboard, but still.

It's more natural because you have used it more... wow.

Don't Forget how objective test with people with no prior bias to either PC or console gaming found Mouse + keyboard controls more natural than gamepad. (military did testing)

 

[llafnwod]

I'd just like to point out that I've seen way, way, WAY more threads bitching about how superior PC gamers act than threads by PC gamers acting superior.

 

[Treblaine]

I really like my XBOX and my Wii, but some games were just meant for PCs and some were meant for consoles. Deal.

There are games that are "tolerable" on consoles but there is no denying they'd be better on PC even if it means using a gamepad. Here is the thing, PC can use a gamepad if necessary, but a console cannot use a mouse if necessary, and BOY is it a necessity for some games. Any game that involves aiming.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

The things that bug me about PC gamers the most is that:

1) A lot of them don't seem to understand that some people just can't afford a good gaming PC. "But you can BUILD a decent one for $500!" Yeah, that's $500 more then I can afford right now. Then they say I paid that much for my console and I point out that I bought mine used for less than $200 and pretty much live off of discount games but they rarely listen to that part.

http://tinyurl.com/FalconGuide

Look at that chart, see the "Destitute" build at the top and its price?
Well it's way above and beyond.
Your X360 has 512MB RAM, the lowest listed there 2GB, your basic X360 has something like 8-10GB harddrive space, that build has a 500GB harddrive, it also has a DX11 graphics card, while the X360 has an ATI Xenos (which is a hybrid between R580 and R600 from 2005-2006, those cards aren't even sold anymore for at least 3+ years). The CPU isn't exactly comparable though whatever... What I'm trying to say is that in technological terms the X360 is pretty much trash and not even worth 100$, they probably produce them for less than that by now.
Everything from the green area up will play almost every single game on the highest details, blue and above is for "enthusiasts" or rather people who'd rather spend more money than needed.

Also, regarding the "discount games", just a few keywords... Steam Sale, CD-Key Resellers etc.: http://gamekeyfinder.de/games/Battlefield_3.html
Games on PC can generally be gotten a lot cheaper than your "discount games".

2) Claim that somehow they're experience of a game is "purer" because it's on PC. I don't even know how to really respond to that. It's like those hipster types telling you they enjoy the same music you listen to more because they listen to it on a record-player or a vegan saying he's more intelligent then you because he eats nothing but soy.

Just saying... having a 1080p+ resolution, Anti-Aliasing, higher resolution textures, higher/proper sightrange alone makes the experience kind of "purer". Games that even support PC exclusive features (DX10/11/PhysX etc.) are and look way beyond that.
The difference between what a X360 can push graphics-wise and a medium-range PC is like comparing the X360 to the PS2.

3) Say FPS's DO NOT belong on consoles and that all developers should CEASE making console FPS's. Another popular saying that I have absolutely no idea how to respond to because it's so retarded sounding. I guess this has something to do with the whole mouse/keyboard thing, an issue I care nothing about. I really don't care that I can't shoot they eye out of a bumble bee from three cities away. I play to have fun.

I don't know anyone saying that, but it is provable truth that a Mouse is a better pointing device than a controller, sciency people and the US army (gah can't find the link for that right now, but there was a study too) agree
http://gradworks.umi.com/14/67/1467132.html

The goal of this research is to test the effect of different computer interfaces on the amount of time it takes a user to move a cursor from a start point to a target, using Fitts' Law, a model that describes the performance of pointing of input devices. Participants in a study used a mouse, Xbox 360 controller, and Nintendo Wii remote to point at and select target regions. The goal is to see the effects of interface, distance to the target, and target width on movement time, information throughput, and hit rate. Additional path metrics and the speed-accuracy tradeoff will be covered.

6.1.1 Interface Performance
Based on the data collected in this study, it is quite apparent that the mouse is the most efficient interface in terms of both speed and accuracy. It was consistently the best in terms of MT, hit rate, ID, and TP. The Xbox 360 controller operated significantly worse than the mouse, but still did much better than the Wiimote in all of these metrics. Also, the slope of the lines in Figure 5-1 indicate that the mouse has the lowest interface speed constant (b in the Fitts? Law formula described by Equation 2-6), with Wiimote having the highest constant. This means that as ID gets higher, the MT of the Wiimote would continue to grow at a higher rate than the mouse, with the Xbox 360 controller growing at a rate in between the two. The Xbox 360 controller fared significantly better than the other interfaces in terms of path metrics, with the mouse outperforming the Wiimote. This indicates that the Xbox 360 controller has a smoother movement target-selection trail, and that it may excel in terms of more precise tasks. The Wiimote metrics indicate that it is a poor choice of interface to use for accuracy tasks.

Can that "Destitute" build play Crysis at the highest settings without any problems?

You don't really have to answer that because I'm pretty sure I know the answer already. I just replied to this because it looked like a lot of time and thought went into your reply which I thought was cute.

 

[grumbel]

The idea that you need to update your PC every 2 years is ridiculous.

It's a little out of date, as by now the time might have increased to 3 or 4 years, but nevertheless, the constant upgrading is by far the biggest issue PC gaming has.

With a console you buy once and have over the next 5+ years a gaming experience of constant good quality, or even better, constantly improving quality, as current generation PS3 title looks a lot better then a launch title.

With PC it's the inverse, the gaming experience gets worth with time, as developers target what they consider average and that rises, while your PC doesn't get any faster and the moment you fall below that you are in for bad frame rates, low resolutions or simply non working games.

And that is pretty much how PC gaming has been for me for almost the last 20 years: I upgrade my PC around every five years, while it becomes unusable for gaming around every three. Thus I always end up with a few years in between upgrades where I don't have a PC usable for gaming. Time that is bridged with consoles.

This generation its a bit longer, as my PC is four years old already, but thanks to a recent graphics card upgrade still usable for some gaming, but its clearly nearing its end of life, as I already run into the first games that are CPU-limited and where there isn't any way to upgrade that except essentially replacing it all.

You didn't make it but often people will say something along the lines of- "I like to sit back on my couch and relax to play games so consoles are the most best for me." That "argument" gets me more than most because you can just plug your pc into a tv.

Plugging a PC into the TV has a ton of problems:

1) Neither Windows nor the surrounding software is designed for that, neither are the games (every tried entering a CD-Key with a gamepad?)
2) Mice work pretty crappy on the couch
3) Keyboards don't work much better
4) Not all games support gamepads, even those that support them on consoles sometimes don't on PC (see Mass Effect, Oblivion, etc.)
5) Most people have their regular PC nowhere near the TV, so playing games on PC would essentially mean buying another PC for the TV.

PS: I currently do the majority of my gaming on PC with a gamepad, mostly due to Steam, GOG and Impulse sales.