Poll: Console RTS >PC RTS

[Irishhoodlum]

I don't think I made a poor decision. I spent 300 dollars on an xbox, and I get gamefly for 8$ a month. This means I can have whatever game I want. If I spent 300 dollars on a pc, I wouldn't be able to play any games and even if I could I would have to buy each for 60 dollars.

You did make somewhat of a poor decision.
You could have spent the 300 dollars to update your PC that you are currently using.
And the games are actually cheaper for the PC. You can even pirate the majority of them if you want to be like that. In which case, you might as well say that PC gaming is free.
And with Gamefly, you don't own the game though.

But the thing is I couldn't get gamefly on a P.C. Not to mention I need a laptop to take notes in school. I can't get too expensive of a computer then because I would run at risk of losing it. I currently have a 500$ dell laptop I bought 4 years ago. It's in no condition for gaming. If I bought an 800$ laptop instead, my gaming options would still be limited, as would my choices in games. Furthermore, in case you weren't paying attention I prefer the console controls, especially when it comes to RTS gameplay.

Well for a gaming PC you'd need at least $600 give or take a few. Though games are almost always much cheaper on the PC. Not that either of those matter because the quality of games isn't determined by price. So what if overall RTS games cost more on the PC? Does that make them worse? No, in fact it probably makes them better since you're paying for more you're also getting more.

 

[Earthbound Engineer]

I can't really put one over the other, because they both have their fair share of good games.

P.C.- Civilization, Starcraft, Age of Empires

Console- Tom Clancy's EndWar, Red Alert, Halo Wars

And then there's the one that they both share...Command and Conquer!

 

[CmdrGoob]

This is like a poll asking people if they think smashing their dick with a hammer is better than a blowjob.

If you think console RTSes are better or even equal, then you have no idea how to play an RTS.

 

[Radelaide]

Some games are for consoles, and some games are for PC. RTS are pretty much an PC only kind of game. I don't know what it is, but everything is easier on a PC RTS.

 

[bjj hero]

However, there is a fallacy in your argument about not being able to afford a gaming rig. The thing is that these days, even if you own an X-Box, you still probably need a new computer every now and again, unless your living under a rock. If you were to tack on the price of an X Box, controllers, and Live on top of the price of a computer you need for everyday use anyways, then you have a pretty decent gaming rig. I dare say that in the long run, you end up paying less for games on the PC (Bioshock for $5, Orange Box for $10, and lots of other special deals come to mind). This isn't an argument for PC being better, its an argument that it all comes down to your own personal choice of play style.

Its nice to see someone on this thread not spitting bile.

My brother just bought a gaming pc (his excuse, he needed it for uni) and spent £700 on his PC. According to goolge thats $1 144.78. It is not top of the range but it is good.

I got a laptop as a generous gift at Christmas for the inlaws (Even with a 3 bed room house a partner with 50 coats and a 16 month baby will use all of the room where I'd like a desk top). It was no where near the price of my brothers pc, it wouldn't be even with my xbox added on top.

It becomes worth it if I pirate all of my games but I'd rather not. I still play older pc titles, anything new is console for me.

Im looking in the bargain bins for shogun total war at the moment and trying to talk my bro into getting whatever the newest installment is.

I miss mods though. I lost months of my life to gloom and action quake.

 

[Chunko]

I don't think I made a poor decision. I spent 300 dollars on an xbox, and I get gamefly for 8$ a month. This means I can have whatever game I want. If I spent 300 dollars on a pc, I wouldn't be able to play any games and even if I could I would have to buy each for 60 dollars.

You did make somewhat of a poor decision.
You could have spent the 300 dollars to update your PC that you are currently using.
And the games are actually cheaper for the PC. You can even pirate the majority of them if you want to be like that. In which case, you might as well say that PC gaming is free.
And with Gamefly, you don't own the game though.

But the thing is I couldn't get gamefly on a P.C. Not to mention I need a laptop to take notes in school. I can't get too expensive of a computer then because I would run at risk of losing it. I currently have a 500$ dell laptop I bought 4 years ago. It's in no condition for gaming. If I bought an 800$ laptop instead, my gaming options would still be limited, as would my choices in games. Furthermore, in case you weren't paying attention I prefer the console controls, especially when it comes to RTS gameplay.

Well for a gaming PC you'd need at least $600 give or take a few. Though games are almost always much cheaper on the PC. Not that either of those matter because the quality of games isn't determined by price. So what if overall RTS games cost more on the PC? Does that make them worse? No, in fact it probably makes them better since you're paying for more you're also getting more.

Yeah well I'd have to buy a new one (or at least parts for it) every 3 days. No, I made the right decision.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

They're made for the PC, but on console their simplified alot, making it run smoother as a game.

 

[Legion]

I fix't that for you.

Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.

Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Im a major RTS nut, less now that I used to be but Starcraft 2 cant come soon enough, that said
Endwar was pretty fun, but FPS games and RTS games will stay better on the PC for a while, yes the gap is closing but you just lack some precision.

Oh and a 800dollar laptop is about the same as a 400 or so dollar Desktop in power, I also have a school laptop and that can run TF2 and pretty decent settings, it cost me 500 bucks but I got office Home&Student + 1year Nod32 and Windows 7 with it.

 

[elvor0]

I fix't that for you.

Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.

Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.

However when it comes to RTS it is a undisputed fact that you cant do alot of things on a console with the controls a pad gives you, while it can come down to preference, console rts is a stripped down game at best, there for regardless of preference, it doesnt work as well because of the massive lack of controls.

 

[zauxz]

Pc, for being better in every way possible.

 

[Ashtovo]

It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.

but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PC

are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?

also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.

 

[floppylobster]

I didn't mind Halo Wars or C&C3 on Xbox 360 either. BUT - Console RTS games are way too easy. And you can't micro-manage units so don't feel quite as in control.

 

[Legion]

I fix't that for you.

Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.

Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.

However when it comes to RTS it is a undisputed fact that you cant do alot of things on a console with the controls a pad gives you, while it can come down to preference, console rts is a stripped down game at best, there for regardless of preference, it doesnt work as well because of the massive lack of controls.

Don't get me wrong, I think the same thing personally. I have played a few console RTS's including demo's and cannot stand the controls. It feels far too slow and awkward without a mouse and keyboard for hotkeys. I just meant that some people may prefer the feel of console RTS's in the same way some people prefer FPS's (whereas most believe that the PC is better for that too).

 

[elvor0]

I fix't that for you.

Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.

Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.

However when it comes to RTS it is a undisputed fact that you cant do alot of things on a console with the controls a pad gives you, while it can come down to preference, console rts is a stripped down game at best, there for regardless of preference, it doesnt work as well because of the massive lack of controls.

Don't get me wrong, I think the same thing personally. I have played a few console RTS's including demo's and cannot stand the controls. It feels far too slow and awkward without a mouse and keyboard for hotkeys. I just meant that some people may prefer the feel of console RTS's in the same way some people prefer FPS's (whereas most believe that the PC is better for that too).

Mm, I guess if you're a console gamer and you'd like to dabble in RTS it's a nice way for you to try it without having to worry about the micro management stuff, sort of like a stepping stone.

 

[Chunko]

It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.

but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PC

are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?

also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.

Graphics are always only a minor factor, the main reason I preferred red alert 3 on my xbox was because it was less laggy. I've already stated my justificaton for having a "Failure of a PC" on other quotes so I don't feel like saying it again. Not to mention there is no securom on the xbox version.

 

[BrEnNo1023]

here's the way i see it..

Console RTS isn't an alternative to PC RTS, it's just game developers are merging a genre from one market to another. Whether you like PC RTS for the ability to assign groups and stuff, or if you like the Console RTS for its compact and tidy controls, in the end, it's still an RTS guys. I for one have played Halo Wars, and I've also played games like Age of Empires, Total Annihilation, C&C, the Starcraft and Warcraft series'. They're all great games. I don't see Halo Wars as a shit game or a good game judging just by the fact that it's on console. I just see it as an RTS game that has been customised to be played with a 360 controller. Sure, there are pros and cons to these different RTS games, but isn't it the same with all games regardless of their platform? All games have pros and cons regardless of their platform.

I choose not to favour PC over Console, or the other way around. All it ends up doing is adding fuel to an endless flame war. Console RTS isn't an alternative to PC RTS, I had just as much fun squeezing triggers and moving analog sticks in Halo Wars as i did in Starcraft and Total Annihilation clicking and dragging and pressing hotkeys ---

I think there's no need to pick sides and start breathing fire.

oh, and i noticed there isn't a 'i like both' option in your poll...

 

[Ashtovo]

It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.

but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PC

are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?

also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.

Graphics are always only a minor factor, the main reason I preferred red alert 3 on my xbox was because it was less laggy. I've already stated my justificaton for having a "Failure of a PC" on other quotes so I don't feel like saying it again. Not to mention there is no securom on the xbox version.

wasn't realy saying that your pc was a failure, just meant that the game has good enough graphics so long as it isn't used on a terrible pc. but looking back i can se how it sounded like i was saying you had a bad pc

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Graphics better on consoles? I think I smell a troll, but I'm not sure.

 

[Irishhoodlum]

It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.

but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PC

are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?

also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.

Graphics are always only a minor factor, the main reason I preferred red alert 3 on my xbox was because it was less laggy. I've already stated my justificaton for having a "Failure of a PC" on other quotes so I don't feel like saying it again. Not to mention there is no securom on the xbox version.

There you go again. You keep calling out faults of PC RTS games like "lag", and "bad graphics" when these are all just the faults of your computer. If I bought a RROD xbox and Halo Wars and called it complete shite just because it didn't load do you think anyone would take me seriously? Hopefully not.

Buy a REAL gaming computer and then you can talk about comparing the two. You haven't even discussed the actual gameplay issues like better controls on the PC (dozens of possible hotkeys, and of course a mouse which is only 1000x easier to maneuver than analog sticks), large pop caps, actually better graphics, wider selection of games, mods, more units, more special attacks/abilities etc etc. The fact is console RTS games are basically just a spin off of PC RTS games.