Akalabeth said:
"PS3" or "Xbox"
is easier to remember than
4 GB Dual core
Radeon ATI 7500 card
etcetera and so forth.
This is lack of knowledge on most peoples part.
Generally even a 6 year old processor will run modern games reasonably well, despite what the Recommended requirements might say. My friend has been running the same single core processor for 7 years or so now, and only notices lag in heavy RTS gameplay or Dwarf Fortress.
RAM is generally a non-issue as well, as if memory serves the OS will begin paging to your harddrive - which is significantly slower, but does allow games to be played. Generally though, most - if not all - computers will have 2Gb RAM, the minimum required to run most - again if not all - games, though not the recommended to load up the large textures on higher graphics settings.
Even then, RAM is so cheap these days that you should have at least 4Gb in your PC IMO anyway, though thats another discussion.
Really, the main thing that you need to worry about is the Graphics card, and that's easy:
Nvidia +#
Radeon/AMD +#
If your # is greater than the one on the box, your set. If its less, your not, much like comparing a PS2 to a PS3.
And as for actual PC gamers, let's again look at DOS Box.
A game I mentioned in my previous post is Renegade Legion: Battle for Jacob's star. It's like Xwing or Wing Commander in its gameplay style, but it doesn't run. Not without some sort of virtual environment.
And your Wii will run a SNES game?
No?
Well, you can't even install a virtual environment to run that, so I guess PCs come out on top there.
Tring to run a DOS game on Windows 7 or so is like trying to run a SNES game on the Wii. Its not going to work, and is the same problem for both PC and console.
So if a guy can MAKE money, making a configuration file don't you think that's credence to the fact that maybe it's not very accessible? That most people aren't going to bother and try to figure out something like dosbox.
I had an issue with DOSbox once, I spent 10 minutes searching on Google and I found the response I needed. Of course, I've always been good at looking for things on Google, and this still falls under my "Trying to run a SNES game on the Wii" argument.
This shit isn't accesible to the averag gamer. If it were, people would not be able to make money off of it. So to say that "Backwards compatibility" for the PC is a boon is a joke becuase it's not accesible, particularly not if you have an obscure game.
That really depends on how far back you want your backwards compatibility to go. I can play PS1 era games on my PC with no compatibility patches, just right click and 'Run in Windows ME comparability mode", and "Run as Administrator". Nothing hard about that.
The basic Console rig is more affordable. There are sales on the console just as there are on the PC. There is the option to trade in games on the console, which is NOT on the PC.
Basic PC rig for me has always been more affordable. I can't spend $300 on a console [Or $1000 over here on release if I'm reading these articles right], plus the price of a TV to plug it into. I can however spend $200 on a graphics card if need be. It all depends on the situation you're in, which makes it a non issue.
There is also the ability to trade in some games on the PC, hence why my local EB has a "Second Hand PC game" bin. Its not as common on consoles, but getting a $60 game for $2-$10 isn't that common on a console either.
Hahaha, "Pretty Graphics don't make stories any better" yet you're probably someone who in another thread would say that "PC is better because of the graphics, durr".
Compare the graphics boost offered by a Bluray CD and that offered by a PC, and tell me which one is greater.
Bluray will boost your Resolution up to 1080p or so. PC will boost your resolution to 2560*1600 resolution whilst simultaneously adding extra shaders, higher quality textures, greater draw distances and a whole lot more.
Granted its something the PS3 has on the Xbox, but compared to the PC Bluray is largely irrelevant. You can just store high res movies on your harddrive, and you wouldn't have to swap CDs like an Xbox anyway, so Bluray doesn't help much there at all.
Either way, whether you care about Blu Ray or not doesn't matter. Other people do.
This I'll agree with.
And one doesn't need top graphics to play a game, in your post you also say you can still play BF3 with your rig. I'm betting it's not at full settings. So why do you say it helps your argument to play with shitty graphics on your PC, but when a console plays with shitty graphics on a TV it's a bad thing? You can't have it both ways.
Probably the same reason a lot of console players will say that you don't need to have good graphics to enjoy the game, then bash the Wii because it doesn't have good graphical capabilities.
For me, its because even on the lowest settings, a PC game looks better than a console game.
It has a higher resolution, generally better framerate, Anti Aliasing, Anisotrophic Filtering, and other forced GPU enhancements that consoles do not have. Hell, with a 7 year old PC I was playing BF3 at Medium settings - far better than what a console could hope to offer. Sure it wasn't max, but it doesn't need to be to look better than a console.
Oh, so your computer actually cost 430 quid not 250 right? Because you know, you sort of needed a monitor am I right?
Well, you didn't factor in the price of your TV into your prices, only 300 for the Xbox and 4 games.
As shown above, a $198 computer that absolutely kills a console in terms of power. Were I to factor in the price of my $50 monitor, I doubt it would add up to what your TV cost. And then I can buy 4 games off Steam for <$10 and we'll call it even.
PC Gamers always talk about upgrading when they talk about the cost their gaming takes, but you have to take the perpsective of someone who's never had a gaming rig in the first place, someone who maybe doesn't even have a PC at all in the first place. And no, a guy's not going to hook his computer up to a TV. I've never met anyone who does that. I'm sure someone out there does, but that cannot be used as justification for saying the PC is cheaper.
I'm going to quote you here [Or at least I think it was you] "Just because you don't do it doesn't mean nobody does". It still counts as an advantage for the PC that its versatile enough to be plugged into a TV should you wish to, cutting out the cost of a monitor. And I don't know a single one of my friends or their families who don't have a PC linked up to their TV. Its just too convenient. Instant access to all your movies, photos, music, games and everything else, and the ability to do work without leaving the living room.
Speaking of experience, that is something that factors into Consoles too. For all that you talk about not knowing how to assemble/upgrade a PC, I wouldn't have the slightest idea on how to plug a Console in. I've never done that. I also wouldn't have a clue about how to navigate XBL or PSN. However, playing Lego with my PC is easy as I'm familiar with what goes on there. Its not hard to learn - probably about as hard as setting up a console. It might be more tedious, though the fact that you don't have to buy a new console and set that up when the next generation is released counteracts that IMO. Which is easier to set up is up to personal experience in this case.
Yeah I'm sorry but live interaction trumps all of those.
Face to face Interaction > Skype > Phonecall/Teamspeak > Texting/Internet/whatever > Annoying your friends with stupid requests on facebook to feed your cows.
I prefer quality interaction.
So do I, hence why my friends all bring their laptops over and we have a LAN party every now and then. We probably have more face to face interaction than half the console players I know, as they will play CoD or something and sit on their couches speaking into their mikes as its easier and more convenient for them. Again, personal experiences.
"Split screen competitive"? Fuck off. Don't stack questions to avoid obvious answers that would otherwise defeat it. Howabout ANY multiplayer that you can play in the same room at the same time:
Tekken
Street Fighter.
Mortal Kombat
Soul Calibre
Blaz Blue
Lego Harry Potter / Star Wars / Pirates / etcetera
Any fighting game.
Other games this generation
Resident Evil 5
Halo
Any Wii Party game
Probably any Sports game
Blood Bowl
etcetera the list goes on . .
Same for PCs. You can every PC release made in the same room on your laptop, wirelessly connecting to each other via LAN. Does everyone need to have their own laptop?
Well, yeah, but I don't know someone that doesn't, just like most console players friends will also own a console.
If someone doesn't have a laptop, we'll either hit up some emulators for splitscreen, or go for games like Leiro or other games that can be played on the one laptop/PC without any trouble. They AAA games? No, but they don't need to be to qualify.
I'm talking about GAMERS playing. Not the ability to do it.
I've never heard of any TWO GAMERS playing at the same computer. I think I did it once maybe, with Star Control 2 oh and Rise of the Robots. Some PoS fighting game.
With consoles, it's common place.
I go to my brother's house, the kids play multiplayer games on the Wii. Dancing games. Racing games. Lego Star Wars games. etcetera and so forth.
Again, personal experience. Most people I know play their consoles solo, whilst my friends and I spent pretty much an entire year in 08 playing on the same computer at school. Just because you don't do it doesn't mean nobody does.
