So...what you're saying is PC FPS's are far superior over consoles because of...graphics? Maybe it's just me, but I don't really care for systematically setting fire to my money to continuously buy new graphics cards and whatnot. Don't get me wrong, I own both PC and console FPS's and have enjoyed both, but I'll just make that one purchase for a PS3 and save a whole lot more money if the only consequence is a slight graphical downgrade (and in this day and age, how much better are they honestly going to get?).PwnStar said:Firstly let me point out that a truly great FPS has to be on a PC and not a console game
As you dont really aim on a console, you need a mouse for that. For all those who said |Halo you are the type of person stook in the matrix whilst Neo and niobi fight to save your ass! You will never know Halo was over hyped, poorly made copy of much better games, (like all ms stuff) it wasnt the first, it wasnt the best, it was just the most advertised to fat yank brats who had shiney new consoles to wank over whilst mom made them more burgers. It has such a following purly as it was most people's first FPS game to which it does deserve credit for the rise of FPS games but its actual graphics, weapons, netcode, balance and playability were many evolutions behind the PC gamers and consoles always will be. When you think that the PS3 has a 10 year life cycle imagine how pants the graphics will be in 8 years time! whilst the PC will have evolved for 8 more years and be lifelike, the cutting edge console graphics of today are dated in 18 months, yet your forced to wait 10 years for an upgrade. Whilst graphics cards on PCs come out newer and faster every 4 months or so.
And using the word "whilst" repeatedly doesn't make your argument smarter or something.
EDIT: And we yanks prefer McDonald's burgers. /sarcasm