Why don't you play games on PC?

[Crimson King]

I'm sure this is going to pop up a lot; mine just isn't cut out for running a lot of newer games and it would be way too expensive to fully upgrade it at this point.

 

[k3v1n]

because my pc's graphics card decided not to work after half an hour of gaming. As far as I'm concerned, my Xbox has never done that(well, it has RRoded twice, but the point is at least I can play for an extended period of time)

 

[TheMariner]

I do play on PC. However, I only play games that are only on PC, i.e. Civilization, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Starcraft, Total War, etc... I play on consoles mostly because my friends do as well. It's the same reason I chose 360 over PS3: all my friends play 360 with few exceptions.

There is, of course, the fact that my laptop was only mid-range when I bought it 3 years ago and can only barely keep up with current games. However, the only reason I have to upgrade is to be able to play current games on settings higher than lowest and that's not much incentive in my opinion. Unlike most people, I'm not really bothered by low res textures or jaggies. Heck, I turn off AA in most cases because I feel it makes things too blurry... My laptop has more than enough power for AutoCAD and Adobe CS5 and that's all I really need it to do.

But if you want to ignore technical reasons and get down to the meat and potatoes, I'm a JRPG guy (as evidenced by my avatar) and there aren't too many of those on PC to begin with. And when they do show up, their controls are usually crap and pretty much require me to plug in a 360 controller anyway. I'm looking at you, The Last Remnant...

 

[Alxast45]

Mainly because I have played on the console my entire life so its quite difficult to get used to . Also since most of my friends are console only gamers in most cases which means online on the pc is less enjoyable then on the console. However I still enjoy Real time stratagy games/ minecraft on the pc.

 

[Rock-nerd]

1. I can't afford powerful PCs and the upgrades
2. I feel like it's better to lounge on a chair/sofa and play with a controller rather than hunch over a keyboard

saying that, there are i few PC games i'd like to play, like GW2. someday...

 

[TorqueConverter]

Well actually you can compare apples with oranges. They're both fruit for one.

*facepalm* No, just no.

All 3 systems have some exclusive titles and all 3 systems have a lot of the same titles. They do the same thing in a different way. Because they do things differently you can compare them and decide which way you prefer. I prefer to play on a PC for example because I prefer the way PC's handle some titles that exist on consoles as well. I don't have anything against consoles. I own a PS3 with a few exclusives.

Identifying the merits inherent to each system is not a comparison of the systems. It's as much of a comparison as stating that apples are red and oranges are orange.

Even if it is a weak argument (and it isn't) it's still better than no argument.
Actually you can compare those two cars. You can compare everything about them. What one has and the other one doesn't is the reason for making a comparison.

You know nothing about cars. People would laugh in your face if you told them look at purchasing a Ferrari 458 Italia over a Mustang GT. I believe they would say such things as "Do you know how much those things cost?" and "Why do you even think that is viable alternative to a Mustang? between their cries of laughter.

It doesn't matter. But the most logical way would be to start from a PC that can play all the games a console can play at least on the same amount of graphical details. But you can compare a high end PC with a console if you're going to compare them from a hardware point of view.

Comparing a high end gaming PC to a console would be pointless. Pointless comparisons are useless. Useless comparisons are invalid, as in of no logical consequence. I'll meet you're halfway on this. A gaming PC of similar price and power to that of a game console would be a valid, useful, or fair comparison because the two would be comparable. Such a PC would still be considered fairly expensive by most console gamer standards but there is enough merit in fact that the two systems would be comparable to warrant a comparison.

Just because you think you can't recommend someone a PC or a console over the other system doesn't mean anyone else can't. I can. It depends on what that person wants from a system, what kind of games that person plays etc. You can definitely recommend one over the other.

Good luck telling a PC gamer with a high end gaming rig to ditch it and buy an Xbox 360. The two are so similar after all, right? The identification of the merits of each system =/= a comparison of the systems. Recommendation =/= comparison. I can recommend a gaming PC or a game console to someone without having to draw any comparisons between the two.

And how do you know this? That no one is going to do that? Where is your data? Again, your assertions are baseless. That way you can argue that no one is going to be persuaded to purchase Xbox 360 over the PS3. Same logic, no data, no arguments.

Experience. Do you not have gamer friends without gaming PCs? Ever tried to recommend a gaming PC them? Have you not read any of this thread? Gaming PC = too expensive for a lot of people. If they are looking to buy an Xbox then they don't want to hear about building/buying a high end gaming PC. A gaming PC is not even in the realm of possibility to them therefore a comparison between a high end gaming PC and Xbox is pointless. Remember what I said earlier about pointless comparisons.

You just need to pick the right criteria to compare them. And yes, PC's and consoles are similar. Your argument is that consoles didn't replace gaming PC. Fine, PS3 didn't replace Xbox 360. According to our logic those two can't be compared.

Xbox 360 and PS3 are similar but different enough to warrant a comparison. On an individual by individual basis, one system very much replaces the other. The consumer either chooses the Xbox or the PS3 or vice versa based on the conclusions of his or her comparison of the two systems. Who in the hell holds an Xbox 360 in one hand and a $1400 gaming rig in the other and goes "Hmmmm, which one?".

All 3 systems have some exclusive titles and all 3 systems have a lot of the same titles. They do the same thing in a different way. Because they do things differently you can compare them and decide which way you prefer. I prefer to play on a PC for example because I prefer the way PC's handle some titles that exist on consoles as well. I don't have anything against consoles. I own a PS3 with a few exclusives.

Define "do the same things differently". What useful information can we attain with a comparison of game consoles to a highend gaming PC?

Lets see... a high end gaming PC can do everything the consoles can do except better with the exception of local co-op and are significantly more expensive. How is this knowledge derived from the comparison any different from information readily available on the two systems? It's not. The comparison was useless. Useless comparisons are are pointless. Pointless comparisons are irrelevant.

The PC vs console debate and all it's ensuing flame wars have been based around a comparison that shouldn't have even been made in the first place. It's akin to trolling. Why add fuel to a fire that had no right to be started in the first place?

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

Well I want to play some of my favourite non-pc games on a big screen with a comfortable remote. But I do admire that Pc has mods you can add with some games, and you can do multiple thing at once while playing.

 

[Beautiful End]

1. My computer would explode. It's not made for gaming and it crammed enough as it is.
2. Keyboard. I can't substitute a controller with a keyboard for the life of me. I'm weird like that.
3. PC gaming doesn't offer anything special that console games can't provide me. TO ME. Again, to me. I don't care much about beautiful graphics that look 1/12th better than console ones and lightning fast stuff or whatever. TO ME.
4. Most PC games I'd like to play are released for other consoles for the most part.
5. My desktop is not entirely mine.
6. My laptop is completely mine, but it's a laptop- a netbook to be more specific. Too small for my gaming tastes.
7. My lack of computer information (?) would surely cause my computer to implode or something.
8. I'm lazy. So I like to just lie back on the couch and play.

I know there's a way around all those things I listed...and yet, I still don't care much for PC gaming.

 

[LilithSlave]

Because keyboard and mouse > controller.

Hahaha, no.

Console RPGs are dumbed down and stupid.

It's time you had a trip down memory lane.

Console shooters are slow and skilless (aim assist, much?).

 

[Elamdri]

Now, I know is can be a tricky topic, and I'm hoping that both sides here can try to keep the insults and snobbery to a minimum. I'm not making this thread to start arguments, I'm just wondering.

If you don't play PC games, why? There are so many reasons out there, I just wanna hear some peoples.

In my case it's because I spend enough time on my computer as it is. I do almost all of my work on the computer, being a cartoonist, and I also do the vast majority of my homework on the computer. That, coupled with the time I spend just being on the web, it adds up to quite a bit of computer time. The last thing I personally wanna do is add "the time I spend playing video games" to that list.

There is one PC game I own that I really would like to play again (Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines) but ever since I got my new PC, I haven't been able to run it. So my PC gaming has pretty much come to a complete halt.

I love PC gaming, but I'm just not at a point in my life where it is affordable. Consoles are cheap, convenient and almost always work. That and I have a lot of friends on PSN and Xbox LIVE.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Hahaha, no.

What an intelligent rebuttal. Then you go on to link an example of one game--actually, an Orchestra and not the game itself--ignoring both that the game itself is old and the cavalcade of simplified, dumbed down RPGs that were created this decade that exist to serve the lowest common denominator. Good job on proving nothing. Really, your ability to give one example with no context at all is great.

You want to compare the CRPG list to the console RPG list? Good-fucking-luck with that.

Also, that 'shooter' is an arcade game that happens to exist on a console and is very easy, as the bullets have a pattern and your hit-marker is a single pixel at the center of your ship. If flashing lights and bright colours make it hard for you, see a doctor.

You make an edit to add a Final Fantasy video? I can see who I'm arguing with here--the kind of person that considers dialog and 'leveling up' the defining points of an RPG, lol. Get back to me when Final Fantasy isn't a TV show soap opera, whose player interaction is limited to choosing what attack to use.

 

[LilithSlave]

Also, that 'shooter' is an arcade game that happens to exist on a console and is very easy, as the bullets have a pattern and your hit-marker is a single pixel at the center of your ship. If flashing lights and bright colours make it hard for you, see a doctor.

Oh good lord what? Explain yourself.

Just because there are patterns and you have a small hitbox, does not make Cave shooters easy to master by any remote means.

ignoring both that the game itself is old

What is the age of a game relevant to anything?

Chrono Trigger and Tales of Symphonia is among the best games ever made. I'd certainly rather play that than Oblivion.

lowest common denominator.

"Somebody has different taste than me. Therefor they're the lowest common denominator".

You're as prejudiced and bigoted as it gets. No wonder PC gamers have such a bad name with folks like you representing them.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Also, that 'shooter' is an arcade game that happens to exist on a console and is very easy, as the bullets have a pattern and your hit-marker is a single pixel at the center of your ship. If flashing lights and bright colours make it hard for you, see a doctor.

Oh good lord what? Explain yourself.

Just because there are patterns and you have a small hitbox, does not make Cave shooters easy to master by any remote means.

If learning the pattern is difficult for you, it's not hard to wing it and keep one pixel safe.

 

[LilithSlave]

If learning the pattern is difficult for you, it's not hard to wing it and keep one pixel safe.

Funny, have you actually ever played any Cave shooters? You sound like someone who hates games you haven't even played and dismiss them.

Cave shooters at highest difficultly are considered to be one of the highest tiers in all of video gaming difficulty. There's nothing about it that's "not hard". And if you think so, I welcome you to post videos of you doing so as proof. Which I highly doubt that you can.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

You sound like someone who hates games you haven't even played and dismiss them.

That's funny, because I don't recall ever mentioning disliking them. I do, however, recall someone else in this thread pointing out your fondness of assumption and putting words into peoples' mouths.

 

[HAVERSHA]

So I can play splitscreen when my friends are over or with my little sister. That's one thing PC gaming can't do to any sort of a decent level.

 

[Hazy992]

Because keyboard and mouse > controller.

So personal preference = fact? Umm, no? And besides at least controllers were actually designed with gaming in mind.

Console RPGs are dumbed down and stupid.

Really? Cause I've been playing Skyrim on Xbox and it doesn't feel dumbed down in the slightest. Not to mention all the JRPGs consoles get.

Console shooters are slow and skilless (aim assist, much?).

Since when did Halo have aim assist? Or any console multiplayer? And you can turn aim assist off it bothers you so much.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

]So personal preference = fact?

Go ahead and point out exactly where I said it was a fact and not an opinion. I'll wait here.

JRPG is a misnomer; games like Final Fantasy aren't role playing games, but rather soap operas that pause every few minutes for you to fiddle with the controller.

 

[Hazy992]

Go ahead and point out exactly where I said it was a fact and not an opinion. I'll wait here.

Sure thing buddy:

Because keyboard and mouse > controller.

You don't say 'I prefer K+M to controllers' or 'personally I think K+M is better' you just said it was better like that was a fact.

JRPG is a misnomer; games like Final Fantasy aren't role playing games, but rather soap operas that pause every few minutes for you to fiddle with the controller.

The elitism is strong with this one.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

-

Rofl. It was clearly an opinion. If you wanna take everything someone posts in a forum as supposed fact, good luck to you. I'll be over there, understanding what subjectivity means.

Elite in what regard? In not like JRPGs? That makes no sense. I don't think you understand how to use that word.