Why I don't play PC games.

[Steben]

So, I got the Orange Box today at retail for PC. I've heard lots of good things about Portal in particular - it seemed to be my kind of thing. Also, I figure, why not let this be the step to get me back into PC gaming, which I abandoned years ago, for reasons I could not recall.

I mean, I didn't pick my laptop out to be a gaming rig, but it had all the necessary specs to run the program (although not the recommended video card), so what could possibly go wrong, right? Ha. Imagine my frustration when the game totally stopped responding sixty seconds into the game, that is, when I first stepped through a Portal.

Research on The Google dug up this thread (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=623213), along with other. Apparently the integrated Intel 945gm chipset just... doesn't work with most of The Orange Box. However, there's a handy fix on this page, right? Well. Sort of. I got to exercise 14 in the game before it decided to slow down to a nice 2 frames per second, because apparently I'm not allowed to place portals too far away from each other before the game goes wacko.

Ugh.

The obvious solution would be for me to shell out the cash money dollar bills to outfit my desktop PC (which hasn't been upgraded since 2003, maybe) to play these games. But, honestly, by the time I've spent that much money, I could have just bought a 360 or PS3, which is guaranteed to play any game on the system perfectly.

Now, particularly in this community, I'm sure there are a lot of you who'll balk at this stance. So, really, what is the point of gaming on a computer? Aside from the games which are exclusive to the PC platform, why would you invest in PC gaming?

[Effef]

I mean, I didn't pick my laptop out to be a gaming rig, but it had all the necessary specs to run the program (although not the recommended video card), so what could possibly go wrong, right? Ha. Imagine my frustration when the game totally stopped responding sixty seconds into the game, that is, when I first stepped through a Portal.

Research on The Google dug up this thread, along with other. Apparently the integrated Intel 945gm chipset just... doesn't work with most of The Orange Box. However, there's a handy fix on this page, right? Well. Sort of. I got to exercise 14 in the game before it decided to slow down to a nice 2 frames per second, because apparently I'm not allowed to place portals too far away from each other before the game goes wacko.


This is where you fail miserably. If you had done any research at all, you would have discovered that the Intel 900 series chipsets (any of them) are NOT meant for any kind of 3D gaming. At all. They are simply incapable of doing it. Everything can go wrong when you do not have a 3D capable video card, since that is what actually renders the game. It is the most important part of any modern gaming PC.

Tldr: Read the box, check the specs, make sure you are capable of running the game, and you will come to enjoy PC gaming.

Besides, the PS3 version has graphical issues, and Playing TF2 on the 360 with a controller and being limited to less than 16 players just isn't right.

[zircon]

Agreed.. do your research first or else you are almost guaranteed to run into problems. That said, my computers have always had relatively low-end graphics cards (decent procs/RAM) and I don't have any problems playing most games that I care to play.

That being said, PC gaming is typically an expensive investment and I get a lot more satisfaction out of consoles. So I agree with you in part.

[Effef]

Interestingly enough, you can build a decent gaming rig capable of playing the Orange Box beautifully for less than a PS3 these days.

[Bahamut]

You can get a video card that'll do the job for ~$100, more or less. However, PC games do tend to have a ton of problems, from hardware standards to copy protection. The industry keeps managing to shoot itself in the foot, despite the hardware getting quite cheaper than 5 years ago.

Personally, from Steam to rootkits to Securom, all these things really keep me away from the industry more than almost anything else. In addition, the keyboard & mouse isn't healthy for hardcore gaming since stuff like carpal tunnel syndrome just becomes too big of a setback with a non-ergonomic setup.

I'm more than willing to shell out for a rig, but unfortunately the industry just doesn't want to market itself right.

[Effef]

Steam is a lot better than it used to be (read: bearable), but shit like Securom needs to go.

[The Damned]

I could have just bought a 360 or PS3, which is guaranteed to play any game on the system perfectly.
HAA HAA WAHT?

There are lots of games on console systems that don't work. Ones I've personally run across range from FPSs and hack-n-slash games. Metroid Prime 1 did this annoying thing where it would freeze trying to enter doors. And there was this one X-ox game that crashed and started spitting out programming code or something.

As much as I like console gaming, it's not perfect.

Except for Gameboys. Man, those fuckers were rock solid all the way through. Drop them down stairs, dunk them in water, kick them down a hallway, throw them at someone else... and the fuckers still worked!

[Bahamut]

HAA HAA WAHT?

There are lots of games on console systems that don't work. Ones I've personally run across range from FPSs and hack-n-slash games. Metroid Prime 1 did this annoying thing where it would freeze trying to enter doors. And there was this one X-ox game that crashed and started spitting out programming code or something.

As much as I like console gaming, it's not perfect.

Except for Gameboys. Man, those fuckers were rock solid all the way through. Drop them down stairs, dunk them in water, kick them down a hallway, throw them at someone else... and the fuckers still worked!

Nintendo has had a great reputation for well built systems...excepting when they switched to disc-based systems. I never had that problem in Metroid Prime 1, but I have had some other issues. However, nowhere near as buggy as PC games tend to be.

[Avatar of Justice]

I get the impression sometimes that all it would take to kill of the PC gaming market would be a keyboard and mouse peripheral for each console.

[Moseph]

I had Mario Kart 64 freeze on me once, I had perpetual trouble with the N64 memory cards, and I've seen battery-saves spontaneously erase themselves before, so even the cartridge systems weren't perfect. But they were pretty darn solid most of the time.

I think part of the draw of PC gaming, at least for some, is the whole pimp-my-computer aspect. There's a certain amount of pride involved in being able to run new games at 90fps that goes beyond the mere enjoyment of the game itself.

[Effef]

Nintendo has had a great reputation for well built systems...excepting when they switched to disc-based systems. I never had that problem in Metroid Prime 1, but I have had some other issues. However, nowhere near as buggy as PC games tend to be.

The Gamecube and Wii are very reliable, I don't really see why you would say otherwise.

I did encounter the MP bug, and I could make it happen repeatedly by going straight from the ship to the first elevator. Thats retro Studio's fault though, not Nintendo's.

[Bahamut]

The Gamecube and Wii are very reliable, I don't really see why you would say otherwise.


Well, relative to their previous consoles/handhelds, not really - for example, one of my friend's Gamecubes fell from a table ~3 feet high and stopped functioning, whereas that wouldn't happen with the NES or SNES.

[Effef]

Well, relative to their previous consoles/handhelds, not really - for example, one of my friend's Gamecubes fell from a table ~3 feet high and stopped functioning, whereas that wouldn't happen with the NES or SNES.

To me, it seems to go like this:

If a device uses optical media, it becomes infinitely more fragile. This applies to everything, be it music players, game consoles, even computers.

[zircon]

I don't believe you can make a great PC gaming system from scratch for $400, by the way (the cost of a 20GB PS3.) A capable one, yes, but the nice thing about consoles is that they just work out of the box. There's no question that PC gaming is clunkier and more cumbersome, whether it's the time it takes to boot up the gaming experience, to general responsiveness, to having to worry about your PC becoming slower and more cluttered over time..

[Bigfoot]

This is why I could care less for games like Crysis. Tri-SLI($1800 worth of video cards) can't even run the game on max settings. So I'm not going to get a game where I have to run on medium to low settings to play, then it looks like ass.

Personally, I dislike the whole multiple GPU solution. If you use two cards, you should get twice the performance.

[Effef]

I don't believe you can make a great PC gaming system from scratch for $400, by the way (the cost of a 20GB PS3.) A capable one, yes, but the nice thing about consoles is that they just work out of the box.

Not super great no, but enough to play the Orange Box and other games that scale relatively well at decent settings. Besides, putting it together is half the fun.

There's no question that PC gaming is clunkier and more cumbersome, whether it's the time it takes to boot up the gaming experience,

Thats negligible, especially if you have a fairly fast hard drive. I would compare it to PS2 load times, if that.

to general responsiveness,

Don't know about you, but response has never been a problem with me, especially with mouse controls.

to having to worry about your PC becoming slower and more cluttered over time..

This does not happen if you know how to take care of your computer. Disable java, delete cookies, defrag with something other than Windows Defragger, don't use Norton, McAfee antiviruses, avoid IE like the plague, don't frequent suspicious porn sites, and you're set.

[The Coop]

I'm honestly sometimes surprised at how well my 2003/2004 AGP computer is keeping up. Up until I've read some of the specs on the insanely demanding games this year, I've been able to run stuff like Oblivion, the Bioshock demo, the C&C 3 demo, and a decent number of their brethren either decently all maxed out (15-20fps), or pretty well all maxed out (20-30+ fps)... and that's with a 7800GS, 1GB of PC3200 RAM, and a P4 at 3.00E GHz (I think it might be a Prescott, but I've never been able to find out for certain). Sure, stuff like Gears of War and them will probably choke my PC now, but still...

[zircon]

Not super great no, but enough to play the Orange Box and other games that scale relatively well at decent settings. Besides, putting it together is half the fun.

If I saw such a system I'd believe it. My $1600 workstation doesn't even really run stuff that well.

Thats negligible, especially if you have a fairly fast hard drive. I would compare it to PS2 load times, if that.

Not everyone keeps their computer on 24/7. When you pay your own electric bill it definitely makes an impact. If you're already booted up then yes it can be relatively fast, assuming your system is tweaked and optimized.

Don't know about you, but response has never been a problem with me, especially with mouse controls.

On my current computer, UT:3 has fairly lagged mouse controls. Likewise for Hellgate London. Starting up Portal takes awhile too. My system is in general tweaked for max performance, too. I cut background crap to a minimum.

This does not happen if you know how to take care of your computer. Disable java, delete cookies, defrag with something other than Windows Defragger, don't use Norton, McAfee antiviruses, avoid IE like the plague, don't frequent suspicious porn sites, and you're set.

I'm not stupid; I do a LOT of optimization to my computer and always have. I do all that stuff and there is just no denying that over time, as you install more and more software and fill up your hard drives, performance takes a hit. On the other hand, my PS2 works as well as it did when I first bought it. Same speeds.

Maybe IF I built or bought a computer with the SOLE purpose of playing games and kept ALL other tools and utilities off, plus paid meticulous attention to maintaining it, this wouldn't be an issue. But no matter what way you slice it, it's more work just to get to where consoles are (and have been) for years.

Not to say I don't play games on my computer. I've been a PC gamer for way longer than I've had consoles, and I will always play RTS/FPS games on my computer (as well as MMORPGs, if I ever go back to them.) But in general, gaming on a PC is not as smooth of an experience as modern console gaming. This is confirmed especially after I picked up an Xbox 360 and a Wii a few weeks ago.

[Drack]

Disclaimer: I have an amazing gaming rig. Stats at the end of the post.

PC Gaming has a lot of problems that don't happen with consoles.

One of the largest issues you'll find with PC games is inefficient coding. I present Bioshock as an example. Compare its framerate on MY computer and on a 360 and you'll see that the PC version was a 360 port and not the other way around. On my rig I could run it at 1920x1200 (16/10. Just a tad taller than 1080p.) on medium reliably. On an 360 it runs the equivilent of max settings at 1080p without a hitch. Why is my vastly more powerful machine not keeping up?

Bioshock is just one example. Here's another, though this is a PC exclusive. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic also suffers from inefficient coding. Long load times and poor performance dogs this title pretty badly. But here's the kicker. It uses the Source engine, so it looks and feels much like Half-Life 2. HL2 was well-coded though, and performed well on even mediocre PCs. My computer had top notch HL2 performance and lackluster DMMM performance. There really wasn't much a diference in graphical detail, so this is quite inexcusable.

While consoles allow for extensive hand-optimization, the amount you can optimize on computers (cpu instruction sets, for one) is nothing to sneeze at. Another huge issue is threading. The Xbox 360 has 3 general purpose processors. You bet your ass the games are threaded to use all 3 at once. Are PC games threaded to take advantage of multi-core computers? SOMETIMES...

Console games don't have the DRM bullshit or clunky content delivery schemes PC games have (and industry leaders believe MUST have, because you don't need anything expensive to copy DVDs). Sure consoles are region locked, but this pales in comparison to all the crap that piggybacks PC games.

Console games are also more efficient with secondary storage, loading up your hard drive with gigs upon gigs of data, far more than found on console game discs. And some require you to have the disc in the drive on top of that!

There are some exceptions of course. Unreal Tournament 2004, Half-Life 2, and World of Warcraft all ran great on mediocre hardware. On the other hand, titles I've already mentioned along with some historically abysmally coded titles like the original EverQuest run much, much slower than they should, based on what the games demand graphically.

Bottom line: If you want guaranteed good performance, Get a console.

My rig (so you can't say my Bioshock/DMMM performance issues are due to poor hardware):
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600. (4 cores at 2.4GHz each)
4 gigs of DDR2 RAM
GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB, latest drivers
1.2TB of HDD space, 7200RPM

It runs Crysis at 1920x1200 on medium.

[The Damned]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBHH-H837gg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVRJtqPRZhQ

Basically the same tests, but one's in Spanish! Or something! Whatever! Those languages are all the same any ways!

[dsx100]

Well in my opinion, PC gaming is worth it if you have capable hardware because PC gaming usually offers a superior experience to consoles. Whether it be Controls, Graphics, Customization, Mods, Patches, and Online-play. Online-Play is a huge draw for me because PC games have been online for years they are only getting better. I have yet to play a console game that can match the experience of PC online gaming. Its also free for the most part, with each game having is own service and servers. Battel.net is a great example. Mods are also things you can't regularly get on consoles.

So in my opinion, it may cost a lot of money to get a great PC experience but often more times than not, its worth it. PC exclusives (Like Warcraft) is definately a big draw for me too though.

Edit: By the way, it only took about $880 bucks to build my rig. So its not like every good gaming PC needs to cost 1000+ dollars.

[BlueMage]

Now, particularly in this community, I'm sure there are a lot of you who'll balk at this stance. So, really, what is the point of gaming on a computer? Aside from the games which are exclusive to the PC platform, why would you invest in PC gaming?

Because the PC exclusives tend towards superiority. Don't blame the game for your machine's inadequacies - you noted that you're not using the recommended card, you have none to blame but yourself.

And for the record, I run Crysis at 1680x1050 all settings on high. Very playable. And Bigfoot, I checked - even on Low settings, Crysis looks anything but ass.

[SwordBreaker]

I'm glad that we're getting some of the best and niche PC games ported over the Xbox, Xbox 360 and PS3 because I've apparently been missing out on a lot of gems all these years. Dreamfall, The Orange Box, Elder Scrolls, Unreal Tournament 3, Bioshock...awesome stuff there.

On the other hand, I'm not the type of guy that plays games on a PC because of the whole "keyboard, mouse" setup. I've never been a fan for this type of control even though a lot of people say that it's the coolest setup in terms of FPS games. Also, I really don't feel like worrying over tech specs and buying more upgrades (graphics card and the like) with each game I want. I'd rather waste that money on buying the games themselves, their respective consoles, and upgrading my gaming hub with an HDTV and 7.1 surround system.

From what I'm hearing these days, the PC market is really going down under because the latest games require some heavy-duty graphics/physics cards to make them run. CRYSIS bombed at retail because most people can't run the damn game...I think it needs like 5000$ worth of PC upgrades to get the most out of it. Same thing with UT3, while not as heavy as CRYSIS, it still needs a really good PC to get the most out of the game. I'd rather get a PS3 or 360 to play PC ports....it's a lot cheaper and I don't need to worry about graphic cards, installation problems, errors, and the like...even if the console ports don't look as good as the PC ones runned on high-end setups. Hell, getting consoles are a great option for PC fans these days because developers are paying more attention to please the original market. I hear that UT3 for PS3 can work with a keyboard/mouse setup and they've been recently testing the waters on MODs.

[Bahamut]

You can build a capable PC rig for ~$1000 these days...or even buy one from an OEM if you look hard enough for the deal, although you sacrifice upgradability for reliability. If you have spare copies of Windows, a monitor, mouse, and keyboard you don't mind reusing, you could even bring it down to ~$600-700. The problem is, is it worth the hassle? Most would say no. For years, most PC gaming developers have shown that they do not understand how to market, and it continues today, even worse than before. What I don't understand is how such a well-funded sector fails at one of the fundamentals of a business, especially when computers are so ubiquitous.

[Linearity]

The biggest difference for me is the kinds of games available in each setting. I've always loved platform games like Sonic, and they just don't make many platform games for desktops. On the other hand, I have liked a few FPS games, and most of them were made for PCs.

A computer dedicated to running games will likely do that job better overall than a multi-role computer. That means that in general a Nintendo or a 'gaming rig' desktop is preferable to a general PC for running games well. And those gaming rigs seem like overkill to me. There's my two cents.

[PlastikBag]

My system cost me less than $1000 two years ago. I just upgraded my videocard to a x1950 pro ($150) and I can max out everything but Crysis. Even so, Crysis plays fine and still looks great on medium. I'm actually quite sick of people giving Crysis so much shit, it still looks better than almost every game on the market even on medium settings. Currently I could build a brand new system for less than $1000 that could max Crysis, no AA and not super high-resolutions, but that's a lot to ask for. Some might scoff at the $1000 price tag, but it's a computer and there is far more you can do with it than just play videogames.

Also, to the topic creator: Do some research before even bothering with PC games.

[Fenrir]

It's a matter of games for me. Most of the games I like to play just don't come out on PC. Maybe I'm just a weeaboo faggot or something, but most of the stuff I see on the PC shelf looks like uninspired shite (before you try dissecting that, notice the MOST part. I'm well aware the Crysis and the Orange Box look gorgeous). Speaking of which, why isn't Mass Effect on the PC yet?

The last game that I spent a ton of time on was Total Annihilation. If I ever get a new computer, I might spring for Supreme Commander, but that's about it. I just don't really care.

[Yoshi3gg]

I love PC gaming, but my reasons for it haven't been mentioned anywhere else in this thread (from what I saw skimming through it).

I mean, yeah, keyboard and mouse is a great setup for a lot of games.

I could care less about graphics as long as the game's art direction is good and I can get a good framerate.

But where PC gaming is important to me is in user-generated content. I loved Starcraft because I loved making maps, and the map-making community always pushed the envelope to make the game do things that I never would've thought possible while playing the single player campaign. I loved Morrowind because you could make your own quests, your own items, your own towns, or download any number of totally awesome plug-ins that totally changed the appearance of some of the less attractive things in the game (faces, book covers, etc.). Same thing with Oblivion.

And then there's all the independent development going on; Knytt Stories is absolutely amazing (and it has a tool for making your own levels!).

Anyway, I guess that's tangential to the original point. I think that a lot of devs for commercial hardcore PC games have forgotten what makes PC gaming so special in the first place, and it's become kind of dick-waving competition among the players to see who can eek out the most fps on mega-hyper-ultra settings. For me, while I do keep my machine up to date and able to run games I want to play smoothly, it's more about the special things that PC gaming brings to the table that console gaming can't due to licensing.

[Lunahorum]

the main difference being PC gaming has a bloated piece of shit (or at least inefficient compared to consoles) operating system to run while it is running the game. A console has a minimal operating system.
I don't understand why gaming operating systems haven't come out yet. Have an xbox like OS, but for the computer. Does anyone know the actual system specs of the xbox and how it compares to a computer?

edit: is vista any good? I have heard it takes more ram, but the processing might be more efficient?

[BlueMage]

On the other hand, I'm not the type of guy that plays games on a PC because of the whole "keyboard, mouse" setup. I've never been a fan for this type of control even though a lot of people say that it's the coolest setup in terms of FPS games. Also, I really don't feel like worrying over tech specs and buying more upgrades (graphics card and the like) with each game I want. I'd rather waste that money on buying the games themselves, their respective consoles, and upgrading my gaming hub with an HDTV and 7.1 surround system.

The simple fact is that you have far greater and exacting control using the keyboard and mouse.

From what I'm hearing these days, the PC market is really going down under because the latest games require some heavy-duty graphics/physics cards to make them run. CRYSIS bombed at retail because most people can't run the damn game...I think it needs like 5000$ worth of PC upgrades to get the most out of it. Same thing with UT3, while not as heavy as CRYSIS, it still needs a really good PC to get the most out of the game. I'd rather get a PS3 or 360 to play PC ports....it's a lot cheaper and I don't need to worry about graphic cards, installation problems, errors, and the like...even if the console ports don't look as good as the PC ones runned on high-end setups. Hell, getting consoles are a great option for PC fans these days because developers are paying more attention to please the original market. I hear that UT3 for PS3 can work with a keyboard/mouse setup and they've been recently testing the waters on MODs.They are testing water for mods. PC games are better off being ported to console than the other way around, however - it's easy to remove complexity, not so to introduce it.

Also, my rig was only 3500AUD for the entire lot, and apparently we have far higher costs on electronics than in the US, so 5000USD in upgrades is a bit overkill. Unless you're intending to get a 30" screen.

Max, for modern games, Vista is superb. I have not encountered any Vista-related problems on modern games - it's rather well-behaved regarding system notifications, hasn't crashed due to OS faults, and politely concedes RAM to the higher priority applications, all without bothering you over the details. And then, when you finish your gaming session, it returns to your usual settings.

[Shadowe]

A ~260 dollar 8800gt and even a singlecore pentium4 and 2gb of ram can get you crysis at 1920x1200 with no AA and ~25fps solid.

[I-n-j-i-n]

A ~260 dollar 8800gt and even a singlecore pentium4 and 2gb of ram can get you crysis at 1920x1200 with no AA and ~25fps solid.

25fps is not solid. Sorry.

Also, if we're talking about gaming PCs nowadays, it's mostly with doubling it up. Dual sticks of memory (4GB), dual graphic card link, dual processors, or even dual harddrives for faster access.

I really don't buy the idea that PC gaming is cheap. Because it is not. Not if you want something respectable, then you have to expect to go into $3000 category, and that is just by going to newegg to find parts, not even to buy it from a large manufacturer.

[Hyperion5182]

If I saw such a system I'd believe it. My $1600 workstation doesn't even really run stuff that well.

Workstations arent geared for gaming they are rather specialized and sometimes they incur problems when used for other purposes. (especially the high ram versions which typically have somewhat different operating systems to access that ram) And oh BTW 1600 for a WORK STATION? Thats a crappy workstation as the ground floor on that is 5000

(general scale of PCS)

400-1000 Entry level
1001-2000 Mid level
2001-3000 Gaming rig
3000=4500 Dream Machine
4501+ Work Station.

Not everyone keeps their computer on 24/7. When you pay your own electric bill it definitely makes an impact. If you're already booted up then yes it can be relatively fast, assuming your system is tweaked and optimized.

This is true. But every 6 months or so is a pretty solid setup for an upgrade schedule. Its a matter of comparing what you have to what you want. If you are close no need to upgrade if you are falling behind by a significant margin consider it.

On my current computer, UT:3 has fairly lagged mouse controls. Likewise for Hellgate London. Starting up Portal takes awhile too. My system is in general tweaked for max performance, too. I cut background crap to a minimum.

This sounds like a driver issue or a direct setting issue in game. Have you checked for patches? Checked mouse lag options in UT3? What kind of mouse trackball or laser? (if track ball try cleaning it) If laser check drivers. Speaking of drivers check them for your graphics card as well that can help in truckloads.

I'm not stupid; I do a LOT of optimization to my computer and always have. I do all that stuff and there is just no denying that over time, as you install more and more software and fill up your hard drives, performance takes a hit. On the other hand, my PS2 works as well as it did when I first bought it. Same speeds.

That is more on Hd speed than anything else a RAID setup with a 10k drive will fix those problems in a hurry. A PS2 doesnt keep games installed and has a specified purpose. Even a gaming rig can do more than play games.

Maybe IF I built or bought a computer with the SOLE purpose of playing games and kept ALL other tools and utilities off, plus paid meticulous attention to maintaining it, this wouldn't be an issue. But no matter what way you slice it, it's more work just to get to where consoles are (and have been) for years.

Completely untrue. Well not quite in sheer repair work maybe. But in performance? Not even CLOSE proven by more than a few devs. A computer will forever outdistance a console they are the cutting edge. Period. The current console+HD TV is completely outclassed by an AVERAGE PC of today in graphics power. A dedicated gaming rig? Forget it.

Not to say I don't play games on my computer. I've been a PC gamer for way longer than I've had consoles, and I will always play RTS/FPS games on my computer (as well as MMORPGs, if I ever go back to them.) But in general, gaming on a PC is not as smooth of an experience as modern console gaming. This is confirmed especially after I picked up an Xbox 360 and a Wii a few weeks ago.

You arent trying hard enough to keep up with the curve. A lot of your issues seem to be very fixable with a bit of effort. If you want to play games on Console i cant stop you but you are missing out. Especially if you arent working to keep up with the tech. You can put together a PC capable of running the best games of today at very high FPS rates for under 1500 dollars if you know what you are doing.

Edit: To the poster above me i can do a legit rig for 1500 dollars or less. Care to have me send you specs? Its not hard reallly granted its not a dual 8800 GTX quad core 3.0 GHZ 8 gig ram a raid 4 HD with an SSD and 3 other 10k drives but it should run crysis at 80 or so FPS with out real trouble.

[OverCoat]

So, really, what is the point of gaming on a computer?

-10 billion games to choose from. 30 billion if you count emulation. And I do [DOSBox is handy]
-Keyboard and mouse for everything, not some weirdass banana controller
-region free
-alt-tab
-I have a decent enough computer that I can create music on AND it can run pretty much anything. I was running Crysis and it was on low-medium settings but still looked pretty nice.
-fucking Steam is awesome. I just bought the iD software super pack (http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=package&SubId=440) last night during a huge christmas sale for $57
-torrent plz

p.s. you don't get Crysis for the graphics. You get Crysis for the fucking incredible AI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJkCWQcZYKo)

[I-n-j-i-n]

Wow. I never thought anyone would say Steam is awesome.

[OverCoat]

Wow. I never thought anyone would say Steam is awesome.

I love it! It's so much better than going down to the store and paying $60 for some game. Buying the iD Super Pack took me less than 2 minutes, and I already had access to like 30 games.

I've never had many problems with it. Nothing major since... HL2 came out.

The only thing is I can't activate my copy of HL1 because of some duplicate CD key thing :V so I have to install it independent of Steam.

[operawonderdude]

Personally, I dislike the whole multiple GPU solution. If you use two cards, you should get twice the performance.

Having two of something doesn't mean 2X the performance...just to let you know...T_T

Anyways, I get pretty good kicks outta just having an entry level dual core laptop (with the intel 900 series by the way).
Yeah Crysis is out the question for me...but I'd rather play CS:Source and Doom3 anyways...


EDIT: Dang that id software bundle looks pretty nice, I've only got Doom3 and the expansion,
so perhaps I'll look into it...

[Steben]

Ah well. Lesson learned, I suppose.

Hopefully it'll run okay on my PC, otherwise, I guess I'll need to invest in upgrading it. I'm pretty sure the main culprit there will be my RAM...

I have to wonder when they'll start supporting USB keyboard/mouse support in console games. All three systems support keyboards already, I think, so a mouse wouldn't be too big a stretch, I'd imagine. Except maybe for the Wii, but I'm a huge fan of using the Wiimote for FPSes anyway.

[OverCoat]

so perhaps I'll look into it...

The older games use Dosbox [Keen, Wolfenstein, etc] which should work, GLQuake needed some fucking around for me to use it though [command line stuff!], but you shouldn't have many/any problems.

[The Pezman]

But where PC gaming is important to me is in user-generated content. I loved Starcraft because I loved making maps, and the map-making community always pushed the envelope to make the game do things that I never would've thought possible while playing the single player campaign. I loved Morrowind because you could make your own quests, your own items, your own towns, or download any number of totally awesome plug-ins that totally changed the appearance of some of the less attractive things in the game (faces, book covers, etc.). Same thing with Oblivion.

And then there's all the independent development going on; Knytt Stories is absolutely amazing (and it has a tool for making your own levels!).

Anyway, I guess that's tangential to the original point. I think that a lot of devs for commercial hardcore PC games have forgotten what makes PC gaming so special in the first place, and it's become kind of dick-waving competition among the players to see who can eek out the most fps on mega-hyper-ultra settings. For me, while I do keep my machine up to date and able to run games I want to play smoothly, it's more about the special things that PC gaming brings to the table that console gaming can't due to licensing.
-10 billion games to choose from. 30 billion if you count emulation. And I do [DOSBox is handy]
-Keyboard and mouse for everything, not some weirdass banana controller
-region free
-alt-tab
-I have a decent enough computer that I can create music on AND it can run pretty much anything. I was running Crysis and it was on low-medium settings but still looked pretty nice.
-fucking Steam is awesome. I just bought the iD software super pack (http://steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=package&SubId=440) last night during a huge christmas sale for $57
-torrent plz

Amen brothas. When you have a versatile machine that can do more than just gaming you can modify your gaming experience. That can mean returning to old school classics or modifying games with your own content. Or both:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/FFVIIIReunion/fb382ef8.jpg

You're going to get far more options with PCs. Yes, they can be a bitch to upgrade but at least you can upgrade them (Yay! Nintendo DS! It's so slick and awesome and... what the fuck? DS Lite?).

Don't like using a keyboard? You got your mouse, joystick, or even a console controller if you want. But if you don't like using the controller on a console? Whoops, outta luck.

Want to rip the disc to an image on the hard drive to cut down on loading time? A few clicks with Alcohol here on the PC. And now I don't need any discs to game.

And hey! Let's use the Portal gun in Half-Life 2! ...oh, you've got it on 360? Sorry bud, no can do. It's awesome, though, I promise.

I don't have anything close to an excellent gaming rig. Because I have a non-Alienware laptop. From 2005 (3.4 single core, 2 GB RAM, 100 GB Hard drive). But I have been able to play pretty much anything I've tried. And for the fifteen games I can't play on this there are fifteen hundred I can which I haven't even thought about touching yet.

And about Vista not being designed from the ground up for gaming... well, that's true while you don't actually have a game open. But once you do all unnecessary processes either stop or are given minimal attention, as the OS knows the game is the only thing the user will be focusing on.

Oh, and lest I forget (http://www.telltalegames.com/samandmax/).

[Bahamut]

Uhh if you buy from an OEM, there's a good chance you can't upgrade them. They also tend to be pricey, there's usually little to no way of quality controlling out douchebags on an online game, keyboard & mouse is as much of a negative as a positive (even worse if something catches on an optical mouse near the sensor during a critical moment, or if you're as unfortunate as me with hardcore PC gaming fucking with hand-eye coordination), significantly more expensive, and well, the negative reasons go on and on (some mentioned already). For most, the negative obviously outweighs the positive as PC gaming keeps getting weaker as retail continues to see far weaker sales compared to its console counterparts, resulting in more diminished shelf space. It's not a secret that PC gaming elitists & DRM are killing a once thriving industry in the US.

As for Steam, you pay more in general than if you waited for a retail price drop or sale. For example, Steam's recent sale of The Orange Box - you could've bought it at retail for quite cheaper than through Steam (i.e. $25 on Black Friday for the PC version). Valve controls pricing far more strongly than the competitive retail scene does, and so you pay quite more than anyone who pays the slightest of attention to prices (made even easier with CAG).

[Shadowe]

Edit: To the poster above me i can do a legit rig for 1500 dollars or less. Care to have me send you specs? Its not hard reallly granted its not a dual 8800 GTX quad core 3.0 GHZ 8 gig ram a raid 4 HD with an SSD and 3 other 10k drives but it should run crysis at 80 or so FPS with out real trouble.

Actually the problem is crysis itself. It seems like everything from 640mb 8800GTS's with 2ghz dual cores to SLI 8800ultras with 4ghz quaddies will still only get 25-35fps at conventional resolutions. My guess is the game just needs some code optimized somewhere.

If you really want an awesome rig though, here's mine for right about $1000:

$330 Q9450 2.66ghz quadcore, overclockable to ~3.4ghz easily.
$120 Antec 900 midtower, best non-fulltower case
$140 p5k-E p35 mobo, same 8-phase power as the $200 ones
$120 Corsair 520hx, well known and well tested PSU
$94 2x1gb Gskill ddr2-800, ram's easy at least
$250 EVGA 8800gt 512mb, any of the big3 but evga is best

Assuming that like any smart PC gamer you're cannibalizing the hard drive, optical drive, and peripherals of your old machine that brings you up to $1054 or so for a quad-core gaming monster that can run crysis at 1920x1200. G92 based 8800 series cards are beastly, but they don't tolerate anti-aliasing very well at all because of the 256bit memory bus, which is also why they have 256 or 512mb of ram instead of the other amounts. And for the record a computer with these stats bends an xbox360 over and does it up the ass. Ps3 not so much but then again the ps3's an entirely different architecture so there's no real basis for comparison.

[Bahamut]

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that people necessarily should reuse parts to get that price - reusing hard drives like that kill their life for example, and even mice & keyboards aren't everlasting. Monitors are just as prone to failure as well and likely won't last the duration of two desktops, and another copy of Windows must be bought altogether anyway. And for such parts, you want a good power supply as well...all of this can easily run someone over $1500 if they want quality items.

[Effef]

If I saw such a system I'd believe it. My $1600 workstation doesn't even really run stuff that well.

I am typing on one right now.

Athlon X2 4000+, 2gb DDr2800, HD3850

I get a solid 50+ fps in TF2, and the whole thing cost me around $450-500 in parts.

Just out of curiosity, what graphics card are you running?

[OverCoat]

(i.e. $25 on Black Friday for the PC version)

I had to work on Black Friday. Also, it's still a good deal even at $50. Also, fuck Black Friday.

I'm mostly buying older games like Vampire: The Masquerade, for $10. I'm not a big spender :)

[Shadowe]

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that people necessarily should reuse parts to get that price - reusing hard drives like that kill their life for example, and even mice & keyboards aren't everlasting.

That's ridiculous, I've got an MX510 from when they came out that works fine, a hard drive from over 4 years ago that's still in almost perfect condition, people STILL buy trinitron CRT's even though they were discontinued years ago, and if you buy a keyboard that has mechanical keys instead of rubber that degrades over time it'll probably outlast whatever type of plug it uses to connect to the computer. I still have a buckling spring keyboard from when a ps2 port was considered new and exciting.

It's actually very common for gamers to stick to the same set of peripherals and hard drive and just upgrade the core machine as necessary. I myself used the same buckling spring keyboard, 200gb hard drive, and MX510 mouse for at least the past 4 or 5 years. For the next 4 or 5 years (barring a mandatory hardware change because USB died or something) I expect to be using my G5 and G15 on my primary machine.


Monitors are just as prone to failure as well and likely won't last the duration of two desktops, and another copy of Windows must be bought altogether anyway. And for such parts, you want a good power supply as well...all of this can easily run someone over $1500 if they want quality items.
Bullshit and bullshit again. One of my monitors, from 1995, finally died just a few months ago after (literally) 24/7 use for over 10 years and since I've been keeping the same hard drive I've only ever needed one copy of XP pro at a time. Oh and the Corsair 520HX IS a good power supply. It is, in fact, one of the BEST power supplies and is by and far (along with the bigger 620hx) one of the most popular power supplies on OCforums.

The problem with making stuff up as you go, like you did with that "kills their life" thing, is that you run the risk of doing it to somebody that actually does this for a living. But you go and keep making more and more desperate and random excuses to justify your conviction that a gaming computer costs more than $1000. I'll be laughing the whole time on my sub-$1100 quad-core gaming rig that eats xbox360 games for breakfast.

And by the way. $300 for an xbox 360 core, and about 10 $60 games is equal to one gaming PC. It looks like a better deal on the surface but unlike your 360 and games I get mods, free multiplayer, freeware games, emulated games, cheaper retail games, better framerates at higher resolutions, and most of my stuff comes with a lifetime warranty and is unlikely to ever fail. It will also still be quite good in ~4 years whereas your console will have to be replaced by then for another ~$1000 while I will be good with maybe $250 for a new graphics card.

[anosou]

Except for Gameboys. Man, those fuckers were rock solid all the way through. Drop them down stairs, dunk them in water, kick them down a hallway, throw them at someone else... and the fuckers still worked!

Right on brother!

[kitty]

And by the way. $300 for an xbox 360 core, and about 10 $60 games is equal to one gaming PC. It looks like a better deal on the surface but unlike your 360 and games I get mods, free multiplayer, freeware games, emulated games, cheaper retail games, better framerates at higher resolutions, and most of my stuff comes with a lifetime warranty and is unlikely to ever fail. It will also still be quite good in ~4 years whereas your console will have to be replaced by then for another ~$1000 while I will be good with maybe $250 for a new graphics card.

This, right here, is my main reason for supporting PC gaming over console gaming. Also, I'm a big multiplayer enthusiast and I really abhor paying to play a game after I payed the initial cost (yes that means most MMOs are out of the question but I love my Guild Wars). I love getting updated content and free mods. Counter-Strike started as a mod and look where it is now. I bought the Half-Life Platinum Edition box set off of Amazon and got 8 games off Steam (I like Steam because of its convenience) for just $10. CS1.6 is awesome because of the customization it allows. I still like my console classics like all the Nintendo stuff and the occasional Playstation titles but if you add it up, I've spent less on this gaming computer than my consoles.

[GeckoYamori]

The ludicrous console game prices thanks to license costs cancels out the whole upgrading argument. I would never pay more than $50 for a new game.

[I-n-j-i-n]

The ludicrous console game prices thanks to license costs cancels out the whole upgrading argument. I would never pay more than $50 for a new game.

No it doesn't. I used to pay $50 for NES games, $70-$80 for new SNES games. Didn't bat an eye. Even if it used up all my monthly allowance at the time.

Then there is the ironclad fact that you don't need to upgrade consoles.

[anosou]

The ludicrous console game prices thanks to license costs cancels out the whole upgrading argument. I would never pay more than $50 for a new game.

No it doesn't. Upgrading your PC (and for all I care, buying the PC in the first place) AND buying the new games is more expensive than buying console games. Also it's not like every game is $50. Many good previous-generation games are way below that. In any case the newest PC games are above $50 anyway.

Though, as someone mentioned, a computer is way more than a gaming platform and that might justify not buying a console if you don't care for the games there.

[dsx100]

In any case the newest PC games are above $50 anyway.


Thats not true. The vast majority of brand new PC games are only $50. The ones that are more are usually collectors editions. Orange Box, Crysis, Unreal Tournament III, Command and Conquer 3, Gears of War, and BioShock where all only $50 on PC as opposed to $60 on consoles. Also don't forget that the prices for PC games go down very quickly compared to consoles.

[zircon]

Workstations arent geared for gaming they are rather specialized and sometimes they incur problems when used for other purposes. (especially the high ram versions which typically have somewhat different operating systems to access that ram) And oh BTW 1600 for a WORK STATION? Thats a crappy workstation as the ground floor on that is 5000

Not even going to respond to the rest of your post point by point, but I'll address this. I'm a music professional and I've been making music exclusively with my computer for years. A good digital audio workstation can be built for $1500, easily. There is no disputing this as I can run all of the latest cutting-edge music software easily with my rig. $5000 on a single music workstation is a complete waste, as the major hangup right now is loading more than 2GB of samples, but that is a limitation in 32-bit OSes - switching to 64bit creates compatability issues, so 8 to 16gb systems are useless. A 10k RPM system drive, lots of additional 7200 RPM storage, a very fast multicore processor, top of the line audio interface, and barebones OS install is what defines a music workstation.

In your post you basically listed all the stuff I have to do just to 'keep up with the curve' and enjoy PC gaming, requiring additional time, money, and research beyond what I do now. This is just to match the experience given to me by my Xbox 360, Wii, and PS2, which I am enjoying greatly at a combined price of less than half of what I paid for my computer. Like I said, I'll always play some types of games on the PC, but you're just wrong when you say that an average PC looks better than a nextgen console. I have an average PC (when it comes to graphics) and no, it doesn't look any better.

Microsoft's initiative with "Games for Windows" is an excellent step in the right direction, but PC gaming definitely is lagging behind console gaming in many ways.

[Sir_NutS]

My last pc upgrade cost me around 500 bucks. New vid card, new processor and an additional gig of ram (yes, pc gamers with a brain UPGRADE and reuse components that are perfectly working, it's not like we throw our old computer to the trash and spend all our money to build a new one from scratch...). back then I got an ATI x850 XT and an athlon 64 3800+. Now I am going to upgrade again, with a core 2 duo e6600, prolly more ram, and a new shiny ati hd3870, which will set me back for around 500 again.

Taking in account that I use my pc for waaay more things than just gaming, and that I get free mods and free multiplayer, and I don't have to spend money on an expensive hdtv to get high resolutions, I think it's a good deal. And well there's the fact that RTS, FPS and other types of games are incredible to play on a PC setup and so very shitty on a console.

I still love my console for the same reasons i love my pc, there are some games that I just won't get to play on a pc, and to the naysayers: PC gaming has been called dead since the 90s and it's still rocking the place and leading the way technology-wise, in ALL aspects.

[zircon]

On a side note, maybe I just haven't really watched or played enough stuff in HD or on big TVs, but I frankly have no problem playing games on an old 28-30" picture tube. I've never had a great TV and it just never struck me as a problem. Everything looks fine to me. I'm not much of a video fidelity snob I guess. Admittedly though I do much prefer using my nice headphones when gaming on my PC to using crappy built-in TV speakers (I've never had a home theater system.)

[GeckoYamori]

If you only buy 2-3 console games per year I guess it's less expensive in the long run.

I can't help but feel ripped off if I pay any more than that, especially if it's one of those games you play for a couple of weeks and then shelf, like Bioshock.
Yes, I limit myself to bargain bin titles when shopping for console games. Not even that is fullfilling sometimes. A few months ago I was looking to buy Twilight Princess for my Gamecube, hoping it had dropped in price. Every retailer were still selling it an nearly full price. I got Neverwinter Nights 2 for $25 during the first quarter of the year and it was released roughly at the same time as TP.

Today I got Unreal Tournament 3 for $35. The PS3 version was listed for nearly twice as much.

[anosou]

If you only buy 2-3 console games per year I guess it's less expensive in the long run.

I can't help but feel ripped off if I pay any more than that, especially if it's one of those games you play for a couple of weeks and then shelf, like Bioshock.
Yes, I limit myself to bargain bin titles when shopping for console games. Not even that is fullfilling sometimes. A few months ago I was looking to buy Twilight Princess for my Gamecube, hoping it had dropped in price. Every retailer were still selling it an nearly full price. I got Neverwinter Nights 2 for $25 during the first quarter of the year and it was released roughly at the same time as TP.

Today I got Unreal Tournament 3 for $35. The PS3 version was listed for nearly twice as much.

Neverwinter Nights 2 isn't nearly as popular as Twilight Princess and the gamecube version of TP was released in limited numbers. Supply and demand.

A game console typically lasts for about 5 years before a sequel to that console comes. During that time there are expensive games but most big titles (that are released in many copies) get cheap fast. There are loads of games that enter cheap on the consoles too that are still good, games you can get on the same platform you got 4-5 years ago. Also there are never issues with compatibility of OS or parts.

Not upgrading your computer for 5 years and still playing the newest games seems highly unlikely, you can do that with a console. And then the console itself is still a lot cheaper than a workstation.

Also, PS3 is very demanding on the developers. I read some article about PS3 games having massive budgets because of everything that had to do with PS3 and how it was built.. though I can't be sure. I don't care for PS3.

Thats not true. The vast majority of brand new PC games are only $50. The ones that are more are usually collectors editions. Orange Box, Crysis, Unreal Tournament III, Command and Conquer 3, Gears of War, and BioShock where all only $50 on PC as opposed to $60 on consoles. Also don't forget that the prices for PC games go down very quickly compared to consoles.

You seem to know this so I take your word for it. I just haven't been interested in buying any of those titles (all shooters or wargames, don't care much for 'em.. though I WOULD like portal) so I wouldn't know. I just know that they're still expensive.

[Bahamut]

That's ridiculous, I've got an MX510 from when they came out that works fine, a hard drive from over 4 years ago that's still in almost perfect condition, people STILL buy trinitron CRT's even though they were discontinued years ago, and if you buy a keyboard that has mechanical keys instead of rubber that degrades over time it'll probably outlast whatever type of plug it uses to connect to the computer. I still have a buckling spring keyboard from when a ps2 port was considered new and exciting.

It's actually very common for gamers to stick to the same set of peripherals and hard drive and just upgrade the core machine as necessary. I myself used the same buckling spring keyboard, 200gb hard drive, and MX510 mouse for at least the past 4 or 5 years. For the next 4 or 5 years (barring a mandatory hardware change because USB died or something) I expect to be using my G5 and G15 on my primary machine.

I'm sure I've had more computers than you, and I've taken care of them well, but I've had monitors fail on me (and have seen it happen to friends), and countless hard drive failures. Just because you have had the fortune of being able to keep the stuff doesn't mean it works like that in general.


Bullshit and bullshit again. One of my monitors, from 1995, finally died just a few months ago after (literally) 24/7 use for over 10 years and since I've been keeping the same hard drive I've only ever needed one copy of XP pro at a time. Oh and the Corsair 520HX IS a good power supply. It is, in fact, one of the BEST power supplies and is by and far (along with the bigger 620hx) one of the most popular power supplies on OCforums.

The problem with making stuff up as you go, like you did with that "kills their life" thing, is that you run the risk of doing it to somebody that actually does this for a living. But you go and keep making more and more desperate and random excuses to justify your conviction that a gaming computer costs more than $1000. I'll be laughing the whole time on my sub-$1100 quad-core gaming rig that eats xbox360 games for breakfast.

And by the way. $300 for an xbox 360 core, and about 10 $60 games is equal to one gaming PC. It looks like a better deal on the surface but unlike your 360 and games I get mods, free multiplayer, freeware games, emulated games, cheaper retail games, better framerates at higher resolutions, and most of my stuff comes with a lifetime warranty and is unlikely to ever fail. It will also still be quite good in ~4 years whereas your console will have to be replaced by then for another ~$1000 while I will be good with maybe $250 for a new graphics card.What? Everything I've said is fairly commonplace, especially hard drives. You'd have to be an idiot to not know that hard drives are quite prone to failure for example. I think you're full of the bullshit here - it is unreasonable to cripple another computer just to have a cheap gaming computer, I don't know how in the world you can justify that, especially when taking into account part life. All I've stated are well-known negatives, and then all the sudden you throw around ad hominem attacks and then don't even address the points.

As for retail pricing of games, it is not hard to avoid spending $50/60 on a game. For example, new games like Super Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty 4, and Bioshock have seen some quick price cuts/sales ($37 for the previous two just this week as well as similar or better prices in the previous weeks, and Bioshock for $40 on the 360). Blue Dragon, being only a few months old is on sale for $32 this week. I was able to preorder games like Halo 3 & Mass Effect for $40 new without strings attached (and Super Mario Galaxy & Super Smash Bros.: Brawl for $38 ). Many stellar games get cheap in less than 6 months. The pricing argument for console games is bunk.

I don't have any problem with PC games as games themselves - I have enjoyed some of my best gaming times with them (Red Alert, Total Annhilation, Unreal Tournament 2004, Diablo 2, Warcraft 3). I have a problem with the elitist PC fanboy attitude that's all too common in hardcore PC gaming, poor online gaming regulation, and probably most of all, DRM. The first & third reasons have a hand in slowly killing a once thriving industry (marginalizing others who want to play but can't due to hardware & causing problems for those who bought the game legally).

[anosou]

I don't have any problem with PC games as games themselves - I have enjoyed some of my best gaming times with them (Red Alert, Total Annhilations, Unreal Tournament 2004, Diablo 2, Warcraft 3). I have a problem with the elitist PC fanboy attitude that's all too common in hardcore PC gaming, poor online gaming regulation, and probably most of all, DRM. The first & third reasons have a hand in slowly killing a once thriving industry (marginalizing others who want to play but can't due to hardware & causing problems for those who bought the game legally).

Amen brother.

[Avatar of Justice]

I don't really consider price an issue on games. If you don't feel like paying $50-60 for a game, just wait a while for the price to go down. I don't know about anyone else, but I have a huge backlog of games to play, so by the time I actually get to what just came out today the price should've gone down. I generally only make exceptions for Final Fantasy and Guilty Gear.

[anosou]

I don't really consider price an issue on games. If you don't feel like paying $50-60 for a game, just wait a while for the price to go down. I don't know about anyone else, but I have a huge backlog of games to play, so by the time I actually get to what just came out today the price should've gone down. I generally only make exceptions for Final Fantasy and Guilty Gear.

I'm the same way. I'm still all about PS2. Trying to play FFXII, Digital Devil Saga, Dragon Quest 8, Psychonauts and a bunch of obscure titles like Steambot Chronicles all at the same time :3 at least it's cheap :D

[djpretzel]

Apples to Oranges, really - I'd much rather play RTS and FPS games on a PC, largely I suppose due to keyboard/mouse combo control scheme that, while available for consoles, takes up a lot of space, etc. I go for convenience, more often than not - if I have to set up a keyboard/mouse for UT3 on my PS3, I'm less likely to play it, whereas if they're already out for my PC (which they obviously would be)... you get the picture.

Also, any game that requires micromanagement and strategy in general - Civilization, for instance - I think works better on an LCD, at higher resolutions. Can you hook your XB360 up to an LCD via HDMI, then add a keyboard and mouse, and would it then be just as good? Maybe... but I'd much rather have my 360 hooked up to a 56" 1080p widescreen, personally.

We're talking about how PCs aren't as good as consoles at games, but the reverse of this is that consoles are no where near as good as PCs for other stuff... again, imo, but I find browsing the web on all of these devices to be painful.

Nevertheless, the line keeps blurring. DX10, for all the criticisms it (rightfully) receives, is at least an effort to create a baseline of some sort in terms of shader, etc. support, in the (perhaps vain) hopes of making the PC gaming experience more predictable, and perhaps ultimately, more affordable.

I honestly CAN envision a day when dedicated gaming consoles are a thing of the past, and computers take over the reigns. To me, it makes logical and fiscal sense, and COULD be a good thing. But that won't happen until it's ready to happen, and until then, certain types of games will fair better on consoles, others (I'd say fewer, for the record) will be more appropriate for PCs, and that's that.

In the PCs favor, even though it's a legal gray area, I still vastly prefer console emulation on PCs. Virtual Console is neat and all, and I love seeing people excited about older games, but really... if VC involved a license to the ROM itself, THAT'D be revolutionary, and awesome. Tying those games to a console that can't output above 480p (and yes, it DOES make a difference - you should see Mario 64 under Project 64 at 1080p sometime) and doesn't have myriad other features standard in most emulators is to me a non-starter.

Glad I have both, basically :nicework:

[The Pezman]

Until DJP's post I was getting very sick of this thread. The question was a nice one and I wanted to debate it, but it was going the way of most threads and descending into pointless bickering. I admit my post may have contributed to that.

Anyways, I want to try and get this thread back on track, and to do so I'd like to list the pros and cons I've heard so far:

CONSOLE PROS

- You don't have to worry about system compatibility. If a game is made for your system it will work on your system. Even if it has a couple of glitches, you can guarantee it will run
-Compared to a PC (a decent one, we've agreed, runs about $800-1500) they are considerably cheaper
-Do not need to be upgraded. All games from the beginning to the end of the system's lifetime are designed to run (hopefully optimally) on the system hardware as released

CONSOLE CONS

-You cannot upgrade the console short of buying a new or better one
-Customization (i.e. options for controls) is practically nonexistent
-All games have to be funneled through the console's company for approval. If Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo doesn't like the idea for a game, poof. It's never released
-They really are just for gaming. I don't know many people who take any other features of consoles very seriously
-You can't really interact with the games beyond playing them (i.e. can't put the Portal gun in Half-Life 2, can't make your own maps, etc.)

PC PROS

-You have a myriad of options about you want your PC to run. You can choose the best video card, or else you can hang back with a middle-of-the-road one. Same thing goes for pretty much any other components
-You can interact with the games beyond playing them (see Console cons)
-Options for control. Personally, I think this one renders the whole keyboard vs. controller question moot (YOU CAN PLUG A CONTROLLER INTO A COMPUTER)
-A higher number of available games. I'd wager that the total number of games available for PC (even discounting emulation) is significantly higher than those for consoles. Even if the PC market is lagging a good number of games are still released for PC alongside their console brethren

PC CONS

-Different components may not work very well (or at all) with each other or certain games
-Some coding/hardware inefficiencies compared to consoles (since the console game developers know exactly what the console hardware is, it's easy for them to take advantage of it)
-Require more maintenance than consoles

I've already said my piece about my preference, so right now I just want to collect thoughts and ideas together so we can act a bit more civil. Be sure to point out any additions on any front

[Calpis]

I grew up with both PC and consoles. I played all the early console (NES, SNES, Genesis) games alongside with games like Commander Keen, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, Doom, Descent, Warcraft, Full Throttle etcetera. My computer isn't the best (bought it 3 years ago and the only upgrades I've done are more RAM and a better monitor.) but I can't bring myself to play PC games anymore. It's such a hassle for me to install the game, correct any install errors, load up the game, download all necessary patches, and then tweak all the options to get optimal perfomance. (that's a big one for me, seriously) By the time I get all that done, which can run up to 1-4 hours, I don't feel like playing the game anymore/something else comes up/a friend calls and wants to do something more fun than wait for my computer to behave.

Most of the pro-PC gamers in this thread make statements about anti-PC gamers not 'meeting the curve' or 'slacking off' or whatever but that's exactly my point is that if I want to play a video game, I just want to play it and not have to work for it. Yeah, I've missed out on some good PC games over the years but I honestly don't want to spend that much time playing games anymore.

[Bahamut]

I honestly CAN envision a day when dedicated gaming consoles are a thing of the past, and computers take over the reigns. To me, it makes logical and fiscal sense, and COULD be a good thing. But that won't happen until it's ready to happen, and until then, certain types of games will fair better on consoles, others (I'd say fewer, for the record) will be more appropriate for PCs, and that's that.

I dunno...I can see the other way around happening when it comes to gaming, although not completely - cheapasses have resulted in companies like Intel releasing cheap video chipsets embedded into motherboards so that those who don't want to pay the extra for video cards could save more money.

And then we have that the userbase for console gaming is far more open to adapting different controllers, paving the way for innovation such as the Wii remote. However, PCs will always have the advantage of a keyboard for typing & thus are better suited for RTSs. I can see something like the Wii remote displacing the keyboard & mouse setup for FPSs eventually though as that type of technology can match the sensitivity of a mouse, if not better it, and is more natural to boot (unless your hand-eye coordination is that terrible).

Conversely, something like the Wii remote is also more concentration-intensive because any slight movement of your body can affect game control.

I don't think we'll ever see one thing displace the other, and how drastically different the gaming base for PC & console gaming tend to be seems to solidify the separation even more.

[yangfeili]

The way I do things is to buy a new PC every several years for super cheap, and then play the backlog of games I missed, again for super cheap.

At least that's what I had been doing. But the consoles are so crappy this generation, and I've been having so much fun with PC games lately (including some great import stuff from Falcom: it's pretty weird that the best console-style games I've played lately are on the PC), that I'm actually going to drop the cash to get myself a decent gaming laptop.

EDIT: And I guess I might also add that I've always been primarily a console gamer, and yet my "Top Ten List" would probably be at least 50% PC games, which is way out of proportion with the ratio of console:PC games that I've played (which is probably something like 95:5).

[Bahamut]

People do that with consoles too - I know plenty of cheapasses who just recently got a PS2 and are out picking up games for cheap. Now is also a great time to get an XBox or Gamecube for dirt cheap as well.

Also keep in mind that such a proportion of games played most likely is that PC-only gamers tend to be more selective about games on the PC since the price you pay is generally higher for longer.

[The Author]

The way I see it, it's inevitable that consoles and PCs will merge.

I frankly prefer console gaming because of the upgrade and keeping up to date issue. The rest is moot. I hate having to buy a new system (or at the very least upgrade it) every other year. Otherwise, PC gaming is fun (and I do play games like World of Warcraft on PC, its not like I'm a console only freak.)

[AMT]

Well, relative to their previous consoles/handhelds, not really - for example, one of my friend's Gamecubes fell from a table ~3 feet high and stopped functioning, whereas that wouldn't happen with the NES or SNES.

Once, my Gamecube fell off of a 4 foot surface onto a tile floor while I was playing; Wind Waker shot out of the tray and across the room on impact. I walked over, grabbed the disk, put it back in the tray, unpaused, and continued adventuring.

[Wintermute]

I must be like the only person in the world for whom the following is true, judging by the responses in thread:
1. I have a 5 year old PC.
2. I upgrade my drivers regularly because its extremely easy to do so.
3. I have had almost no hickups "installing" things.
4. Generally, new games choose optimal settings that work just fine for me.
5. HL2 EP2, Portal, TF2, and all the other recent games I've gotten installed and play without a hitch.


I have never experienced what you call "Installation Errors" or "Patching Issues." Its really not hard to keep your hardware up to date, and even easier to patch games these days with all their nice autopatching features.

That being said, I love my Nintendo Wii as it provides a gaming experience that I've never had before. I love my PS2 because of the catalog of great games that I'm still working through.

But I still primarily play games on my PC.

[irriadin]

I'm primarily a PC gamer, and while I can understand why people are frustrated with the hassles involved with PC gaming (i.e. beta drivers for game releases? Beta drivers for a game demo to run properly?!) the benefits outweigh the issues. While the strength of your rig determines your enjoyability somewhat, if you can learn to tolerate lower fps, you can make do with very affordable hardware.

Anyhow, I was able to run Crysis on a mix of high / very high with fps between 18-24 all the way until one part at the end, where I had to turn the graphics down to Medium. This is why I enjoy PC gaming... you can't get this on a console:

Crysis Pic 1 (http://www.irriadin.org/pix/crysis/custom-settings.png)

Crysis Pic 2 (http://www.irriadin.org/pix/crysis/Crysis%202007-12-27%2020-12-02-39.png)

Crysis Pic 3 (http://www.irriadin.org/pix/crysis/Crysis%202007-12-27%2023-18-31-54.png)

[Bahamut]

This is why I enjoy PC gaming... you can't get this on a console:

Crysis Pic 1 (http://www.irriadin.org/pix/crysis/custom-settings.png)

Crysis Pic 2 (http://www.irriadin.org/pix/crysis/Crysis%202007-12-27%2020-12-02-39.png)

Crysis Pic 3 (http://www.irriadin.org/pix/crysis/Crysis%202007-12-27%2023-18-31-54.png)


In a few years you will. IMO, supporting stuff like DRM & high hardware costs does not justify that.

Although I have to say, I'm incredibly tempted to buy a bunch of parts for a desktop I configured for $1200 from Newegg earlier today, including stuff like a 22" LCD monitor & a 750 GB hard drive, that should run most games just fine...at least for a few years.

[Faustt]

I haven't been a serious console gamer since the N64 era. Console games just seem limiting and less responsive to me. For almost every game I'd rather have a keyboard + mouse rather than a dual analogue setup (there are some exceptions like fighting games, which I don't care for a whole lot).

The most major thing for me missing from console games is the modding community. They are starting to catch up with downloadable content, but aside from some extra maps/songs/whatever PC is still where it's at. I paid $20 for the original half life and I *still* am playing new user created content.

To each his own though. It's all about having fun isn't it?

[BlueMage]

No it doesn't. I used to pay $50 for NES games, $70-$80 for new SNES games. Didn't bat an eye. Even if it used up all my monthly allowance at the time.

Then there is the ironclad fact that you don't need to upgrade consoles.

Hahahaha, hahahahaha, haahaha. Never tried to play Guitar Hero 3 out of the box, did you?

Perhaps not hardware upgrades, but this latest batch of consoles suffer all the same software upgrade limitations.

Also keep in mind that such a proportion of games played most likely is that PC-only gamers tend to be more selective about games on the PC since the price you pay is generally higher for longer.

O rly? I thought it was because I was a cheap bastard who is very picky about what he plays in the first place, and therefore only gets the games he really wants. Oh, and the fact that console media are the same price (or more expensive) than PC media. 120AUD for a PS3 game? Please, Ridge Racer isn't that good.

Also, what DRM issues? I've not yet had a DRM issue. I dunno, maybe I just take good care of my rig.

[Bahamut]

Also, what DRM issues? I've not yet had a DRM issue. I dunno, maybe I just take good care of my rig.


I've encountered plenty, such as not being able to play my legit copy of Civilization 4 with Daemon Tools open, and heard of plenty, such as the massive outcry over it in Bioshock.

[BlueMage]

See, that's the thing - I've never encountered it. Ever. As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue.

[irriadin]

In a few years you will. IMO, supporting stuff like DRM & high hardware costs does not justify that.

Although I have to say, I'm incredibly tempted to buy a bunch of parts for a desktop I configured for $1200 from Newegg earlier today, including stuff like a 22" LCD monitor & a 750 GB hard drive, that should run most games just fine...at least for a few years.

Well, I don't find DRM to be as much of an issue for games as it is for movies and other forms of entertainment. I've never had an issue related to DRM in games. Also, the thought of refusing to buy new hardware simply because it's too expensive is somewhat ridiculous. They do sell mid-range and budget cards, you know. Not everyone has to buy an 8800GTX to play PC games.

[Bahamut]

Well, I don't find DRM to be as much of an issue for games as it is for movies and other forms of entertainment. I've never had an issue related to DRM in games. Also, the thought of refusing to buy new hardware simply because it's too expensive is somewhat ridiculous. They do sell mid-range and budget cards, you know. Not everyone has to buy an 8800GTX to play PC games.


Just the principle of DRM is what I disagree with, although I've had plenty of issues with DRM across the board (even back in the SNES era on the SNES at times). There are plenty of stories out there with issues about DRM in games such as forcing people to reinstall Windows (a more extreme example). Or a more closer to home example, the ridiculousness of not being able allowed to play Bioshock if it's your brother's copy and you have a different user name on the computer. Even worse, acceptance of these limitations has a tendency to encourage companies to go a step further, which is something that should be done without.

I do know about cheap video cards - I swear by $100 ones since anything more is a bit outrageous to pay for. However, the price of keeping up with all the components to have full access to the range is quite an expense for frankly not terribly many new games I feel is worth playing - the cream of the crop for PC games tend to keep the requirements much more reasonable anyway. For example, Doom 3 when it came out - I had a desktop I paid $1400 for 7 months beforehand, and it couldn't run it past 5 frames per second. Such games are shining examples of the inexcusable philosophy amongst some game developers that make PC gaming extraordinarily expensive to keep up just to play certain games.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Hahahaha, hahahahaha, haahaha. Never tried to play Guitar Hero 3 out of the box, did you?

Perhaps not hardware upgrades, but this latest batch of consoles suffer all the same software upgrade limitations.

"perhaps not hardware upgrades".

Wow. Thanks for proving ALL my points.

And taking 5 seconds for auto-downloading/updating patch is nothing compared to manual patching you typically SHOULD do for optimal performance for most PC patches. Console updates are inconsequential. Period.

Another deal with PC gaming, for me, is that you typically can't get reimbursed for software problems, troubleshoots and downloaded content. The customer support for those tends to be either horrendous or basically nonexistent. Compare that to getting a new PS3 or 360 if they have internal problems and getting it delivered back, I think that's one huge plus for console games. It's just a lot easier to insure as an actual gaming hardware.

[OverCoat]

the ridiculousness of not being able allowed to play Bioshock if it's your brother's copy and you have a different user name on the computer.

You could always just crack it. You own the game, you're just... modding it :)

[The Coop]

For example, Doom 3 when it came out - I had a desktop I paid $1400 for 7 months beforehand, and it couldn't run it past 5 frames per second.

...


What kind of specs were on that thing, and what kind of horrific overcharging were you hit with? :lol:

When Doom 3 was released in 2004, I had my current PC (XP HE, P4 3.0GHz), with 512MB of cheapy RAM, and an AGP Radeon 9800 Pro... and I got somewhere between 25-45fps usually with the settings on High, and a reso of 1024x768.

[Bigfoot]

Yeah, Doom 3 wasn't THAT demanding. I played it using a 9600SE(slow edition). It ran like crap until I bought an extra 512mb of RAM to give me a total of 1gig, the it ran smooth as hell.

[ContraBass Black]

After years of lurking and listening, this thread has drawn me out into the light.


The main reason I play PC games is one I don't see mentioned here. The PC platform lends itself to more complexity of play and control.

My primary example is MechWarrior 4. To play it, I use almost every key on my keyboard and several combinations. With my right hand, I steer and aim. With my left hand, I manage weapons, throttle, cameras, night vision, cooling, mission computer, IFF computer, radar, communication, jump jets, and power. The Battletech console game, MechAssault, offers little of that piloting detail, nor of the customization and other game elements. It wouldn't be at all practical with the number of buttons on a console controller.

There are other reasons I play PC games. RTS games also lend themselves to keyboard and mouse. I like games with mod communities, and refuse to pay for online play.I already have a PC, and it's good for things other than games.

The PC game market is waning, and ports of console games tend to carry all of the shortcomings of consoles, pick up none of the benefits of PC's, and have extra muddled controls and performance on top of that. Because of that, the games I play most, MechWarrior 4 and Need For Speed 4 and 5 are several years old and had dedicated PC development teams. Their online play made it easier to meet, converse, and play again with people than the games that followed, which is why today, long after their some of their sequels have died, their online play continues with fan-established matchmaking servers and mods.

[OverCoat]

The main reason I play PC games is one I don't see mentioned here. The PC platform lends itself to more complexity of play and control

Ah yes, sim games

gotta love those. Though there's not enough new good mech games out these days. Or combat flight sims.

[Bahamut]

...


What kind of specs were on that thing, and what kind of horrific overcharging were you hit with? :lol:

When Doom 3 was released in 2004, I had my current PC (XP HE, P4 3.0GHz), with 512MB of cheapy RAM, and an AGP Radeon 9800 Pro... and I got somewhere between 25-45fps usually with the settings on High, and a reso of 1024x768.

I got it when Dell had a legendary sale (in terms of how much was discounted), and quickly after bought a video card for it. The computer has been good for most other games for a while...but games like Doom 3 were too much. Games like Half Life 2 & WoW performed greatly though.

[Removed]

Sadly, I read every single page in this thread. I honestly love both consoles (minus the PS3) and PC. Lately though, my wallet just can't keep up with the PC games, haha. Really what draws me back to my PC is that it's an incredible audio setup ever since I started upgrading it, and I really can't upgrade my console beyond my 5.1 setup since it's then down to the component cables and on board audio, I suppose. Either way, I'll stick with what I can afford, which is a decently upgradable PC and my older consoles. I don't mind running games on medium as long as the gameplay still rocks. :<

Edit: Also, the PC just does a ton more things that I want it to, which has already been said a million times in this thread.

[Sir_NutS]

I got it when Dell had a legendary sale (in terms of how much was discounted), and quickly after bought a video card for it. The computer has been good for most other games for a while...but games like Doom 3 were too much. Games like Half Life 2 & WoW performed greatly though.

uh wut? when doom3 came out i played it on decent settings with a really, really shitty video card for the time, and hey, HL2 and Doom3 shared almost the same system requirements...

I don't know how paying for such a expensive pc got you so shitty results. Maybe you didn't know wtf you were getting. Do some research first. And this is why we don't buy WHOLE PCs, we just upgrade what's necessary. Your arguments are getting ridiculous as no one who spends 1400 on a pc right now wouldn't be able to get cutting-edge games like crysis or COD4 running on decent settings.

But yeah, another thing about PC games: ever tried to play your favorite NES game on an xbox360? oh yeah you can't. Unless you have a Wii. But even then you have to plug it and pay for the game you bought years ago, again, to download it and play it on a different setup than when you played it on your old rusty NES. But hey guess what, I was just playing Leisure Suit Larry and monkey Island last night. On my actual PC, not the old IBM 386 I had when i used to play these. I didn't have to pay for them again, I didn't have to switch consoles, just install and play, and they played exactly how they used to back then. Backwards compatibility on consoles? meh.

[Bahamut]

uh wut? when doom3 came out i played it on decent settings with a really, really shitty video card for the time, and hey, HL2 and Doom3 shared almost the same system requirements...

I don't know how paying for such a expensive pc got you so shitty results. Maybe you didn't know wtf you were getting. Do some research first. And this is why we don't buy WHOLE PCs, we just upgrade what's necessary. Your arguments are getting ridiculous as no one who spends 1400 on a pc right now wouldn't be able to get cutting-edge games like crysis or COD4 running on decent settings.

I wasn't the only one who had issues - I knew plenty who did and they knew what they were doing. My video card was a cheap $100 ATI Radeon 9200 at the time, and probably was what was the downside (it sported a P4 2.66 Ghz CPU, 1 or 2 GB of RAM - I forget -, and other nice stuff), but I wasn't about to shell out close to as much as a console for a video card to play a game built with a ridiculous philosophy in mind. And again, I'm looking to potentially buy a computer atm that I configured (building from scratch) for $1200 that should be pretty solid for games & have the ridiculous hard drive space I crave. I miss PC gaming (& Windows oddly enough), but the cost of entry is potentially prohibitive for me atm.

But yeah, another thing about PC games: ever tried to play your favorite NES game on an xbox360? oh yeah you can't. Unless you have a Wii. But even then you have to plug it and pay for the game you bought years ago, again, to download it and play it on a different setup than when you played it on your old rusty NES. But hey guess what, I was just playing Leisure Suit Larry and monkey Island last night. On my actual PC, not the old IBM 386 I had when i used to play these. I didn't have to pay for them again, I didn't have to switch consoles, just install and play, and they played exactly how they used to back then. Backwards compatibility on consoles? meh.

Piracy should not be included as a legitimate argument...especially on OCR of all places.

[AMT]

Piracy should not be included as a legitimate argument...especially on OCR of all places.

He's not talking about piracy. Both of his examples were old PC games. He's saying that he can play old PC games on his current PC; I can play Commander Keen, Doom, Starcraft, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, Morrowind, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Oblivion, and Crysis all on one machine. Consoles can't do that for the most part.

[Bahamut]

He's not talking about piracy. Both of his examples were old PC games. He's saying that he can play old PC games on his current PC; I can play Commander Keen, Doom, Starcraft, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, Morrowind, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Oblivion, and Crysis all on one machine. Consoles can't do that for the most part.

Oh, I misread it when I saw a mention of NES. That is true, although personally, I rarely go back to older games - there's just too many newer games that get neglected as it is.

[BlueMage]

"perhaps not hardware upgrades".

Wow. Thanks for proving ALL my points.

I did nothing of the sort - it's not a point of contention that console hardware does not require upgrading as PC hardware does. However, the console traditionally required NO upgrades, software or otherwise, nor online activations, nor anything else of the like. Simply, this means that if anything, PCs and consoles now share a similar limitation.

And taking 5 seconds for auto-downloading/updating patch is nothing compared to manual patching you typically SHOULD do for optimal performance for most PC patches. Console updates are inconsequential. Period.

Bullshit. Patching a modded X360 leads to a useless X360. Hardly inconsequential. Yet some games require that update. I'm sorry, what was that about not requiring upgrades?

Another deal with PC gaming, for me, is that you typically can't get reimbursed for software problems, troubleshoots and downloaded content. The customer support for those tends to be either horrendous or basically nonexistent. Compare that to getting a new PS3 or 360 if they have internal problems and getting it delivered back, I think that's one huge plus for console games. It's just a lot easier to insure as an actual gaming hardware.

I'm going to point out that it seems to be a far more likely if in the case of the X360 and PS3 vs most PC hardware. And it's more the way you approach the issue of your warranty. To date, I've never been screwed over on warranty for any of my PC hardware in the long-run.

[Least100Seraphs]

Modding a machine is done largely (almost solely, these days) for the purpose of piracy or cheating - and if you mod your machine then you are agreeing to the risks. It's not like MS has surprised or tricked you with their online service, either. They make it clear in the ToS that only unmodified machines are authorised to go on the Xbox Live service.

[big giant circles]

i'm fairly indifferent. i can aim infinitely better with a mouse than i can with thumbsticks. that's my only logic.

[uthlu]

This seems almost like asking "is xbox or Gamecube better?" Both consoles and PCs have their own ups and downs -- and their own set of exclusive games. I've yet to see a Mario game on the PC, but it would also be hard to include a good RTS game on a console. Likewise, having more options CAN be a good thing (being able to select any type of unit in Rise of Nations with a single key), but simplicity also has it's advantages (Devil May Cry 3 has an awesome battle system -- with only a few buttons used). While you don't have to upgrade a console, and are guaranteed that games for it WILL work, you do have to buy a completely new system when the next gen comes out. Depending on what you plan on getting, it can be pricey if you get it immediately. However, PCs don't have that clearcut next-gen line, and you can usually keep the bulk of your hardware when upgrading, even though this means you aren't always guaranteed a game for PC will work on your PC (my onboard graphics card was powerful enough to run Doom 3 stat-wise, but proved incompatible). The same goes for the bulk of PC games as well -- moddability and patchability. If you buy a console game with a terminal glitch, you're generally stuck.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it all comes down to what you prefer.

And I'm a bit more of a console fan, though I also have my fair share of good PC games too.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I did nothing of the sort - it's not a point of contention that console hardware does not require upgrading as PC hardware does. However, the console traditionally required NO upgrades, software or otherwise, nor online activations, nor anything else of the like. Simply, this means that if anything, PCs and consoles now share a similar limitation.

No they don't. Auto updates that does everything for you with perfect function is not even close to the amount of updating we all had to do for PC games since the Doom days. Also, you don't need to log online for almost no console games except for something like Phantasy Star Universe. That isn't much of a point to make. So a few console games are like PC games. But with almost none of the similar hassles otherwise.

Bullshit. Patching a modded X360 leads to a useless X360. Hardly inconsequential. Yet some games require that update. I'm sorry, what was that about not requiring upgrades?

I never said anything about modding. And since when was modding consoles ever a necessary experience? Never.

I'm going to point out that it seems to be a far more likely if in the case of the X360 and PS3 vs most PC hardware. And it's more the way you approach the issue of your warranty. To date, I've never been screwed over on warranty for any of my PC hardware in the long-run.

Statistically, the console problems are way overblown. Even at the worst times for the 360, the statistics were approximately at the MOST, 2% of all the millions of consoles. And the vast majority of them were eligible for refund or replacement. Compare that to the constant problems most PCs face no matter how much you try to avoid them (my CD/DVD player exploding. Literally EXPLODING was pretty spectacular. I never came across anything like that with any consoles, ever). And that's not mentioning the neverending stream of viral attacks even when I'm running three virus/spam detectors at once.

I don't see this as any sort of bashing for PC games. It's just reality. I still lean towards console games as THE gaming systems, but I'm in no way bashing PC games. But if you're in it only to play games, it is for a fact more of a hassle than just opening a box and plugging a system in.

I mean, look at it the other way, and it's for a fact that console games aren't as easy to openly modify or manipulate using a controller compared to the keyboard (not a bash on controllers since I prefer them. It's just not as complex that's all). Both have their pros and cons that way. And by the numbers, the vast majority of gamers steer towards console gaming for a reason. I doubt they do that because 'games are simpulrrr hurrrr'.

[Ferret]

I'd still like to at least have the left half of a keyboard and a trackball for playing FPSes. It's just what I'm used to, that's all, I'm in no way incapable of playing games without keyboard/mouse. In fact I prefer a controller for most games, especially flight sims, though the Descent/Freespace games are probably better off with the infinite combinations afforded by a keyboard. And god help us if someone makes a Battlestar Galactica flight sim...at least one based on the new BSG.

The fliptacular Viper II! Performing acrobatics that would tear an atmospheric fighter to shreds in an instant!!

[Fishy]

i'm fairly indifferent. i can aim infinitely better with a mouse than i can with thumbsticks. that's my only logic.

I simply can't stand FPS games on consoles for this reason. They will forever be fail without a mouse and keyboard, and yes I know most consoles can do this now but if my PC is good enough to run the same games (and usually can be bought for less $$) then they are kind of obsolete. This is my breakdown:

PC plays:

FPS
RTS
MMO
Emulaturs

Console plays:

Adventure/RPG
Sports
Driving

[I-n-j-i-n]

I simply can't stand FPS games on consoles for this reason. They will forever be fail without a mouse and keyboard, and yes I know most consoles can do this now but if my PC is good enough to run the same games (and usually can be bought for less $$) then they are kind of obsolete.

I think that's a silly thing to say when many FPS games nowadays are designed to play on a console just the same. Call of Duty games for example, made the conversion more than well. It plays identically the same as it does for the PC to me.

Console plays:

Adventure/RPG
Sports
Driving

Funniest three lines I've ever seen. What?

[BlueMage]

No they don't. Auto updates that does everything for you with perfect function is not even close to the amount of updating we all had to do for PC games since the Doom days. Also, you don't need to log online for almost no console games except for something like Phantasy Star Universe. That isn't much of a point to make. So a few console games are like PC games. But with almost none of the similar hassles otherwise.

Hassle I hear you say. What hassle? You get the patch, you click the button, and off it goes. You just have the choice about whether you install the patch or not (example, I personally prefer the unpatched version of System Shock 2). Beyond that, the only hassle I've encountered was with mods, and then, more a case of weeding the worthwhile from the piss-weak.


I never said anything about modding. And since when was modding consoles ever a necessary experience? Never.

Given that I find the cost of purchasing most game media ridiculous, I'm going to go out on a limb here and call it fairly necessary. Let us not forget the hassle of importing if you wish to go the purely legal path, nevermind ensuring your system is compatible with the game you imported.

Statistically, the console problems are way overblown. Even at the worst times for the 360, the statistics were approximately at the MOST, 2% of all the millions of consoles.

I couldn't care less - 2% of several millions is still on the order of tens of thousands - significant.

And the vast majority of them were eligible for refund or replacement.

Huzzah!

Compare that to the constant problems most PCs face no matter how much you try to avoid them

What problems? No, really, what problems? Maybe it's because I live in the magical wonderland of Australia that I'm not subjected to what PC gamers in other nations clearly are, but I'm not sure I quite understand what problems you refer to.

my CD/DVD player exploding. Literally EXPLODING was pretty spectacular. I never came across anything like that with any consoles, ever

Jesus fucking Christ what did you DO to that poor thing to make it do that?

And that's not mentioning the neverending stream of viral attacks even when I'm running three virus/spam detectors at once.

Never ending? What, you click every single .exe that comes into your inbox? This "never-ending" stream you talk about is hype - browse intelligently, sufficiently obfuscate your email, and you won't be subject to this. Common sense.

I don't see this as any sort of bashing for PC games. It's just reality. I still lean towards console games as THE gaming systems, but I'm in no way bashing PC games. But if you're in it only to play games, it is for a fact more of a hassle than just opening a box and plugging a system in.

Uh, yeah? Where did I ever say it wasn't more of a hassle. Pardon my geekiness, but that's always been half the fun - getting things just right. Must be my perfectionist streak at work again, but knowing I got the game running by my hand alone is significantly more satisfying than just popping it in and watching the pretty colours.

I mean, look at it the other way, and it's for a fact that console games aren't as easy to openly modify or manipulate using a controller compared to the keyboard (not a bash on controllers since I prefer them. It's just not as complex that's all).

Both have their pros and cons that way.

Granted.

And by the numbers, the vast majority of gamers steer towards console gaming for a reason. I doubt they do that because 'games are simpulrrr hurrrr'.

I have a theory on that. You probably won't like it. Anyone who espouses the "wisdom of the masses" definitely won't like it.

[Fishy]

I think that's a silly thing to say when many FPS games nowadays are designed to play on a console just the same. Call of Duty games for example, made the conversion more than well. It plays identically the same as it does for the PC to me.

I didn't say it doesn't play the same, I said I'd much rather play it using a mouse and keyboard, and my laptop has both of these. FPS games are annoying on console controllers to me.

Funniest three lines I've ever seen. What?

I'm saying these are the types of game I usually end up on a console playing. Final fantasies and similar, platformers, EA sports games and racing games. The other list is the type of games I usually end up on a PC playing. Its my personal preferance. How is that funny?

[Kureejii Lea]

I'm saying these are the types of game I usually end up on a console playing. Final fantasies and similar, platformers, EA sports games and racing games. The other list is the type of games I usually end up on a PC playing. Its my personal preferance. How is that funny?

Because this is turning into a bitch-fest and everything is apparently viewed as antagonism?

[Fishy]

Because this is turning into a bitch-fest and everything is apparently viewed as antagonism?

True, all opinions are facts to be disproven on the internet.

[Woe Is You]

No they don't. Auto updates that does everything for you with perfect function is not even close to the amount of updating we all had to do for PC games since the Doom days.


Actually, software-wise, automatic updating has been standard on the PC for a while now. Also, Steam, despite its early suckiness, does its things really well these days. Updates are automatic and if your drivers are out of date, you'll get a dialog box asking whether you want to download new ones. There's been lots of push towards these things work with less hassle and thank god for that.

Hardware is a PC-only problem, I admit, but lots of PC games get released that don't require much from the PC. Aquaria, Defcon and Sam & Max, for instance.


And by the numbers, the vast majority of gamers steer towards console gaming for a reason. I doubt they do that because 'games are simpulrrr hurrrr'.

Actually, despite you thinking it's a completely stupid idea, I do think it has some merit. How else do you explain the literal explosion of party games, singing games and generally games that require you to spank buttons in a preset order really really fast (Guitar Hero and Beatmania)?

[The Coop]

What problems? No, really, what problems? Maybe it's because I live in the magical wonderland of Australia that I'm not subjected to what PC gamers in other nations clearly are, but I'm not sure I quite understand what problems you refer to.

I've been following this argument for a while, and figured I'd hop in to post a few problems that console users (up until recently) really didn't have to contend with...

- Graphics/audio/bios/etc. driver updates that require each file being installed to not be corrupted or put in the wrong place. Otherwise, your PC refuses to work right in some fashion.
- Malware, viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, and of course, the occasional hack attack that affect how well you're system functions.
- OSs that decide to stop working, and require a reinstall... or perhaps a destructive restore.
- The need to make sure your OS/graphics card/audio card is supported by the software you just bought.
- The need to wait for a company's video drivers to properly support the game and/or graphics card you just bought.
- Having a system that meets all the requirements, but it still can't run a given game made for that system.
- Having your older games become unplayable when a new OS comes out.
- Adjusting in game settings, or graphics card/audio settings, to get a game to run.
- Having to wait for a patch to fix some aspect of the game so it does what it's supposed to.


As I said, a lot of that stuff wasn't an issue for console gamers until the 360/PS3 came along. If you had an XBox, and you bought an XBox game, it was going to run as long as your system worked. There have always been missed bugs in games, but PC games have suffered a lot more from those missed bugs than console games. Granted, now console games are doing their best to catch up since they too can be patched, but I believe those are some of the problems I-n-j-i-n was referring to. Some folks see them as regularly occurring problems, others have never had those issues. It's all going to stem from personal experience.



As for me, I personally don't assign genres to a given system. I'll happily play any RPG, FPS, RTS, flight game, or whatever that I'm interested in, on whatever system it's on. I just go for the version that turned out the best overall if it got a multi-system release :-)

[I-n-j-i-n]

Hassle I hear you say. What hassle? You get the patch, you click the button, and off it goes. You just have the choice about whether you install the patch or not (example, I personally prefer the unpatched version of System Shock 2). Beyond that, the only hassle I've encountered was with mods, and then, more a case of weeding the worthwhile from the piss-weak.

Out of the box playability is completely different. Do you ever install console games? No. I'm not talking about the more complex console games either. Just as in 99.999% of console titles.

Given that I find the cost of purchasing most game media ridiculous, I'm going to go out on a limb here and call it fairly necessary. Let us not forget the hassle of importing if you wish to go the purely legal path, nevermind ensuring your system is compatible with the game you imported.

That is a stupid argument. Because the analogy does not work. Why? Because if you pirate consoles, IT IS ALL FREE. Same for PC gaming. Why do you put the onus only on console games? I know people in my dorm who owns HUNDREDS of 360, PS3, PS2 and Xbox games by pirating them. Likewise with PCs, there is no onus on the videocard and memory and other hardware manufacturers if you fool around with your own system on your own accord. That, and if you know what you're doing with console modding, it basically is no risk. Same could be said of PC modding. It can be dangerous/problematic if you don't know what you're doing.

I couldn't care less - 2% of several millions is still on the order of tens of thousands - significant.

Ditto for all the MILLIONS of computer complaints. Overall, you can still get by them even with a virus stuck in your computer (my old computer had 300 viruses hovering in it and it worked well enough, aside from the fatal error occasionally).

Again, you're just going from one sided view on this. And the comparison simply does not work.

What problems? No, really, what problems? Maybe it's because I live in the magical wonderland of Australia that I'm not subjected to what PC gamers in other nations clearly are, but I'm not sure I quite understand what problems you refer to.

I don't even need to specify the bevy of hardware and software problems PC gamers are subject to. You can deny all you want, but going 'LALALA' over the problem isn't an argument.

Jesus fucking Christ what did you DO to that poor thing to make it do that?

Nothing. It broke by itself. I defrag every week and don't even press the power button to shut down, for Christ sakes.

Never ending? What, you click every single .exe that comes into your inbox? This "never-ending" stream you talk about is hype - browse intelligently, sufficiently obfuscate your email, and you won't be subject to this. Common sense.

I never even use mail system or open any exe's or any mails anymore. And it still comes through. It's common knowledge. Coop posted a nifty post up there that basically explains everything about it.

Uh, yeah? Where did I ever say it wasn't more of a hassle. Pardon my geekiness, but that's always been half the fun - getting things just right. Must be my perfectionist streak at work again, but knowing I got the game running by my hand alone is significantly more satisfying than just popping it in and watching the pretty colours.

Don't you think you're backtracking a bit here? Because the crux of my entire argument was about the most basic FACT that it is more of a hassle with PC gaming. Not that it's worse for it. That's what you assume, but I never even implied that. Again, tell me how a PC is a pure gaming system. Because by its very function, it isn't.

I have a theory on that. You probably won't like it. Anyone who espouses the "wisdom of the masses" definitely won't like it.

There is no battleground for gaming like some people would imagine it would. I don't get why *some* PC gamers (do I need to mention names now?) look down on console gamers as if they're another breed. They aren't. It's that simple.

I'm saying these are the types of game I usually end up on a console playing. Final fantasies and similar, platformers, EA sports games and racing games. The other list is the type of games I usually end up on a PC playing. Its my personal preferance. How is that funny?

Adventure, sports, RPGs...

If we're to dumb it down that way, there's always the action, platformers, puzzle (since when was the last time a puzzle game came out specifically for the PC that broke the bank? I can't remember), etc etc. I don't even think it's a matter of preference other than that if you're going by the actual number of genres, it is not worth comparing PC games to consoles. Go ahead and compare a lake to an ocean. Not a good comparison. And I'm saying that to DEFEND PC gaming there.

Actually, despite you thinking it's a completely stupid idea, I do think it has some merit. How else do you explain the literal explosion of party games, singing games and generally games that require you to spank buttons in a preset order really really fast (Guitar Hero and Beatmania)?

Yeah, I think you make a good point with some games that are really exploding in the general masses. Then again, most 'game of the year' types of games that sold into the millions were typically action, FPS and RPGs. Traditionally the stuff most 'hardcore' gamers play. I really don't think it's a matter of PC gamers being more hardcore either. Just that it's more of a niche market.

[FiremanJoe]

I've been playing PC FPS games solidly for about a year now, and I don't think I could go back to console FPS games... dual analog just doesn't cut it any more. I also like the convinience of being able to just start up a game immediately and be able to play online. I can go from chatting, to gaming in about 60 seconds. Perhaps if I had a tv near my PC or some other way of playing my consoles with my monitor, I'd use them more often.