PC Games V.S. Console Games

[JaytodaP]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money and my computer needs to be used for writing, making projects etc. I recently bought Halo and I was pissed because I dont have the minimum graphic requirements and whatnot. It still allows me to play it and very smoothly too. Nothing beats a controller and a big screen though. And, I only have to update my console every 4 or so years so thats plenty of time to save up. But Xbox 360 is just as good as a PC since I go to wall mart and see the exact same games for both.

My friend is nuts. He built his own computer and has all this space for games. He has the most updated graphics cards and Its rigged up to his TV some how. He also tweaks his Xbox 360 so Oblivion doesnt have that horrible lag

[drunkymonkey]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money

Sorry? What on Earth are you on about? If you get a decent PC, you don't have to update it for at least three years.

[DeathKnight]

I have to say console. PC games do offer a greater variety of options and customization which is great, but not everyone is going to have the same specs. The same game will look different on different machines. However with consoles, the same game looks the same everywhere, which means everyone gets the same experience and the same handicaps that comes with the control (like in FPSes). Getting a console is overall cheaper than keeping your PC good enough to play the latest games.

Close this poll, this answer CANNOT be challenged

[drunkymonkey]

I have to say console. PC games do offer a greater variety of options and customization which is great, but not everyone is going to have the same specs. The same game will look different on different machines. However with consoles, the same game looks the same everywhere, which means everyone gets the same experience and the same handicaps that comes with the control (like in FPSes). Getting a console is overall cheaper than keeping your PC good enough to play the latest games.

Close this poll, this answer CANNOT be challenged

Actually it can.

And here we go.

What, exactly, is your point about not everyone having the same specs? Basically, I surmise that you are saying that because the graphics on consoles all look the same, they somehow are better than PC graphics, which have a huge range. That, apparently, means that the graphics on Black are better than the graphics on HL2: Episode 1, running full anti-aliasing and with HDR ramped up. It really isn't. I've never before encountered this Communist look at gaming (Ie everything the same), but neither is it true. You can get different controllers for your games console, and also you can upgrade the animations by using the 60hz mode, which not everyone has. That's really unfair! Ha!
Also: You pay fifty quid for a Xbox360 game right? 30 quid for a PC game. Over a period of three years, buying one game a month, I'm pretty sure that the cost for the console will over-lap the cost for the PC.

[DeathKnight]

I have to say console. PC games do offer a greater variety of options and customization which is great, but not everyone is going to have the same specs. The same game will look different on different machines. However with consoles, the same game looks the same everywhere, which means everyone gets the same experience and the same handicaps that comes with the control (like in FPSes). Getting a console is overall cheaper than keeping your PC good enough to play the latest games.

Close this poll, this answer CANNOT be challenged

Actually it can.

And here we go.

What, exactly, is your point about not everyone having the same specs? Basically, I surmise that you are saying that because the graphics on consoles all look the same, they somehow are better than PC graphics, which have a huge range. That, apparently, means that the graphics on Black are better than the graphics on HL2: Episode 1, running full anti-aliasing and with HDR ramped up. It really isn't. I've never before encountered this Communist look at gaming (Ie everything the same), but neither is it true. You can get different controllers for your games console, and also you can upgrade the animations by using the 60hz mode, which not everyone has. That's really unfair! Ha!
Also: You pay fifty quid for a Xbox360 game right? 30 quid for a PC game. Over a period of three years, buying one game a month, I'm pretty sure that the cost for the console will over-lap the cost for the PC.

I don't own a 360 nor do I want to.

and what 60Hz mode are you talking 'bout?

[drunkymonkey]

I have to say console. PC games do offer a greater variety of options and customization which is great, but not everyone is going to have the same specs. The same game will look different on different machines. However with consoles, the same game looks the same everywhere, which means everyone gets the same experience and the same handicaps that comes with the control (like in FPSes). Getting a console is overall cheaper than keeping your PC good enough to play the latest games.

Close this poll, this answer CANNOT be challenged

Actually it can.

And here we go.

What, exactly, is your point about not everyone having the same specs? Basically, I surmise that you are saying that because the graphics on consoles all look the same, they somehow are better than PC graphics, which have a huge range. That, apparently, means that the graphics on Black are better than the graphics on HL2: Episode 1, running full anti-aliasing and with HDR ramped up. It really isn't. I've never before encountered this Communist look at gaming (Ie everything the same), but neither is it true. You can get different controllers for your games console, and also you can upgrade the animations by using the 60hz mode, which not everyone has. That's really unfair! Ha!
Also: You pay fifty quid for a Xbox360 game right? 30 quid for a PC game. Over a period of three years, buying one game a month, I'm pretty sure that the cost for the console will over-lap the cost for the PC.

I don't own a 360 nor do I want to.

and what 60Hz mode are you talking 'bout?

It's to do with televisions. Some televisions have a 60hz mode (presumably it's been succeeded by HD) and you can use that, it gives smoother animations or something. But with Oblivion (and I think it applies to other Xbox360 games as well), you need to have a telly capable of it. I have my console (a PS2) in my bedroom, and so I have a standard small telly, which doesn't support 60hz, thus I lose out if I did want to play Oblivion on a console.

[JKTrix]

I think the 60hz mode may be PAL specific, but I'm probably wrong. I haven't heard of this before.
I never mentioned that console games will look better than PC games, that would be idiotic. PC games always had the potential to look better than any console game ever could. What I'm saying is that the 'lowest common denominator' is continually rising for a PC, while a console version generally stays the same across the board.
It's changing slightly now that the 'HD era' is here, where the game's visual quality will be different depending on your monitor, but it's still mostly the same. Traditionally, by getting a console you were guaranteed to have your game look exactly like someone else who bought the same game for the same console. There are past examples of console expansions to improve the graphics of games (N64's Expansion pak), but traditionally they stay the same.
To look at it from a 'Communist' view where everything is the same, consoles win out.
PCs can similarly be compared to capitalism: the rich get richer. If you have the funds to buy the required hardware as it is needed, your games will continue to look amazing. But if you can't keep up, you'll be stuck playing games with degenerate graphics.

As far as control is concerned, it's an optional purchase that doesn't affect the core game (except Steel Battalion). I'm an arcade stick junkie, and while I feel it does improve the control of the game it doesn't change how the game is presented.
PC upgrades are similarly optional, but they do affect the game. Sometimes it makes the difference between a pretty awesome game, or a pretty awesome slideshow.

[Madame Adequate]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money

Sorry? What on Earth are you on about? If you get a decent PC, you don't have to update it for at least three years.

Yes, but the amount of money you have to spend every three years itself outweighs the amount it costs to buy a new console, nevermind that those usually roll around on five year cycles. My PC needs an upgrade, but with the money spent sorting that all out to top-of-the-line gear, which is what I'd need to have a viable gaming PC for the next three years, I could get a 360 and a couple of games.

[Yamaneko]

NTSC (North American/Central American/Japanese) is 60Hz with 525 lines per frame. PAL (European) is 50Hz with 625 lines per frame. PAL transmissions are 50Hz interlaced, meaning 25fps. PAL also auto corrects color errors, unlike NTSC which leaves that up to the TV user. Newer PAL sets have higher refresh rates so the flickering is almost a non-issue. Regardless, the differences between PAL and NTSC are not as big as the differences seen in monitors which must have picture drawn on them by varying external video solutions. All 360's and all PS3's will have the same kind of GPU.

[drunkymonkey]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money

Sorry? What on Earth are you on about? If you get a decent PC, you don't have to update it for at least three years.

Yes, but the amount of money you have to spend every three years itself outweighs the amount it costs to buy a new console, nevermind that those usually roll around on five year cycles. My PC needs an upgrade, but with the money spent sorting that all out to top-of-the-line gear, which is what I'd need to have a viable gaming PC for the next three years, I could get a 360 and a couple of games.

Not if you consider the cost of games. PC games are normally 30 quid, and they are normally longer than console games (take the Total War series for example, or an MMO like WoW). Consider you have a PC for three years (you can get away with five if you don't mind average graphics for the last couple). You buy a game once a month. 50 quid for an Xbox360 game, right? 20 quid difference a month. over three years, that's 720 quid difference.

[DeathKnight]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money

Sorry? What on Earth are you on about? If you get a decent PC, you don't have to update it for at least three years.

Yes, but the amount of money you have to spend every three years itself outweighs the amount it costs to buy a new console, nevermind that those usually roll around on five year cycles. My PC needs an upgrade, but with the money spent sorting that all out to top-of-the-line gear, which is what I'd need to have a viable gaming PC for the next three years, I could get a 360 and a couple of games.

Not if you consider the cost of games. PC games are normally 30 quid, and they are normally longer than console games (take the Total War series for example, or an MMO like WoW). Consider you have a PC for three years (you can get away with five if you don't mind average graphics for the last couple). You buy a game once a month. 50 quid for an Xbox360 game, right? 20 quid difference a month. over three years, that's 720 quid difference.

and all quid ps2 games don't cost 50/60, they're MOSTLY in the 35-60 range, and ALOT of them are in the 20-30 quid range. So?:rolleyes2

[drunkymonkey]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money

Sorry? What on Earth are you on about? If you get a decent PC, you don't have to update it for at least three years.

Yes, but the amount of money you have to spend every three years itself outweighs the amount it costs to buy a new console, nevermind that those usually roll around on five year cycles. My PC needs an upgrade, but with the money spent sorting that all out to top-of-the-line gear, which is what I'd need to have a viable gaming PC for the next three years, I could get a 360 and a couple of games.

Not if you consider the cost of games. PC games are normally 30 quid, and they are normally longer than console games (take the Total War series for example, or an MMO like WoW). Consider you have a PC for three years (you can get away with five if you don't mind average graphics for the last couple). You buy a game once a month. 50 quid for an Xbox360 game, right? 20 quid difference a month. over three years, that's 720 quid difference.

and all quid ps2 games don't cost 50/60, they're MOSTLY in the 35-60 range, and ALOT of them are in the 20-30 quid range. So?:rolleyes2

I was referring to Xbox360. It is still more than a ten pounds difference when you consider a new PC game and a new PS2 game, and that's forgetting that PS3 games will cost 50 quid a shot.
Also: yes, you can get PS2 games for cheaper, at 20 pounds, but only if they are old. And you can get PC games for 5-10 quid as well, depending on their age.

[DeathKnight]

I love console games a lot better. I really dont feel like updating my PC every time I want a game for it. It costs way too much money

Sorry? What on Earth are you on about? If you get a decent PC, you don't have to update it for at least three years.

Yes, but the amount of money you have to spend every three years itself outweighs the amount it costs to buy a new console, nevermind that those usually roll around on five year cycles. My PC needs an upgrade, but with the money spent sorting that all out to top-of-the-line gear, which is what I'd need to have a viable gaming PC for the next three years, I could get a 360 and a couple of games.

Not if you consider the cost of games. PC games are normally 30 quid, and they are normally longer than console games (take the Total War series for example, or an MMO like WoW). Consider you have a PC for three years (you can get away with five if you don't mind average graphics for the last couple). You buy a game once a month. 50 quid for an Xbox360 game, right? 20 quid difference a month. over three years, that's 720 quid difference.

and all quid ps2 games don't cost 50/60, they're MOSTLY in the 35-60 range, and ALOT of them are in the 20-30 quid range. So?:rolleyes2

I was referring to Xbox360. It is still more than a ten pounds difference when you consider a new PC game and a new PS2 game, and that's forgetting that PS3 games will cost 50 quid a shot.
Also: yes, you can get PS2 games for cheaper, at 20 pounds, but only if they are old. And you can get PC games for 5-10 quid as well, depending on their age.

You wanna know why? Because 90% of PC games suck! I mean c'mon, what good game do they have? Hitman? and Sims? pfffft! Doesn't compete aganst Zelda/Metal Gear Solid/God Of War/Super Smash Bros./Mario/Street Fighter/Gran Turismo/Final Fanatasy

THAT'S why

[Rase]

You wanna know why? Because 90% of PC games suck! I mean c'mon, what good game do they have?

Off the top of my head: Every good RTS (Age of Empires series, Warcraft series, Starcraft series), good FPS's (Call of Duty series, Half-Life series, Battlefield series), excellent games like Worms Armeggedon, the Thief series, the Civilization series... do you want me to continue?

PC's and consoles both have their share of games that, depending on your tastes, you may like or dislike. But to pretend that 90% of PC games (or console games, for that matter) flat-out suck is simply ridiculous. Even if you don't like something, you should still be able to admit that it is good, if in fact it is. I personally don't like Street Fighter because I just don't find it fun, but I can see and admit it's a good game, just not one for me.

[DeathKnight]

You wanna know why? Because 90% of PC games suck! I mean c'mon, what good game do they have?

Off the top of my head: Every good RTS (Age of Empires series, Warcraft series, Starcraft series), good FPS's (Call of Duty series, Half-Life series, Battlefield series), excellent games like Worms Armeggedon, the Thief series, the Civilization series... do you want me to continue?

PC's and consoles both have their share of games that, depending on your tastes, you may like or dislike. But to pretend that 90% of PC games (or console games, for that matter) flat-out suck is simply ridiculous. Even if you don't like something, you should still be able to admit that it is good, if in fact it is. I personally don't like Street Fighter because I just don't find it fun, but I can see and admit it's a good game, just not one for me.

Ok and I agree. I exaggerated with the 90%. What I really meant was that the AMOUNT of GREAT games consoles have overwhelm the amount of great PC games, that's just the reality. Oh and let's not speak 'bout VARIETY.