Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Davros on November 21, 2010, 01:18:31 am
-
Gaming heaven = the P.C
Gaming hell = consoles
A quick reminder
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4192/pcgamers.jpg) (http://img254.imageshack.us/i/pcgamers.jpg/)
-
gaming heaven: crytek
gaming hell: nexon
[/thread]
-
Gaming heaven = the P.C
Gaming hell = consoles
Gaming heaven = the P.C
Gaming hell = FPS & RTS on consoles
most racers and arcade style games work quite well
-
Yeah, that's not really being fair to consoles. There are a few good console only titles.
-
which would be even better on PC. ;7
except for Wii and whatever the PS and Xbox versions are. until there are common motion tracking controls on PC at least. :P
-
Show me a good PC Jump'n'Run. There are a few genres where the PC is king, in other, Consoles reign supreme (Due to the fact that they come with standardized joypads that games can be tailored to, which is a luxury the PC doesn't have). And no, Mouse + KB is not always the best control option available.
In the end, both Console lovers and PC fanatics are wrong, neither side can be considered to be universally better.
-
Show me a good PC Jump'n'Run. There are a few genres where the PC is king, in other, Consoles reign supreme (Due to the fact that they come with standardized joypads that games can be tailored to, which is a luxury the PC doesn't have). And no, Mouse + KB is not always the best control option available.
I find the keyoard works exceptionally well for Jump'N'Run and beat-em-ups.
In the end, both Console lovers and PC fanatics are wrong, neither side can be considered to be universally better.
PC has better overall quality and depth of games. Consoles are cheaper and you can play with a gang of 4.
-
I find the keyoard works exceptionally well for Jump'N'Run and beat-em-ups.
Ummm, okay. Doesn't change that keyboard and mouse is not always the best control method.
PC has better overall quality and depth of games.
Aren't opinions grand? I myself hold fairly much the opposite. Especially in light of the ****ty PC-ports of console games lately.
-
I definitely feel that certain genres, primarly FPS and RTS games, are by far at their best when played on a PC, but there are other genres that just don't feel right without holding a controller and sitting in front of your TV. Platformers, fighters, and general action games have always seemed more right on a console to me, and the fact that the vast majority of the standouts in those genres are console-exclusive backs that up.
-
*Tries to imagine playing Starcraft 2 on a joypad*
:shaking:
-
I find the keyoard works exceptionally well for Jump'N'Run and beat-em-ups.
Ummm, okay. Doesn't change that keyboard and mouse is not always the best control method.
Works for me for any game I've played so far. I even find that I can control my fighter better with the keyboard and with a joystick (I got a good one to boot) in FS2.
Regardless, there's gamepads for the PC too...
PC has better overall quality and depth of games.
Aren't opinions grand? I myself hold fairly much the opposite. Especially in light of the ****ty PC-ports of console games lately.
So you judge the PC based on games developed for the console? What rubbish.
PC as a platform offers more customaizability and flexibility - the games can be larger in scope, in depth, in breadth.
-
PC as a platform offers more customaizability and flexibility - the games can be larger in scope, in depth, in breadth
None of which means that they are, in fact, better. Nor are they frequently what you're showing off here. Actually, I'd wager that a good portion of sales and perhaps slightly less of the pool of what's popular on the PC platform today is made up of said ****ty ports from console.
So, really, I'm basing my opinion on how a slew of bad console ports impact the overall quality of the pool of games available to a PC user.
-
How the hell did this turn into a PC vs console debate?
Everyone has their own opinions especially considering what kind of games they like.
I personally like both...
Anyway, sorry to re-derail. I dunno about hell, but gaming heaven is Mario Kart 64 on a couch with three scantily clad college girls. Actually, that's probably normal heaven too.
That sounds awesome! XD
ah, the good ol'days of Mario Cart... :D
-
Can we all--okay, most of us--agree that a PC v console debate is silly?
Show me a good PC Jump'n'Run.
It's not exactly my genre, but assuming you're talking about sidescrolling platformers, there are more than a few. VVVVVV has a good rep, for one.
-
Cave Story?
-
iji
-
which would be even better on PC. ;7
except for Wii and whatever the PS and Xbox versions are. until there are common motion tracking controls on PC at least. :P
clicky (http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/)
i really dont know why they try to push it as a head tracking only gizmo, with the right software it could do much much more. most of the new motion tracking systems are essentially infrared cameras.
Show me a good PC Jump'n'Run.
clicky (http://www.tagap.net/)
There are a few genres where the PC is king, in other, Consoles reign supreme (Due to the fact that they come with standardized joypads that games can be tailored to, which is a luxury the PC doesn't have). And no, Mouse + KB is not always the best control option available.
In the end, both Console lovers and PC fanatics are wrong, neither side can be considered to be universally better.
what i like about pcs is the fact that controls arent standardized. there are lots of control options. various joysticks, keyboards, mice, gamepads, and we also have things like trackir. a little hacking and anything becomes an interface. consoles essentially force you into a single control layout (except for perhaps the wii which has a ****load of control options). the new ps3 motion controllers are somewhat laughable, the kinect looks good on paper, in that it doesnt require any props or markers. what i dont see for consoles is a lot of traditional control options. seems like you have to choose gamepads and motion controllers. last console i owned was a sega saturn, which had a fairly decent joystick option. it was the only console in the early 32 bit era that had any simulation games at all. it rather disappointed me when it flopped. i grew up back in the 90s when joysticks took up an entire row in the computer store.
consoles could support keyboards, mice and joysticks, and pcs could support motion controllers and gamepads. for me the real thing that sets pcs apart from consoles is graphics quality. sure it will cost you to have those graphics, but the potential is there. consoles lagged in graphics and it took the current generation of consoles to even threaten pc gaming. pc gaming is starting to recover. but even this difference is starting to blurr.
the real major difference is in fact in the gamers themselves. console gamers like to drop in the disc and go. they dont mind being forced into a rigid environment where they have very little choice over what goes into their system, and what games gets made for it. only choice they make is what system to buy. pc gamers want more control, they want to make and play mods, they want better input options, they want to be able to build and tune their own machines like a gearhead would do to an old muscle car. any genre could work on any platform, its really just a matter of whatever philosophy the console designers had in mind when designing their hardware that traps em into a game style. and the ps3/360 adoption of motion controllers shows that they can be willing to change if they see money in it.
this even slices up the genres of games available to each. pc gamers want more complex games, while console gamers like to keep it somewhat simple. cant really say one is better than the other. i can only tell you which i prefer.
-
PC as a platform offers more customaizability and flexibility - the games can be larger in scope, in depth, in breadth
None of which means that they are, in fact, better.
On average? Or at the extremes?
The majority of everything is trash, so no. But a media is generally judged by the best works it has to offer. The best of the best.
And PC has some glorious titles that put anything on consoles to shame. I've been surrounded with consoles and computers since the days of Commodore 64 and ZX spectrum. I've played on both A LOT.
-
Everything a Concole can do, PC can do better or at least the same + PC comes with more not jsut gaming stuff :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3xwDDLuLcY
-
Consoles are nice, its made to hook up directly to your TV with no fuss, and more importantly the majority of games are made to run with no issues on the machine. There isn't some constant hardware/software arms race where your rig becomes obsolete every couple years. Sure it can't play some of the more complex input driven games like RTS and hardcore flight sims but it handles everything else pretty easily.
-
both have advantages, but the console's greatest strength (simplicity) is also its greatest weakness.
If you prefer complexity (depth) then PC's are better, and if you want simple fun time, then consoles are better.
that's how I see it.
-
Show me a good PC Jump'n'Run. There are a few genres where the PC is king, in other, Consoles reign supreme (Due to the fact that they come with standardized joypads that games can be tailored to, which is a luxury the PC doesn't have). And no, Mouse + KB is not always the best control option available.
But it is for FPS games. Why do you think all console games have Auto Aim while the PC versions do not?
both have advantages, but the console's greatest strength (simplicity) is also its greatest weakness.
If you prefer complexity (depth) then PC's are better, and if you want simple fun time, then consoles are better.
that's how I see it.
Me too.
Still, I don't get the 'Console/pc exclusive' thing in some cases. Many games that run on a console (Halo, Gran Tourismo < Yealous at a girl I know for having a PS3 and thus having the potential to buy this game) ) could run easily on a PC, and many PC games could run easily on console.
-
They don't all have auto-aim, and if they do, I turn it off.
Keyboard and mouse with an FPS is so jittery it breaks the immersion for me on computer.
-
They don't all have auto-aim, and if they do, I turn it off.
Keyboard and mouse with an FPS is so jittery it breaks the immersion for me on computer.
Console controllers are so blunt that it breaks immersion for me.
-
Up the sensitivity. :P
-
Wait hold on, how the hell is a keyboard and mouse or a console controller immersive? :P
Last time I checked neither exactly simulate real life.
-
They are different kinds of machines though, I quite enjoyed playing Railshooters on the Wii with the Zapper whilst in front of the TV downstairs, but I'd feel silly doing that in front of my monitor, and doing so would be difficult because my monitor is on a desk much closer to me than the TV would be, but in the other direction, I'd much rather play RTS and City Builders on a Computer with a mouse and keyboard than try to arse around with a Playstation controller or the like for it.
-
Gaming heaven = the P.C
Gaming hell = consoles
A quick reminder
(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4192/pcgamers.jpg) (http://img254.imageshack.us/i/pcgamers.jpg/)
Boooooo!!!
-
The way I see it, you can make a PC do anything a console does, if it weren't for console-locked titles (usually to deter piracy, but often because it's too hard; see Uncharted 2). You want a controller? Buy one with a USB plug. You can even get flight joysticks and steering wheels. You want to run 4-way split screen? How about >4-way LAN? You like Wiimotes? It's already hacked to work on PC.
PS3 might eventually become the exception, since its hardware is so radically different (and is technically superior to any computer setup that exists right now, if only developers could figure out how to use it properly), but for now, the main restriction is what games are available for what systems. For general gaming, use a PC. If you really like certain titles (Halo Reach or something), get the console for it.
-
PS3 might eventually become the exception, since its hardware is so radically different (and is technically superior to any computer setup that exists right now, if only developers could figure out how to use it properly)
This is kind of an enduring myth. The PS3 has some weird bottlenecks, and while it can pull off some good stuff, it's not wildly out there.
-
PS3 might eventually become the exception, since its hardware is so radically different (and is technically superior to any computer setup that exists right now, if only developers could figure out how to use it properly)
This is kind of an enduring myth. The PS3 has some weird bottlenecks, and while it can pull off some good stuff, it's not wildly out there.
The PS3 had already been antique-ified before it came out due to the release of Nvidia's 8800s :D.
(Or that is what Nvidia said anyway :P)
-
by the time any console hits the shelf its already obsolete. the 360 was way more powerful than any previous console was in relation to what pc hardware was available at the time. it has 1/16th of the memory and one less core than my computer. my video card alone has twice the memory as the entire system. also you have the fact that the specs on the 360 are fixed and the specs on the average pc are always increasing.
-
yeah, but when many games are developed for the 360 hardware, well, its power doesn't really matter.
hell, the sequels to crysis and STALKER, and batttlefield3 are going mulitplatform.
still, the PC versions of these game *should* be a *little* better in visuals and controls. (and in BF's case, more players online, if BC2 is an indicator(but better have double players on PC))
-
still, the PC versions of these game *should* be a *little* better in visuals and controls. (and in BF's case, more players online, if BC2 is an indicator(but better have double players on PC))
Problem is, these games have been dumbed down. Them being a little better on the PC is like saying that fine wine trickled through a sewer has had a little extra spice added once it's been scooped up. The setting in Crysis 2 (linear, city-based) allows consoles to be able to handle the engine. Without making it a linear shooter, the consoles just would not run it. Other than that, they've also cut the suit modes down to two - predator and warrior or something stupid like that. "Streamlining" they call it. Basically, any game that is multiplatform is defined by the consoles in major ways, like graphics, gameplay and setting, and in my eyes, not worth getting. Metro 2033 is an exception to that rule, though. It had graphics that supplemented the gameplay perfectly by adding extra immersion.
AVP is an exception to that. You know, the new one. They boasted of DX11, tesselation, etc, but ultimately the game failed miserably gameplay-wise. No crouch, forced auto-aim, quicktime events, automated gameplay(press x to kill opponent), and what I think was like 4 levels in multiplayer, with a few more being available if you payed for it. Oh, and P2P servers lolololololol.
It's sad to see stuff like this from developers who USED to make good games. The consoles have really poisoned the market.
-
You want to run 4-way split screen? How about >4-way LAN?
How are those two situations in any way comparable? People sitting in front of separate monitors, possibly in different rooms, is a completely different experience than a few friends huddled in front of the same TV, throwing down all sorts of smack-talk (and possibly the occasional bit of physical violence). For my money, at least, split-screen multiplayer is the far more enjoyable atmosphere, and I'll never understand why so few PC titles have implemented it. And on a related note, how many people out there actually have four gaming-caliber PCs at their disposal to LAN on?
As far as the raw power of console hardware goes, I feel like programming in that sort of environment can create certain benefits just by the closed nature of the system. Anyone who's played PC games within the last five years or so knows that there's a ton of optimization that simply isn't happening...game developers as a whole seem to have eschewed tweaking and fine-tuning in lieu of throwing more RAM and beefier video cards at an engine until its flaws aren't nearly as apparent. When you're instead limited to a fixed slate of hardware, like in the 360 or PS3, you're forced to make as many of those optimizations as possible, so that your game can maintain a smooth framerate at 1080p. In fact, it's usually only near the end of consoles' lifespans that their true potential becomes realized, as the developers who have been working on them over the years have learned to push the hardware to the absolute limit.
And again, as I've said many times in the past in topics like this...if you've never played even a small sampling of console titles, you've missed out on the majority of the best gaming franchises ever developed. The bottom line for me is that a true gamer recognizes a great game no matter what platform it's on, and enjoys it accordingly.
-
IMO the future of PC gaming isn't in high end graphics. Consoles simply win that war through and through. Yes you can get better results on a PC, but you PAY for those results by a factor of 10 ($300 vs a $3,000 ultra high end PC).
The future of PC gaming is in innovative titles that can run on any machine - Minecraft, for example. That's the power of PC's - even if you don't have a console, you DO have a computer.
-
I share Mongoose's viewpoint for the most part.
People sitting in front of separate monitors, possibly in different rooms, is a completely different experience than a few friends huddled in front of the same TV, throwing down all sorts of smack-talk (and possibly the occasional bit of physical violence). For my money, at least, split-screen multiplayer is the far more enjoyable atmosphere...
This is one of the reasons I find consoles so attractive. Although you get a similar thing going when you LAN some older games on cheaper laptops, sat around a table with cords in every orifice and food in every other.
-
IMO the future of PC gaming isn't in high end graphics. Consoles simply win that war through and through. Yes you can get better results on a PC, but you PAY for those results by a factor of 10 ($300 vs a $3,000 ultra high end PC).
In the first place, you don't seem to recall what consoles cost when they're released. In the second place, the notion that you need to spend anything like $3k to get visuals that are dramatically better than those found on a console is simply wrong.
-
IMO the future of PC gaming isn't in high end graphics. Consoles simply win that war through and through. Yes you can get better results on a PC, but you PAY for those results by a factor of 10 ($300 vs a $3,000 ultra high end PC).
In the first place, you don't seem to recall what consoles cost when they're released. In the second place, the notion that you need to spend anything like $3k to get visuals that are dramatically better than those found on a console is simply wrong.
I concur with that. £500 (which is what $600-$800 or something like that) you can home build a PC including purchasing OS (at about the time MS launches a new version of windows otherwise you are looking at £300-£400 to build from scratch) and you will have a top end PC.
Personal experience. I bought first gen Athlon 64 with a gig of memory + mobo when the chips were bleeding edge tech (only 2 Mobos supported the chip at the time) and I spent something like £150 ($300 at the time) and assembling a PC from scratch isn't rocket science, just time consuming. the only expensive internal component I didn't buy at the time was the graphics card which I picked up later for about £70 and is the GF 6600 GT that is still serving me faithfully today.
-
IMO the future of PC gaming isn't in high end graphics. Consoles simply win that war through and through. Yes you can get better results on a PC, but you PAY for those results by a factor of 10 ($300 vs a $3,000 ultra high end PC).
In the first place, you don't seem to recall what consoles cost when they're released. In the second place, the notion that you need to spend anything like $3k to get visuals that are dramatically better than those found on a console is simply wrong.
The XBox 360 was $299.99 when it was released. In that respect, at least, you're wrong.
-
yeah, but when many games are developed for the 360 hardware, well, its power doesn't really matter.
hell, the sequels to crysis and STALKER, and batttlefield3 are going mulitplatform.
still, the PC versions of these game *should* be a *little* better in visuals and controls. (and in BF's case, more players online, if BC2 is an indicator(but better have double players on PC))
you also have to realize that the 360 hardware and os were engineered for gaming while your average pc and its os were (usually) designed for general purpose use. cycle for cycle byte for byte, the 360 no doubt does more for games than the pc can do. the only thing that makes the pc better is it (usually) has more of everything. more speed, more system/video ram, more storage, more cores (sometimes), more speed in those cores (sometimes).
source ports (or anything tagged "games for windows" for that matter) have annoyances which i consider abominations. for example crysis supported 360 gamepads, but not joysticks. some other games i bought had the same issue. trying to normalize pc games with console games like this is a very stupid idea. it certainly offends me to no end. seemingly they also force you into directx, i always rant about how old directx games are completely unstable with modern oses, while older opengl and glide, yes! GLIDE!, games chug along fine. i dont mind the inferior graphics if the gameplay is good, but how often does that happen.
-
I've always been of the opinion that without the constantly changing and growing PC Hardware market, consoles wouldn't be half as advanced as they are, each generation of console tech is actually a culmination of the constant growth of PC Tech, take out that motivator and technology in graphics and processing would most likely slow to a crawl.
-
I've always been of the opinion that without the constantly changing and growing PC Hardware market, consoles wouldn't be half as advanced as they are, each generation of console tech is actually a culmination of the constant growth of PC Tech, take out that motivator and technology in graphics and processing would most likely slow to a crawl.
That has already happened to a large extent. There have been no significant advances in game graphics for the last three years. The video cards have continued to advance during that time, but at a much slower rate than they used to 5 or 6 years ago. I think the graphics have simply peaked and have become "good enough" for most gamers. We have reached a point of diminishing returns and any major advances now will require disproportionately higher amounts of GPU horsepower.
-
consoles used to be light years behind the computers of the day, these days its more or less just a notch behind. the next wave of consoles will most likely be on par with your average gaming pcs or perhaps even better, at least initially. i wouldnt doubt that the next generation of gaming consoles might go the way of macs, and just go pure x86 machines with a proprietary gaming os.
-
consoles used to be light years behind the computers of the day, these days its more or less just a notch behind. the next wave of consoles will most likely be on par with your average gaming pcs or perhaps even better, at least initially. i wouldnt doubt that the next generation of gaming consoles might go the way of macs, and just go pure x86 machines with a proprietary gaming os.
since Playstation 2 consoles have launched at the same level tech level as PCs but it always used to be the case that the PC with its quick turnover of technology would be noticeably superior within a year
-
still, the PC versions of these game *should* be a *little* better in visuals and controls. (and in BF's case, more players online, if BC2 is an indicator(but better have double players on PC))
Problem is, these games have been dumbed down.
Some of this is engine limitations, but more of it has to do with the fact that controllers simply don't have enough buttons for a game that'll need lots of commands. Most games make do with 1 action button that's context sensitive, but I've always found that awkward.
-
The XBox 360 was $299.99 when it was released. In that respect, at least, you're wrong.
Ah, so it was. My mistake.
Of course, that version came with exactly two acessories, so you can add a good hundred or two to the price. And since it's 2005, you can add the cost of a HDTV as well, as those didn't exactly have a lot of market penetration at the time.
consoles used to be light years behind the computers of the day, these days its more or less just a notch behind.
http://fidgit.com/archives/2010/11/4_things_you_cant_do_in_the_co.php#more
In the PC version of The Sims 3, you could make grand sprawling homes full of stuff, with multiple stories and elaborate basements. As you're on your way to doing that in the console version, you'll notice a bar filling up whenever you add something. It represents the fire code. When it fills up, you're done. The fire department says so. And by "fire department", I mean your console system's memory limit.
-
IMO the future of PC gaming isn't in high end graphics. Consoles simply win that war through and through. Yes you can get better results on a PC, but you PAY for those results by a factor of 10 ($300 vs a $3,000 ultra high end PC).
In the first place, you don't seem to recall what consoles cost when they're released. In the second place, the notion that you need to spend anything like $3k to get visuals that are dramatically better than those found on a console is simply wrong.
The XBox 360 was $299.99 when it was released. In that respect, at least, you're wrong.
that was without HDD, which was the sucker model.
the passable 20GB model was 399.99
and 3000 is way more than enough for a gaming PC, I'll make do with less than 1/2 that, and be able to get monitor and good headset.
-
3000 is on its way to a good gaming laptop. A top-of-the-line rig can easily be built under 1000 dollars, though you might have to hunt around for bargains.
-
They don't all have auto-aim, and if they do, I turn it off.
Keyboard and mouse with an FPS is so jittery it breaks the immersion for me on computer.
I tried playing a FPS on a console (PS3 to be exact). Aiming with the controller is a nightmare. I got a bit better with time, but the responsiveness and precision is NOTHING compared to a good mouse.
How are those two situations in any way comparable? People sitting in front of separate monitors, possibly in different rooms, is a completely different experience than a few friends huddled in front of the same TV, throwing down all sorts of smack-talk (and possibly the occasional bit of physical violence). For my money, at least, split-screen multiplayer is the far more enjoyable atmosphere, and I'll never understand why so few PC titles have implemented it. And on a related note, how many people out there actually have four gaming-caliber PCs at their disposal to LAN on?
Yes, playing games on a console in split screen with friends is really fun. But getting several friends together to make a LAN party..even better. Of course, there's the problem of lugging your PC, having enough room and sockets to connect them all...but if you can manage that, then it's gaming paradise. Far better than split screen.
-
I wouldn't enter a Volvo Estate into a drag race any more than I'd try to fit a set of Drums into a Veyron... ;)
-
I wouldn't enter a Volvo Estate into a drag race any more than I'd try to fit a set of Drums into a Veyron... ;)
Add a couple of turbos to that estate and I would.
-
Well, I suppose it's easier to turn an Estate car into a dragster than it is to turn a sports car into a people carrier, but the analogy wasn't intended to be a precise one :p
Though come to think of it, it is easier to boost a PC's performance than a consoles ;)