[Nuke]

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.

[Flipside]

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.

[CP5670]

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.

[Nuke]

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.

[headdie]

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

[Kolgena]

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.

[mxlm]

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.

[MR_T3D]

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.

[Kolgena]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[Flipside]

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...

[MR_T3D]

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.

[Flipside]

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

Though come to think of it, it is easier to boost a PC's performance than a consoles