Jimquisition: Xbox 360 and PS3 Are Just Very Crap PCs

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT
 

ForensicYOYO:
If I want to play all my PC games with a controller do I have to set the button controls every time?

Simple answer is no.

More complex answer is, you want an xbox 360 controller.
Mainly because it's the easiest. Games won't get confused as to which button is which, you just plug it in and it works, and (probably most importantly) a lot of games label their tutorials and other instructions with the 360's colour coded buttons ... which is hella confusing if you're trying to use a logitech rumblepad 2.

Sorry Jim, I take back what I said about people listening to someone with cred. Seems like the same people are saying the same thing over and over again without listening. As scrump monkey said:

Scrumpmonkey:
Massive refuting reply posts, rambling paragraphs used purely for purchase-justifying and epic amounts of groan-worthy half understood misinformation. The Jimmies of the Console gamers have truly been rustled this time. Rarely have a seen jimmies rustled so thoroughly and in such amounts.

Bravo Jim, you mad genius you, bravo. Im going to enjoy this thread.

as a hardware enthusiast i simply cannot be a console gamer, it just doesn't work that way

i enjoy tuning as much as i enjoy the results ( the gaming and fun ) and the idea that i can reset my raid stripe to suit specific applications appeals to me in much the same way an artist chooses a specific canvas weave or a mechanic a specific gear set

the same goes for software, if i can download a mod that adds more realistic lighting or scraps unnecessary clutter from a game you can bet i'll have it ( i have several for skyrim )
and it's not just about HD either, mine-craft can be made into something astounding with a few simple mods that influence game-play

it's not to say that consoles are poor, pathetic or even limited in any way
they're more consumer electronic appliances more than they are personal supercomputers
the value in theory, at least. should never be better on a console than a pc, a console exists to perpetuate the company that made it where as a pc simply exists to modify data on a drive, and just happens to run games as well it's more a piece of equipment than any one specifically built device
which makes sense because it takes about 50 different company's components to build a pc
and you can just pick all the cheapest parts and throw them together if you want
or you could spend absurd amounts to make a purpose built machine with enough flops and bandwidth to run any program in existence in real time

courses for horses, as they say

jim's real argument is the restrictions placed on consoles are making them increasingly less attractive, and frankly i agree i haven't had a console since my ps2 days i just don't see the point anymore it's no longer insert disk run and you have instant entertainment
and that was always the point of a console ( for me, at-least )

presently, i cant see a single reason to buy a console over a pc the only downside is the initial cost of a gaming specific system will be higher because your laying out upfront for the hardware
you can get a decent system for roughly £400 that will match a console and then upgrade it to great later with the money you save versus expensive console specific games titles
the problem is technical ability and know how
but really, you can google any question you have and you WILL find an answer there is literally nothing new you can do as an entry level user that someone hasn't written an essay on

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/0l6105/mega64-new-consoles

this pretty much sums it up perfectly. GREEEEED has ruined what could have been. But yet pc's have stayed the same for the most part and is not hurting as much. difference is, like jim said pc gamers are not always being ripped off and milked for every penny for shit that should be free. DLC !? at the cost of what an expansion pack used to be if not abit more and for far less content.

Last console i had before i really made the jump to PC gaming was the snes/ps1 online play with a 56k was not great but hell was still ALOT of fun.

AstaresPanda:
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/0l6105/mega64-new-consoles

this pretty much sums it up perfectly. GREEEEED has ruined what could have been. But yet pc's have stayed the same for the most part and is not hurting as much. difference is, like jim said pc gamers are not always being ripped off and milked for every penny for shit that should be free. DLC !? at the cost of what an expansion pack used to be if not abit more and for far less content.

Last console i had before i really made the jump to PC gaming was the snes/ps1 online play with a 56k was not great but hell was still ALOT of fun.

The video pretty much sums it up.

Also I lOVED gaming on 56k back in the day, even just going to a lan over a weekend with friends.

back then we played tribes/starsiege and Team fortress and CS.

Now? We play Tribes Ascend and TF2 for free online. The person in our group with the worst pc is a old laptop with a Nvidia 8600M GT 256mb graphics card, and Even he can play Tribes Ascend. Sure it's on low settings, but we all get to play.

Now people, the 8600m GT was released in 2007.
That's 5 years ago! Yet it can still play modern games, sure not maxed out so it looks amazing but he can still game. On a laptop.

Why are you listing online multiplayer as a "console specific advantage"?
That has only been a very recent development. It's stupid.
Consoles used to be all about singleplayer or, you know, getting people into your house, slapping a controller into their hand and playing the game sitting next to them.
That is something pcs still can't (or more like most devs just don't) quite do in the same way.

Consoles used to be the "online? Fuck that" option, now it is somehow a mandatory thing.
Some utterly inane console-specific problems such as online passes can be traced straight back to it.
I roll my eyes every time angry joe asks a developer for online multiplayer.

As for other advantages, consoles tend to be smaller than pcs (that's a bigger one than you may think) and they double up as dvd or blu-ray players.

oh my god i am so done with this both pc and console fanboys need to stop being butthurt over this just do what i do if you like to play games on consoles play them on consoles if you like to play games on pc play them on pc stop with the stupid pc is better then console or console is better pc pissing contest they are better for some guys and not better for some having fun and playing games is what matters can we all just get along and see that we all are just gamers no matter what we play on now iam going to play some xbox and later some tf2 on my pc

Hazy992:
Yeah I agree. If I could afford to make the jump to PCs I would. I'd keep my consoles for exclusives but I'd mainly play on PC.

Also INB4 shitstorm

Same tbh, I'm seeing less and less reason to bother with consoles, updates and patches and install times asre a pain in the ass and my PC does all of it faster, and my PC is shit.

Next gen I think I'll I have to invest time and money in learning how to be a PC gamer.

The Almighty Aardvark:

That would be the case if the minimum system requirements for Skyrim didn't require a Dual Core 2.0 GHz processor. Unfortunately I'm not to savvy with graphics cards so I really don't have a good idea on how either of those would stack up. Also keep in mind that I was buying for a laptop (I'm sorry, I don't think I mentioned this in my first post) and I was buying it a year ago. The cheapest I could find then that could run it on minimum settings were in the $1200 range.

My system cost me a total of $800, monitor included, it was built two years ago, it runs Skyrim on Ultra at 60fps. Your argument is invalid.

thank you for not being a fanboy of pc or consoles and seeing that it is games and the fun that matters not what you play it on you may now have some brownies

PC has a lot of cheap and free games out there so gaming on a budget is a real possibility once you get the initial purchase out the way (£400 for me, can run everything on max settings).

I mean, the games I play the most these days are League of Legends, Super Monday Night Combat, Blacklight: Retribution and a bunch of source mods; all these cost me absolutely nothing to play including the source mods due to getting HL2 free with an old graphics card.

Not to mention I do everything else on here too like watch movies, listen to music, do work, browse forums, watch por- ahem, well you get my idea.

With all the said, I do have a PS3 due to a couple of great games being released on it. (Demon's/Dark Souls, I'm looking at you)

Then you really didn't check at all

cornmancer:
Other than consoles never having to deal with being able to run a game or not, I too can see no reason.
Oh wait, Demon's Souls.

edit: ^And that. Local multiplayer = best multiplayer. Though I've never tried LAN, so who knows.

It's pretty cool. In my student house we all had pretty standard laptops and therefore perfectly capable of running Left 4 Dead 2. We played regularly about once a week for a whole evening with beer and pizza.

It's good because:
1) We all have laptops anyway
2) We all got L4D2 on steam sale
3) We all had a decent sized screen
4) We could download new maps when we got bored with the stock ones
5) We switched in our last term to playing TF2, which is free to play I might add, at one point getting a couple other people round and played 3v3 arena mode, which I used to think was shit, but now I think is awesome.
6) Can't wait for Borderlands 2

Well, i feared that Consoles would become more like the PC to the Point where i woudn't even bother. And now we have Additional Hardware for consoles that you have to calibrate and then it still wont work all the time.
I'm looking at the kinect here, if you haven't guessed yet.
I might be a bit overly zealos about my Controller being reliable. I don't buy wireless hardware not only because the hassle with the charging Batteries that wont keep my Mouse operating for more then 4 hours. I don't buy them because when they get wonky it will be when i'm in the little of the most difficult Bossfight i ever fought.

I'd like the Hardware i control my Games with to be as acurate and reliable as possible. That has not been the Case with old analogue Joysticks for the old flight simulators, which is why i never bothered with them.
Same thing with any motion controller: not acurate and not reliable enough. You have to calibrate them and then it wont work right. PC users are right at home.

Next thing, involuntary updates. I'm looking at the Playstation here. We all know the Problem and we all find it annoying. Funny Story here, i know People who where so angry when steam came out that they switched over to console. And they play Console to this Day.
Steam can be told to not update. So maybe some People might eventually come back to PC gaming.

Another thing is the Hardware of the consoles. Flimsy at best. No really, this is buildquality that the Customer shouldn't tolerate. People who buy Consoles have no right to complain about modern tech breaking down right after the Guarantee runs out.

The PC Market is being slowly killed off by opyprotection software that acts like a Virus, lacking Ports from the Console and Other Software issues. Like Drivers.

But the Consoles really do give the PC a run for its Money when it comes to annoy and rip off the Customer.
Well, on the PC, there is a slight Chance that someone will make a Tool that fixes some issues.

Captcha: Goody two Shoe. Wut?

1nfinite_Cros5:
I wouldn't say consoles start as very crap PCs. Most of their launches, I'll admit, are rather decent because of the launch titles that invite the consumer to try it out with few hassles.

No. I'd say that most consoles are now trying to be like PCs. With updates, patches, online, etc., but don't do it quite as well because they're usually closed platforms bound to a corporation. PCs, on the other hand, are open and the owners of games are free to do whatever they want with their game.

How exactly are you disagreeing with him here, since your saying "No they are not shit PC's" followed by "They are bad PC clones". I just don't get this honestly, if you care to elaborate could you?

Madman123456:
Well, i feared that Consoles would become more like the PC to the Point where i woudn't even bother. And now we have Additional Hardware for consoles that you have to calibrate and then it still wont work all the time.
I'm looking at the kinect here, if you haven't guessed yet.
I might be a bit overly zealos about my Controller being reliable. I don't buy wireless hardware not only because the hassle with the charging Batteries that wont keep my Mouse operating for more then 4 hours. I don't buy them because when they get wonky it will be when i'm in the little of the most difficult Bossfight i ever fought.

I'd like the Hardware i control my Games with to be as acurate and reliable as possible. That has not been the Case with old analogue Joysticks for the old flight simulators, which is why i never bothered with them.
Same thing with any motion controller: not acurate and not reliable enough. You have to calibrate them and then it wont work right. PC users are right at home.

Next thing, involuntary updates. I'm looking at the Playstation here. We all know the Problem and we all find it annoying. Funny Story here, i know People who where so angry when steam came out that they switched over to console. And they play Console to this Day.
Steam can be told to not update. So maybe some People might eventually come back to PC gaming.

Another thing is the Hardware of the consoles. Flimsy at best. No really, this is buildquality that the Customer shouldn't tolerate. People who buy Consoles have no right to complain about modern tech breaking down right after the Guarantee runs out.

The PC Market is being slowly killed off by opyprotection software that acts like a Virus, lacking Ports from the Console and Other Software issues. Like Drivers.

But the Consoles really do give the PC a run for its Money when it comes to annoy and rip off the Customer.
Well, on the PC, there is a slight Chance that someone will make a Tool that fixes some issues.

Captcha: Goody two Shoe. Wut?

Is it alright if I just chalk your whole post up to "Doesn't fully understand what he / she is saying" Because you don't.

I'll tackle this from the bottom of your post up.

1. PC's aren't entering ads into their games that will stop your play like Consoles do. PC's do have more problems but has shown that it is capable of bringing up completely new genres into the public's eye ala Minecraft's Building n' Mining Genre and MOBA.

2. This is wrong, steam had 4,622,753 as of 10:48 on the 8th of July. Four million users that logged into Steam, four mil is not a small number by any stretch. This is just Steam as well, others such as League of Legends rake in more people if I am correct. If by "Slowly killed off" you mean skyrocketed like Team Rocket then you are right.

3. This is true but theres a reason the guarantee lasts like that, mainly money.

4. Then your friends have 0 patience to play their games. Steam will run the updates in the background while your at school or work or wherever you happen to be if you leave your computer on during the day / night and when you come back your game's will be ready. Aside from this, yes you can tell Steam to not update unless you ask it too but honestly, there is no reason you can't let it download over the night unless you have bandwith caps.

However this isn't a problem anymore with PC's, accessibility to games on Consoles has become just as big of a issue with all the code entering you must do to access certain parts of a game and then wait for it to verify. In essence I can buy a game on Steam now, once downloaded I will get into the game faster then a person who just bought their game from Gamestop.

5. The comment on joysticks actually is against your point because those are no longer used and are rarely supported anymore. Keyboards and Mice are the two things that are mostly used in games along with Analog Controllers, which often have support and varied support such as rebindable keys.

I also have no idea what your calibration tid-bit is about. PC games don't usually require Calibration at all, unless you want to rebind a key or change the resolution / graphics options but that isn't necessary in the slightest.

Overall, all your points on the Console's were correct, all of your points on PC's are out-of-date. Also, I felt I needed this tagline.

*Enjoying the death of PC Gaming since the 1980s.

--------------------------------------------------

The only thing I will ever say that Jim got right, good job Jim.

him over there:

cornmancer:

UsefulPlayer 1:
Sure that's all true but to implement all those advantages you still have to be some sort of nerd to get it going. Consoles are still the easiest way to go. Give a ten year old all the necessary equipment to achieve what you described on the PC and they wouldn't know where to start. I don't know how to hook up my PC to a TV, connect a controller to a PC, or handle all the computer specs stuff. All that is another barrier.

I don't know what's it like on the PS3, but besides online passes, the Xbox 360 is still very straight forward buy the game and you play when you get home. Yes, mods are the holy grail, but navigating the computer system is still way harder than an Xbox.

Xbox has a simpler set up and attract more of the general population. Sure PC is a step up, but you would have to level up yourself to get there.

PCs are great, but there is a reason why all my friends have Xbox Live. Like Weed is Xbox 360 and Cocaine is PC. You start with Weed first and graduate if you are really trying to reach the clouds.

To hook a PC up to the TV you put one end of the HDMI cord in the computer, and the other into the PC.
To hook a controller up to the PC, you put one end of the charger cord in the USB port on your computer, and one in the controller.

It isn't as cut and dry as you think for controllers. Xbox yes because of windows but to hook up my ps3 controller I had to download 2 different softwares and edit them.

Then I'd argue you did it wrong. MotioninJoy or whatever the hell it's called does the trick and also fools the games into thinking my PS3 controller is a 360 one, which makes it easier to make it work with those games where the devs were so lazy they only implemented 360 support.

trollpwner:
Well, might as well add something to kick off the inevitable shit-storm.

*ahem*

P.C. gamers, could you please note that consoles are bad now, not because of weak processing or worse controls, but because of how they are being used by publishers. Therefore, they are not inherently evil and wrong, as some elitist minority jerks seem to insist.

No, the hardware and controls do hold them back.

Deus Ex > Deus Ex IW

Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim

Those examples show what happens when lead development goes to consoles. Saying that, Oblivion was still a good game (I'm not too hot on skyrim) but you can see how the interface became much less useful as each game came out as they were tailored for controllers. Morrowind had a much better inventory (Grid vs list) and you cold pin things like a map to your hud and scale them at a whim, the same cannot be done in it's sequels.

I don't even need to say where consoles damaged DE: IW. It's such a shitty sequel.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I call BS. A graphics card that can run today's stuff runs about $160. OS is anywhere from 100-200. Processor is at least $110. So I'm guessing you're fudging your numbers.

EDIT: Decided to use Newegg for prices

Average Processor: $171 (Low of 139)
OS: $99
Video Card: $233 (Low of 159)
Sound Card: $60 (Low of $39)
Case: $78 (Low of 35)

That's over $700 right there on average. So yeah, I'm calling BS.

Say whatever you want. I haven't fudged anything.

Sorry that you're wrong bro, but... well, you are.

Don't buy walmart computers haha.

thanatos388:
Um...pcs are expensive and require upgrades to the pc itself to play new games. They are still a bigger hassle. That outweighs anything a pc can do as most gamers wont spend 15000 dollars to have higher definition graphics that add fuck all to the game itself.

Thank you for making me laugh! (Goes back to playing both cutting edge and wonderfully retro games on a five year old £800 machine)

But mostly, thank GOD for Jim, for not being afraid to stand up and say what most people looking objectively can see... and for basically trolling a huge part of his audience :D

Thank God for Jim. This was a great episode.

That being said, as a PC gamer I can see why people would prefer console gaming. If you are somebody who knows about as much about computers as I do about relationships (that is to say...nothing), then troubleshooting computer hardware and software problems can be a real pain.

Cost can be an issue, although not as big a one as many of the people on here seem to believe. You don't need to upgrade very often and even the initial cost of a gaming PC isn't that much if you don't want to go completely over-the-top (which is pointless in my opinion).

I find that I enjoy PC gaming more than console gaming in every possible way. Not like I would have a choice between the two since my preferred genre of game is the RTS. XD

I have mixed feelings about Jim's argument.

I agree on the digital download issue. A large number of Xbox 360 games are not available for convenient digital download. Even if they are, they are often more expensive than purchasing the hard copy from an online retailer within a few months of a game's release.

Games consoles tend to use manufacturer-specific devices. The Xbox 360-S hard drive is a 2.5" laptop HDD with a special case, but one cannot easily use a cheaper generic 2.5" hard drive. This makes the costs of peripherals expensive. Pricing is, however, a complicated issue. I'm in two minds whether consoles are more, or less expensive than PCs. The peripherals and games certainly cost a lot more, but one doesn't have to replace a console as often as a PC if one wants a good performance from a game.

Games consoles are arguably more environmentally friendly because constant upgrades to a PC create a substantial amount of e-waste. Since it doesn't need to run games, my home PC is still going strong five years after it was assembled and, assuming that one has an original that has yet to suffer from the red ring of death, an Xbox 360 could still be running after six years.

I don't buy that many games, so I'm quite happy with my fairly old PC/Xbox 360 combination. I guess whether Jim is right or wrong depends on how often you play video games and what experience you want out of them.

getoffmycloud:

Calibanbutcher:
A shitstorm is coming.

It sure is, better grab the popcorn cause this is gonna be good.

You may or may not be sick of being quoted by now, but in a shitstorm I think I would reach for the umbrella before the popcorn.

OT: I see where Jim is coming from, however I do feel that it is a lot easier for devs to program for a console.
Compatability is a bitch. Seriously, my PC Fallout 3 was so buggy I had to buy the console version.

Let us all just say that the Nintendo 64 is by far more superior than both the Xbox360, the Playstation 3 and the PC. Oh and the Wii. I probably shouldn't forget that.

I have all 3 current gen consoles and a gaming PC that's about 2 years old. Since purchasing the gaming PC, I have turned on my PS3 about 6 times, to play and finish Uncharted 3 and turned my Xbox on maybe as many times, for some multiplayer Castle Crashers.

I'm on my PC daily. All my games (many bought at bargain prices due to digital distribution), my chat clients (Steam / MSN / Xfire / Ventrilo), the internet and a plethora of F2P games (Tribes / LoL / TF2) means that I rarely now buy or feel the need to play on my consoles. My son (who is now 5) likes to play them, and I'm fine with that.

Not everyone can afford a decent PC. That's fine. Consoles can fill and satisfy their needs, but a decent gaming PC provides a much more satisfying experience.

Spartan1362:
I see where Jim is coming from, however I do feel that it is a lot easier for devs to program for a console.
Compatability is a bitch. Seriously, my PC Fallout 3 was so buggy I had to buy the console version.

That's a good point. I guess the reason is that consoles tend to have a more stable hardware and software environment, which reduces the number of potential issues. I recall that the PC version of Rage had a problem with ATI/AMD graphics cards.

DanHibiki:

medv4380:

JET1971:

Sorry i didnt want to scroll up but I am backing you here...

less than 30 seconds at Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883108938

less than 2 minutes: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883203766

Someones argument holds water like a bucket made out of window screen.

You honestly think that the AMD Radeon HD 6320 and 6530D are valid gaming graphics cards? Maybe if you use photoshop for gaming.

if you're playing at 720 or 1080 it will run circles around the Xbox 360, and since most games are a port of console titles(which are made to run on six year old hardware) this should give you everything you will need for the next two or three years(at which time new consoles come out).

You honestly believe that?
The 360 can perform double what the 6320 can do in almost every category. In terms of Pixels and Textures it kicks that scrawny cards all over the place. Every other stat they are the same in terms of Memory Clock, Core Clock, and Bandwidth. The only notable difference is that the 6320 supports DirectX 11 and all that means is that the new API will work with it not that it's faster. Anyone who thinks that those cards are anywhere near "running circles" around the 360 needs to get their heads examined. Those cards are at the bottom of the heap and are made to barely support the current OS and Work Place Software. They are not gaming cards. It only supports Direct X 11 so that Windows 8 will work on it.

NinthPlanet86:

Games consoles are arguably more environmentally friendly because constant upgrades to a PC BLAH BLAH BLAH

Yes, well done console owners for perpetuating the stereotype for being clearly too fucking stupid or lazy to read. If you had stopped gumming your controller for five minutes to read even a part of this thread, you would have realised that the "constant upgrade" argument has been brought up then slapped down time and again.

Matthew94:
[

No, the hardware and controls do hold them back.

Deus Ex > Deus Ex IW

Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim

Those examples show what happens when lead development goes to consoles. Saying that, Oblivion was still a good game (I'm not too hot on skyrim) but you can see how the interface became much less useful as each game came out as they were tailored for controllers. Morrowind had a much better inventory (Grid vs list) and you cold pin things like a map to your hud and scale them at a whim, the same cannot be done in it's sequels.

I don't even need to say where consoles damaged DE: IW. It's such a shitty sequel.

So, the wrong kind of controller or low processing power can cripple a game, eh? Guess that would explain why thief 2 and system shock 2 were crippled by 300mhz single-core processors and 16mb of ram. And how any game on any console ever was terrible.

Anyhoo, serious face. While there's a great deal of controversy over which elder game was best, there's no doubt that Deus Ex: the conspiracy was a far worse game than the original, due too its horrible, horrible interface. Well, it seems hard to see how you could fit the original, horribly complicated 40-odd buttons of the original deus ex into a controller. And to be fair, they did it, albeit in a horrible way. But that's a pretty hard place to start from. So it seems here to be the fact that they were asked to streamline something incredibly massive into something with a limited number of buttons.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, about console controls in themselves that make them inherently evil, wrong or impossible to make good games with. Going back to the whole deus ex comparison, deus ex itself had a fairly nightmarish system to negotiate, what with having to hit 6 different f-keys and working through weapons, ammo types and reloading whenever you went into pitched battle. I mean, from that, you could argue that P.C. controls are evil, wrong, horrible, etc.

Let's face it: the quality of a game has nothing to do with the number of buttons, controls, etc. The quality of what you get out of a control scheme is everything you do with what you have. As I recall saying to someone another day: if you have a game with one button that's good, that's a success. If you have a game fully utilizing all the intricacies of a keyboard that's bad, that's failure. At the end of the day, the control is just part of the medium through which you experience a game. It's the experience itself that counts.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Kroxile:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Really? No.

I own 14 games for my PS3. 3 of them bought at $60, the rest used for between 15 and 40. My PS3 cost me $300.

My PC cost me $600 (Monitor included). It was purchased 3 years ago. It cannot run any current AAA titles. Skyrim will not run on it. Crysis... yeah no. Battlefield? No. I bought 2 games at $60, and the rest were around 10 to 15.

Cost analysis? Console was cheaper, and can actually run games from this year.

Moral of this story: Don't buy walmart computers.

My PC cost me $700 with the monitor, is 3 years old, hasn't been upgraded in any way since I bought it, and it plays every game on full on high or ultra settings at 60+ FPS.

Sorry your analysis is wrong.

Captcha: i love you

I call BS. A graphics card that can run today's stuff runs about $160. OS is anywhere from 100-200. Processor is at least $110. So I'm guessing you're fudging your numbers.

EDIT: Decided to use Newegg for prices

Average Processor: $171 (Low of 139)
OS: $99
Video Card: $233 (Low of 159)
Sound Card: $60 (Low of $39)
Case: $78 (Low of 35)

That's over $700 right there on average. So yeah, I'm calling BS.

Still 160$ and being able to run games like this I think is pretty sweet :).

A bit better than the 720p, 30fps and med/low settings your PS3 on average can handle don't you agree? Sure three TVs might be a bit overkill for most people, not to mention expensive but the point is that the card can handle it if it needs to. And it can definitely handle anything you play on one screen and you certainty get a lot more out of your 1920x1080 TV when you have a machine that can actually run the games in that resolution.

Furthermore, few if any games really require any fancy 200$ CPU and I don't see why you must spend extra money on a sound-card. Sure those things can enhance the experience even more but it's not really necessary, a ~100$ quad core and the sound-card on the motherboard is often more than enough, especially if you are used to the low standards of console gaming.

Shit I can even go further, for example my 3-4 year old computer with an 3ghz AMD Dual core, 4gb ram and 4870 512mb gpu could still run most new games in 1680x1050 in medium/high settings with a decent 45-60fps. An old computer like that today wouldn't cost more than 200$ but still run the games much better than a 360/ps3. So I don't really understand why people think PC gaming MUST be expensive when it really doesn't have to, unless of course you have to play games like BF3 or The Witcher 2 on three monitors with insane max settings running in 60+fps.

Well, my PS3 plays bluray movies my PC doesn't (yeah I know it's easily fixable)! .

One other thing I noticed was last week when a friend of mine was showing me Demon's Souls. I inserted the game into my PS3 the game needed a patch and an installation which required about 20 minutes until the game started. Afterwards I showed him Chrono Trigger from 1995. I put the cartridge in and switched my SNES on and it worked just like that after 20 seconds I was in the game.

It is amazing how much technology advanced over the last ~20 years!

Don't get me wrong I get the technical issues with loading times and the complexity of modern games that require more man-hours to develop and thus have more bugs because nobody can write software with no errors and these issues have to be taken care of with a patch etc. etc.

But with each generations of consoles I get the impression that it gets worse.

The only negative side to PC-gaming is that the PC gets crappy console conversions that don't utilize the full power and the interface (mouse and keyboard) of a PC. So you get the Skyrim console menus and bad graphics like MW3 plus no options to tweak your game like an Field of View slider for first person games.

The price point of a gaming rig is also not that bad. The reason why consoles seem less pricey is because most people have already a TV. So I payed for my TV about $1000 and for my PS3 additional $350 (actually Euros but I guess the prices match). On the other hand I spend $1500 on my gaming PC with a monitor and input devices. So the difference is not that noticeable. Plus I can do many things with my PC that a TV + console can't (write documents, browse the Internet with ease).

Don't flame me I know that the costs can vary and you can spend much less on a PC and much more on your TV/console combination and vice-versa.

Another thing you have to take into account is the price point for software. They come a bit closer lately but new PC games tend to be a little bit cheaper then new console games (mainly due to licensing fees) and the get a discount faster. So if you buy ten games a year for $60 on consoles vs. $50 on PCs you already saved $100.

I'm not saying that PC gaming is not expensive but the price gap is not as big as it seems on the first glance.

Consoles have always been less expensive, less tech-knowledge needy pc's. Whats starting to show however, is the distance the 360 and PS3 are now behind - before, consoles managed to keep up with pc's by having new generations every few years. By not doing that, the distance has widened enough to be very noticeable.

If you've got the cash and the tech-knowhow, PC's have always been superior.

trollpwner:

Matthew94:
[

No, the hardware and controls do hold them back.

Deus Ex > Deus Ex IW

Morrowind > Oblivion > Skyrim

Those examples show what happens when lead development goes to consoles. Saying that, Oblivion was still a good game (I'm not too hot on skyrim) but you can see how the interface became much less useful as each game came out as they were tailored for controllers. Morrowind had a much better inventory (Grid vs list) and you cold pin things like a map to your hud and scale them at a whim, the same cannot be done in it's sequels.

I don't even need to say where consoles damaged DE: IW. It's such a shitty sequel.

So, the wrong kind of controller or low processing power can cripple a game, eh? Guess that would explain why thief 2 and system shock 2 were crippled by 300mhz single-core processors and 16mb of ram. And how any game on any console ever was terrible.

Anyhoo, serious face. While there's a great deal of controversy over which elder game was best, there's no doubt that Deus Ex: the conspiracy was a far worse game than the original, due too its horrible, horrible interface. Well, it seems hard to see how you could fit the original, horribly complicated 40-odd buttons of the original deus ex into a controller. And to be fair, they did it, albeit in a horrible way. But that's a pretty hard place to start from. So it seems here to be the fact that they were asked to streamline something incredibly massive into something with a limited number of buttons.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, about console controls in themselves that make them inherently evil, wrong or impossible to make good games with. Going back to the whole deus ex comparison, deus ex itself had a fairly nightmarish system to negotiate, what with having to hit 6 different f-keys and working through weapons, ammo types and reloading whenever you went into pitched battle. I mean, from that, you could argue that P.C. controls are evil, wrong, horrible, etc.

Let's face it: the quality of a game has nothing to do with the number of buttons, controls, etc. The quality of what you get out of a control scheme is everything you do with what you have. As I recall saying to someone another day: if you have a game with one button that's good, that's a success. If you have a game fully utilizing all the intricacies of a keyboard that's bad, that's failure. At the end of the day, the control is just part of the medium through which you experience a game. It's the experience itself that counts.

No, Thief and SS were designed for the systems of the time which were not low powered at the time. That is very faulty logic on your part. From that you could say that every game made right now and for the next X years is on low powered hardware due to constant technological progress. No, DE: IW was on low end hardware relative to PCs at the time. For instance DE had large open areas with few loading points while IW had small levels with long loading times breaking each of them up, this was due to the weakness of the xbox hardware.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with console controls in theory but in practice they can have negative impacts in the case of games like TES and DE. For instance as you said, the original DE had a metric shit-ton of controls, this was easily solved on PC through keybinding but this couldn't be done on consoles to the same extent. The solution was to simply remove a lot of the abilities in the sequel so you wouldn't need the buttons. If the had made PC the lead platform on PC again and simply put more thought into the console controls this wouldn't have happened but they didn't and the game was hurt on all platforms as a result.

The same thing happened with TES as I listed. The interface in Skyrim is truly horrible, I mean, it's shockingly bad and all because it was tailored to be used with a controller. This wasn't the case with morrowind which was made to be used with a KB+M.

That being said, Human Revolution shows how it should be done. While I still think the game isn't as good as the original both the consoles and PC version had different UIs and control schemes, each designed to take advantage of the medium on which they were played. That being said, I don't blame consoles for the failure of HR, this time it was due to spending too much on graphics and not enough on level design, interactivity or character abilities.

When a game goes from PC > Consoles it rarely suffers, at most you get blurrier textures or a lower resolution. The controls can be fixed with things like drop down menus and the like. The game rarely has massive fundamental flaws in it, usually just cosmetic ones.

Now if you go from consoles > PC you get Invisible War and I've been over that.

Remember when console games could not be patched. When a developer couldn't release a horribly buggy game because there was no way to fix it after release. Guess those days are gone.

That said, I bought a PS3 to play Demons Souls because I loved Dark Souls that much. So all it really comes down to for me, whose got the games.

Consoles are more like very good PCs than "Very Crap PCs".
My Laptop is well regarded on most review sites and by most people looking for a good laptop, but it conjures up the loudest storm you will ever hear if I try to play a game.

My PS3 on the other hand never makes noise no matter what I game I play and its never given me any trouble or overheated unlike my laptop.

Consoles may not be as good as the best PCs, but they're certainly better than than the majority and better value for money.

But all of the above can be refuted, feel free to do so. But the one thing consoles will always have over even teh best PCs is that they are far better for gaming if you have a shit internet connection.
Almost all advantages of PC games require a fairly good internet connection (especially the things Jim points out). Whereas with a console, you don't need to connect to the internet to get the most out of a game. And if you do, you need a pretty good one or its not worth it.
However, some console games are geared towards online activity but they can go suck it for all I care. Single player is what I enjoy and I can still to it.

The Last Nomad:
Consoles are more like very good PCs than "Very Crap PCs".
My Laptop is well regarded on most review sites and by most people looking for a good laptop, but it conjures up the loudest storm you will ever hear if I try to play a game.

My PS3 on the other hand never makes noise no matter what I game I play and its never given me any trouble or overheated unlike my laptop.

Consoles may not be as good as the best PCs, but they're certainly better than than the majority and better value for money.

But all of the above can be refuted, feel free to do so. But the one thing consoles will always have over even teh best PCs is that they are far better for gaming if you have a shit internet connection.
Almost all advantages of PC games require a fairly good internet connection (especially the things Jim points out). Whereas with a console, you don't need to connect to the internet to get the most out of a game. And if you do, you need a pretty good one or its not worth it.
However, some console games are geared towards online activity but they can go suck it for all I care. Single player is what I enjoy and I can still to it.

"come console games are geared towards online activity"
Yeah, the most succesfull ones (not saying good), yknow, the one that brings in the dough :L
gee these consolef@gz xD

You cant exactly judge one ONLY based on your very personal experience with SINGLEPLAYER

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here