I Don't Like Consoles

Zillah

To save another thread from what is almost certainly going to be a messy forum brawl I thought I'd start this. You can see the earlier bits of this in the thread about what you hate in games.

quad_red wrote:

The quality and breath of games released on a platform have no bearing as to its quality/superiority as a gaming platform?

Yes, exactly. Perhaps a metaphor can explain.

Lets say we're talking about different types of paint brushes. One guy has a single brush, a big fat one. Another guy has lots of brushes, from big to small.

You're arguing that a single brush is better because the guy who was using the single brush was trying really really hard and made a good painting. The fact remains that if he had used the full set of brushes he'd have made an equal or probably better painting because of them. The only reason the guy even bothered trying so hard to make a good painting with such bad equipment was because for some reason Fat Brush Paintings were really popular, so he was trying to cash in.

You're telling me that NO innovation has come from the console market?

I never said that. I just think that when you compare the two different machines, the PC is clearly superior. If all the money and effort that has been ploughed into consoles in recent years had been put into PC game development, we'd have seen similar innovation and diversification.

I'd say PC gaming has learned alot from console gaming. Particularly in terms of accessability, ease of play and learning what gamers want.

Yup, building accessability into games is a great thing. You don't need to drastically limit dozens of useful elements to achieve that however.

You are hopelessly biased.

Uh, am I supposed to be a neutral judge here? I have an opinion, I'm defending it.

Yes, alot of console games are simpler to pick up than PC games. But 'dumbed down'?

I think "dumbed down" is a good way of describing it. Console games often sacrifice complexity and interest for simplicty.

Some people want a more accessible and stream lined games experience. They want games tailored to the hardware they've spent their hard earned money on (see Halo 3 etc.).

PC games allow you to tailor a game to precisely the hardware they've spend their hard earned money on. Accessible and streamlined is great, every game should have that, but not at the cost of other benefits such as extra content and customizable performance etc.

Do you enjoy tweaking the cooler settings on your water cooled fan? Yeah?

No.

Well some people would just prefer to pick up their joypad and turn Oblivion/Gears of War whatever on without worrying about system requirements/driver issues etc etc etc.

They like it, yes. Because its easier. They lose much for their dumbed down experience. Its why people read tabloids instead of broadsheets. The fact that people like to read crap like the Sun doesn't mean its a good paper.

TheAlmightyArse

Lets say we're talking about different types of paint brushes. One guy has a single brush, a big fat one. Another guy has lots of brushes, from big to small.

You're arguing that a single brush is better because the guy who was using the single brush was trying really really hard and made a good painting. The fact remains that if he had used the full set of brushes he'd have made an equal or probably better painting because of them. The only reason the guy even bothered trying so hard to make a good painting with such bad equipment was because for some reason Fat Brush Paintings were really popular, so he was trying to cash in.

Okay. Yes. But, say someone -- Jim -- doesn't play games, but would like to. Jim doesn't own a PC or any games console. He's been doing some research and he's come across some PS2 games that he's interested in. Jim thinks about it for a while, and decides that he might enjoy these games more if they came on PC. Perhaps they benefit from user-created content or mouse control. Jim searches for PC versions, but there aren't any. There isn't even anything similar. So, should Jim buy a PS2 and play the games he's interested in or should he buy a PC and not play those games, but be happy in the knowledge that if he could, which he can't, but if he could, they'd be better?

evad_lhorg

In all fariness who gives two f*cks if Zillah likes consoles?


The only people who dismiss consoles are ignorant, stuck up their own hole, geeks.

evad_lhorg

Zillah wrote:

Lets say we're talking about different types of paint brushes. One guy has a single brush, a big fat one. Another guy has lots of brushes, from big to small.

You're arguing that a single brush is better because the guy who was using the single brush was trying really really hard and made a good painting. The fact remains that if he had used the full set of brushes he'd have made an equal or probably better painting because of them. The only reason the guy even bothered trying so hard to make a good painting with such bad equipment was because for some reason Fat Brush Paintings were really popular, so he was trying to cash in.

oh and about this,,,,, that is pure **** to be honest. how can you say it is like having one or many paintbrushes. how about the fact that consoles have way more support for games. do paintbrushes have exclusive paints to that paintbrush? no!





And at the end of the day is spending a couple of grand on a pc gaming rig really worth it so you can have a some better lighting effects and then have to upgrade again when crysis 2 comes out and have to spend another ridiculous amount... or buy vista so you can play new games on it but oh wait that automatically ignores the older games that wont run on it.

0ubliette

I only eat steak. In the morning, i chuck a pound of steak in a blender, and have a nice steak smoothie. At lunch, i eat a steak sandwich. Then before bed, ill fry up a massive steak and eat it with a nice cuppa. Why do other foods even exist? Whats the point in them?! Can anyone give me ONE ADVANTAGE other food has over steak??


EDIT
oh god i just read this bit

Zillah wrote:

They like it, yes. Because its easier. They lose much for their dumbed down experience. Its why people read tabloids instead of broadsheets. The fact that people like to read crap like the Sun doesn't mean its a good paper.

Man, if your head was any further up your own arse, the lump in your throat would be your nose. Youre the one getting a dumbed down and crippled gaming experience by ONLY EATING STEAK when theres so much more on the menu, than realistically modelled plasma laser bullets in 'generic unlock hunter 2142'.

RE*AC*TOR

What is your arguement? That the PC is a better gaming platform in theory?

Communism worked... in theory.

PC gaming is too expensive. Not enough people have enough money to buy top of the line graphics cards and processors every two years. Therefore there isn't the developer backing because the market is too small.

That's the reality.

Console gaming offers a consistent platform, with product cycles of up to 7 years (PS2). The investment is less than a PC, there are fewer inconsistencies becuase everyone has the same machine and it allows developers to focus on gameplay - not on bugs.

Kinetic^

Nobody gives a toss if you don't like consoles/the sun/girls.....people will like consoles for their simplicity and imo they're better and more convenient for some games then PCs.

Retr0gamer

Zillah wrote:

I think "dumbed down" is a good way of describing it. Console games often sacrifice complexity and interest for simplicty.

I find PC games often sacrifice fun for complexity.

humanji

I hate when games automatically save everytime you go to a different area.


HA! Now you guys know how it feels!

Burning Eclipse

Zillah wrote:

Yes, exactly. Perhaps a metaphor can explain.

Lets say we're talking about different types of paint brushes. One guy has a single brush, a big fat one. Another guy has lots of brushes, from big to small.

You're arguing that a single brush is better because the guy who was using the single brush was trying really really hard and made a good painting. The fact remains that if he had used the full set of brushes he'd have made an equal or probably better painting because of them. The only reason the guy even bothered trying so hard to make a good painting with such bad equipment was because for some reason Fat Brush Paintings were really popular, so he was trying to cash in.

Here's a metaphor for you zillah... Your 'leet' PC is the big fat brush... Each console, that in your ignorance you ignore, is a little brush... Sure the big fat brush paints more, but variety is a concept it just ain't familiar with.

I've had brilliant experiences with PC gaming... But the best... They've always been on a console... of which I own many!

parliament

"Its why people read tabloids instead of broadsheets"

console = the sun = dumb
pc = broadsheet = smart

hmm someone mentioned console haters being up their own asses, too right!!

Zillah

Yay, great fun! Theres even a few intelligent observations amongst all the personal attacks. You're spoiling me today internet.

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

Okay. Yes. But, say someone -- Jim -- doesn't play games, but would like to. Jim doesn't own a PC or any games console. He's been doing some research and he's come across some PS2 games that he's interested in. Jim thinks about it for a while, and decides that he might enjoy these games more if they came on PC. Perhaps they benefit from user-created content or mouse control. Jim searches for PC versions, but there aren't any. There isn't even anything similar. So, should Jim buy a PS2 and play the games he's interested in or should he buy a PC and not play those games, but be happy in the knowledge that if he could, which he can't, but if he could, they'd be better?

Of course playing the console game would be better. What I'm saying is that I'd prefer it if consoles didn't exist and all the funding and effort went into making PC gaming even better. In which case he'd be able to play that very game on the PC, with all the incumbent benefits.

Its not going to happen, but I'd certainly like it to happen.

evad_lhorg wrote:

In all fariness who gives two f*cks if Zillah likes consoles?

The only people who dismiss consoles are ignorant, stuck up their own hole, geeks.

Excellent point. I really like the part where you insulted the person you disagree with, that was extra-compelling. You should go lobby congress or something.

evad_lhorg wrote:

oh and about this,,,,, that is pure **** to be honest. how can you say it is like having one or many paintbrushes. how about the fact that consoles have way more support for games. do paintbrushes have exclusive paints to that paintbrush? no!

You mustn't have read the first post. Thats usually a good place to start with a thread (for future reference). The metaphor was in relation to the technical limitations of the machine, not the industry investment. Like I said, consoles are popular, so investors plow money into them for profit from the masses. But the fact that its popular doesn't mean its superior.

And at the end of the day is spending a couple of grand on a pc gaming rig really worth it so you can have a some better lighting effects and then have to upgrade again when crysis 2 comes out and have to spend another ridiculous amount... or buy vista so you can play new games on it but oh wait that automatically ignores the older games that wont run on it.

Like I said in the other thread, the main thing I find superior about the PC is the ability to customise with your own additions/settings, or get new/updated content from the publishers, or install mods/expansions from the online community. I don't really give a toss about whether a PC can churn out a billion more dust particle effects or not, such things are relatively minor improvements compared to what I just mentioned.

0ubliette wrote:

I only eat steak. In the morning, i chuck a pound of steak in a blender, and have a nice steak smoothie. At lunch, i eat a steak sandwich. Then before bed, ill fry up a massive steak and eat it with a nice cuppa. Why do other foods even exist? Whats the point in them?! Can anyone give me ONE ADVANTAGE other food has over steak??

Like I said, a PC can do everything a console can. A console cannot do everything a PC can.

Therefore, to correct your metaphor, a PS2 is a steak, an XBox is a salad, while PCs are the entire menu. Or least they could be if consoles weren't sucking up so much investment for their inferior product.

Man, if your head was any further up your own arse, the lump in your throat would be your nose. Youre the one getting a dumbed down and crippled gaming experience by ONLY EATING STEAK when theres so much more on the menu, than realistically modelled plasma laser bullets in 'generic unlock hunter 2142'.

Ah, more insulting. Excellent.

Like I said above, such technical graphical improvements are a fairly minor consideration.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

What is your arguement? That the PC is a better gaming platform in theory?

Communism worked... in theory.

Couldn't your argument be used against anything thats a theory? Like, gravity works in theory, but so did communism...

PC gaming is too expensive. Not enough people have enough money to buy top of the line graphics cards and processors every two years. Therefore there isn't the developer backing because the market is too small.

That's the reality.

Console gaming offers a consistent platform, with product cycles of up to 7 years (PS2). The investment is less than a PC, there are fewer inconsistencies becuase everyone has the same machine and it allows developers to focus on gameplay - not on bugs.

Quite a good point.

However, were consoles not sucking up so much investment, PC gaming would get it instead, which would make PC gaming more popular, which would allow it to be more profitable, which would mean lowered prices.

Also, if we did away with consoles, all the games would be on a single format that is the equivalent of every other console combined, so you would have access to every game made. To achieve the equivalent with consoles you'd have to buy all of them, which is likely to cost far more than a decent PC.

Again, this isn't a realistic scenario, because people like their consoles for their simplicity. But that simplicity is their only advantage, with lots of downsides.

Note: I just spilled orange juice all over myself. Thought you'd enjoy that.

Kenny 5 wrote:

Nobody gives a toss if you don't like consoles/the sun/girls.....people will like consoles for their simplicity and imo they're better and more convenient for some games then PCs.

Well thats just super. "More convenient", perhaps. Better how?

Retr0gamer wrote:

I find PC games often sacrifice fun for complexity.

Well, not a result of the medium, more the industry. Which could also be applied to my earlier point about the console industry, so I'll retract that and keep my argument on the console as a machine rather than the industry supplying it.

humanji wrote:

I hate when games automatically save everytime you go to a different area.


HA! Now you guys know how it feels!

Comic genius

Burning Eclipse wrote:

Here's a metaphor for you zillah... Your 'leet' PC is the big fat brush... Each console, that in your ignorance you ignore, is a little brush... Sure the big fat brush paints more, but variety is a concept it just ain't familiar with.

Yes, thats a metaphor. Its not a very good metaphor though. The fact remains that the PC as a medium can do everything a console can do, its just takes a little more knowledge/thinking on the part of the user.

Try to avoid leetspeak by the way, its a little cliched by now.

I've had brilliant experiences with PC gaming... But the best... They've always been on a console... of which I own many!

Good for you. Your subjective opinion is all the convincing I need! The fact that consoles are inherently limited when compared to PCs means nothing compared to your personal experience.

parliament wrote:

"Its why people read tabloids instead of broadsheets"

console = the sun = dumb
pc = broadsheet = smart

hmm someone mentioned console haters being up their own asses, too right!!

Yes, I'm an arrogant son-of-a-bitch or whatever else you feel like soothing yourself with. That doesn't make my point wrong.

Is anyone actually listening to my reasons for not liking consoles? Is it that I implied people like consoles because they're easier for dumb/technologically ignorant people?

Well, I assure you, if you're reading this now, and like consoles, you're not one of the stupid ones. You're one of the ones that likes consoles for different reasons.

Really.

aidan_walsh

dumb/technologically ignorant

How people continue to equate these two I will never understand...

Kinetic^

Zillah wrote:

get new/updated content from the publishers

Xbox 360 can do this!!!

I think you're just in a huff because you've realised that PC gaming is coming to the end of it's life cycle due to the advances in console tech. The generation after the 360/Wii/PS3 will eradicate PC gaming leaving PCs to do the boring tasks of word processing and adding sums in excel.

humanji

Kenny 5 wrote:

Xbox 360 can do this!!!

I think you're just in a huff because you've realised that PC gaming is coming to the end of it's life cycle due to the advances in console tech. The generation after the 360/Wii/PS3 will eradicate PC gaming leaving PCs to do the boring tasks of word processing and adding sums in excel.

Actually, the way things are going, they are trying to get consoles and pc's to run in unison, with the console being the front end and the pc doing a lot of the work. That's why they are trying to push the whole media centre thingies on the consoles that you hook up to your pc and stream or copy content from them.

Zillah

aidan_walsh wrote:

How people continue to equate these two I will never understand...

Thats was an either/or situation. I'm very much aware that they are two entirely seperate things.

Kenny 5 wrote:

Xbox 360 can do this!!!

Cool. Step in the right direction certainly. To what extent though? Like, could you download and install a complete mod for a game?

I think you're just in a huff because you've realised that PC gaming is coming to the end of it's life cycle due to the advances in console tech. The generation after the 360/Wii/PS3 will eradicate PC gaming leaving PCs to do the boring tasks of word processing and adding sums in excel.

Well, if the next generation of consoles do all the things that I like PCs for then theres no problem. Of course, by the sounds of it they're just making consoles more like PCs...

aidan_walsh

The generation after the 360/Wii/PS3 will eradicate PC gaming leaving PCs to do the boring tasks of word processing and adding sums in excel.

Wrong. As long as there is a market for PC gaming, there will be PC games. 7 generations of consoles haven't managed to kill it off, so it won't be happening any time soon either.

0ubliette

Zillah wrote:

Like I said, a PC can do everything a console can. A console cannot do everything a PC can.

Therefore, to correct your metaphor, a PS2 is a steak, an XBox is a salad, while PCs are the entire menu. Or least they could be if consoles weren't sucking up so much investment for their inferior product.

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

shatners basoon

I'd actually agree with most of what you're saying but on the other hand disagree with you completely.
I'm guessing that your point is based on consoles hypothetically never coming into existence right with all the great developers and games being made for a pc format right?

kinda makes sense but i think you're forgetting alot about how gaiming works and how its become so popular. PC gaming would have never aquired the same popularity as console gaming as its a hell of alot more hassle. Thus the number of great games that have been developed for consoles over the past two decades or so would have (probably) never have materialised as there certainly wouldn't have had the money to do so (due to lack of popularity).

Which could also be applied to my earlier point about the console industry, so I'll retract that and keep my argument on the console as a machine rather than the industry supplying it.

Gaming has always been all about the industry. Thats where the games come from. To take that out of the arguement makes it all pretty pointless.

Do you think that the PC works well for all genres e.g. platform and say beatemups?

koneko

I see where you're coming from Zillah, but the reality is it didn't happen that way, and it's hardly going to change now, consoles are here to stay, it's never going to be PC-only.

By assuming they're "dumbed down" or the gaming equivalent of The Sun (which I most definitely would very strongly disagree with) you're only doing yourself a disservice, and you're missing out on some amazing games by being stubborn.

Kenny 5, are you kidding/trolling, or serious? If you're serious, I don't think I need to even say I really disagree there, PC gaming isn't going anywhere and if one game alone can prove that it's WoW, 8 million subscribers for one game alone. PC gaming may not be as big as consoles in many respects, but you're completely off the mark if you think PCs are only going to be used for "boring tasks of word processing and adding sums in excel" (I really really hope that was a joke).

amp

Kenny 5 wrote:

Xbox 360 can do this!!!

I think you're just in a huff because you've realised that PC gaming is coming to the end of it's life cycle due to the advances in console tech. The generation after the 360/Wii/PS3 will eradicate PC gaming leaving PCs to do the boring tasks of word processing and adding sums in excel.

Hey, the 80's called, they want that paragraph back. I've also got the 90's on hold.

As someone who adores FPS games like FEAR and Half Life 2 as well as god games like Civ 4, I can't see myself dumping my pc anytime soon. No matter how fancy console get, high end pc's will always be ahead in terms of processing power.

Don't get me wrong, I love console gaming too, because unlike some people in this thread I am a fan of good games and care a lot less about what I play them on.

koneko

amp wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I love console gaming too, because unlike some people in this thread I am a fan of good games and care a lot less about what I play them on.

Hi5. It's all about the games, amigo. It's sad that I have to keep repeating this.

Zillah

0ubliette wrote:

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

The only reason Gears of War wouldn't work on my PC is because Microsoft deliberately limited it to the XBox for greater profit.

shatners basoon wrote:

I'd actually agree with most of what you're saying but on the other hand disagree with you completely.
I'm guessing that your point is based on consoles hypothetically never coming into existence right with all the great developers and games being made for a pc format right?

I haven't worked out an entire alternate history. I suppose I'd be most happy if all the consoles in the world suddenly vanished and were replaced by gaming-PCs...

But, like I've said before, its not realistic, I'm just saying what I'd really like to happen.

kinda makes sense but i think you're forgetting alot about how gaiming works and how its become so popular. PC gaming would have never aquired the same popularity as console gaming as its a hell of alot more hassle. Thus the number of great games that have been developed for consoles over the past two decades or so would have (probably) never have materialised as there certainly wouldn't have had the money to do so (due to lack of popularity).

Not neccessarily. If consoles had never existed then PC gaming would almost certainly be more popular than it is now, and while the total gaming industry would be smaller, the PC gaming industry would be bigger/better. It makes sense to me, but unless I did some sort of sociological thesis on the history and development of the gaming industry then I wouldn't feel comfortable asserting anything for definate.

Gaming has always been all about the industry. Thats where the games come from. To take that out of the arguement makes it all pretty pointless.

Again, I'm talking what my ideal situation would be if I had the magic wand. I don't even mind consoles that much, its just that they're so damn popular that they're bleeding other, more worthwhile endeavours of interest/funding.

Do you think that the PC works well for all genres e.g. platform and say beatemups?

Thats the best thing about PCs, they're so adaptable. Keyboard/mouse works great for most things but you can easily pop a console style pad in their if you want one for beatemups.

Don't get me started on the travesty of first person shooters on a console pad...

Zillah

koneko wrote:

By assuming they're "dumbed down" or the gaming equivalent of The Sun (which I most definitely would very strongly disagree with) you're only doing yourself a disservice, and you're missing out on some amazing games by being stubborn.

amp wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I love console gaming too, because unlike some people in this thread I am a fan of good games and care a lot less about what I play them on.

Oh wow. These two comments just made me realise something. I probably should have been more clear.

Not for a second would I not play a good game just because its on a console. A good game is a good game. What I would do is complain about it on a message board about how it would have been even better if it was developed for PC instead.

aidan_walsh

What I would do is complain about it on a message board about how it would have been even better if it was developed for PC instead.

How could you know if it would or wouldn't be?

RE*AC*TOR

Zillah wrote:

However, were consoles not sucking up so much investment, PC gaming would get it instead, which would make PC gaming more popular, which would allow it to be more profitable, which would mean lowered prices.

Lowered prices on bleeding edge PC technology? I can't see that. Not happening. Aside from top-end Graphics cards, which are a somewhat specialist field for gamers, other bleeding edge components are bought by the general public who just want a fast pc. They are still v expensive.

Zillah wrote:

Also, if we did away with consoles, all the games would be on a single format that is the equivalent of every other console combined, so you would have access to every game made. To achieve the equivalent with consoles you'd have to buy all of them, which is likely to cost far more than a decent PC.

If the PC was the only platform, still with its bleeding edge technology, it couldn't support the gaming industry as we know it. The market would still be too small because the entry price is too high. To combat this, developers could try to appeal to lower spec PCs and increase their market - but when we get to that point aren't we missing the point of your original argument and the advantages of the PC?

Zillah wrote:

Again, this isn't a realistic scenario, because people like their consoles for their simplicity. But that simplicity is their only advantage, with lots of downsides.

Advantages of consoles:

1. Cheaper.
2. Longer cycles.
3. One platform for all = fewer bugs
4. Larger market = more developers able to spend more on development (Lost Planet cost $20M to make, and they spent $20M on advertising).


Disadvantages of consoles:

1. PC market quickly passes console market in terms of processing/graphics etc.
2. Loading from optical disk. PC install to HD, for quicker access.
3. Mouse input best for FPS / RTS.

Ultimately, however, any platform is only as good as its software, and even though the PC is home to some great games, in my opinion, it is playing 2nd fiddle to consoles and always will.

joe_chicken

Consoles are getting bigger, PCs are getting smaller, television screens are becoming more like monitors, the fact (for some games) you can play on a PC against someone on an Xbox360...

I wouldn't be as foolish as to predict the demise of either PC or Console gaming, but they certainly are becoming closer than ever.

The way PCs are now I wouldn't go near a platformer, racing game, fighting game, or (Wii) Sports game (to keep it current ) that was available on the PC.

The way consoles are at the moment I wouldn't buy an FPS or real time strategy (probably my favourite at the moment) game unless I had a mouse.

If it's a good game it's a good game... regardless of what platform it's on.

Everything else is just fanboy-ism.. that's a word.. right?

shatners basoon

I suppose I'd be most happy if all the consoles in the world suddenly vanished and were replaced by gaming-PCs..

Heck I'd be too, i could sell all my consoles for a pile of dough! My biggest problems with PC gaming (as stated previously by others) are the expense and the short shelf life, the PS2 gave what 7 years of gaming, that is definately something to marvel at.

Not neccessarily. If consoles had never existed then PC gaming would almost certainly be more popular than it is now, and while the total gaming industry would be smaller, the PC gaming industry would be bigger/better. It makes sense to me, but unless I did some sort of sociological thesis on the history and development of the gaming industry then I wouldn't feel comfortable asserting anything for definate.

Do you really think that PC gaming would be THAT much more popular though? Do you think that all the great games made for consoles over the past two decades would have came out on PCs? But i suppose as a PC gamer yourself you wouldn't mind that sacrifice if PC gaming had even a little more money in it so HL2 episode 2 might actually get released this year:P

Personally i think there's room for consoles and PC gaming to coexist peacefully without a doubt and that they both cater for different styles/needs of gamers. I don't think that alot of console games are suitable for PCs. I've never using controllers with a pc, beatemups are all about multiplayer which is awkward in pcs (online gaming= lag which would destroy beatemups) PCs will always ahead technologically (though i see the gap receding as graphics get to a stupidly realistic point) but are awful for a quick fix of gaming.

As said by Koneko and amp- Its all about the games thats all that matters, screw techological comparisons. Its the games that show how its done. You could say great console game A would be better done on a PC. I'd say it would have never been done at all on a PC.

Quick question Zillah- how many console games have you played/owned? There are some damn good games in there and you are probably missing out a great deal- unless you hate all non strategy/fps games.

Zillah

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Lowered prices on bleeding edge PC technology? I can't see that. Not happening.

Uh...why not? If the companies are making decent profits they'll pass that onto the consumer to increase sales for even greater profits.

If the PC was the only platform, still with its bleeding edge technology, it couldn't support the gaming industry as we know it. The market would still be too small because the entry price is too high. To combat this, developers could try to appeal to lower spec PCs and increase their market - but when we get to that point aren't we missing the point of your original argument and the advantages of the PC?

Like I've explained several times already, the graphical improvements and whatnot are a very minor concern, I'm mostly refering to updates/mods/additional content and customisation.

Advantages of consoles:

I'd draw up my own list but I think you can imagine what it'd be like. May be later but for now I'm running out of energy and would like to go play Supreme Commander

Ultimately, however, any platform is only as good as its software, and even though the PC is home to some great games, in my opinion, it is playing 2nd fiddle to consoles and always will.

Exactly why I'd like if PCs could steal all that shiney console investment.

aidan_walsh wrote:

How could you know if it would or wouldn't be?

Well, obviously theres lots of games that would be identical. But theres also many that would be greatly improved were they on PC, what with all the fanmade content and publisher support. For example, Oblivion. Vegeta was playing XBox, while most others who use the Elder Scrolls forum were on PC. Vegeta felt horribly left out as we talked about all the different mods and expansions that we were using and customising, adding new models, NPCs, quests, interfaces etc etc etc. He was stuck with the out of the box version and could change nothing.

humanji

0ubliette wrote:

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

Considering these are designed on PC's kind of destroys that point.

aidan_walsh

Uh...why not? If the companies are making decent profits they'll pass that onto the consumer to increase sales for even greater profits.

That can work for markets there are other areas of revenue where the money lost on individual component sales can be recouped. That doesn't happen with PC hardware, but it does with consoles - which is why companies like Microsoft and Nintendo can afford to make losses on initial hardware sales.

I'm mostly refering to updates/mods/additional content and customisation.

The fact that consoles are now network enabled and broadband connected means that this is no longer only the domain of the PC. However, console audiences do seem to be less demanding of it, presumably because it is not quite in the traditional mould of console gaming. That will change though.

thelordofcheese

A lot of Zillah’s argument seems to hinge on the idea that the PC is "clearly superior" to any console, and that the only reason it's not more evident is that consoles have, in Zillah’s eyes, been hogging the money and effort.

Frankly, I’m not seeing this.

Firstly, the superiority of the PC over the console is doubtful. Without a clear frame of reference in what manner Zillah believes the PC is better than a console, I can only assume that it's raw power. This can be true, but this isn't a hard or fast rule, just how much of an edge your PC has is proportional to how much money you pump into it. The graphics of titles like crysis and such are indeed very impressive, but by the nature of the PC are also only available to those who have, or are willing to invest heavily in their machines.

I fail to see how the investment of more money into the PC gaming scene will improve the cycle of speccing users out of the market, unless Zillah is implying that a larger market would either standardise the PC hardware market, which is wishful thinking at best, or that more money would allow for more testing of hardware combinations to reduce the compatibility issue, which I think is yet more wishful thinking.

Seeing as we're throwing wild theories out there, I’d say that if consoles ceased to exist tomorrow, the PC market wouldn't see any real benefit. It's foolish to think that simply because there are no more consoles that people would move onto PC's. Most people would just pack it in, I’d imagine. The same people that baulk at the Ps3 price tag wouldn't be willing to invest the kind of money needed to keep up with the joneses in PC gaming. And without the market numbers to justify the investment that consoles have seen, why would companies bother?

As regards downloadable content, it's a double edged sword. Sure there is some great stuff out there, some of the Oblivion mods and the original CS spring to mind, but for every half decent addition, there are twenty terrible maps, and nudity patches, and lord only knows what else. Extra content like that, can be nice, but it's by no means a system sell.
Official content is usually of a higher quality, but traditionally, has been usually bundled with patches as a sweetener. "Sorry, we messed up, here are some fixes, and a few new maps to make up for it". Now, post release patching is a great thing, but it's a necessity of the PC market. A symptom of the fractured hardware scene. As I said before, I don't think that this can be fixed, even if all the money from the console scene was ploughed into PC's for the next ten years, it's just the nature of the beast. So once again, it's not a plus, really. It's been dressed up that way, but if there was no need for patches, you can bet your ass that we wouldn't see new map packs or such from the developers.

God this is a long post, isn't it... almost done

And the last thing is the customisable performance. I'm really not buying this one. Not that you can't customise your performance, I know you can, but why are you dressing up a method designed to cope with the infinite combinations of PC hardware as an advantage over consoles. It's not that PC games have out of the goodness of their hearts decided to allow you to tinker with stuff, but out of necessity have had to allow all manner of tinkering to account for as many likely eventualities as they can. Like patching and such, it's not a bonus; it's just a side effect of the PC itself. If PC developers could do away with it, I’m sure they would.

Look, at the end of the day, PC's do some things very well games wise. FPS, strategy games, and for the moment, online play. Consoles do other things better. Neither is superior to the other, just different. The PC is not superior to the console, or visa versa, and neither has the PC been cheated out of money or attention.

If you want to see how silly this is, just replace the word 'Console' with Xbox360 and 'PC' with Ps3. Do you see?

humanji

thelordofcheese wrote:

If you want to see how silly this is, just replace the word 'Console' with Xbox360 and 'PC' with Ps3. Do you see?

And so Mac is Wii?

parliament

"...That doesn't make my point wrong...."

Yes your point is wrong. There is no wrong or right in this argument neither device will appeal to 100% of the market, so you being 'right' in saying consoles are crap and should be gotten rid of is fundamentally flawed. The problem is you are useless at getting your point across. An argument that points out the obvious differences between the two consoles (that even us sun readers can figure out) it not a compelling reason to test the PC gaming waters and make your gaming wet dreams come true.

I challenge you to give lay down ONE aspect of PC gaming that would make a console gamer sit up and take notice, now, I'm not saying there aren't any I just want you to give us one valid thought out statement, sell PC gaming to the console masses. (and please don't use superior graphics capabilities as an argument)

K.O.Kiki

... and this is why I hate "hardcore" gamers...

evad_lhorg

nah this aint a hardcore gamer.... they understand that consoles are great. this is just being plain ign'ant:p

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote:

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

God that made my eyes bleed.


Just to be clear on this, there is no game on any console that could not have been released on a current high-end pc with the same or better graphics and gameplay. The problem is that it was Coded to work on the console or consoles it was released on.

There is however the limitations of the pc hardware. Different manufacturers, drivers, performance, a higher price and a far vaster amount of possible problems will keep consoles as a viable gaming platform.

The only problem is that besides the Wii, both the xbox360 and Ps3 are moving closer to a pc then a console. 2 of the above problems are arising with current gen consoles, and with chip die shrinks for cost cutting and hardware changes(cd drives etc) you might start seeing a third.


If as Zilla said, all the money from games creation was plowed into pc games, it is possible that any game could be run on nearly any pc. The only limit would be the graphics. If you don't believe me I'm sure I can dig up the thread on the guy who got Doom3 working on a 466mhz pentium.


I'm a avid pc gamer and the only console I have ever bought is the Wii. Why?
Because its a console, its quick, original and intuitive. When I see games released on the ps3/2 or xbox/360 I always become annoyed at the fact I cant get them on my pc. And the reason I cant get them is because the companys decided more money was to be made not releasing on the pc(through no development costs for re-coding or pc optimisation). Its the reason why I hate both consoles.

Cuddlesworth

parliament wrote:

I challenge you to give lay down ONE aspect of PC gaming that would make a console gamer sit up and take notice, now, I'm not saying there aren't any I just want you to give us one valid thought out statement, sell PC gaming to the console masses. (and please don't use superior graphics capabilities as an argument)

User generated content? Gameplay mod's (Cs, TF, POe{Bf2}, Oblivion to name a few.

Extremely original games that can be played in turns through out the day, on the machine that you are working on in work. Eg; Defcon? There are a few older ones.

Small developer games offered through download without influence from Sony or Microsoft for nominal fees?

Free online games with huge fan bases. Eg; Trackmania nations,

johnny_ultimate

While I think both sides are making valid point, this is the kind of arguement that will just go on and on without any reasonable conclusions.
Think about it this way - what would you say if someone came up and said "oh the cinema is rubbish. DVD all the way!" or vice versa. There is a place for both - they are completely different experiences. If you have the time, money and effort for the full experience go to the cinema (read: PC). If you don't have all that time for travel etc.. rent a DVD (read: console).
As many have said, there will always be a place for both. Me, I have never had the expertise to really make the most out of PC gaming, and hence I have stuck with consoles. But I have a place for both (if I could, for example, I would buy a really nicely pimped out PC).
For me the simplicity and accesiabilty of consoles will always win out. But thats my OPINION (apologies for caps) and I wouldnt put anyone down for playing a PC.

Zillah

aidan_walsh wrote:

That can work for markets there are other areas of revenue where the money lost on individual component sales can be recouped. That doesn't happen with PC hardware, but it does with consoles - which is why companies like Microsoft and Nintendo can afford to make losses on initial hardware sales.

Even still, you by no means need a cutting edge set-up to play 95% of modern games. My graphics card is going on two years old now and it still runs pretty much anything very well. Only upgrade in the last two years has been some RAM and I was just playing Supreme Commander at a nice FPS.

The fact that consoles are now network enabled and broadband connected means that this is no longer only the domain of the PC. However, console audiences do seem to be less demanding of it, presumably because it is not quite in the traditional mould of console gaming. That will change though.

So they're slowly becoming more like PCs. I'm not averse to the very notion of a console, just what they're like now. When consoles become as good as PCs then I'll fully support consoles

thelordofcheese wrote:

Firstly, the superiority of the PC over the console is doubtful. Without a clear frame of reference in what manner Zillah believes the PC is better than a console, I can only assume that it's raw power.

*Bangs head off wall*

Can you read? Seriously. This is ridiculous. I've explained three or four times now that its not the graphics of PCs that I love so much, but more the ability to modify and expand games.

Seeing as we're throwing wild theories out there, I’d say that if consoles ceased to exist tomorrow, the PC market wouldn't see any real benefit. It's foolish to think that simply because there are no more consoles that people would move onto PC's. Most people would just pack it in, I’d imagine. The same people that baulk at the Ps3 price tag wouldn't be willing to invest the kind of money needed to keep up with the joneses in PC gaming. And without the market numbers to justify the investment that consoles have seen, why would companies bother?

Oh bull. PCs are more expensive than consoles, yes, but unless you're some insecure twat that needs to keep his techno penis up to scratch then its quite affordable. Anyone that can afford a console or two can afford a PC that can run most modern games.

As regards downloadable content, it's a double edged sword. Sure there is some great stuff out there, some of the Oblivion mods and the original CS spring to mind, but for every half decent addition, there are twenty terrible maps, and nudity patches, and lord only knows what else. Extra content like that, can be nice, but it's by no means a system sell.

Thats one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

"In the bookstore were some stupid books and it was hard to find the good books so bookstores aren't worth it."

Read the back of the book before you buy it ffs.

So once again, it's not a plus, really. It's been dressed up that way, but if there was no need for patches, you can bet your ass that we wouldn't see new map packs or such from the developers.

You're just wrong. Who gives a crap what reason they're doing it. They DO do it is the point. Free additional content added to the game.

And the last thing is the customisable performance. I'm really not buying this one.

Buy or not, the point is still valid. They make the game with a medium level of acceptable performance. People with very good hardware can max it out and have extra-shininess, people who crappy hardware can have reduced shininess for better performance.

If I'm a rich XBox user I can't invest in better upgrades. If I'm a poor XBox user then I can't afford it in the first place. Everyone is stuck with the single degree of performance.

Consoles do other things better.

Like? Seriously. No one has answered that yet. Bearing in mind that you can use a console style pad with a PC if you want.

parliament wrote:

Yes your point is wrong. There is no wrong or right in this argument neither device will appeal to 100% of the market

See, there you go thinking that popularity determines right and wrong. 99.99% of the human population could insist something is right and be wrong.

The PC can do everything a console can, a console can't do everything a PC can. Objectively superior.

Is it just me, or are some of you not quite paying attention here?

so you being 'right' in saying consoles are crap and should be gotten rid of is fundamentally flawed.

I'm "right" saying that as a gaming platform a PC is objectively superior. The rest is opinion.

I challenge you to give lay down ONE aspect of PC gaming that would make a console gamer sit up and take notice

Considering I have never claimed that PCs will tempt console users I'll politely decline your challenge. That and the fact that my success or failure for the challenge will be determined by someone that I think has already shown bad decision making skills by being a console gamer over a PC gamer.

thelordofcheese

Zillah wrote:

*Bangs head off wall*

Can you read? Seriously. This is ridiculous. I've explained three or four times now that its not the graphics of PCs that I love so much, but more the ability to modify and expand games.

In my defense an entire page of a thread spawned while i was writing this post, so, i'll take your point and let this aspect go.

Zillah wrote:

Oh bull. PCs are more expensive than consoles, yes, but unless you're some insecure twat that needs to keep his techno penis up to scratch then its quite affordable. Anyone that can afford a console or two can afford a PC that can run most modern games.

It's not really, if your buying a PC for games, you tend to by big and then ride the curve untill it's time to upgrade again [or at least i do]. My machines tend to last for a good few years before i really need to upgrade.
But it's still more expensive than buying a console, granted as you build/buy more machines you can save on things like monitors, but for what i've spent on consoles this generation [one Wii], you'd be hardpressed to find a PC capable of playing modern games on.

Hell, i've spent more on my PC than i have on two sucessive generations of consoles, and mine is nowhere near cutting edge

Zillah wrote:

Thats one of the most idiotic things I've ever read.

"In the bookstore were some stupid books and it was hard to find the good books so bookstores aren't worth it."

Read the back of the book before you buy it ffs.

I never said it wasn't worth it, i just pointed out that there is a high signal to noise ratio in user created content. Most of it is rubbish, it's not to take away from the good stuff, which i cited, only to point out it's not the greatest thing to happen to games ever, part 4.

Zillah wrote:

You're just wrong. Who gives a crap what reason they're doing it. They DO do it is the point. Free additional content added to the game.

No, the point is why they do it, and would they continue to do it if they didn't have to. Yes it is nice, don't get me wrong, but i don't see why a spoonful of sugar is a reason to claim a platform is superior to others.

Zillah wrote:

Buy or not, the point is still valid. They make the game with a medium level of acceptable performance. People with very good hardware can max it out and have extra-shininess, people who crappy hardware can have reduced shininess for better performance.

If I'm a rich XBox user I can't invest in better upgrades. If I'm a poor XBox user then I can't afford it in the first place. Everyone is stuck with the single degree of performance.

no they aren't depending on the age and the standard of a PC game, the degree of performance varies. besides you say a single level of performance like it's a bad thing. I don't see that myself

Zillah wrote:

Like? Seriously. No one has answered that yet. Bearing in mind that you can use a console style pad with a PC if you want.

Actually, several people have cited games and genres that work best on consoles, you've just rejected them out of hand, claiming that "yes they could work and be better" and leaving it at that.
Consoles tend to do the following genres of games better than on a PC
Sports, platformers, driving, adventure, shmups, fighting.
PC games do FPS, strategy and in my opinion, RPG's better.


Genre aside, they have the edge in ease of use, cost, and in multiplayer gaming, where as PC's are, with the right kind of money, graphically superior, better internet support, and despite the large volume of ****e, extended content.

Zillah wrote:

The PC can do everything a console can, a console can't do everything a PC can. Objectively superior.

4 player mario kart on one machine? infact more than one player on a single machine isn't really the PC's thing. So not quite everything, i'd suppose.

0ubliette

krazy_8s wrote:

God that made my eyes bleed.


Just to be clear on this, there is no game on any console that could not have been released on a current high-end pc with the same or better graphics and gameplay. The problem is that it was Coded to work on the console or consoles it was released on.

There is however the limitations of the pc hardware. Different manufacturers, drivers, performance, a higher price and a far vaster amount of possible problems will keep consoles as a viable gaming platform.

The only problem is that besides the Wii, both the xbox360 and Ps3 are moving closer to a pc then a console. 2 of the above problems are arising with current gen consoles, and with chip die shrinks for cost cutting and hardware changes(cd drives etc) you might start seeing a third.


If as Zilla said, all the money from games creation was plowed into pc games, it is possible that any game could be run on nearly any pc. The only limit would be the graphics. If you don't believe me I'm sure I can dig up the thread on the guy who got Doom3 working on a 466mhz pentium.


I'm a avid pc gamer and the only console I have ever bought is the Wii. Why?
Because its a console, its quick, original and intuitive. When I see games released on the ps3/2 or xbox/360 I always become annoyed at the fact I cant get them on my pc. And the reason I cant get them is because the companys decided more money was to be made not releasing on the pc(through no development costs for re-coding or pc optimisation). Its the reason why I hate both consoles.

jesus christ...i am aware that these games are developed on PC's. Thank you for pointing out the obvious for me professor science. Im not saying that they couldt run on the ****ing PC, obviously they could, the point im making is that these are exclusive games that will NEVER come out on PC (nintendo releasing zelda for PC?? come off it) and that by ONLY playing PC games you're losing out. Zillah claimed the PC was 'everything on the menu'. I pointed out that clearly it isnt as these games ARENT AVAILABLE on PC.
Is that a bit easier to get your head around? Eyes arent still bleeding are they??

monument

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

What is your arguement? That the PC is a better gaming platform in theory?

Communism worked... in theory.

PC gaming is too expensive. Not enough people have enough money to buy top of the line graphics cards and processors every two years. Therefore there isn't the developer backing because the market is too small.

That's the reality.

Console gaming offers a consistent platform, with product cycles of up to 7 years (PS2). The investment is less than a PC, there are fewer inconsistencies becuase everyone has the same machine and it allows developers to focus on gameplay - not on bugs.

End of thread.

CiaranC

I agree with the OP to an extent. The games library on 360 (for example), with very few exceptions, seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamer.

Where are the high brow games on consoles? Wheres the equivalent of Civ 4, or any strategy/sim/rts titles?

I have nothing against consoles per se, i like the form factor, the price, the lifecycle, the unified platform, the common dev platform, the big userbase, the online stuff. I'd just like to play something that doesnt involve shooting aliens/nazis/arabs or sport for once.

Retr0gamer

CiaranC wrote:

I agree with the OP to an extent. The games library on 360 (for example), with very few exceptions, seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamer.

Where are the high brow games on consoles? Wheres the equivalent of Civ 4, or any strategy/sim/rts titles?

I have nothing against consoles per se, i like the form factor, the price, the lifecycle, the unified platform, the common dev platform, the big userbase, the online stuff. I'd just like to play something that doesnt involve shooting aliens/nazis/arabs or sport for once.

Some people don't enjoy being bored to death by statistics. I like my games to be fun which is probably why I abhor KotOR.

RE*AC*TOR

CiaranC wrote:

I agree with the OP to an extent. The games library on 360 (for example), with very few exceptions, seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamer.

Where are the high brow games on consoles? Wheres the equivalent of Civ 4, or any strategy/sim/rts titles?

I have nothing against consoles per se, i like the form factor, the price, the lifecycle, the unified platform, the common dev platform, the big userbase, the online stuff. I'd just like to play something that doesnt involve shooting aliens/nazis/arabs or sport for once.

Viva Pinata, LOTR:BFME2, C&C3 soon.

Dont be at yourself

If you ask me, consoles - with their huge support of Japanese developers - frequently offer much more cerebral games than the beige box.

It's important not to equate high-brow with tedium. Okami, Killer 7 and company are at least equally as high-brow as the likes of Civ.

Cuddlesworth

0ubliette wrote:

I guess you have the worlds most amazing supercomputer. Heres a test to really put it through its paces, work out the megahurtz and flex those gigabytes. Take the DVD for gears of war, or Zelda: Twilight princess, put it in your PC and see if it'll play either of these AAA games. Report back to me with how it turns out. If your PC is 'everything on the menu', surely they should run fine, right?

0ubliette wrote:

jesus christ...i am aware that these games are developed on PC's. Thank you for pointing out the obvious for me professor science. Im not saying that they couldt run on the ****ing PC, obviously they could, the point im making is that these are exclusive games that will NEVER come out on PC (nintendo releasing zelda for PC?? come off it) and that by ONLY playing PC games you're losing out. Zillah claimed the PC was 'everything on the menu'. I pointed out that clearly it isnt as these games ARENT AVAILABLE on PC.
Is that a bit easier to get your head around? Eyes arent still bleeding are they??

Your original post above was in response to a claim that a pc could play any game but that console exclusivity rights have made that impossible. Considering your reply in context I don't really think my post was un-necessary.

The pc is and always will be 'everything on the menu' because it is capable of being everything on the menu. Lack of support because of consoles and the common misconception that certain games were simply not good on pc's(sports, platform etc) lead by people just like you is the reason why games don't get released on a pc. That and underhanded exclusivity deals.

CiaranC

Retr0gamer wrote:

Some people don't enjoy being bored to death by statistics. I like my games to be fun which is probably why I abhor KotOR.

Thats great for you. Likewise, some people like their games to be a bit more involved than pointing a reticule and pressing a button. Consoles dont seem to cater for these.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Viva Pinata, LOTR:BFME2, C&C3 soon.

All good to be sure, but the exceptions which prove the rule.

nekkidbibleman wrote:

If you ask me, consoles - with their huge support of Japanese developers - frequently offer much more cerebral games than the beige box.

It's important not to equate high-brow with tedium. Okami, Killer 7 and company are at least equally as high-brow as the likes of Civ.

Ive enjoyed the few jap rpgs Ive played. Another genre sadly lacking on my current console, Xbox 360 though.

Retr0gamer

It may not look it but pure action games like Gunstar Heroes and Gradius V are ever bit as cerebral as civ or a boring stat heavy RPG. The only difference is that you are sorting out puzzles at a blinding speed and using reflexes.

I do like playing something slow and deep to relax. However in the PC market it's usually wrapped up in a generic sci-fi or tolkien-esque environment that puts me to sleep. Some games do get it right (blizzard games, civ) but the majority are bap. There really aren't that many great deep games released on the PC when you think about it. However great multiplayer, user content and usually a very long campaign keep the gameplay engaging for far longer, something consoles can do but it just hasn't caught on due to poor net service plagued with idiots or lack of custimisation due to fears of piracy.

Steven

Retr0gamer wrote:

It may not look it but pure action games like Gunstar Heroes and Gradius V are ever bit as cerebral as civ or a boring stat heavy RPG.

I understand where you're coming from, but even you must realise that it's a little silly to say that they're every bit as cerebral

Also, you'll bring out the civ players and this thread will be a battleground long after the PC/Console debate has been successfully contained