A dying breed
- Thread starter djshirtis
- Start date
No I did not read it until now and yeah you hit it on the button. PC has too many features to go away. PCs have always been the underdog, ever since the NES days people thought that playing games on PC would go away, but what people don't realize is that every innovation in the gaming market that has ever happend started out on PC first. So even though PCs are not as popular as consoles in gamming, its still the leader in gamming innovation.
PC will allways own your souls muahahahahahahaa...sorry :gollum:
PC will allways own your souls muahahahahahahaa...sorry :gollum:
ActionHank said:
1) Only on RTS, and it is debatable at best for FPSs.
2) True.
3) Not true. If your hardware is lacking, you'll see it and feel it every agonizing second and you will find NO solace....because you don't have money because you just bought new hardware to meet the minimum requirements.
4) That depends on the game. SOCOM has a pretty deep setup, and the clans are very hospitable and loyal.
WOW! All 3 of us just posted at almost the exact same time @.@
And user created content is nice, but nowhere near necessary.
spudlyff8fan said:
I would question this.
You're never going to see Darwinia on a console. You don't get the strategy and sims on consoles that you get on the PC. There is actually a huge PC game market, and tons of titles, but very few big titles. I think that's another misconception, that "nothing ever comes out on the PC". There is a definite difference in the PC and console markets.
I'm not sure where you'r egetting the "extra $400" from. If you buy consoles at release price, PC gaming is no more expensive. It's quite easy to build a decent gaming PC for a $200 premium over a normal home PC; the extra $200 will get you performance that consoles can't touch.
spudlyff8fan said:
Any non-action game is better with a mouse. Sims is a hell of a lot better with a mouse. Almost every startegy game is better with a mouse. I don't see ANY debate with FPS, the mouse is so mcuh more natural there's no comparison. It's basically "point and shoot".
spudlyff8fan said:
I dunno. It just sounds like you don't understand how PC gaming works. You don't need the latest hardware to play every game. Minimum requirements are a joke, if you don't meet them you've either made some very bad decisions in buying hardware or your hardware is 4+ years old. Upgrades are needed so inoften that they can basically be looked at as a one-time cost, just like the cost of a console. I'm not really sure why this cost thing is such a big deal; I don't see anyone saying that the Gamecube is a vastly better console than PS2 or XBox because it's only $99. It all depends on what you want to do. The PC is a platform for distinct types of games, many of which will never see the light of day on a console. Part of this is the fact that PC's have a different archetecture, specifically the keyboard/mouse setup. Another part of it is that PC gaming is a culture, and that culture demands certain types of games.
Anyway, on the topic of user created content, this is of course not something neccessary but it goes a long way toard providing game value. Morrowind on XBox is a decent RPG. Morrowind on PC is an entire world within a world, with so much fan-created downloadable content that it's mindblowing. There's more game in the PC verison of Morrowind alone than in the entire XBox library. The Sims is another excellent example.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned (unless I missed it) is the ability for vendors to patch software after release. If there are bugs in a console game, they're there. If there are bugs in a PC game, it's annoying, but patches can fix them.
Also, getting back to costs, the PC has a large selection of genuinely good bargain games, games that retail for $20 or $30 on release. Plus, PC games tend to release at $40 rather than ther $50 of console games. And of course, let's not forget the vast numbers of absolutely free games available for download; I can't count the hours I've wasted on Angband alone.
PC's definiately have their niche. I'm not going to say they're better than consoles. In fact, I expect the differences between PC's and consoles to blur as consoles mature. But there are some things that PC's are better at than consoles, and there are some genres that are pretty much only available on PC and some that are much better on PC. And vice-versa for all of that.
BCampbell said:
No. I've played my share of game on the PC, and for the most part their console equivalents are simply better. Of the racing games I've played, none of them even match the mediocre console games. The EA Sports games have been consistently better on the consoles. 3rd person shooters.....they just aren't as good (exceot in Splinter Cell's gunplay). RPGs....other than KOTORs and MMOs, they don't have that many, and they run fine on a keyboard....usually. RTSs are better on the PC, simply because of the better abilities for hotkeying from the keyboard, and the speed of the mouse. FPSs, I find having one hand on the keyboard and one hand on the mouse, and your eyes on the screen thoroughly clumsy and akward, and essentially everyone who plays more on the consoles feels the same way.
Yes I do.BCampbell said:
BCampbell said:
I don't meet the minimum requirements for games, and I've made fine BUDGET choices on my PC. I don't meet the minimum requirements for LOTR: Return of the King, Republic Commando, among others.
BCampbell said:
No.
BCampbell said:
It's a HUGE deal if you don't have it.
BCampbell said:
Did anyone even imply that?
BCampbell said:
As I said, consoles have a bigger variety of games.
BCampbell said:
That's because it isn't meant as a gaming console.
BCampbell said:
That just doesn't sound good.
BCampbell said:
That's nice, but it isn't as if the Xbox equivalent is lacking.
BCampbell said:
True, but console games get tested thoroughly enough that it is rarely a prooblem with any big game.
BCampbell said:
So do consoles.
BCampbell said:
Can't argue with you on that.
BCampbell said:
Only RTS.
dang. we got a nice little debate going here. now to just make sure we all stay sane and no name calling =)
well, i am gonna just pick one thing out of that stack and disagree totally with they keyboard/mouse combo being awkward. perhaps its because i've been doing it for SO many years that it is totally comfortable for me.
it's sort of like driving a stick. people who love to drive a stick shift just love to drive it. sure it might be awkward when you don't have much experience doing it. but after awhile you don't even have to look down to see what gear you're in or how many RPMs you're doing. you just feel everything. you are eventually using more of your senses than normal to drive. your sense of feeling (from the vibrations of the engine), sense of hearing, also to gauge RPMs. you are being more engaged in the driving experience and at the same time, have more control over your vehicle.
i know that is kind of a loose comparison. that also ties in with the factor of pc gamers being loyal. it's more hardcore, it's a different kind of love than a console. we have to maintain our pcs, love them, upgrade them. and therefore we are proud of them because we can't afford alienware systems but manage to stay on the fore-front of fragging, leveling up, what-have-you. it's sort of like how han solo would never cash in his millenium falcon for a different starship. sure it might be kind of buggy and unpredictable, but it was his ship and he had poured a lot of upgrades into it.
just don't be hatin on the pc cause you don't have a good relationship with it, is all i'm sayin.
well, i am gonna just pick one thing out of that stack and disagree totally with they keyboard/mouse combo being awkward. perhaps its because i've been doing it for SO many years that it is totally comfortable for me.
it's sort of like driving a stick. people who love to drive a stick shift just love to drive it. sure it might be awkward when you don't have much experience doing it. but after awhile you don't even have to look down to see what gear you're in or how many RPMs you're doing. you just feel everything. you are eventually using more of your senses than normal to drive. your sense of feeling (from the vibrations of the engine), sense of hearing, also to gauge RPMs. you are being more engaged in the driving experience and at the same time, have more control over your vehicle.
i know that is kind of a loose comparison. that also ties in with the factor of pc gamers being loyal. it's more hardcore, it's a different kind of love than a console. we have to maintain our pcs, love them, upgrade them. and therefore we are proud of them because we can't afford alienware systems but manage to stay on the fore-front of fragging, leveling up, what-have-you. it's sort of like how han solo would never cash in his millenium falcon for a different starship. sure it might be kind of buggy and unpredictable, but it was his ship and he had poured a lot of upgrades into it.
just don't be hatin on the pc cause you don't have a good relationship with it, is all i'm sayin.
That and plus, I disagree with the FPS being as good on console as on PC. That just ain't true. PC always have better graphics than consoles, cause computer games can make their resolution wayy higher than 800x600 which console games keep theirs at. Look at Doom 3 for Xbox they cut down the graphics (although they do look better than what I thought xbox could handle) and edited alot of the exploritave places you could go on the PC version. Same thing withh Call of Duty on Consoles, it looks watered down to the point if you played it on PC first you won't even enjoy the console version. That alone makes PC better choice better graphics. If a shooter comes out on multiple platforms, it almost always comes out on PC last, which gives PC players the most content. Halo 1 for example had online play on PC. Last, the controls on a PC FPS is much tighter. The controler pails incomparison to the almighty mouse. With a controler you have to use your thumbs to properly aim, as where a mouse you have your whole hand to give you control, which overall gives you better control of your aim. Plus if you play the same game on console against someone on PC the PC person almost always win, I had that first hand experience on Quake 3 for Dreamcast where you can play againt people using the PC version. PC version people always won.
I generally prefer console gaming to PC, simply because I can do it from a more comforable seat. ;-) Though some games really are suited to one or the other. I don't like playing sims games, or Tomb Raider on consoles, but wouldn't want to play something like Prince of Persia on the PC.
I don't really think you can say that one type of gaming ultimately rules over the other. Certain games are devoloped better for certain styles of gaming (PC vs. Console), and some of them are just more fun from the comfort of your living room couch.
I don't really think you can say that one type of gaming ultimately rules over the other. Certain games are devoloped better for certain styles of gaming (PC vs. Console), and some of them are just more fun from the comfort of your living room couch.
I can and damnit I will. But thanks for trying to bring some female reason into the conversation.
Well Actionhank, graphics aren't everything and there are so few cross-console multiplayer games that is just not an issue.
spudlyff8fan said:
Well what in a FPS besides graphics does console have that PC don't...and don't do it better.
Judging from Half Life 2, Doom 3, Farcry, and Unreal...
Additional content and easier use...along with the lack of upgrades to play them.
Additional content and easier use...along with the lack of upgrades to play them.
well, the ones i cited are all PC ports that have added content. I dunno if they released the stuff they added to the Xbox version online for-download, but all the big PC games that have been ported onto the Xbox have had a load of extra stuff.
Okay, I read through some of the original comments in this thread and I think we got a bit off topic, arguing some moot points.
The original complaint was that PC games are getting harder to find, and comments were made that they're dropping off the map. Now, I don't think this is necessarily true. I do think PC games are not being marketed very heavily at all, and PC-exclusive games are barely being marketed at all. But they are out there, and I think the PC is becoming a haven for good budget titles. The PC is also the only place you can really get true simulation games; you can't get things like Flight Simulator on consoles, there's no market, and even things like NASCAR racing sims aren't as deep on consoles as they are on PC. Grand Prix Legends is still considered the bets racing sim -- as in pure sim, not Gran Turismo sim -- ever made, and it's over half a decade old.
Yes, the PC is a platform for specific types of gamers. There's also an interesting polarization, with numerous budget titles next to extremely demanding and beautiful games like Doom 3 and Half-life 2. A lot of thegames that work on consoles don't work on PC's and vice-versa, just because of the way they're designed. They're two different markets for the most part, and that's okay. When titles do crossover, you can bet they'll potentially look better on the PC -- if you have decent hardware. Vice City looks exponentially better on my computer than on the PS2, and I don't have a $2000 machine.
Hardware seems to be what it comes down to. And when it comes down to it, many people make comments like those that were made in this thread, about having to buy $600 video cards every month. I think we all know that isn't true. The difference in price between a PC that can display console-level graphics and a console isn't much, if there is a difference at all. I already explained that to be fair we have to consider only the cost of makinga computer sufficient for gaming, not the entire computer itself -- so while it may cost $800-$900 for a gaming computer, only $300-$400 of that at most is dedicated to gaming performance. The life cycle of such a system is also comparable to the current 3-4 year cycle of consoles, so comparing the cost of a new console, which is usually $300 (and in the case of the PS2 is rumored to be significantly higher), with the true cost of a gaming PC shows that if it is more expensive, it's not much more so. In addition, PC's have a vastly larger library than any current console, even considering the PS2's backward compatibility, so it may be more true to compare a gaming PC to two or more consoles!
I don't really understand why the price factor is so important in the first place. As I said before, nobody claims that the Gamecube is so much better than other consoles because the other consoles are so much more expensive. Comparing the Gamecube's price to the XBox or PS2 is making the same argument as comparing the price of a gaming PC to a console, but for some reason, the people who making the cost argument against PC's don't make that same argument for the GC. That's because when you really getto the bottom of the issue it's about what games individual people want to play. If it costs $400 to play PC games, people will still buy the hardware because they want to play the games that are only released on the PC. If it costs $400 for a PS2, people will still buy the hardware because they want to play thegames that are on the PS2. For PC gaming to die, the market must die, and that won't happen any time soon.
The PC does have certain advanatges. There's no comparison to keyboard and mouse for pinpoint accuracy in FPS's, as anyone who has spent some time with both that setup and controllers will tell you. The PC's massive amounts of storage, while arguably only a current advantage that may not last too much longer, allow different types of games to be designed, and the natura of a PC (as a multi-use peice of equipment) means that certain functions, like Internet connectivity, are assumed. This allows for things like patch and map downloads, things that are just becoming available on consoles, where they aren't anywhere near as widespread as on the PC. PC's are also fairly easy to develop for (no complicated licensing), so there are a ot of offbeat, inventive games out there that would never hit consoles due to budgetary concerns. Consoles have advantages, too, mainly ease of use, but many many others, like household reach. In the end, PC gaming is just a subculture of gaming culture, just like any hardcore group of gamers.
The original complaint was that PC games are getting harder to find, and comments were made that they're dropping off the map. Now, I don't think this is necessarily true. I do think PC games are not being marketed very heavily at all, and PC-exclusive games are barely being marketed at all. But they are out there, and I think the PC is becoming a haven for good budget titles. The PC is also the only place you can really get true simulation games; you can't get things like Flight Simulator on consoles, there's no market, and even things like NASCAR racing sims aren't as deep on consoles as they are on PC. Grand Prix Legends is still considered the bets racing sim -- as in pure sim, not Gran Turismo sim -- ever made, and it's over half a decade old.
Yes, the PC is a platform for specific types of gamers. There's also an interesting polarization, with numerous budget titles next to extremely demanding and beautiful games like Doom 3 and Half-life 2. A lot of thegames that work on consoles don't work on PC's and vice-versa, just because of the way they're designed. They're two different markets for the most part, and that's okay. When titles do crossover, you can bet they'll potentially look better on the PC -- if you have decent hardware. Vice City looks exponentially better on my computer than on the PS2, and I don't have a $2000 machine.
Hardware seems to be what it comes down to. And when it comes down to it, many people make comments like those that were made in this thread, about having to buy $600 video cards every month. I think we all know that isn't true. The difference in price between a PC that can display console-level graphics and a console isn't much, if there is a difference at all. I already explained that to be fair we have to consider only the cost of makinga computer sufficient for gaming, not the entire computer itself -- so while it may cost $800-$900 for a gaming computer, only $300-$400 of that at most is dedicated to gaming performance. The life cycle of such a system is also comparable to the current 3-4 year cycle of consoles, so comparing the cost of a new console, which is usually $300 (and in the case of the PS2 is rumored to be significantly higher), with the true cost of a gaming PC shows that if it is more expensive, it's not much more so. In addition, PC's have a vastly larger library than any current console, even considering the PS2's backward compatibility, so it may be more true to compare a gaming PC to two or more consoles!
I don't really understand why the price factor is so important in the first place. As I said before, nobody claims that the Gamecube is so much better than other consoles because the other consoles are so much more expensive. Comparing the Gamecube's price to the XBox or PS2 is making the same argument as comparing the price of a gaming PC to a console, but for some reason, the people who making the cost argument against PC's don't make that same argument for the GC. That's because when you really getto the bottom of the issue it's about what games individual people want to play. If it costs $400 to play PC games, people will still buy the hardware because they want to play the games that are only released on the PC. If it costs $400 for a PS2, people will still buy the hardware because they want to play thegames that are on the PS2. For PC gaming to die, the market must die, and that won't happen any time soon.
The PC does have certain advanatges. There's no comparison to keyboard and mouse for pinpoint accuracy in FPS's, as anyone who has spent some time with both that setup and controllers will tell you. The PC's massive amounts of storage, while arguably only a current advantage that may not last too much longer, allow different types of games to be designed, and the natura of a PC (as a multi-use peice of equipment) means that certain functions, like Internet connectivity, are assumed. This allows for things like patch and map downloads, things that are just becoming available on consoles, where they aren't anywhere near as widespread as on the PC. PC's are also fairly easy to develop for (no complicated licensing), so there are a ot of offbeat, inventive games out there that would never hit consoles due to budgetary concerns. Consoles have advantages, too, mainly ease of use, but many many others, like household reach. In the end, PC gaming is just a subculture of gaming culture, just like any hardcore group of gamers.
personally i like fps' better on pc because i preffer using the mouse over a controller, but i have to settle for console because my computer can't handle any recent games. I still play the original unreal tournament on pc and it still holds up. I tried to play unreal 2 (the non-tournament one) and it ran so slow that i couldn't even play it. I also tried silent hill 3 and my pc nearly exploded. so i think the decline of pc gaming has a lot to do with poor bastards like me who would rather just get an xbox instead of spending $500+ to get their pc up to speed.
Several months ago I was thinking of writing up an article about building a sub-$1000 gaming PC. This thread has revived my interest in this... maybe I'll actually get off my ass and do it.
you should. and make references to actual product on sites such as newegg.com where these items can be purchased. it will bring your point home to the nonbelievers.