Author Topic: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.  (Read 10234 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hair|Trigger

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1595
  • HT|
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #40 on: January 28, 2009, 03:40:41 am »
Its because he doesn't understand that Australians are just cooler than some people.

Player since late 2007

Offline Gnoblar

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Wherever Justice needs to be served.
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #41 on: January 28, 2009, 05:32:24 am »
No need to be oversensitive about the Australia thing, I doubt Espadon was being serious.

Yeah, it's ok everyone, I'm fully calm now, i was angry when I creted this thread and when i replied until now. I'm fine and ready to give unbiased and hopefully opinion based on fact.

And yeah, he wasn't serious.

Its because he doesn't understand that Australians are just cooler than some people.

Haha, snap.

Offline STM1993

  • Rainbow Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
  • It's been a long time.
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #42 on: January 28, 2009, 05:33:18 am »
You'd have to press the analog to one side and wait for the cursor to turn to one direction really slowly.
Change the look sensitivity (My Halo 3 Sensitivity is 6/10).

I don't play Halo, I own a PS1 (no longer works I think) and a PS2. I did watch my friends play GOW on a Xbox 360 before. As for sensitivity, even if you raise it, it can't beat the speed of the mouse. A high sensitivity analog can't be faster than a mouse with average sensitivity because the analog disallows you to literally swing the cursor over to another direction in almost an instant.

The only thing I really like about the console's type of aiming for FPS games is that you are less likely to get careless with your aim, especially if your hand isn't very steady.

Offline croat1gamer

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
  • OMG CHANGING AVATAR!!! ^ω^
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #43 on: January 28, 2009, 08:08:01 am »
after speaking with some guys (who i call usually friends) who play consoles, and with friedns who play pc games i found this:
consoles= 5/8 musthave if u go for graphics
consoles= 3/8 mass effect, accept no substitute
consoles= 1/2 gta iv
pc= 2/3 graphics (they are younger that 16yrs)
pc= 1/3 gameplay (older than 16-17)
linux= 7/8 said "wtf"
linux=1/8 said awesome, bad there is no dx
mac= what games?

for linux, actually only a few ppl said that, from bout 40 them

well, if you see someone who is speaking this:
1 am 1337, j00 c4n n07 w1|\|
noob n00b noob (and this follows after u kill him)
wtf, aimbot, aimbot, hacker, wallhax
hacker
hax

burn the game, will save you from mass retardnes that you will see ingame (like in cod4, bullet penetration)
Last year, I dreamt I was pissing at a restroom, but I missed the urinal and my penis exploded.

Offline Wormdundee

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Ruger what?
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2009, 02:48:07 pm »
Seriously, what the fuck? 2600 for a graphics card? I suppose if you're buying some card for hardcore rendering it could cost that much. If you buy a gaming video card for that much you do not know what you are doing.

Describing the Source engine as 'poor' is definitely doing it a disservice. The engine is meant to look nice while still being able to run on almost anything. This is why anything by Valve can run on a pretty low end machine. Using the word poor makes it sound like they are incompetent which is completely false. They want to reach a wider PC audience, so they can't go for Crysis level graphics.

I would have to agree with Psycho on judging a game by copies sold. Beyond Good and Evil sold like shit, but it was one of the best games that came out that year. Same with Valkyria Chronicles more recently. Then you get stuff like the most recent Mario Kart selling like crazy, and that game is really really bad. I've liked the previous Mario Karts but this one is just another quick rehash to cash in on the name.

By the way, Halo 3 isn't even close to being the top selling console game. It's not even in the top 20.

Animal Crossing and Mario Kart Wii both sold 9.5 million copies. There's also many games on both the DS and NES that have sold well over 10 million copies. There's also wii fit and wii play selling near to, and over 9 million copies. Not to say that Halo 3 is low (8.1 million) but it's not the highest. Just for fun, Super Mario Brothers on the NES sold over 40 million copies.

I have to agree with you on the split screen thing. Kind of annoying so that many games don't let you do 4 player split screen anymore.

I really don't know what your connection problems on the PC were, I've actually had more trouble with my 360 connection than the PC one. It refuses to download the codec necessary to play movies encoded in DivX.

A lot of 4-year-olds arguments you did not even respond to, you just insulted him. For instance, the dig at game updates 'catching up' on the PC. I'm sorry but PC's have been doing that for much longer than consoles. Tons and tons of games already had auto updaters before this console generation. Which is obvious, because games on consoles didn't really have any way to update before this generation.

The time he mentioned getting content for free and you replied about wallpapers? Good job avoiding his point because he is definitely right. PC's generally get new content for free that consoles have to pay for, or that consoles just don't get at all. An example would be the 'Bring Down the Sky' addon for Mass Effect.

And obviously a TV running at 1080p is going to look better than a monitor at a lower resolution. Many PC gamers run at resolutions higher than what you mentioned though.

I don't know where you got your information for pricing as well. A new release that comes out on PC and consoles will always be 10 dollars cheaper on the PC. As an example, Dead Space. $50 on PC, $60 on consoles. I don't pretend to understand why this is, but it happens.

Your comparison of a modern TV to an old monitor is pretty stupid. I can do that kind of comparison too you know. Let's pull out my old busted ass CRT TV, holy shit! It looks worse than my flat screen monitor. Imagine that.

Everything else you said I agree with. You both come off like raving fanboys, although 4-year-old is worse with his constant harping on controllers sucking really hard for some reason and nonsense attacks on 'stupid idiot' console players.


I am sorry if my anger in certain parts has made it creepy, but some things you said were really dumb, as well as 4yo.

By the way I didn't respond to retarded shit like 'PC games are better' and 'PC dominates every genre' because it's just so ridiculous. Thank you gnoblar for removing your more silly arguments such as 'I hate keyboards'

Join Date: November 3, 2002

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2009, 04:23:59 pm »
That quote has become uneconomical so I'll just cover some basic points.

1. The best selling game of all time was not halo 3, no Xbox exclusive title comes close to best selling.
2. Best selling isn't the best game, if that were true people would be scoffing at Gears 2 to go play another Wii Sports tennis match, or versus tetris.
3. PC audience has increased with casual gaming being realized, admittedly lousy games (bejeweled) have had huge success in terms of numbers of players and the profits off of them.
4. Every console controller ever made has been inferior to a mouse and keyboard, they lack the precision and speed of a mouse making them pretty much useless for an FPS unless you dull the FPS down so much that the computer compensates for your inability to acquire a target well.  The controller has only done one application especially well, the Gran Turismo series with the playstation controller, however that game appeals to a very small audience of petrolheads who would rather have the steering wheel thing instead.  The wiimote hasn't hit its potential yet, I'll wait for 1:1 motion control to make a decision on that.
5. For the price of a TV capable of the resolution to make the PS3 economical to buy plus the PS3 you could very easily buy a computer with comparable or better specs plus have access to cheaper games with better controls and being backwards compatible, you have access to some of the (real) best selling and best reviewed games of all time. 
6. TVs don't have the resolution of an LCD monitor period end of story
7. The source engine runs wonderfully and is capable of all sorts of wonderful features that consoles can't compete with.  We've had stellar facial animation since HL2 and consoles simply didn't get it until valve ported the orange box. Their engine supports all kinds of great shit like HDR multithread support and AI director. Calling it anything less than great is a flat out lie.
8. PC will always be ahead of consoles, its always going to be first in power because of the market for constantly improving CPU/GPU It will be ahead in development because PC is easiest to develop games for and where they first get developed. And PC will outshine the consoles because more people own a PC than a console.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 04:48:18 pm by a-4-year-old »
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline LtKillroy

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Killroy was here
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2009, 04:45:48 pm »
The wiimote with the zapper is incredibly unwieldy because it is bulky and weighs to much to be perfectly accurate. The wiimote in general has had problems with twitch recognition so it fails compared to the mouse. Plus, keyboards can have many many many more hotkeys and buttons than any controller, so instead of "press y to cycle through your 10 guns" you can just press 1-0 on keyboard and get it instantly. That is just one of the infinite advantages of having many keys versus 6 buttons total. You cannot ever judge a game on number of copies sold. Mostly because people in the US will eat up the same HL inspired and/or ripped off FPS that ever gets shipped here, Japanese will buy every FF game in existance, and kids will buy anything colorful. Half the time reviews are only somewhat helpful because these companies that review them (magazines and websites) depend on people liking them and therefore are garenteed to be biased no matter what, giving some games undeserving high/low scores. Like 4-year said, the only genre that is better on the controller is the racing game, and:

 you can buy controllers for PC's, you can't buy mouse/keyboard on console.
L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace

Offline Wormdundee

  • Soldier
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Ruger what?
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2009, 12:09:15 pm »
Actually you can quite easily use a mouse/keyboard on a PS3, I don't know about the 360 though.

That said, I don't know why you would. I guess if you were playing Final Fantasy XI.

Join Date: November 3, 2002

Offline a-4-year-old

  • Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2009, 02:57:33 pm »
Actually you can quite easily use a mouse/keyboard on a PS3, I don't know about the 360 though.
How well is that supported? and can you map the gestures for the sixAxis?
If we hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate. -Zapp Brannigan

Offline jerich

  • Camper
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2009, 06:35:05 pm »
Quote
Quote
Ok, so try not to include personal opinion, but you may include personal experience

JERICH:

That probably(and really isn't) working here, especially on a gaming forum where people are generally more sensitive in terms of anything to do with gaming.

I understand you aren't looking for what the person thinks is better, but rather the pros and cons of both.

No matter how many pros and cons are posted, there will be some bias because of personal experience which in turn becomes a personal opinion.

Example:

Console controllers are more comfortable, especially the PS controllers. From my personal experience, I have always preferred the PS controller over the mouse and keyboard anyday.
Sure, that is a pro for me, but since it was from experience and is questionable, it becomes a personal opinion. Others will be more inclined to disagree and say the keyboard/mouse combo offers way more versatily, options, precision, yata yata yata. Again, that person, is going for personal preference which becomes their opinion.

Of course, there is factual statements such as numbers and better specs(which is still a touchy and a preference thing), but as far as I have read, almost everyone has said a personal opinion.

Just quoted it to make it more compact.
Here is my analysis of PC vs Console:
Quote
Resolutions: Sure PC can have great resolutions, but I am not concerned with having 2500x1600 or w/e as opposed to 1080x720. A game will still play terrible at high resolutions because the game is terrible.

Controller: As I said, I prefer the PS controller because it is what I grown accustommed to and playing with the PC keyboard/mouse will always be more awkward(to me). And I've played my fair share of both.

Network: From "experience", playing online games for steam, especially TF2 was really laggy. I uninstalled steam, and any game geared to online play. If I do play games online, it would be on my PS3.

Protection/Modifications: Both the PC and console are vulnerable to hackers, although I experience(or at least notice) it more with the PC. Yes, the PC has more modifications, but that also means it probably is much easier to create viruses(although it probably isn't much harder to do it to a console). I'm completely against hacking and I don't really care for modification.

Game Selection/Options: I own a PS2, PS3, and a computer. Honestly, I probably only play the PS3 if it's with someone else, otherwise if I wanted to play a game, I'd play my PS2. But since these systems become obsolete, so do their games. The computer offers many games and the fact they have programs to play all my favorite final fantasy games and other PS1, Nintendo, etc.. Ironically, I'm usually playing on the computer play console games.

User-friendliness: With consoles, its pop in the game and play. PCs require installation as well as prerequisites in specs or whatever. I understand that most of you are fully capable of understanding these concepts, but you would be suprised at how many people are not computer literate that can't do the easiest computer tasks. Sure, there are people who are not gaming literate and won't know how to work a console, but it is generally easier to work a console than a PC.

To me the console is better. If you don't agree with me, cool. If you do, cool. Enjoy what you like.

Clan: R7 | The Ruthless


Offline LtKillroy

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Killroy was here
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2009, 07:22:32 pm »
All that being said, variety is good so both are needed for me.
L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace

Offline frosty

  • Flagrunner
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Uber Desert Eagle ^^
Re: PC's vs. Consoles, A civil discussion.
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2009, 08:12:34 pm »
personally i like PC, i also like Xbox 360 and PS3

and yes, variety is good, but too much of it can make you crazy, to a point
check out my server! click here

If at first you don't succeed, Improvise! :D