Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Heavy system useless without gaming BUT WHAT ABOUT CONSOLES

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gaming
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 21, 2006 6:53:46 AM

Well people are buying up the heavy machines to do heavy gaming and spending huge money on buying up the graphic cards now say if the main intention is to game then why are consoles made up of.The Xbox 360 is mindblowing and the PS3 has planted up the nuclear bomb 8) and now say that if we spend money on buying the Graphic Cards is'nt it good to buy up the console by spending lesser price.

Well i have the same problem which to buy a console or a pc.

If you all say with pc's you could do video editing and other all sort i have an old athlonXP with a GeForce 6200.

Consoles are heavily loaded LOOK at the xbox 360 it can spew out 1.0TFLOPS which has 3 processors and the upcoming PS3 has 7 cores

Now people after buying the pc's for gaming they go and buy up the games BUT if the game developer does'nt release the game for the pc it would gave a heart stroke.LIKE THE HALO 2 RELEASED ONLY FOR XBOX

I took a look at this topic but it supported both the pc's and the consoles
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6233821.html

Now you all help me what to do i am thinking to buy up a new pc with nvidia geForce 7600GT or ati x1800gto.

More about : heavy system useless gaming consoles

July 21, 2006 7:10:52 AM

Personally, I prefer PCs, I like the control scheme better, the increased power (regardless of meaningless teraflop figures), higher resolution, the control options, modability of games, etc, etc...

But you should get whatever you like. If you want a console, go to town... sounds like you've already decided.

Have fun with Halo 2. :) 
July 21, 2006 7:18:55 AM

the two main differences between the patforms are the control and the resolution if you dont mind the impresise control of a gamepad then then a console offers the best copatability and a guarenttee that in 2-3 years time new games will still run perfectly on it. but when your considering the priceing equation dont forget the £600 + HDTV youll need to get to get the best from the console and even then the resolution *probably* wont be upto that of a fairly standard pc moniter, unless u spend £1600 + on a 1080p tv.
Related resources
July 21, 2006 10:16:04 AM

Quote:
Well people are buying up the heavy machines to do heavy gaming and spending huge money on buying up the graphic cards now say if the main intention is to game then why are consoles made up of.The Xbox 360 is mindblowing and the PS3 has planted up the nuclear bomb 8) and now say that if we spend money on buying the Graphic Cards is'nt it good to buy up the console by spending lesser price.

Well i have the same problem which to buy a console or a pc.

If you all say with pc's you could do video editing and other all sort i have an old athlonXP with a GeForce 6200.

Consoles are heavily loaded LOOK at the xbox 360 it can spew out 1.0TFLOPS which has 3 processors and the upcoming PS3 has 7 cores

Now people after buying the pc's for gaming they go and buy up the games BUT if the game developer does'nt release the game for the pc it would gave a heart stroke.LIKE THE HALO 2 RELEASED ONLY FOR XBOX

I took a look at this topic but it supported both the pc's and the consoles
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6233821.html

Now you all help me what to do i am thinking to buy up a new pc with nvidia geForce 7600GT or ati x1800gto.


I'll Microsoft their dues, the 360 is a great piece of kit, the PS3 I'm not so sure about as its using many unproven technologies. Only time will tell if the PS3 will be a success.

Personally I think PC and console gaming will slowly merge closer together and will happily co-exist. We know from Microsoft press statements that Windows Vista and DirectX 10 that Microsoft is planning to make PC hardware similar to Console hardware work in a similar fashion (something to do with redundant pipelines, that consoles make better use of).

And don't forget PC technology will overtake its console cousins in terms of graphics rendering within a year of a new consoles being released. I would say the 360 has already been surpassed and the PS3 will only be equal to a high end PC when it comes out. Add to that the PC is already experimenting with real time physics rendering which could be the biggest breakthrough in gaming for years. This is something that you won’t see on consoles for another 5 years.
July 21, 2006 10:44:37 AM

Quote:

Consoles are heavily loaded LOOK at the xbox 360 it can spew out 1.0TFLOPS which has 3 processors and the upcoming PS3 has 7 cores


The 3 cores of teh xbox360 are nowhere near as advanced as an athlon or pentium, and the PS3 does not have 7 cores, it has 7 SPEs +1 real core.
July 21, 2006 11:09:27 AM

Well it's just a mess for me.I when think to buy up the consoles i think of heavy gaming.When i think of pc's i think of DX10 coz the pc which i am gonna going to buy up.The GPU which i am gonna going to buy is either nvidia 7600GT or Ati x1800GTo,now the prob lies they support the DX9.I am totally sandwiched.On one side i see heavy gaming and on other side i see 64 bit computing heavily and i also have the Windows 64 bit edition.

The problem of Directx is hammering up my head.Would my GPU support that
July 21, 2006 12:33:58 PM

You wont be able to run dx10 but you will use dx10 in reverse compatibility mode. I think it is quite safe to use what you have. In time dx10 cards will be needed but I think this is a year or more away. I have a dude whom had a race on my network and couldn’t believe the difference in game play. I could tell by his face his experience playing a great game on a gaming computer was an awesome experience an eye opener. The quality of realism in movement to shooting and that is what the computer is all about. I think most pc gamers and xbox users would agree with what I am saying.
July 21, 2006 12:47:39 PM

would the longivity of my pc would be there.But i can prove that the longivity of the consoles would be there and consoles can give easily 50-60 fps(EXAMPLE-XBOX 360 can give it at high resoulution of 1080i).CAN PC's give.We have to spend up a heavy amount But still i am thinking to buy a pc i dont know why but i think i have taken a descison to buy up a pc.
July 21, 2006 12:58:01 PM

I'm definatly more of a fan of consoles...

Everything is simpler and easier with one. You don't ever have to overclock a console. Why? Because the developers make their games specifically for the one console, not the 100's of possible PC configurations. Thus, if your console game has a bad framerate, you can safely point your finger at the developer for bad coding, not yourself for not having shelled out an extra $50 for a nicer video card.

People always say PC games look better than console games. Well, yes and no. Their resolution is able to top consoles, this is true. But that requires you to have a pretty nice PC which costs more, so obviously it SHOULD be more powerful. My personal opinion on graphics is:

1. Graphics do NOT make the game.
2. Graphics are more heavily impacted by the artists skill than the hardware. Zelda: LttP on SNES still looks more beautiful than most of the games I see now days.

Most games try to push hardware to its max to make games look as realistic as possible, but few have artists good enough to fully draw you in. Finally, playing a game on a 55' HDTV is better than a 21' PC monitor. And although you can move your PC to use for gaming on your TV, it is not nearly as worth while.

As far as controls go, I don't understand how every talks about consoles being less precise. Sure a mouse is accurate, but few games are played with just the mouse. I have never gotten into many games on a PC, but those arrow keys are by far the least comfortable form of control that I know. Yeah, controller joysticks may be less precise than a mouse, but I prefer the feel of a controller more and for everything other than single joystick vs mouse a controller seems a lot better to me.

Lastly, consoles are much more social than PCs. It is much easier to play multiplayer on a console than a PC. Notice that I said "PC," not "PCs" since once you have two PCs multiplayer starts to get somewhere. I have never been to a real LAN party before, but I have had sort of a mini LAN party with 4 Xboxs and Halo and I must say it is the Shiznit! So if you have a bunch of friends who would do that type of thing on PC often then PC may be your way to go.

So, to summarize, if your main concern is...
- Cost, get a console.
- Controller, buy whichever you like more.
- High end graphics, get a PC.
- Playing with friends locally(expecially those of the female gender) get a console. In fact, look into Gamecube or Wii. If you are not too insecure about yourself you will find some great casual games to play with non gamers.
- Playing online, get a PC. Although consoles have come a long way in this area. Xbox Live is really good, expecially if you have a lot of friends with it also.
- Comfort, get a console. (Big screen + couch = love)
- Convience, get a PC. It is nice to not have to get up to switch what you are doing.


And finally, the #1 deciding factor (in my opinion)....
If you want to play games with friends, get what they have. If you have 5 friends with an Xbox, you can borrow their games. If your friends are nuts about playing WoW, join in on the fun. Playing games with friends is the best way to play. Thats why I ended up buying an Xbox after being an exclusive Nintendo fanboy. ** NOTE ** Playstation is the devil :-D


Wow, that post is way longer than I thought it would be.
July 21, 2006 1:09:02 PM

Whats your point to your post, the xbox is better than the pc, if that was you intention I could not care which one is better or plays games better. My point to the post was the xbox360 dude was amazed and in most games I'm pumping out enough power to play a first person shooter with great performance, which is faster,, dont matter to me. When someone comes to my house to play a game they have fun and want a pc to play games and this includes xbox360 gamers I have played xbox360 games and I like my pc but buddy at work likes his xbox360 for games but that dont make one better than the other.

When someone flies a plane with my flight controller the experience is the closest one would ever expereience other than actually being in a plane.
a b U Graphics card
July 21, 2006 2:31:43 PM

Jeez Louise, another F'in Console thread! :roll:

Quote:
Well people are buying up the heavy machines to do heavy gaming and spending huge money...


And some of us use them for other things as well. Like editing, etc.
But yes many people spend alot on just a gaming rig.

Quote:
The Xbox 360 is mindblowing and the PS3 has planted up the nuclear bomb 8)


It's a BOMB alright. the PS3 looks like nothing but suck-itude sofar. And by the time it releases, they won't have that much of a price advantage over that same VPU in a PC. At least the XBo'xs graphics engine is technically superior to what's in consumer PCs now (which doesn't mean it's faster, nor does it offer better IQ either [no AF levels unlike PC]).

Quote:
and now say that if we spend money on buying the Graphic Cards is'nt it good to buy up the console by spending lesser price.


Why? Price is the only factor? Then get an older PC, heck I pretty much gave away (for a case of beer) a dual MP2000+ rig with 1GB and an R9600P (which I have since gotten back due to the guy upgrading). If price is the only consideration there are also better options out there.

Quote:
Well i have the same problem which to buy a console or a pc.


If you have to ask that question then it's probably console for you. :p 

Quote:
If you all say with pc's you could do video editing and other all sort i have an old athlonXP with a GeForce 6200.


Whiuc is slow, but if you don't need fast, then it'll do.

Quote:
Consoles are heavily loaded LOOK at the xbox 360 it can spew out 1.0TFLOPS which has 3 processors and the upcoming PS3 has 7 cores


Really if specs impress you consider this, PS3 will have a SLOW GF7900, and while the Xbox 360 graphics are more flexible and have some intriguing internal designs, they still can't do 16XAF, let alone HQ AF, adn once the G80 and R600 launch they'll be able to do things neither console can even render in real time. Stats mean very little in this it's a question of do you want flexability (PC) or simply a low input system (consoles). Oblivion on the PC can do things the Xbox360 never will, and can add it's own content (for free from the community) that the Xbox360 never will. Both have their stengths and weaknesses.

Quote:
Now people after buying the pc's for gaming they go and buy up the games BUT if the game developer does'nt release the game for the pc it would gave a heart stroke.LIKE THE HALO 2 RELEASED ONLY FOR XBOX


HALO2 is NOT only for Xbox, just release on Xbox first, just like the original. And for one off games like that, there's no question you buy it if you like it, hence I have both. But there's also titles that will never ship on the consoles, or will never ship like it does in the PC version for the console (usually the network side of things).

Quote:
I took a look at this topic but it supported both the pc's and the consoles


Which is actually the ONLY CORRECT answer.

Quote:
Now you all help me what to do


Can't do that. Only Fanbois think there's only one perfect solution, that's why I have both, and a PSP too. They all do something better than the others.
July 21, 2006 2:36:27 PM

Well the example you gave was correct Playing Flight Simulator by a joystick is a gr8 experience.Well on the other hand if we think of buying up the consoles we have to stop our brains by thinking any sort of video editing and other sorts.we should buy a good GPU like 7600Gt or ati x1800gto which would not make a hole in the pocket and we could game on it with eye-candy support.WELL FOR PLAYING UP THE GAMES ON THE CONSOLES,I HAVE TO BUY AN HDTV WHICH WOULD CREATE A HOLE BY A DRILLING MACHINE IN MY POCKET and on the other hand i have a 19 inch CRT monitor so i could easily play games and ehey any sort of wrong thing like cracking etc(look i am not supporting piracy but everyone thinks of it once)is thought by many persons to try up atleast one time which could'nt be done in the Consoles.

SO that's the reason i am planning to buy up a pc which would give me playable frame rates at a good resoulutions with eye candy support.

I THINK MY DESCISON IS CORRECT.
July 21, 2006 2:45:14 PM

Quote:
WELL FOR PLAYING UP THE GAMES ON THE CONSOLES,I HAVE TO BUY AN HDTV WHICH WOULD CREATE A HOLE BY A DRILLING MACHINE IN MY POCKET and on the other hand i have a 19 inch CRT monitor so i could easily play games


VGA Cable

I play my 360 on my 19" LCD all the time. Works like a charm. Both Consoles and PC's you have the same choices of monitors.


Quote:

I THINK MY DESCISON IS CORRECT.


Then go with it. When it comes to games, it is not about anything other than what you will enjoy the most. If you have done some research and think you are correct about this, then you are.
a c 365 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
July 21, 2006 2:50:12 PM

I personally prefer to PCs to consoles not only for the controls, but also because I play a lot of strategy games like Galactic Civilizations, and Star Wars Empire At War. Other games that I play requires a keyboard like X2: The Return.

I do play some FPS games but not many. Oblivion is on my list, and maybe Hitman: Blood Money. Nothing like killing your objective by strangulation using the "Fiber Wire".
a b U Graphics card
July 21, 2006 4:22:46 PM

Quote:
I'm definatly more of a fan of consoles...


And obviously ignore their failings.

Quote:
Everything is simpler and easier with one.


Hah! Whatever. Dealing in absolutes, everything, eh? Guess that's why RTSs and FPSs are all consoles at lan parties. :roll:

Quote:
You don't ever have to overclock a console.


Sure you do, in fact I can even overclock my PSP, so I can get better performance from GTA if I want it. The difference is that it's a more complex hack for consoles than PC, so it's it funny that you'd support the inability to overclock, despite the fact that there are many console games that lag (Quake4 anyone?).

Quote:
Why? Because the developers make their games specifically for the one console, not the 100's of possible PC configurations. Thus, if your console game has a bad framerate, you can safely point your finger at the developer for bad coding, not yourself for not having shelled out an extra $50 for a nicer video card.


Yeah pointing my finger at the developer is going to raise my framerate, jeez guess the finger pointing only works for foreign consoles because I point my finger all the time, and it does nothing to fix my problem on consoles or PCs. :roll: At least with a PC, I can fix my own problem. Take Oblivion as a good example, doesn't run smoothly, I tweak the settings, voila, smooth as silk, game bug means I can't do something 99% of the time I can go in, use the console, fix my own problem, continue with the quest, or get the money/items I should've received. Show me how to do that on a console and how pointing a finger would help me complete a game I'm already 80% through? (not that I'm anywhere near that far with Oblivion, Paul *ahem* :mrgreen: )

Quote:
People always say PC games look better than console games. Well, yes and no. Their resolution is able to top consoles, this is true. But that requires you to have a pretty nice PC which costs more, so obviously it SHOULD be more powerful.


That all depends on the game, some can look much better for a fraction of the cost.

Quote:
1. Graphics do NOT make the game.


Somewhat of a truism IMO.
Once again, depends on the game. Sure in general it won't make 100% of the game, but it may be the reason the game is appreciated or a large contribuing factor. No man/game-feature is an island?

Quote:
2. Graphics are more heavily impacted by the artists skill than the hardware. Zelda: LttP on SNES still looks more beautiful than most of the games I see now days.


All the artist skillz isn't going to make an NES game look good, so obviously it's partly hardware.

Quote:
Most games try to push hardware to its max to make games look as realistic as possible, but few have artists good enough to fully draw you in.


So what now consoles have better artists?
Fact, Oblivions textures didn't meet up to the critical expectations of some people (I liked them well enough) so they decided to make their own texture mods like they did in Morrwoind before as well (a feature only available on PC, console can't do this period), these new textures are very nice, and while I find the default fine, I do notice the mod is better and I have used some. Interesting thing is some of these textures are even more efficient and therefore perform better and don't need to push the hardware as hard.

Quote:
Finally, playing a game on a 55' HDTV is better than a 21' PC monitor.


Which related to what? PC can use HDTVs too, and there are some people who can't afford HDRVs and they use 21" monitors or *gasp* 20" (or less) SDTVs for their Xbox 360, so it's a red herring to even mention it.

Quote:
And although you can move your PC to use for gaming on your TV, it is not nearly as worth while.


Said you, the fanboi, with no argument to back up your statement. The addition of AF to the PC version of Oblivion is a perfect reason to hook up your 58+" 1920x1080 HDTV to an Xfired/SLi'ed PC, since the Xbox360 doesn't support that resolution only 720P (which can be scaled to output 1080i) and thus you suffer additional interpolation effects in addition to the lack of AF, let alone HQ AF. If anything the top of the line HDTVs are wasted on current consoles (Sony says the PS3 will support 1080P, but lets wait and see what the games say [Xbox/M$ dropped that claim when they started developing games).

Quote:
As far as controls go, I don't understand how every talks about consoles being less precise. Sure a mouse is accurate,


So you agree then, a laser mouse (doesn't even have to be a razorback or saitek laser gamer 3200dpi fast refresh) would be more precise than an analogue stick/pad, but you don't understand why people say it? :roll:

Quote:
but few games are played with just the mouse.


RTS, FPS ring a bell?

Quote:
I have never gotten into many games on a PC,


Which is obvious by your ignorant statements. I on the other hand play consoles and PCs and am familiar with both, and appreciate them euqally for doing what I want them to do usually as well as I expect them to (although both have shortcomings, and occasional glitches/failings)

Quote:
but those arrow keys are by far the least comfortable form of control that I know.


Yeah and those original NES and Xbox controllers didn't almost cripple players, sure! :roll:

I'm a big guy and even I had sore hands after playing Morrowind for any stretch on the original Xbox.

Quote:
Yeah, controller joysticks may be less precise than a mouse, but I prefer the feel of a controller more and for everything other than single joystick vs mouse a controller seems a lot better to me.


Good for you, however you do realize that you can add a console controller to a PC right? I have two of these (bought mine on sale, $15 for one an $10 for the other);
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=...

Before that I bought (and still own) a wireless Thrustmaster gamepade, and a Logitech rumble pad before that, so those options have been available to PCs too.

Quote:
Lastly,


YEAH!

Quote:
consoles are much more social than PCs.


OMFG! Yeah sure whatever. :roll:
You know my console has never socialized on it's own, heck if it did I'd probably kill it with my Axe!

Quote:
It is much easier to play multiplayer on a console than a PC.


Once again, says you. It depends on the game , I prefer sports titles multiplayer on the Xbox at work only because it's no setup time because I don't have to wait for the dorks to mod their characters like when we play on the PC, however most other multiplayer games (especially like UT2K4) I prefer on PC's so that I can taunt people, or open up the console and send stuff/etc).

Quote:
Notice that I said "PC," not "PCs" since once you have two PCs multiplayer starts to get somewhere.


Notice how no-one cares. You can do both, the difference is most people don't have PCs near their TVs, my laptop however will play sports titles just fine on the TV, and give me more options than the console, and remember those controller, no problem playing just like on the Xbox.

Quote:
I have never been to a real LAN party before,


For someone who's so certain of what's better you sure haven't done much of anything to base that assumption on. :roll:

Quote:
but I have had sort of a mini LAN party with 4 Xboxs and Halo and I must say it is the Shiznit! So if you have a bunch of friends who would do that type of thing on PC often then PC may be your way to go.


The point is you can do it with both, and if you know how to hack you can even avoid stoopid Xbox live and play people from the other end of the country.

Quote:
So, to summarize


Summarizing, you haven't had enough experience in both realms to comment on it. :twisted:

Quote:
- Playing with friends locally(expecially those of the female gender) get a console.


Yeah, consoles are gonna help you pull. You sound like you're 12. :roll:
First thing I think of when I get a lady to the house, is "Hey, wanna play Halo or Luigi's Mansion?!?"

Quote:
In fact, look into Gamecube or Wii. If you are not too insecure about yourself you will find some great casual games to play with non gamers.


Or in fact you could consider going outside, it's kinda cool, there's a new update and it offers so much more than the old outside. 8)

Quote:
- Playing online, get a PC. Although consoles have come a long way in this area. Xbox Live is really good, expecially if you have a lot of friends with it also.


Xbox live SUX! But thankfully if you know what you're doing you don't have to use it. :twisted:

Quote:
- Comfort, get a console. (Big screen + couch = love)


Comfort, get a PC, because you can turn it of from the controller, unlike the old consoles (Xbox360 finally added that), and you can still no-DVD a game, unlike the new Xbox360 (not hacked yet), or the GameCube and only some PS2. The comfort issue doesn't favour the Console in the least, everything you can do on the console for comfort, you can do on the PC, except playing the laest title on the road is ngih on impossible with a console (my laptop is fine on the bus/train/plane, the Xbox, not gonna happen without breaking your hips :roll: ).

Quote:
If you want to play games with friends, get what they have.


Unless your friends are losers and own crap. Get what you want most importantly, if your friends don't have one then show them how much better yours is an that they should get one. If I relied on what firends have I'd prbably be stuck with an Intellivision or Sega Genesis forever.

Quote:
Wow, that post is way longer than I thought it would be.


Yeah, and really could've been summed up by, you're a console fanboi.

Seriously these threads are full of people who think they have the superiro system/solution, but there's isn't one sofar that anyone here can point to that replaces all of the PCs and consoles I use. You find that thing and then you have a winner, until then it's all opinion on what you prefer, and most people don't know enough about both to understand that that opinion is just as subjective as Coke vs Pepsi !

BTW, Coke is it! :twisted:
July 21, 2006 4:48:11 PM

Actually I'm pretty sure most developers have already said that their PS3 games will only run at 720P, so yes it will technically support 1080P, you just won't find any games running at it. :wink:
a b U Graphics card
July 21, 2006 4:59:37 PM

LOL!

Yeah, that's probably true. I do remember alot of WTFs when Sony made that statement (well re-stating it), but of course it's like some PR for them to try and use and keep people interested while they wait and Wait and WAIT for the PS3 to arrive.

I might still buy one as a BluRay player (heck the Samsung is $1299 CDN at BestBuy/FutureShop! 8O , can't justify that yet, until there's more content, regardless of how much I like Underworld! :mrgreen: ).
July 21, 2006 5:01:25 PM

Quote:
I might still buy one as a BluRay player (heck the Samsung is $1299 CDN at BestBuy/FutureShop!

8O 8O 8O 8O
a b U Graphics card
July 21, 2006 5:12:21 PM

Yeah that was my reaction too!

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&...

The thing that surprised me is my local pharmacy is already selling HD-DVD players @ $599 down from the initial $699, and then walking in to check out the new BR player on release date and being absolutely FLOORED by the price (guess I should checked the web first :roll: ).

Amazing, a hand ful of titles isn't enough of a 'must have' for a price like that IMO.

Heck I got my ProScan DVD player in the first year on sale for $400 (regular $699), but heck there was content. The titles are still trickling in too slowly for me, heck I already died that death of a thousand cuts with my DVD-Audio and SACD disks! C'mon guys step it up! :evil: 
July 22, 2006 12:03:51 AM

why f*** would you buy a console instead of a PC...

im happy to spend $1000's of dollars more to buy a PC because its far more flexible than a console. It is in fact more user friendly when you want flexibility and want to use it for an entire range of things.
The console is only designed to play games. It comes with a game controller pad that is a little brick with buttons on it and a directional keypad.
thats all you get. then you are epxected to pay $50 or so for a game and when you get that game you're expected to play it with this stupid little game controller.
if you doint like that game controller go out and buy a different controller... but willt hat game support that? no. ihate consoles. Gaming consoles were okay during the 80's early 90's for people who wanted gaming via monitor and couldnt afford the horrifically expensive computers and didnt have the time of day to learn how touse them.
But everything is different now. Personal Computers are cheaper, easier
to operate/learn. They are now the superior gaming machine and always
have been.
There is no point in buying a game console unless you're a person who has kids who want to do gaming and you cant afford a computer so you buy them a console. Or you're an ignorant person and dont want to mess around with PC's so buy a console instead.

also you say the xbox 360 is mind blowing and PS3 has planet up the nuclear bomb (whatever that means, but im sure it means its powerful). Well for your info you can build a PC that is more powerful than both xbox 360 and PS3.

gaming consoles?... dont believe all the hype they spew out about being 'supercomputers'... its all garbage. I can guarantee you that at the time of the PS3 release my PC will be more powerful in gaming performance.. well thats as long as the new generation video cards have been released before or at the time. UOnly if current generation cards havent already surpassed the PS3 like they have the xbox 360 we'll have to wait for the ps3 to be released to find out.

its always best to think of gaming consoles as toys ... i mean, they're sold at 'toys 'r' us' for chr*st sake. game consoles are a ridiculous gaming platform. Because they lack a mouse, keyboard, flexible operating system,
software, internet etc they just are as nowhere near as good as a persaonl computer. for gaming or whatever.
they're not even as half as good as a PC. Even if they may some day release a game that is more graphically advanced than anything on the PC, they still arent worth buying. I would rather use the money for an xbox 360 or ps3 on a new graphics card to be used as SLI with my current one or something. consoles are a complete waste of money.
And always with consoles you dont just spend what $300 for the box you always have to buy the games and accessories in order to actually use it.
Some people end up spending $1000 on their friggin consoles. IMO those people are stupid and the PC is far superior and always will be for both home entertainment (via large screen TV monitor) and workstation (via high resolute computer monitor)
July 22, 2006 12:14:07 AM

Quote:
a guarenttee that in 2-3 years time new games will still run perfectly on it.


they would only run 'perfect' on it because traditionally with a console system they wont let you improve the grapics or lower them so what you get is a game that would have inferior graphics and running resolutoin to the same game for the PC.
thats why the game console is able to run games 3 years after its release.
The game would run in lower resolutoin with lesser details.
Or wouldnt be anywhere near half as good as the type of games you would get on a PC in 3 years time.
July 22, 2006 12:39:09 AM

The problem with asking a question like this here is that... most people here prefer PCs, hence why there're here.:lol: 

I'm neutral to both. Consoles can only play games and cost less. PCs cost more but they can game and do many other things.
July 22, 2006 7:40:44 AM

WELL I THINK THAT YOU DID"NT SAW MY PREVIOUS POSTS before pressing the SUBMIT button.

Well i have descided to take up a PC.I have two DDR400 512*2 so i am not thinking to shift to AM2.I want to take up DFI nf4 SLI INFINITY with a GEFORCE 7600GT.If i plan to get up an ATI card(ATIX1800GTO) then i think to buy up the ASUS A8R-MVP keeping my budget tight.

Well i am completely feared about the release of DIRECTX 10 coz this might hamper my purchase
July 22, 2006 8:56:11 PM

If you like both consoles and PCs like you say you do them maybe you shouldn't attack the only posts in the thread that give pros to consoles.
July 23, 2006 8:08:43 AM

Well i am not attacking i am usually in favour of the pc's rather than consoles and this is usually the problem of many people to either select pc or a console coz of the price difference.
July 23, 2006 9:16:17 AM

I think that is kind of like comparing apples to oranges.

One one hand you have a console that yes will last longer game wise because it it designed to do one specific thing thats it. As long as the console is on the market for the most part there will be games for it and they will for the most part always run well and costs less.

With a PC true it wont last as long as a console before you need you need to add new components to match ever increasing demands. But on the other hand it also does many many other things as well but they also cost more.

Conrtol scheme and game library aside it all comes down to what your looking for if ALL you want to do is game then go for a console. But if you want to game and do alot of other things as well then go for a pc. I have always looked and console and pc as being in 2 different "worlds" although they are moveing closer over time.
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2006 3:53:17 PM

Quote:
If you like both consoles and PCs like you say you do them maybe you shouldn't attack the only posts in the thread that give pros to consoles.


Why not when your arguments aren't based on fact. :roll:

Perhaps argue based on fact.

I think the overwhelming point of my posts has been THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR GOOD & BAD, NOTHING WINS IT ALL. That you feel I should be a lacky of the console crowd, just because you are, shows that you didn't get that fun-da-mental point.

Also consider this, you're in a PC section of what is primarily a PC site, the sooner I can smack you out of your reverie and end these stupid Console vs PC discussions, the sooner I can get back to discussing more pressing issues, like what logo/mascot ATi might choose for their new X1950 cards; or perhaps for you which one chicks would prefer the R600 or G80. :lol: 
July 23, 2006 9:56:28 PM

GGA, you're cracking me up with these posts. It's a shame that all those other people are taking your comments both far too personally, and even far too seriously.
Quote:
Well people are buying up the heavy machines to do heavy gaming and spending huge money on buying up the graphic cards now say if the main intention is to game then why are consoles made up of.The Xbox 360 is mindblowing and the PS3 has planted up the nuclear bomb 8) and now say that if we spend money on buying the Graphic Cards is'nt it good to buy up the console by spending lesser price.

Well, if it is graphics power that sells something to you, please ignore the marketting hype Microsoft, Sony, and even Nintendo have spewed out. At best, I could describe the R500 "Xenos" and the RSX "Reality Synthesizer" as modern mid-range for PC at best. Though the R500 has the nice features of both having a unified shader arcitecture and a tile-based raster structure, (both of which I hope to see implemented in future PC graphics) when it comes to graphics power and what it can put out, ATi themselves admitted it can't beat the older X1800XL.

Likewise, the PS3's RSX is all paper. Sure, it's based off of G70. (NOT G80) However, it will be the weakest one known; with only 22.4 GB/sec of bandwidth to its name, it'll effectively be strangled; think slower than a GeForce 7800GS.

Quote:
Well i have the same problem which to buy a console or a pc.

If you all say with pc's you could do video editing and other all sort i have an old athlonXP with a GeForce 6200.

Consoles are heavily loaded LOOK at the xbox 360 it can spew out 1.0TFLOPS which has 3 processors and the upcoming PS3 has 7 cores

Not really; the 1 TFlop statment is a complete lie, without a shred of evidence to even suggest it; the theoretical maximum performance of the IBM Xenon processor is 9.6 GFlops, comparable to that of an Athlon64 4600+, though the Xenon suffers from a much lower FSB speed and rather low cache, both of which are necessary for optimal gaming performance. (in other words, the processor was designed for emulating the Xbox, as such processors are good at linear tasks like that) It should also be noted that this is about the same benchmark performance that you'd get out of a Core 2 quad @2.4GHz... And even a single Core 2 Solo at that speed smokes an FX-62 in gaming, so you see how useful floating-point tests like LINPACK are at determining gaming performance.

As for the playstation 3, those are Synergistic Processing Elements, (SPE) not cores. They are not independent, and actually rather limited in use. At the current rate, the "Cell" has 8 of them designed, but to improve yields, (as most have 1 or more SPE broken at the start) they lowered it to 7, and they may even lower it to 6. They can't be compared to a PC processor, even if, at the current 7 SPE/3.2GHz spec, they supposedly produce a theoretical maximum floating-point performance of 89.6 gigaflops.

Quote:
Now people after buying the pc's for gaming they go and buy up the games BUT if the game developer does'nt release the game for the pc it would gave a heart stroke.LIKE THE HALO 2 RELEASED ONLY FOR XBOX

Actually, that's been in the works for the PC for around a half-year; it will debut with Windows Vista/DX 10, and have graphics pumped-up to the point where the Xbox 360 would have a meltdown.

Quote:
I took a look at this topic but it supported both the pc's and the consoles
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6233821.html

Now you all help me what to do i am thinking to buy up a new pc with nvidia geForce 7600GT or ati x1800gto.

Well, it was an interesting article, but it was quite old; notice how it referred to a GeForce 6800 ultra SLi setup as the best in graphics, and it was made before even the Xbox 360 was priced. (and it assumed that the PS3 would go for less than $500US, if not <$400US, har har)

At any rate, that's an odd question to end with. In most tests, though, the X1800GTO appears to best the 7600GT, by a slight margin. I'd also go for it due to image quality and better SM 3.0 issues, as well; keep in mind that in most games with HDR, the 7600GT won't be able to use anti-aliasing, and only a handful of people actually DON'T notice the difference. And unless I'm mistaken, (and significant price changes have taken place) the X1800GTO's a bit more expensive, isn't it? So go figure.
July 24, 2006 6:57:09 AM

OK i understood what you wanted to say.But look upgrading the pc at this juncture,IS IT GOOD.the thought that DX10 is going to be released is seriously increasing the heart beats.The card which i am gonna going to buy would not support the DX10 layer and DX10 will be running in VISTA only.Now
the descison to buy up a PC after a year is good coz it would serve me for the next i hope 2 yrs without much hesitation.Is'nt IT or i should buy it up now.

And one more thing playing in CRT is good or playing in TFT is good.Buy a TFT with 4ms response time would serve me for gaming.If i buy a TFt with 12ms response time,Can i play games smoothly at a framerate of 60fps????

AND beside everything there is budget so i am planning to buy up a 7600GT.I hope that this would serve me for the future purpose.

Well i hope that you might help me in taking this descison.
July 24, 2006 10:51:28 AM

Quote:
If you like both consoles and PCs like you say you do them maybe you shouldn't attack the only posts in the thread that give pros to consoles.


Why not when your arguments are BS! :roll:

Perhaps you should learn to argue based on facts!

That's what I used to show your statements to be myopic Fanboi crap!

I think the overwhelming point of my posts has been THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR GOOD & BAD, NOTHING WINS IT ALL. That you feel I should be a lacky of the console crowd, just because you are, shows that you didn't get that fun-da-mental point.

Also consider this console-boy, you're in a PC section of what is primarily a PC site, the sooner I can smack you out of your reverie and end these stupid Console vs PC discussions, the sooner I can get back to discussing more pressing issues, like what logo/mascot ATi might choose for their new X1950 cards; or perhaps for you which one chicks would prefer the R600 or G80. :lol: 

My arguments are BS? I'm sorry, but most of your reply to my post was BS. Let's take a look at one example...

Quote:
Quote:
As far as controls go, I don't understand how every talks about consoles being less precise. Sure a mouse is accurate,



So you agree then, a laser mouse (doesn't even have to be a razorback or saitek laser gamer 3200dpi fast refresh) would be more precise than an analogue stick/pad, but you don't understand why people say it? Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Quote:
but few games are played with just the mouse.



RTS, FPS ring a bell?

First of all, you split one sentence in half so that you can argue against the first half. This MAYBE works if the second part of the sentence isn't supporting the first and giving more information, but in the case of this sentence it is.

Second of all, you should have noticed that I said mice were accurate. In fact, you included that in the first part of the sentence you cut off. You know, the part where I said "Sure a mouse is accurate." Then you are arguing against me that a mouse is accurate. Here is how it works out in simpler terms.
Person 1: The sky is blue.
Person 2: No it isn't, the sky is BLUE. You are definatly an idiot. I win the argument.

Finally, I said that very few games are played with just a mouse and you responded with "RTS, FPS ring a bell?" Well, I have never heard of the games RTS and FPS which seems to be your FACTS about some games that are. That is ok, I realize that you were simply meaning the genres First Person Shooters and Real Time Strategies, which is fine, it just does not name any games.

So go ahead, name some FPS and RTS games that are played with just a mouse, PC "fanboi."
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2006 3:04:46 PM

Quote:
First of all, you split one sentence in half so that you can argue against the first half.


I split it because it brings up two points, that cross over two sentences. You write that for some reason you don't understand why people say the controls are less precise on console/more precise on PC, but the very next sentence you begin with the statement a mouse is accurate, but try to distance that statement by building in your own dismisal of it's use. The sentence needed to be split because you put it together to try and discount the argument. Playing with 'just' a mouse or with a combination doesn't diminish the accuracy of the mouse which is the focus of the accurate part.

Quote:
This MAYBE works if the second part of the sentence isn't supporting the first and giving more information, but in the case of this sentence it is.


No it's not they are unrelated. Your assumption that using 'just a mouse' has anything to do with the preciseness of the controls is ignorant, the comparison is the analogue stick versus digital mouse, and the mouse wins. The vector based limited used digital pad or keyboard are equal in their basic compass N/S/E/W orientation, so precise has nothing to do wiht it's use alone.

Quote:
Second of all, you should have noticed that I said mice were accurate. In fact, you included that in the first part of the sentence you cut off.


Which is exactly why I split your sentence for emphasis. Re-read it and see if you don't understand why. :roll:

Quote:
You know, the part where I said "Sure a mouse is accurate." Then you are arguing against me that a mouse is accurate. Here is how it works out in simpler terms.


No let me explain it to you, since you have trouble formulating your arguments once again. I'm not arguing against you that a mouse is accurate, I agrue against your opening statement of not knowing why people say it's more precise, by using you opening word of the next sentence, that a mouse is accurate.

Quote:
Person 1: The sky is blue.
Person 2: No it isn't, the sky is BLUE. You are definatly an idiot. I win the argument.


No, see, here's your argument:

I don't see why people say the sky is blue. Sure light refracts through the atmosphere to give it the apperance of colour that we call sky blue, but really how many people are actually looking at the sky at any one time.

See THAT's better reflects your statement/argument, not what you try and redefine it as. Had you changed that to "While most people do argue PC controls are more precise, I don't see that as being a compelling reason for buying one or the other personally..." or something along those line, then there'd be little to argue against, other than perhaps if I felt that a mouse made Halo on PC better despite lack of co-op play, which I don't as can be seen by my previous statements about the game. See that would be hwo to formulate an stronger position not saying "I don't see how... and then the very next sentence, saying, well I see how...". Now SEE how your perception of your own argument is flawed, which is likely keeping you from realizing that you're bringing a knife to a gunfight boy!.

Quote:
Finally, I said that very few games are played with just a mouse and you responded with "RTS, FPS ring a bell?" Well, I have never heard of the games RTS and FPS which seems to be your FACTS about some games that are.


So that's your argument to that section, the "uh I've never heard of..." argument, guess you never heard of PCs either, cause you sure can't speak to them. You come in and make a whoel bunch of false statements, and then your defence is to try and nitpick?

Quote:
That is ok, I realize that you were simply meaning the genres First Person Shooters and Real Time Strategies, which is fine, it just does not name any games.


Not that it would matter, but a game on PC using the more precise mouse as an input device would be the aformentioned Quake4, you coudl chose UT2K4. Of course you'll respond, they don't use just a mouse, but that actually doesn't even relate to the discussion other that you setting the paramters for the discussion to avoid an obvious weakness in your superiority claim.

Quote:
So go ahead, name some FPS and RTS games that are played with just a mouse, PC "fanboi."


'Just a mouse' assumes that's there's validity in your assumption that only when it's ALL mouse is is more precise. Precision is based on what is the most precise fine tuned input either has to offer and that would be analogue stick versus laser mouse, and that also works in conjunction with resolution, 2560x1600 will give you far more precision when needed than the 1080i/720p of the current top console, heck even if Sony does pull off 1080P it's behind.

Needless to say if you're going to focus on precision and the crux of your argument is name a game that uses ONLY the mouse for precise gaming, then it's obviously you have little to defend your original statement of "Everything is simpler and easier with one.".
July 24, 2006 3:11:31 PM

More like zyberwrong.
July 24, 2006 3:45:35 PM

Since you still seem to be unable to understand let me spell this out for you. A mouse vs a controller: a controller wins almost every time.

Why? Because PC games rarely use just the mouse. They use mouse AND keyboard (saying "just a mouse" implies a mouse no other form of controller). Without the keyboard, all you can do is aim in FPS. My argument s that a controller for player movement is more precise than a keyboard. The argument (more like opinion) comes down to which is more precise: a controller or a keyboard and mouse?

I would say a controller is, but you are free to argue the other way. You do not need to make a post saying "fanboi" crap and stuff like that when instead all you need to do is make a simple argument.

All my original post did was state my personal opinion. In fact, I made the first line of it "I am definatly more a fan of consoles..." to show that my opinion was in fact biased and merely my opinion.

Then you start with "fanboi" crap when I obviously said that both sides were good. Look:

Quote:
So, to summarize, if your main concern is...
- Cost, get a console. Console
- Controller, buy whichever you like more.
- High end graphics, get a PC. PC
- Playing with friends locally(expecially those of the female gender) get a console. In fact, look into Gamecube or Wii. If you are not too insecure about yourself you will find some great casual games to play with non gamers.Console
- Playing online, get a PC. Although consoles have come a long way in this area. Xbox Live is really good, expecially if you have a lot of friends with it also.PC
- Comfort, get a console. (Big screen + couch = love).Console
- Convience, get a PC. It is nice to not have to get up to switch what you are doing. PC


In my summery, I gave 3 pros for both console and PC. But no, I am just a console "fanboi."

When I argued about artists being more important than hardware, I was not arguing for PC or console. All I was stating was that even if you buy something that costs thousands of dollars, does not mean that every game you play on it is better looking than a game played on a less expensive PC or Console. This sided SLIGHTLY with consoles since their price tag is generally much lower, but either way it was not really an arguement for either. It was just more information.

Let's see, what else...
You made fun of my suggesting a Gamecube or Wii for playing with friends or girls. Of course it is obvious it is not going to get you laid. That is not what I was suggesting it for. It is for having fun. My girlfriend will play games like Mario Kart, Party, Tennis because the games are simple. My roomates' girlfriends are the same way. I'm going to assume that you have friends that are girls who you hang out with. Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't, but there is a good chance that you all would have a blast playing games like those.

Also, you suggested going outside. Is that really necessary? The topic is about consoles vs. PCs. We all know we can go outside, and for free at that.


My post was biased (which I clearly stated) but far from fanboy-ish. Since so few people here prefer consoles to PCs it should be good to at least let a few people offer an opposing point of view without being torn apart for it. I also never stated for my points to be facts.

Which is more comfortable? Which works better in a living room? Which is easier to use? None of those can be answered with a clear winner. It is up to each person what they prefer. That is what I stated. That is pretty much what you stated in your posts also. Since all in all we have the same overall perspective of consoles vs PCs (apples and oranges), why try to find something wrong with every sentence (or half sentence) that I say?
July 24, 2006 3:56:05 PM

Quote:
Since you still seem to be unable to understand let me spell this out for you. A mouse vs a controller: a controller wins almost every time.


This is some the biggest rubbish I've heard since 9Inch last started a rant. Play *any* FPS and it's better with a mouse. A console controller is *not* a good controller for such a title, spend 5 seconds thinking about how aiming actually works and you'll figure it out. RTS are better with a mouse, most CAN be played with ONLY a mouse. But, even though RTS/FPS own so damn hard with a mouse that it almost hurts, they aren't all. The best selling videogame on a PC or recent consoles is the Sims. Not an FPS or RTS. However, it it *awful* to play with a controller, but much, much better with a mouse. It needs very little keyboard involvement either.

I could go on, but it seems unnecessary. If you want me to list a good 400-500 games, and write beside why they're better with a mouse, maybe not. If you really believe a console controller is better "almost every time", then logical arguments really aren't going to sway you. I mean, you actually brought up precision.... seriously. Look at the precision of the Logitech G7, and the PS2/Xbox controllers, and say that again.

Arguing that the controller wins "almost every time" is a fanboy argument, as you're not saying "controllers win some of the time". You're saying that, over all situations, there is a definite and quantifiable winner. Rubbish.

And before I get a lovely little fanboy tag, I have a "console" controller plugged into my PC right now, which I use very happily to play TOCA:RD3. Because, as I'll be the first to point out, there are some genres, such as driving and sports, in which controllers rule. The problem is these are few and far between.

Synergy6
July 24, 2006 4:00:48 PM

I know that's your opinion, but there's no way a controller is more precise than a keyboard/mouse. It's just not true. This is something you'd see if you spent some time playing PC games, especially FPS's.
July 24, 2006 4:04:35 PM

Quote:
And before I get a lovely little fanboy tag, I have a "console" controller plugged into my PC right now, which I use very happily to play TOCA:RD3. Because, as I'll be the first to point out, there are some genres, such as driving and sports, in which controllers rule. The problem is these are few and far between.

Good points. Emulators being one of the only reasons I bought a controller for my PC. It sucks playing Super Mario with a keyboard. As far as driving, I have the Driving Force Pro. You need to get one if you play TOCA.
July 24, 2006 4:30:18 PM

Since none of you are taking my argument the way I mean for it to go I am going to try to stop this argument back and forth and reclarify myself.

I think overall, a controller is better than just a mouse. Just because it is overall, does not mean that a controller is better in 100% of the situations. Even as far as nonPC games go. I own a Nintendo DS and it's stylus is used for many of the same functions a mouse is used for on a PC and it is obviously better than my Xbox or Gamecube controller for many games. It is just that if I had to pick one or the other for ALL of my gaming needs, I would pick the controller.

If you add the keyboard into the picture, then it becomes a much more difficult argument either. A mouse is very precise, but a keyboard is not. A controller is not as precise as a mouse, but it is much more precise for movement than a keyboard. Also, a controller has a button layout that I feel is much better laid out for gaming (just my opinion) but it does lack the ability to map more functions to a single button (i.e. the right button on the 360 controller + A makes a certain command) or to have as many functions all together.

The Gamecube controller along with both Xbox controllers have two analog sticks plus two analog shoulder buttons. This gives it more precision in certain applications than a keyboard and mouse.

For aiming, a mouse is much more accurate and precise. This aiming does not just mean shooting though. This includes aiming at people for selection in a RTS or even selecting a piece in chess.

Neither one is better or more fun. The best control type depends on the game and depends on personal preference. Heck, keyboards, mice, standard controllers, all of them get beat by dance pads when playing DDR.


As for some of my other arguments:
I do believe a console works better in a living room for gaming. The reasons being simplicity (just plug in A/V cables, controllers, and power), space, and noise.

My mom would never be able to set up playing a PC game on a TV. I think that most of my friends would take a LONG time to figure it out also. This comes from the fact that PCs serve so many functions that it gives people too many options. Many people are clueless about all of the settings and options a PC gives you (since they do more than play games) and have trouble with them. If you do have the knowledge of how to set one up, however, it can be great to hook a PC up to a TV. I have one hooked up to mine for watching videos.

As far as space goes, I know that you can get SFF PCs, but they are still very tricky. You have gotta have some PC knowledge to build one and buying one already assembled will cost you quite a premium. Also, if you have seen the size of Nintendo Wii then you can agree that that would be hard to match size for size with a PC.

The final thing, noise. Up until the Xboxs noise was never really an issue with consoles. They were all nearly silent, expecially if you did not have the TV muted. Like the SFF PC argument above, it can be difficult to build and expensive to purchase a very quite PC. And when I say difficult, I do not mean difficult for people who view this site regularly. I mean for people like Mom, who although seems to have limitless amouts of knowledge at times, just can't figure out how to print. :-D


I could keep going with pros for consoles, but I could make a list like this for PCs also. I was actually planning on listing more stuff but I am getting tired of typing.

All I really ment from my first post was that the biggest factors in choosing which to buy depends on you preferences and current situation. I do prefer consoles, but I do not think that they are better than PCs for gaming.

Ape, if you encounter me in a thread again, I would prefer it if you were not so harsh with my post. I do not mind you disagreeing with me, but I'm not a fan of how you treated my post. A lot of people on internet forums love to argue and trash talk, but I'm not a fan of it.

If you have that much that is wrong with my post try to be a little nicer about it and feel free to PM me. You could be a complete idiot, but judging by the fact that you have been on these forums for over 3 years and have over 10,000 posts I'm willing to bet that you know a lot about PCs, and lot more than me.

If you look at most of my other posts on the site I am here to learn as much as I can about computers, whether it has a big X on the top of it or it has 100's of processors working together.
July 24, 2006 4:48:09 PM

Why choose?

I've been gaming since 1980 and I've always had a PC and some console or other.

Currently have a Gamecube (and DS Lite along with older systems like GBA, Dreamcast, PSone) and will probably get the Nintendo Wii when it comes out.

Why? Different types of games, different experiences:

I love both Console RPGs (mostly Japanese, linear, story-centric, lots of cut-scenes) and PC RPGs (more complex, mature, character-centric).

FPS games of which I play the occasional (FEAR, Call Of Duty) are just better on a PC due to mouse/keyboard control.

MMORPGs are of course mostly PC based and I still play DAoC.

3rd Person Action/Adventure type games for me are more fun on a console (Resident Evil, Zelda, etc.).

Strategy games on a PC rule - this is still a dominant PC genre.
On the other hand I love console style Strategy RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem games which are less complicated but still fun.

Then you have multiplayer and sports games which are more entertaining on a console.

On the PC you have the ability to create and add mods which is a plus. And of course I like the more flexible options you have on a PC such as resolution, graphics tweaking, sound tweaking.

Of course, we can't forget the other hobby that naturally comes together with heavy PC gaming and which to some is just as entertaining and exciting: hardware. We have sound cards, keyboards, mice, CPUs, video cards, and memory to get excited about whereas console gamers only have controllers (oh yeah, and memory cards, lol) and I don't see many forums dedicated to just contollers!
July 24, 2006 5:04:51 PM

No one's choosing. This is a discussion on what's best.

A keyboard is just as, if not more, precise than a controller. I would like to know how a keyboard is not as precise as a controller.
July 24, 2006 5:09:22 PM

I just ment for character movement an analog stick is more precise than the arrow keys. Also for driving games the analog shoulder buttons on current systems is more precise than using keyboard keys for throttle control.

This argument is just for precision. Which is better depends on the game and expecially how many buttons you need.
July 24, 2006 5:29:00 PM

I understand that it's just for precision. No PC gamer uses the arrow keys when they play a game. Do you even play games on a PC?
July 24, 2006 5:39:16 PM

Not FPSs.

Then what keys do you use?
July 24, 2006 5:40:44 PM

Quote:
I understand that it's just for precision. No PC gamer uses the arrow keys when they play a game. Do you even play games on a PC?


I used the arrow keys.. around 1995. Haven't used them since in gaming.

TBH, this whole topic is rather pointless, as better graphics cards make for a better gaming system, not so much a new system. The main reason I replace my system for a "heavier" one is compiling, encoding, editing, etc; stuff where a better processor makes a lot of sense, and areas in which consoles can't do squat. Can the Xbox360 rip my Xvids to DVD? Can the Wii compile Gentoo? I don't think so.
Synergy6
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2006 5:49:01 PM

Quote:
Since you still seem to be unable to understand let me spell this out for you. A mouse vs a controller: a controller wins almost every time.


No, no my argumentally challenged adversary seems to be confusing PREFERENCE with PRECISION. Understand that the argument isn't simply mouse versus controller, but precision versus lack therefore, as YOU yourself ramed it. Your passionate fanboism has distracted you from even pursuing your own arguments. Show me how a controller is more PRECISE. As for preference, I've always argued I prefer a gamepad with analogue sticks for sports, which is why I bouhgt a BUNCH of them FOR MY PC, and love using them on the XBOX here at work. But that's preference, not precision, and the reality is that my arguments about precision still hold true despite your attempts to sidetrack the discussion back to one of your mistakes about controllers.

Quote:
Why? Because PC games rarely use just the mouse.


So A is better than B, because B is not the only tool at a PC gamer's disposal? Ridiculous argument.

Quote:
They use mouse AND keyboard (saying "just a mouse" implies a mouse no other form of controller). Without the keyboard, all you can do is aim in FPS.


Not on my roller ball I wouldn't I can assign up to 10 functions, even directional arrow keys, so if I was anal enough I would argue that unlike consoles I can MAKE the game and PC play however I want, including MOUSE ONLY. However your argument wasn't mouse only except to use it in hopes that it'd be like kryptonite against the argument that the PC controls were more precise. And really the ability to assign at will whatever I feel like, and the ability to re-calibrate, and micro adjust, kinda speaks to why the PC controls are currently better until consoles break out of their rigid controller views.

Quote:
My argument s that a controller for player movement is more precise than a keyboard.


And that's just as ignorant as before, because like I already showed you, PCs can use dual analogue sticks too!

Quote:
The argument (more like opinion) comes down to which is more precise: a controller or a keyboard and mouse?


No the argument comes down to the fact that a PC has both, the consoles still haven't adopted a mouse setup yet, let alone support a saitek 3200dpi laser mouse.

Quote:
I would say a controller is, but you are free to argue the other way. You do not need to make a post saying "fanboi" crap and stuff like that when instead all you need to do is make a simple argument.


Which I make and you ignore. Here let me 'draw' you a PCITURE so you get it;



I own 2 of those for my PC!
So, what was that 'advantage' you were speaking of?

Quote:
All my original post did was state my personal opinion.


And make statements that are factually incorrect in an attempt to promote that opinion. You made so many mistakes and then stand by them, you simply hurt your cause by arguing on it's behalf.

Quote:
In fact, I made the first line of it "I am definatly more a fan of consoles..." to show that my opinion was in fact biased and merely my opinion.


Which doesn't excuse the factual errors, nor keeps me from posting my rebutal opinion that what you say is fanboi drivel, which is exactly how it comes off.

Quote:
Then you start with "fanboi" crap when I obviously said that both sides were good...

In my summery, I gave 3 pros for both console and PC.


Of which the only console benifit based on fact would be perhaps COST, depending on your system (forget NeoGeo didntcha? let alone the high cost of the PS3 and it's overpriced games to try and cover more cost). The other 2 arguments were either wrong or wishful thinking on your part "OOooh the chicks gonna dig my new slim PS2 or cute purple G-Cube from Japan...." :roll:

I'll grant you cost, but it's a trickier issue than you make it out to be because the VALUE of those costs and results vary from person to person, especially those who already have a powerful PC for other things like home movie and audio editing. The problem is your arguments are lame, you ignore the realities that someon who plays both KNOWS.

Quote:
When I argued about artists being more important than hardware, I was not arguing for PC or console.


And I didn't argue the point much beyond it being a truism, and not worthy of inclusion, since it was more about graphics not being the only thing. Of course you're in a graphics card section, so it's not surprising there's some focus on them around here. Hmmm? :lol: 

Quote:
All I was stating was that even if you buy something that costs thousands of dollars, does not mean that every game you play on it is better looking than a game played on a less expensive PC or Console.


Except for the fact that you can improve the look of a PC game beyond the rigid guidelines of the artist, just as I gave the example of Oblivion, let's just add the concept of AA/AF, increased resolution, smart shaders, etc. All things that an improve on existing games, and all of which are not avaiable to cosole users, once the game ships it looks like that pretty much everywhere. Does that mean potentially less bugs, damn right!
But pointing fingers at developers doesn't stop them from existing on the consoles either. This is one of the same MAC vs PC benifits, for people who couldn't trouble shoot the "why isn't my PC turning on? (you didn't plug it in!)" problem, I say Console and MAC are far better than PC. And that's just it. At work, I don't want to spend time getting people on the same page as me, I just wanna go so I usually LOVE the console for that (although you can come out of sleep mode for PCs if you like quick starts). But hey, like PCs we have unreadable disks even when new, so they aren't devoid of problems, and the solutions for Console problems are equally hard as PCs, and sometimes, even for people like myself who know their way around electronics, they are more of a hassle because consoles aren't made to troubleshoot, they're made to return for warranty repair or buy a new one. Sure I could take it apart and check half the components myself, but the other half need specialized proprietary tools not available at my electronics super store. So that means sometimes you have to go through 2 Xbox

Quote:
This sided SLIGHTLY with consoles since their price tag is generally much lower,


And I will grant that for the top titles that require more juice than a word/IE PC, but like I said it's not exclusively a PC thing, nor does it affect all titles.

Quote:
You made fun of my suggesting a Gamecube or Wii for playing with friends or girls. Of course it is obvious it is not going to get you laid. That is not what I was suggesting it for. It is for having fun. My girlfriend will play games like Mario Kart, Party, Tennis because the games are simple. My roomates' girlfriends are the same way.


And by the same token, bejeweled has the ladies bedazzled, but I wouldn't use either as an argument, because my girlfriend actually thinks it's cool surfing on the couch with either my laptop or my PSP. So the 'for the girls'or the for the social aspect, just doesn't cut it if you know how to use both. It's a lame argument that wouldve favoured the PC with the game the Sims not too long ago. There are titles/abilities for both to do that, you just need the skillz to recognize what to exploit. however I will grant tha there are currently more attractive 'PARTY' titles on console, and that's primarily because of the CUBE. But it loses in almost every other facet of features. Titles for parties no one beats Nintendo IMO, but then again, they aren't for people thinking about a killer PC anyways, cause that's not what's going up against them, and all the more reason to do what I did, and get both consoles and PC.

Quote:
Also, you suggested going outside. Is that really necessary? The topic is about consoles vs. PCs. We all know we can go outside, and for free at that.


However in the context of your couch patato argument it was a pretty approriate dismisal while pointing fun at the basic 'chicks dig consoles' argument.

Quote:
My post was biased (which I clearly stated) but far from fanboy-ish.


The Fanboism is the myopic view that PCs couldn't do the same things. There are benfitis from both, but when you sue false arguments to support of view, personal or not, it shows you don't spend enough time with the other forms to discuss is, and while you may claim to not be a fanboi, you're using the fanboi arguments to support the cause.

Quote:
Since so few people here prefer consoles to PCs it should be good to at least let a few people offer an opposing point of view without being torn apart for it.


I tear apart your arguments that miss the reality that BOTH have alot of the features you ascribe to ONLY consoles. Like I said from the beginning the idea that one system is better at everything is ignorant, and like I said I like, and own, and play BOTH.

Quote:
I also never stated for my points to be facts.


No but you stated them as facts, even if youre intentetion wasn't to, your statements about controllers are incorrect, yet you use them as facts to bolster your view.

Quote:
Which is more comfortable? Which works better in a living room? Which is easier to use? None of those can be answered with a clear winner. It is up to each person what they prefer. That is what I stated.


It wasn't the statement of that, it was your arguments about the other points that involved false information.

Quote:
That is pretty much what you stated in your posts also.


Which is why I stated it, because these console vs PC and MAC vs PC threads are ridiculous. And as someone who uses both, I basically get most ticked when people start completely messing up the facts. People can argue it like the existance of gOd and I don't care much, but when the facts get lost that's when I'll step in and say "whoa!"

Quote:
Since all in all we have the same overall perspective of consoles vs PCs (apples and oranges), why try to find something wrong with every sentence (or half sentence) that I say?


Because it's the use of statements as facts that is an issue, and this will perpetuate the same myths (like that consoles have HDTVs and PCs don't, controllers and PCs don't, etc.) And it's annoying, especially when like I said we could be arguing about the colour of the new AMD/ATi logo or something truely important and socially redeeming. :tongue:
July 24, 2006 5:49:14 PM

Most use a WASD configuration. W is up, S is down, A is step left and D is step right. No one uses a turn left or turn right keys. With this configuration, movement can be incredibly precise. Different combinations produce other directions as well. With this, you can also do special types of movement in some games, like double or triple jumping, which will make you jump much farther than you normally could. There's just so much you can do with a keyboard that someone who doesn't play PC games just has no idea.
July 24, 2006 5:56:39 PM

Quote:

TBH, this whole topic is rather pointless, as better graphics cards make for a better gaming system, not so much a new system. The main reason I replace my system for a "heavier" one is compiling, encoding, editing, etc; stuff where a better processor makes a lot of sense, and areas in which consoles can't do squat. Can the Xbox360 rip my Xvids to DVD? Can the Wii compile Gentoo? I don't think so.
Synergy6


Wii is tiny (the size of 3 dvd cases lieing on top of each other). It is also going to retail for < $250 and come with a controller, the nunchuck (no idea how to spell it) attachment, and everything else you need to get going besides a game.

Instead of buying a $1000 gaming rig, you could buy a $750 rig and use onboard video (plenty of power for encoding video and writing code) and get a Wii. Then you could have both be encoding video and playing a game at the same time without a drop in framerates. This is definatly not the solution for most people, but it is an option.

Also, since this tread has had a lot of talk about the precision of a mouse, you have to at least be interested about the idea of using the Wii controller for aiming.
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2006 6:19:41 PM

Quote:
Most use a WASD configuration. W is up, S is down, A is step left and D is step right.


Where are these W, A, S & D keys?



:twisted:
July 24, 2006 6:24:01 PM

Wow, you really couldn't just drop it, could you? I tried to be nice and say lets just end it, but you couldn't. You STILL go line by line and reply to every part of my post.

Quote:
Quote:
I also never stated for my points to be facts.



No but you stated them as facts, even if youre intentetion wasn't to, your statements about controllers are incorrect, yet you use them as facts to bolster your view.

Quote:
Quote:
The argument (more like opinion) comes down to which is more precise: a controller or a keyboard and mouse?



No the argument comes down to the fact that a PC has both, the consoles still haven't adopted a mouse setup yet, let alone support a saitek 3200dpi laser mouse.

Quote:
Quote:
I would say a controller is, but you are free to argue the other way. You do not need to make a post saying "fanboi" crap and stuff like that when instead all you need to do is make a simple argument.



Which I make and you ignore. Here let me 'draw' you a PCITURE so you get it;



<<-- click to expand


I own 2 of those for my PC!
So, what was that 'advantage' you were speaking of?

"The consoles still haven't adopted a mouse setup yet" huh?

Wow facts huh, lets see how good you are with facts. I will draw you a picture so you can get it.




What, two PS/2 ports on one end and an xbox controller connector on the other, what could that be used for?

It is the SmartJoy Frag. I can definatly agree that may not be as good as the USB setups you can get for PCs, but it does mean that you can use a mouse and keyboard on the xbox, and they have the adapter for PS/2 also.

Here is another.


So be careful before you start running off at the mouth about being 100% accurate with your "facts."
July 24, 2006 6:27:55 PM

Quote:
Most use a WASD configuration. W is up, S is down, A is step left and D is step right.


Where are these W, A, S & D keys?



:twisted:
I was speaking on behalf of the poor gamers. You rich kids and your fancy keyboards. Bah.
July 24, 2006 6:31:52 PM

Quote:
Wii is tiny (the size of 3 dvd cases lieing on top of each other). It is also going to retail for < $250 and come with a controller, the nunchuck (no idea how to spell it) attachment, and everything else you need to get going besides a game.


And also lower graphical power than my current system, a controller which may or may not be any good, and most likely, as with the Gamecube, a lack of high quality titles outside specific genres.

Quote:
Instead of buying a $1000 gaming rig, you could buy a $750 rig and use onboard video (plenty of power for encoding video and writing code) and get a Wii. Then you could have both be encoding video and playing a game at the same time without a drop in framerates. This is definatly not the solution for most people, but it is an option.


750 dollars? Wouldn't be much better than my current system. How it works is, I can spend an amount of money and get a great PC system that does *everything*. Or I can save the £250 on a graphics card, and buy a games console with that cash. Then, I get to play games that look *worse* than with my lost graphics card, on videogames that cost *more* than the PC equivalents. Also, in order to play games, I have to go downstairs everytime to a decent TV, instead of just double-clicking on my desktop.

Quote:
Also, since this tread has had a lot of talk about the precision of a mouse, you have to at least be interested about the idea of using the Wii controller for aiming.


Err, yeah. A TV remote control-esque controller which you fling around in the air. That's going to be *precise*.

Synergy6
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!