Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why all the PC game bashing? PC > consoles

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 26, 2008 1:20:15 AM

I simply do not understand why so many people need to bash PC gaming. Just because consoles are the more popular platform doesn't mean PC gaming sucks. It's like saying a Toyota Camry is better than a Ferrari because Toyota sells more cars, it doesnt make sense.

If you like consoles and their shoddy control options, go for it. Stop bashing us PC gamers because we have real jobs and can afford real gaming platforms.

More about : game bashing consoles

March 26, 2008 2:25:45 AM

Its true anyone can go buy a console but can everyone build a computer that can actually run good games pc gaming will always be better and more advanced when do you guys think crysis is going to come out on console? Ill tell you NEVER console don't have the power to run it, a beastly computer can :)  i have the consoles but since I got my new computer they're collecting dust in my basement. A computer is always going to be better then a console its plain and simple console can play games a computer can do almost anything!
March 26, 2008 3:39:18 AM

Graphics don't make a good game so just because you can run ultra high resolutions doesn't make it more fun (wow factor runs out in about 20 minutes). Consoles do certain types of games very well (FPS and fighting games along with simple interface RPGs ).

However, the types of games I enjoy the most require a keyboard and mouse.
MMOs
Simulations
RTS
Turn based games (civilization for example)

The reality is the newer consoles are just PCs with a stripped down OS. They have USB ports so you can stick on a mouse and keyboard. Plenty of people run linux on them. This is where the era of computing should go instead of massive bloatware.
Related resources
March 26, 2008 4:40:21 AM

I like both, but the PC lineup has become rather dull recently to developers jumping ship.
March 26, 2008 6:41:49 AM

Anyone who thinks consoles are better than PC's for First Person Shooters is delusional!
March 26, 2008 7:24:38 AM

Oh no! Not another why PC > Consoles or why your machine < mine kind of post.

But I like the anology though. I suddenly feel much better that I am driving a Ferrari - though a lower end one with an older engine ...
March 26, 2008 8:08:16 AM

You don't have the talent to complete Doom 3 or Bioshock? lol
March 26, 2008 8:32:09 AM

Good question tho, when are they going to port Crysis to the console?
March 26, 2008 8:42:11 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Good question tho, when are they going to port Crysis to the console?


Crytek confirmed that they're working on a console project, although i can't remember the details. I reckon there'll be a version of Crysis out for at least the 360 by Q2 2009.
March 26, 2008 8:47:19 AM

This may actually put an end to all the bickering between the console vs pc thing. At leas I hope so
March 26, 2008 12:47:40 PM

The only difference between a PC and a console is the purpose they are used for. Once the consoles went to USB ports, Networking, and USB ports you will be hard pressed to find the overall difference between the 2 besides the operating system. Install linux on a box and it is effectively transparent to the user.

I wonder how much better Crysis would have run on the same hardware if it had been on windows 2000 with opengl 2.0 rather than making DirectX10 only for vista.
March 26, 2008 12:57:31 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This may actually put an end to all the bickering between the console vs pc thing. At leas I hope so


We'll see. When Duke Nukem gets released.
March 26, 2008 1:04:02 PM

ilikepcgames said:
Anyone who thinks consoles are better than PC's for First Person Shooters is delusional!


That's just being narrow-minded... both PCs and consoles have very nice FPS games and to be honest I prefer them on a console. Don't get me wrong, I love the Orange Box and Bioshock (PC ver) but there's something about the way you control a character with sticks that I like, and having everything at your fingertips... or maybe it's just the fact I can play a console from my bed. Played Shadowrun on both PC and xbox, and while the game is the same the control schemes were different and I prefered the xbox version. That, and I'm much better at headshots with a controller than a mouse.
March 26, 2008 1:15:51 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This may actually put an end to all the bickering between the console vs pc thing. At leas I hope so


It will probably become a joke, like Far Cry (I heard it was great on the gamecube LOL) on the consoles..
March 26, 2008 3:33:28 PM

Crysis Vengence Wii edition. Oooh, yummy. :kaola: 


Farcry Vengence is about the cheapest wii game you'll find as it's major lamo. I bought it for $15, read some reviews, and returned it unopened.

Side note, I know some console guys who struggle to adjust to the KB/Mouse for FPS games, but IMO once you adjust no way would you want to play fps games on a gamepad.
March 28, 2008 2:31:26 AM

Now that they sell wireless X360 controllers for PCs and consoles can take USB keyboards and such, isn't arguing of which has the better control mechanism a moot point?

And as for price, remember that most people want/need a computer regardless of gaming. Even people who are computer illiterate own computers nowadays. So most of the up front cost of PC gaming is already "paid for", you just need to spend $129 on a 9600GT 512MB or a few $ more on a 8800GT. Any desktop computer produced within the last year or so has a dual-core, current-gen proc and 1-3GB of RAM, which is plenty.

Used PC games are available cheap on E-Bay and are very reasonable when purchased brand-new at a B&M. If you don't care about the latest and greatest games, there are hundreds of home-brew, open-source, abondonware and demo games freely available on the Internet.
March 28, 2008 8:45:32 AM

pauldh said:

Farcry Vengence is about the cheapest wii game you'll find as it's major lamo. I bought it for $15, read some reviews, and returned it unopened.


You're just being cheap :kaola:  For $15 you could have tried it for yourself... If you still think it's too expensive just convert it euro's :sol: 
March 28, 2008 9:43:55 AM

Hope he doesnt have a yin for yen....
March 28, 2008 12:47:02 PM

The problem with the higher end cards is the power supply. Most people buy a cheap machine (example dell inspirons for 350 dollars) with a low power supply (250 watt). Also people only upgrade when their system dies or no longer works for them. So you can expect 5 year old systems to still be used by many people. So remember PCI cards vs. AGP or PCI express is the target audience you need for mass appeal games (WoW for example or warcraft 3).
March 28, 2008 7:21:21 PM

I have long debated this issue with my friends as I am a hardcore PC gamer, and have been for the last 10 years. I recently bought my son a 360, which of course I have been playing, so I have been struggling over whether to upgrade my aging PC. (Dell XPS gen 3)

The issue of whether the PC or a console is better is largely moot, because the simple reality is that developers have all jumped ship to console development because that is where the money at. If we are lucky, the PC might get a late port. Look at Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed, both came to the Xbox first, and months later, to the PC. Gamedaily.com as well as PC Gamer magazine have all had a number of articles lamenting the demise of PC gaming. FPS and adventure titles, that 5 years ago were only available on the PC, now are developed for consoles first, and maybe, if we are lucky, will go to the PC eventually. People will quickly cry "but what about WOW?" Well, that's true, the last stand for PC gaming will be MMO's. But I want to play AAA class FPS titles on my PC in 1280 resolution with antialiasing turned on, not MMO's. The only thing left for PC's are MMO's and RTS titles.

As small as the rack is for PC games in your local video store now, I'll be surprised if it is there at all in two years.

I love PC gaming and prefer it vastly to the 360, but like the HD war, the war is over. I can love HD all I want, but by year's end all that will be available is Blue Ray titles. And likewise, I can love and prefer PC gaming all I want, but there are fewer and fewer exclusive titles, as well as fewer and fewer console first titles that are even being ported to the PC. The next big Star Wars game, Force Unleashed, isn't even being developed at all for the PC. Sad but true.

Everytime I play an xbox game I notice the jaggies and the overall poor graphics and imagine how nice it would look on a PC. (with exception to COD4 and Bioshock, which looked great)

But, it is what it is. The one thing I do like about the 360 is when I put the disk in the console, I know the game will run OK. (if the box works of course) No driver downloads, no videocard upgrades, no tweaking for a good framerate, the damn game just plays. That ease of play is something the PC and its infinite technology arms race never did well, and what made consoles popular in the first place.

March 29, 2008 6:10:30 PM

BigMac said:
You're just being cheap :kaola:  For $15 you could have tried it for yourself... If you still think it's too expensive just convert it euro's :sol: 

:)  Yeah, true. But I did buy alot of wii games in a short period of time, so I have to contend with my wife who will count the cases vs. considering what I paid for them. ;) 

Main reason though was I was such a huge Farcry fan and so impressed with the visuals back then, and from what I read I was just setting myself up to be dissapointed with this one in comparison. I've seen it so many times for $20 or less, so maybe someday I'll try it.
March 30, 2008 2:31:29 AM

Some people I know who tried PC gaming didn't like it due to having to use the mouse/keyboard. I had to point out to them that they can drop $15 on a USB Logitech Dual Action gamepad and program it exactly the way they want. And still have the keyboard/mouse for the seldom used functions.

Still fun to break out the Game Cube to play Madden or NBA live or FIFA when friends come over. True geeks love PC and console gaming both.
March 31, 2008 3:43:59 AM

His Shadow said:
I have long debated this issue with my friends as I am a hardcore PC gamer, and have been for the last 10 years. I recently bought my son a 360, which of course I have been playing, so I have been struggling over whether to upgrade my aging PC. (Dell XPS gen 3)

The issue of whether the PC or a console is better is largely moot, because the simple reality is that developers have all jumped ship to console development because that is where the money at. If we are lucky, the PC might get a late port. Look at Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed, both came to the Xbox first, and months later, to the PC. Gamedaily.com as well as PC Gamer magazine have all had a number of articles lamenting the demise of PC gaming. FPS and adventure titles, that 5 years ago were only available on the PC, now are developed for consoles first, and maybe, if we are lucky, will go to the PC eventually. People will quickly cry "but what about WOW?" Well, that's true, the last stand for PC gaming will be MMO's. But I want to play AAA class FPS titles on my PC in 1280 resolution with antialiasing turned on, not MMO's. The only thing left for PC's are MMO's and RTS titles.

As small as the rack is for PC games in your local video store now, I'll be surprised if it is there at all in two years.

I love PC gaming and prefer it vastly to the 360, but like the HD war, the war is over. I can love HD all I want, but by year's end all that will be available is Blue Ray titles. And likewise, I can love and prefer PC gaming all I want, but there are fewer and fewer exclusive titles, as well as fewer and fewer console first titles that are even being ported to the PC. The next big Star Wars game, Force Unleashed, isn't even being developed at all for the PC. Sad but true.

Everytime I play an xbox game I notice the jaggies and the overall poor graphics and imagine how nice it would look on a PC. (with exception to COD4 and Bioshock, which looked great)

But, it is what it is. The one thing I do like about the 360 is when I put the disk in the console, I know the game will run OK. (if the box works of course) No driver downloads, no videocard upgrades, no tweaking for a good framerate, the damn game just plays. That ease of play is something the PC and its infinite technology arms race never did well, and what made consoles popular in the first place.


By and large I agree with you points. But I strongly disagree in equating the "war" between the PC gaming and console gaming to the HD DVD and BluRay format war. While one format can totally wipe out another as they both can play virtually any movie title, as you have correctly pointed, there *are* games that only can be played effectively in PC such as MMORPG and complex RTS. Hence, the analogy is flawed.

Having seen the gaming industry for the past 20 years, I doubt if we will see the PC gaming complete takes over the console or vice versa. There will bound to be brilliant titles that release in the PC gaming arena that makes people say: Ah! I want to play that on PC! And there will bound to be brilliant titles that release in the consoles. There will come upon a time whereby the gap between the two technologies is significant enough for you to say, let's ditch the console. And there will be a time when the gap is not that noticeable and you say, play console games save me all the troubles.

I personally have switched from one camp to another and back. There are experiences that I derive from consoles that I couldn't get from PC. And the reverse is true too.

Just my humble thoughts to share.

Edit: Typos.
March 31, 2008 10:50:28 PM

imnotageek said:
But I strongly disagree in equating the "war" between the PC gaming and console gaming to the HD DVD and BluRay format war. While one format can totally wipe out another as they both can play virtually any movie title, as you have correctly pointed, there *are* games that only can be played effectively in PC such as MMORPG and complex RTS. Hence, the analogy is flawed.
Edit: Typos.


You are right, of course, my analogy was too broad. I was primarily referring to the type of titles that I primarily want to play on the PC rather than my 360, namely the big budget FPS games that used to only be released on the PC. (e.g., 5 years ago COD4, Mass Effect(RPG), etc. would only have come out on the PC) My main point is that the issue of which platform is better may be moot because if the current trend continues, I don't expect to see such class A titles released on the PC at all, even as ports long after the console release. If a particular game isn't even available as a PC title, which platform is better becomes pointless.

The creator of Bioshock was interviewed in PC Gamer, and when asked about the PC, he said that the PC relative to gaming is in an "undefined market position." Anything you read on the topic says the same thing - no one knows what basket the PC belongs in for gaming for mainstream titles. I believe the PC will become positioned more for the casual gamer, especially with companies selling integrated video chips, which are incapable of running real games. There will always be a spot on the PC for mmo's and RTS games, but the trend seems towards casual games for titles other than mmo and RTS titles. For instance, the next battlefield entry (BF 1942, 2142, etc) will be a free downloadable game that will run on virtually any PC configuration. A look at the graphics alone just screams casual gamer. The battlefield franchise has been a flagship EA PC product for years - the fact that it is being so severly gimped for it's next entry doesn't make me hopeful for the future.
April 1, 2008 1:51:38 AM

His Shadow said:

The creator of Bioshock was interviewed in PC Gamer, and when asked about the PC, he said that the PC relative to gaming is in an "undefined market position." Anything you read on the topic says the same thing - no one knows what basket the PC belongs in for gaming for mainstream titles. I believe the PC will become positioned more for the casual gamer, especially with companies selling integrated video chips, which are incapable of running real games. There will always be a spot on the PC for mmo's and RTS games, but the trend seems towards casual games for titles other than mmo and RTS titles. For instance, the next battlefield entry (BF 1942, 2142, etc) will be a free downloadable game that will run on virtually any PC configuration. A look at the graphics alone just screams casual gamer. The battlefield franchise has been a flagship EA PC product for years - the fact that it is being so severly gimped for it's next entry doesn't make me hopeful for the future.


This is the very attitude that is killing the PC that somehow graphics make a good game. After 20 minutes you stop noticing the graphics and focus on the game play. If you want innovative PC games then expect more than some eye candy.
April 1, 2008 10:10:05 AM

omenowl said:
This is the very attitude that is killing the PC that somehow graphics make a good game. After 20 minutes you stop noticing the graphics and focus on the game play. If you want innovative PC games then expect more than some eye candy.


I couldn't agree more, why else are classics like Starcraft, CounterStrike, and Age of Empires (with the exception of III because that, in my opinion, is terrible compared to the old ones) still so popular? They're amazing games! They don't make them like they used to...

I pray for the day they bring innovation back into video games. Remember when Black & White came out? Or if you remember further back than that, Command & Conquer, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Doom, hell, Wolfenstein 3D was amazing too.
April 1, 2008 11:19:28 AM

In case of Counter Strike vs Counter Strike Source, I disagree. Counter Strike Source wins on all fronts.

Adoption of CSS was more a matter required hardware, and the fact that the new physics altered the gameplay somewhat which ticked of those people that had overspecialized on the CounterStrike 1.6 gameplay.
April 1, 2008 7:38:47 PM

I wasn't putting CS:S and CS up against each other in terms of popularity, but CS1.6 is still very popular among lower-end users, hell I have it on my laptop which is a 1997 junkpile and play online games with a bunch of guys in my college (clan etc), good fun
April 2, 2008 5:04:38 AM

omenowl said:
Graphics don't make a good game so just because you can run ultra high resolutions doesn't make it more fun (wow factor runs out in about 20 minutes). Consoles do certain types of games very well (FPS and fighting games along with simple interface RPGs ).

However, the types of games I enjoy the most require a keyboard and mouse.
MMOs
Simulations
RTS
Turn based games (civilization for example)

The reality is the newer consoles are just PCs with a stripped down OS. They have USB ports so you can stick on a mouse and keyboard. Plenty of people run linux on them. This is where the era of computing should go instead of massive bloatware.


I tend to see that FPS games are better on the PC as the controls are much easier and more accurate. Plus a lot of the good FPS games start PC and get ported to console such as HL2, Doom3, Crysis and TF2 to name a few.

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Good question tho, when are they going to port Crysis to the console?


Well the main problem here is that a X360 nor a PS3 can handle the amount of detail in Crysis. Now we all know that detail is not everything but thats one of Crysis' great features is the great graphics and physics. I make this assumption based on the GPUs that each console has and considering Crysis is currently a GPU limited game how well do you think a tweaked 7900GTX will run it a 108p resolution? Or the R500 which is still slower than a R600?

I just don't see this game being as great on the console. But if the console fanboys want it let them have it. It still wont be as fun as it is on PC.
April 2, 2008 1:25:15 PM

Actually I find as long as the game maximizes the controls that are commonly used by the platform then there are few problems. I prefer mouse and keyboard for what they allow me to do (far more than a controller), but I can still pick up a controller and play the games on any system.

My biggest complaint and one reason I preferred the xbox to the ps2 was the size of controller. Smaller controllers caused my hands to cramp. Some controllers put buttons in some of the stupidest locations. The ps3 were much better and the wii is just plain nice.

An important question is why hasn't the pc gone to some of the innovations as the consoles?

Where are the voice commands for a game? SOCOM had it, but despite almost every pc I have having a microphone or headphones there aren't any voice command games?

Where are the motion controllers (like the wii) for pcs?

Why will the iPhone have motion based games (ie spore), but the pc is stuck with ASWD controls?

The PC relies on graphics to make it better and the truth is the graphics of consoles are getting good enough to not matter to the average gamer. When the average monitor caps out below the graphics level of your game and card then maybe one should start looking towards innovation and gameplay rather than better graphics.

!