by Free Bagel » Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:40 pm
While I know I'll only be contributing to this poor off-topic argument here, since I've already chimed in on the on-topic part of the thread I feel less bad doing so especially since so much misinformation has been passed off in this thread, so here goes.
As a disclaimer I own an Xbox 360 and also plan on purchasing a PS3 and a Wii. I have played every generation of consoles since the original NES and also have a game-capable PC.
Which is better, PCs or consoles? Neither. They just apply to different types of gamers, or for a more diverse gamer whatever mood that person is in. Consoles apply more to casual gamers with the relaxing living room environment, easy setup, and relatively simple control schemes. PCs apply more to more hardcore gamers hunched over their keyboard with intense focus and 22 hot-keys set up on their keyboard/mouse. That's not to say that consoles can't be played hardcore nor that PCs can't be played casually, just a general view of things. Consoles are more mass-market friendly...just buy the console and plug in two cables, and pop in the disc and you're off. As such games are generally more mass-market appealling and less set-up for the techy crowd that PC games are often aimed at, and as such console games are often limited to keep them "simple". A big deal is being made of the co-op playstyle in the upcoming Gears of War and how it is streamlined into the game rather than just kind of "added on" like co-op generally is in consoles, whereas PC players have been playing 12-player co-op for a decade already.
As I said, neither is better. If I had a gun to my head and were forced to choose one I'd probably take consoles as I no longer have the time to devote to really mastering a PC FPS and at this point would probably rather just lounge on the couch and slowly work my way through an RPG or Madden franchise whereas I used to be hardcore into PC FPS (I put years towards Tribes 2...still the greatest game ever made). When the console arguers mentioned that consoles have a more diverse lineup they were right. While the other genres are available on PCs there are fewer options in them and they generally aren't taken very seriously amongst PCers. PC's do FPS, RTS, and MMORPGs well, and quite frankly put the console versions of the same to shame, whereas consoles are superior for people who prefer the other genres. For whatever reason, people still actually play those types of games on consoles. Other than simply not being able to afford a PC there is really little reason for them to do so.
So, with my console love aside I will have to admit here that while the PC arguers may have embarrassed themselves with their over-zealousness to defend their PCs the console guys have embarrassed themselves a bit with stretching the facts.
First up is this insane notion that a gaming PC costs $5000. Yea...right. One can argue all they want about X game and Y game that consoles have but unless they own all the console systems all those games still aren't available to them. To get all current gen PC games you need only a current gen PC. To get all current gen console games you need every current gen console. All of the current gen consoles will add up to $1250, about what I would plan on spending on a vista compliant PC, and my previous $1200 PC was one I built many years ago and I have likely spent nearly that much on consoles in the meantime. Is PC gaming more expensive than console gaming? Absolutely. But the difference isn't what many make it out to be. There are many hidden costs with console gaming.
The other major sham in this thread is people trying to state that a mouse/kb's superiority to a controller is anything less than fact. You will find countless console supporters (including this one) that will readily admit a kb/mouse is much, much better. You will pretty much never find a PC nut that thinks a controller is better. There just isn't the same precision in controllers that there are in a kb/mouse, and that is fact. With a mouse you're using an optical laser on an 8-inch tall mousepad and with an analog stick you're using a > 1/4 inch stick in a 3/4 inch diameter space. You simple can't manipulate the space in the same way. If physics doesn't do it as evidence for you, then the simple fact that most console FPS games employ some type of auto aim should. And then there's always this little tidbit on top of that...Ever wonder why the 360 doesn't have a kb/mouse? It has the USB port, it's not a matter of integration (this is Microsoft we're talking about, it would be a snap to integrate). Then why isn't there one? Because it would unbalance the playing field on Xbox Live. Straight out of many developer's mouths.
Sure, you may find your occasional fanboy that "prefers" a controller for precision games just because he's grown accustomed to it, just like you'll find people that "prefer" their original atari's to the xbox 360. Bottom line is you take two equally skilled players, one with a controller and one with a kb/mouse, give them a target to hit and put their cursor at a random spot on the screen and it is clear which will hit the target first 99% of the time.
And I don't even want to get into graphics. Consoles have had some solid CG, but they're a generation behind in graphics each generation. Modern console graphics are akin to many of the last gen PC games (Doom 3, etc), and PCs have been rendering games at 3-5 times the resolution of consoles for more than a decade. It's great that we finally have consoles pushing out "high def" resolutions with 720 vertical lines, but PCs have been doing that for 10 years.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
