I dunno if the FPS games I like to play on the Console are rigged in such a way with target assistance and other handicaps to make it playable with the control scheme available. What I DO know is that games like Half Life, Portal, and BioShock are FUN.
Y’all sound like foodies going on about the properties of Champagne vs non-French methode champanoise varietals.
In fact, I’ll usually play through an FPS the first time though on ‘easy’ <gasp>. Could be I’m more interested in story telling and sight seeing.
That’s a plus? With consoles you don’t have to worry about a tradeoff between graphics and performance. On the PC, maybe I want shadows but have to turn them off for proper performance. On the console, that’s not an issue–I will always have the best graphics the game offers without performance issues because the programmers know exactly what hardware the player will have.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if the upgradability that you PC fans rave about allows for lazier programming. Console titles will improve in graphics over time even without upgrades, but the programmers have to figure out how to render them more efficiently so the hardware can handle it. With PC games, you can pretty much throw whatever you want at the hardware because eventually the market will provide the power needed, and in the meantime players can just turn the settings down for proper performance.
I’m not sure why anyone would want to tinker with graphics settings. I do it on PC games out of necessity–I prefer gameplay over graphics, but that doesn’t mean I enjoy being forced to turn them down to be able to play properly. With a console, that’s a non-issue.
Convenience, a better button layout, and a good shape for bashing an opponent over the head. Besides, who cares about its benefits, especially compared to a keyboard and mouse for FPS gaming? It’s not like I’ll get into playing with a keyboard and mouse in the foreseeable future, and you won’t get into playing with a controller in the near future, so it’s a moot choice.
Are you kidding me? Sure, programmers know the consoles and can tailor the experience for that outdated hardware. But that’s what you are getting. Outdated graphics on outdated hardware.
And don’t tell me that this equation is perfect. It never is. I’ve seen console games being played even if I’m not a console gamer and I have noticed the performance issues that plague many console games. How long did it take to load up an area on Mass effect again? Did you enjoy the silent minute long elevator rides? How about the frame rate drops in Oblivion or Gears of war, or any other number of games?
The thing about the ability to turn things on or off is that you have options. Do you prefer HDR lighting or SSAO? You can choose which one you’d like to keep if your hardware can’t handle both. If your hardware CAN handle both, then you’re golden.
It’s about scalability. You can play the game with low end hardware (most of which is better than console hardware anyway) by turning some graphics settings lower (and even then it will probably be on par or better than what it looks like on a console), and enjoy the game play that we are all so fond of, or if you have a better rig you can turn on options that the consoles can’t even offer.
The amusing thing for me about this thread is how irrelevant it is to anything in my world. I own several consoles, and a reasonably up to date (Aging now, I suppose, but since I’m not an FPS player, I find I don’t care) PC.
The reason I own a PC is to play games like Sword of the Stars, Battle for Wesnoth, and, oddly, Lord of the Rings Online.
The reason I own consoles is to play games like Castle Crashers, Tales of the Abyss, Katamari Damacy, Capcom vs SNK 2, and Okami.
Up until fairly recently, I felt that most of the real innovation being done in the game world was being done on consoles. Sadly though, that seems to be coming to an end as the Xbox360 seems to be leading the charge to make consoles as much like the PC as possible, with games centered upon the vaunted FPS and RTS genres. It’s a real shame, and I blame Microsoft for it, really. Consoles aren’t a particularly good environment for FPS or RTS games, and I’d rather have a console for games that consoles are good at (Words cannot describe how terrible it is to try to play a game like Virtual On (Coming soon to LiveArcade) on a PC) and a PC for games PCs are good at (Sword of the Stars would be an impossibility on a console.).
So really, there’s no answer. Except that there is fast becoming less and less difference between the two, which is something we should -all- lament.
Speaking about OnLive here they start talking about it at about the 7 minute mark.
Essentially it’s possible but you need a good internet connection. The thing used to connect to OnLive is so cheap that they could offer it at a low price (didn’t mention a price point) or offer it with a subscription package.
They don’t address the issues I mentioned before. Latency and bandwidth will become serious when you take OnLive out of an ideal setting and into the real world of broadband.
But even if that works in some magical way, who is going to buy the ridiculous amount of hardware that will be needed to run these servers?
Take a look at WOW, for example. I’m sure supporting the 12 millions users they have costs them a pretty penny. AND they are NOT rendering the game and providing latency free video encoding of that render for their players. And still could anyone get on a server when Wrath of the Lichking came out?
You’d have to provide the computing power equivalent of two GPU’s, a dual core CPU + the hardware needed to encode the video stream FOR EVERY USER. Assuming a successful service, that means Millions and Millions of users.
Where the hell do you come up with funding like that? Where do you put all that hardware? No one is going to wait in a server queue for hours on end to play their games.
I don’t know. I just want them to be telling the truth. My own naivete is what excites me about this. I may be a bunch of bullshit but I hope it isn’t.
Unfortunately what I want to be true and what is true can often be two separate things.
I agree. As much as I like my high end gaming PC, as much as I like building them, etc. If I could build a small form factor $400 PC every three years and be able to play all my games in all their HD glory, I’d sign up at the drop of a hat.
Same goes for the consoles players I’ve spoken with. No more having to worry about “exclusives” etc.
Although I have to wonder if that would really be true. Would competing services pop up, each one offering their own exclusive games? Or if not, do we really want a single company dishing out all of the gaming world?
Please. Consoles suffer from performance issues all the time. Remember the sprite flickering on the NES? There was also that little problem with the XBox frying in its own juices. Fortunately mine is still going strong, but I don’t play it as much as my PC.
When it comes to player model cast shadows, I will always set them to low or turn them completely off. I don’t know what it is about them, but shadows will dig into my FPS a lot. I also find that games look more murky and harder to see with too many shadows on. Sure it might not look as “realistic,” but that’s a fine trade off when I can run around at 4x AA at silky smooth FPS.
It’s not that I don’t own consoles. I have all three current gen consoles, as well as a DS and PSP. That’s primarily because I have a lot of disposable income and no life. I also want to enjoy all of the exclusives – Mario and Zelda games for Nintendo, Gran Turismo and Metal Gear Solid for PS3, etc. If there is a choice between platforms on a cross release, I will almost always opt for the PC version for reasons I stated above. Fallout 3, for instance. Very rarely I will buy a console game over its PC counterpart. Street Fighter IV will be coming out for PC, but I got it on XBox because it’s more of a party game that requires arcade controllers and a big TV.
I’m looking forward to splashing out on a spiffy new PC next month (fat raise in lean times, joy!) mainly so I scratch my gaming itch.
My PC has aged to the point where the latest and greatest are out of reach, and I’ve been trying to scratch the itch with console games.
It’s just frustrating - almost a fun gaming experience, but with poorer graphics (which I don’t mind too much) and a ridiculously limited control scheme.
I bought CALL OF DUTY: WORLD AT WAR. Looks great, but… “Man, this would be the shit with a keyboard and mouse, so I didn’t feel like I was all Harrison Bergeron’d… And hey, as a bonus, it would look and sound waaaay better than this…”
Aw, hell – I didn’t finish the third level before I set it aside and decided to wait until I can play the PC version.
The difference in this case is that you have no options with consoles. You have to use the controller.
With a PC, you can get a USB gamepad, or a wireless receiver for $15 that’ll let you use an xbox 360 controller. You can get hundreds of different types of joysticks, etc.
FWIW, despite a PC being fully compatable with game pads, I’ve never seen/heard of anyone using a gamepad to play an FPS game on a PC when they have the choice.
You can plug PCs into your TV. Lots of people have a setup where the PC does DVR, media player, gaming machine, etc.
A $400 video card would be a high end video card where you’re paying a premium. There’s always something in the $130-200 market that’s more than adequate for that generation’s games.
It’s true that hardware architectures can change, but you still can usually get pretty good use out of them. The current PCI-E standard for video cards has been around for 4 or 5 years and will probably be around for at least that much longer. So you could upgrade from a geforce 7800 to something about 12 generations newer in a few years if you wanted.
Entire genres of games are completely missing from consoles. Has there ever been a good flight simulator on a console? (Ace Combat is laughable and doesn’t remotely count)… a decent RTS game? Turn based strategy that isn’t totally dumbed down?
Games on my PC now that don’t exist for consoles: Silent Hunter 4, Crysis, World In Conflict, Sins of a Solar Empire, World of Warcraft, Warcraft 3, Lock On: Modern Air Combat, Empire: Total War, Civilization 4, Company of Heroes, Flight Simulator X, Audiosurf, Dangerous Waters, Defcon, Darwinia, Gary’s Mod… and probably more I’m forgetting.
You make it sound like having the option to do so is a bad thing. If you don’t want to - then don’t. Everything still works fine anyway. But the ability to modify things to your desire is nothing but a plus.
I didn’t used to have any problems with consoles - the PS2 and PC games were targetting different markets and they had different uses. But as consoles attempt to become more pc-like, and focus more on computer-like hardware and FPS games and such, it has created an environment where multiplatform development is standard. This has lead to a decline in the quality of PC games because not many companies put in the effort to maximize a PC’s capabilities in their PC port of the game. The interfaces are often dumbed down and bad, the graphics are worse than a PC exclusive would be, all sorts of irritating gameplay design choices that I often assume were the result of development towards the console crowd… I had no problems with consoles until the last generation when they’re actively hurting the PC gaming industry. We’re mostly playing games that were cross-developed for 5 year old technology. It’s still better on the PC - smoother, higher resolution, better post processing (anisotropy, fsaa, etc) - but not as much as a PC exclusive like Crysis can be.
Actually, no I don’t remember it. I’ve rarely had performance issues on consoles.
I honestly don’t play a lot of PC games–I prefer a controller to a keyboard in most situations, so the few games I do play on a PC don’t remotely translate well to a console. I suspect a lot of the division between consoles and PCs comes from the type of games people prefer. I’m a big JRPG fan, which has traditionally been console territory and doesn’t focus as much on graphics. FPS games have traditionally been more of a PC thing, and they often try to push graphics capabilities. With the move towards consoles being more PC-like, the focus is more towards games that have in the past been PC based, making graphics comparisons easier and more relevant. I don’t particularly like this trend, as the types of games I enjoy have become much harder to find in recent years. And choosing between PC and console versions of a game never comes up for me.
The PC crowd is getting split between PCs and consoles, while the console crowd is getting pushed out of the market. Neither side seems happy with this.
I have loved a great many PC games over the years, but yeah, these days I play pretty much just Xbox games. I like sports games a lot, and PCs have frankly always sucked at those.
edit: exception- Baseball Mogul. still play that all the time.
Pretty much. I’m just calling things as they seem from my perspective–I’m not familiar with things from the PC side of the equation, since I’m mostly there for WoW and the occasional RTS (which I suck at, so I don’t play those often). The types of games I enjoy are rarely available on the PC at all, so I’m usually looking at consoles only for my gaming needs.