Your arguments, for the most part, seem to boil down to:
Well, not everybody in the whole wide world likes “x” feature, therefore you are wrong that “x” is a feature.
To be honest, your list of reasons were very poor as well. More ways of control? Really? It was the consoles that brought the likes of dance mats, cameras, waggle and whatnot into the home and mainstream whilst PC users were sitting with mouse+keyboard and/or a joypad (which was more often than not based on a console joypad’s design). Tighter, more responsive controls? Rubbish. Any Mario game has more responsive controls than just about any other game ever. Immersive experience based on hardware rather than design? Crikey.
No one is coming out of this very well. It is a crap, pointless argument with no real answers, just zealots defending “their” side. Amiga vs ST, SNES vs Megadrive, PC vs Console, these arguments never end and NEVER have an answer.
You prefer PCs. Great. Other people prefer console. Awesome. Neither is better/worse.
Oh and the overwhelming majority of user-created content is utter garbage. On every platform.
Actually you’re arguments are quite poor. I shall endevour to bring them down one by one in a manner you seem to be really good at:
" dance mats, cameras, waggle and whatnot"
Crikey!
"Tighter, more responsive controls? Rubbish. Mario "
60 fps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20-30 fps in terms of responsiveness of controls in modern 3D games. 2d games? responsiveness = equal on both sides (for the most part).
Also, please look up the fallacy of false equivalency. Just because some people like one thing and others like somehting else does not mean the two are equivalent.
I’m playing Borderlands 2 at 60 FPS (actually more like 200, but I’m running vsynced), with incredible physics effects at 2560x1440, with a huge FOV, higher resolution textures, no aliasing, plenty of anisotropic filtering, huge draw distances, more enemies and particle effects on the screen and with mouse and keyboard (whic for an fps >>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a gamepad).
How is that NOT objectively better than playing it on a console?
Well you did have to buy a 2560x1440-capable monitor. And a quick search of Amazon tells me that those run between $600 and $1000. A fair bit above and beyond the “standard computer equipment that everyone has.”
Well 1080p >>>>> sub HD, which should cover a good chunk of PC gamers.
I see you ignored everything else though…
And my argument was never: All PC gamers play in this way!
In fact my argument from the beginning is that PC gamers have OPTIONS on how they play were as console gamers do not.
I think that you and I are looking for different things in gaming. You want eye candy. I want AI, yes, but I don’t care if the game is exceptionally pretty. Some of the best games have poor, or at least very outdated, graphics. Hell, I loved the old text based “interactive stories” from Infocom and other sources. No graphics at all, just me, a computer screen, and a pile of puzzles to solve. I did frequently use pencil and paper for maps and notes.
Ever seen the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? This was a beautifully made movie. It was groundbreaking in the computer graphics field, the animation was absolutely amazing.
But as a movie, it was a complete flop. The producers focused on making an amazing visual feast, without making sure that the movie had any sort of interesting story in it.
I’ve seen lots of games that are the same way. Yeah, the visuals are amazing, but if there’s no gameplay there, then the game won’t hold my attention for very long.
As for more varied input devices and hardware options, to me, this just translates as more stuff that I have to fiddle with before I can start playing my game. And it seems that a lot of games just won’t work with certain bits of hardware, no matter what I do. I don’t enjoy messing with hardware. I know some people love it, and that’s fine for them. But for me, that’s WORK, it’s not play. I already do enough work in my daily life. And there’s a definite limit on the amount of time that I’m willing to devote to getting a game to play before I say “screw it, it’s not worth it”. I spent quite a few hours getting Civ IV to work. I had to phone tech support, get emails, and then fiddle with this setting and adjust that setting before it finally worked. Guess what? I’m NOT buying another Civ game. Civ III gave me no problems that I remember. But Civ IV and the expansions for it did. 2K Games has lost me as a customer.
I remember reading Hackers, and there’s one passage in the book where the model train club leaders send a memo around, reminding the members that the purpose of the club is to work on model trains, not fiddle with the switching mechanisms to see what they do. Or something like that, it’s been over 20 years since I read it. At any rate, some people are fascinated with playing around with the mechanics of things, while other people just want those things to work. I am, for instance, completely uninterested in how an internal combustion engine works, and I am only interested in whether the car can get me from Point A to Point B without any problems. My only worries should be whether I have enough gas in the car. I want my gaming experience to be that simple.
If I want to work, I have plenty of things to work on. I do a lot of freelance work, and I can always pick up another job if I want to, so I don’t need to do more work to enjoy myself. And I think that my viewpoints on what a game should be, and what it should or shouldn’t require, are at least as valid as yours. You want to work at playing? Fine, don’t let me stop you. But don’t just dismiss my opinions as “You aren’t a REAL gamer”, because I AM a gamer. I’m such a gamer that I don’t want to work at it. I’m just not the same kind of gamer as you are.
Right, but your argument constantly highlights the mythical “$2000 Gaming PC” setup that a) most PC owners don’t have and b) you say yourself is not needed for the PC experience. You can’t have it both ways.
Also, I agree with Lynn, I’m not the same kind of gamer as you, but I know what I’m talking about and I know why I prefer a console experience to a PC one.
Some of the best games have awesome graphics. Many of the best games with limited graphics would kick more ass with new graphics. Which is why you have people taking a classic like Morrowwind and modding it to look like a modern game.
The puzzle game genre is certainly more lively on PC than console.
I’ve seen a lot of games that sucked and looked like crap. At least the pretty ones are pretty.
This whole sub-debate comes up all the time with indie games. People who think that a game isn’t pure enough if it doesn’t look like it was programmed on a Commodore 64. In my opinion, looking crummy is something a game overcomes, not a selling point. I lived through the 80’s and 90’s waiting on games to look better, not hoping that I could go back.
There are, of course, tons of games with wonderful and distinctive art styles that are not cutting-edge photorealism. I’m not talking about those.
Your choice. Civ 5 is an awesome game (looks great too) and works flawlessly for me.
As I said earlier upthread, most people just want their games to “work”. Sure, I like knowing I CAN fiddle with this or that, but I get no innate joy out of doing so. For whatever reason you seem to have far more issues with getting games running than the average person. I don’t know why and I won’t assume that it’s meaningful. Maybe you’re just picking up the bell curve. But, really, “install and play” is what the great majority of gamers do. Being able to choose between playing Batman: Arkham City on the gamepad or Kb+M doesn’t really damage or take away from that,
The point that’s been raised repeatedly is that PC gaming on even a modest computer still beats console play (in terms of processor power, graphics, controller response, etc; I’ll cede the “Dance pads and waving motion wands” debate). Plus you have the luxury options of going bigger and better that you don’t have on a console.
A motorcycle is faster than a bicycle. A Ferrari is faster than a bicycle. Pointing out that not everyone has a Ferrari doesn’t make the bicycle and motorcycle equivalent.
PC Gaming on a “modest computer” renders more than a few of today’s biggest releases unplayable. Look at Skyrim. I tried to build a PC using the minimum specs as a baseline and I couldn’t do it for under $700.
Consoles are cheaper and easier is a valid argument.
Valid argument for what? That one is cheaper and easier than another one? You’re wrong about cheaper when it comes to the long term prospects of a gamer who will play a lot of games, as has been shown, so you are left with “easier”.
Again, what are you arguing? I’m saying that the PC can provide a better gaming experience, and you’re argument is: consoles are easier? So is getting food at McDonalds, but that doesn’t make a BigMac equivalent to Beef Wellington.
As for your “Baseline” PC for Skyrim:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1068139
$147
$90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822149380
$70
Add some RAM for $50
Total $357. That gives you great performance at 720p. Roughly a console like experience (slightly better thanks to shorter load times and better textures). And of course, it’s a PC, not just game box. I run a similar system for my Home Theater PC - I get 45 FPS on Dirt 3 medium settings @720p, and it can handle recording 4 live TV streams simultaneously. And that build is thanks to a quick Newegg search. I’m sure a better build could be had for about the same money, if you look around and take sales into account.
Add one of these babies:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161402
$105 To outperform two xbox 360’s duct taped together.
Total $462. You’ll make up double the difference between that and the top line Xbox in the next Steam sale, Guaranteed. (and the enxt one is just aroudn the corner!)
Or maybe start with a barebones kit. I like these little LAN boxes, they are portable, there are other that aren’t so boxy, but they start out at a little more. Add some RAM, a HD and a GPU and you’re good to go.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856101130
There are limitless options for almost any budget. I agree that even a quick browsing through Tom Hardware’s best GPU for the money, or asking for help in any number of tech or PC gmaing forums is outside the scope of Avrage Joe.
but that’s not the argument we’re making, is it? I’m not arguing that average Joe should some how, god damnit, buy a PC!
Only that a PC is usually just a good a choice or even better (depending on a number of factors) than a console.
It is better than the console version.
But the PC doesn’t have Metroid Prime, Mario, Zelda …
I’m all about the games. The games that are multi-platform are usually better on the PC. However, not all games are available on the PC, including some of the best games ever. Not all games are on consoles either.
Your PC can be as bad ass as ever, but if it doesn’t have Super Mario Galaxy then I am sorry, it just isn’t objectively “better”. That’s the long and short of it. It isn’t just about technology.
Congratulations, you can build a PC that gives good gaming performance. Can the average person? And what about if the average person doesn’t want to build their own?
In those cases, a console is superior. That’s all I’m saying.
And here I played Skyrim on my system at Medium+ settings and finished the game.
Shrug
In those cases, a console is convenient. I think your use of the word “superior” is creating an unnecessary drag on your argument, which is valid.
For what it’s worth, I think the average person is completely able to put together a component PC. Considering that I first did it at age 13, it’s not really rocket science. (I’m a dumbass by most standards.) They’d just rather order PC à la carte - a console - than cook at home, which I completely understand.
I’m going to counter this super objective argument with the following:
The Wii doesn’t have Rome II: Total War, and therefore it sucketh.
The Xbox doesn’t have Guild Wars 2, and therefore it sucketh big time.
The Ps3 doesn’t have Diablo 3, and therefore it sucketh most of all.
It’s about the games for me as well.
Well, you coulnd’t do it, apparently, but I’m going to say that yes, the average person can do it.
Koreans manage it. PC gaming there is a national sport. Are Koreans smarter or more capable than Americans? I don’t think so. Are Germans?
Again, how does that make console gaming “superior”.
We keep coming back to the same thing. I say PC is a superior gaming platform and you counter with: this other thing over here is cheaper!
Do you apply this philosophy to everything else too?
“Hey hun, let’s purchase this beautiful home”
“No babe, look, we can get a trailer next to this junkyard for a FRACTION of the cost!”
“Hey Justin, I can give you a great deal on this Ford Focus!”
“Does it cost as much as this bike from Toy’s R Us? No? No sale!”
“They’ve got this awesome pair of jeans at Express, on sale! Just $40”
“Good lord that’s a lot of money! I can just wear these rags instead!”.
I understand that price is important, but we’re not talking about some basic commodity here. This is a luxury. A hobby.
The funniest thing is that the most die hard console gamers I know, the ones that do the most protesting about the price of PC gaming, are EXACTLY the same dudes with the newest iPad, newest iPhone, and $500 worth of plastic toy guitars they bought for a SINGLE console game they playted for a few months and now sits collecting dust in some corner.
Clearly showing that they are biased, and their actual feelings about the PC has not a single thing to do with price.
Similarly, their arguments tend to span the entire list of consoles. They use the pluses of one console, to disregard the minuses of some other console. They use the lineup of exlcusives accross consoles and handhelds, all to try and make some negative point about the PC, not realizing that by doing so they are actually increasing the cost of their “console argument” to huge levels, since in order for it to be valid, you’d need to own a vita, a 3ds, a Wii, an xbox and a PS3.
Which is not what the console side is saying at all.
Not “I couldn’t,” but “I didn’t want to.” How is that not valid? And your analogies are terrible since consoles provide a comparable experience even if it’s not exactly the same.
OK, whatever, I’m done arguing with you for the umpteenth time.
I guess we can close this out with:
“Is PC gaming on the way out?”
Uhm, hells no.
Which is, I guess were we should have left it, as it’s (hopefully) the one thing we can all agree on (right?!?).