Agreed.
After you said this:
The irony, it burns.
In case you don’t understand, your “and therefore it sucketh”/“and therefore it sucketh big time”/“and therefore it sucketh most of all” is in no way equivalent to my “it just isn’t objectively “better”.”
Saying A isn’t better than B != saying B is better than A.
Also
Saying A isn’t better than B != saying A “sucketh”
Your inability to realise this, along with your inability to comprehend that no one is really saying “PC Gaming is Shit” (hell, I said I was a “born again PC gamer”), is simultaneously comical and a bit pathetic.
Wow I didn’t realize how huge of a debate this would become!
I have to admit, I’ve changed my mind a bit, since successfully installing and playing Borderlands 2. Up until then, I had a real run of bad luck with games- either games that took a lot of tweaking to work right, didn’t work at all, relied too heavily on the internet, etc. I was getting frustrated at how difficult it was to find a good new PC game (that worked on my computer) that I could get a physical copy of that allowed me to play without an internet connection.
I like having a library of games for my PC that I can re-install on a newer machine when the craving comes up. I would say my favorite games are games that function under those parameters.
A particular gripe I’ve had lately is the abundance of games that require an internet connection to run, even in singleplayer. Diablo 3 was good fun and all, but the need to constantly be connected to the internet (and having to deal with lag in a SINGLEPLAYER game) really hurt my intrest. Not everybody has a permanent T-1 internet connection out there, and while I don’t mind trying to get a reliable connection for a multiplayer game, for a singleplayer game I want something I can load up anywhere.
Command and Conquer: The Decade was a great buy for me because not only did it have all the C&C games made 1995-2005, they updated them to work on newer machines (good luck trying to get the original Command and Conquer to work on a modern computer!).
Borderlands 2 was a great game also because aside from needing an internet connection to update it through Steam, I can play it offline and it runs fine.
Starcraft 2 is somewhere in the middle- You can play it offline but your acheivements aren’t recorded. Still, the multiplayer game was fun and when I do have an internet connection, playing custom games is fun as well.
I suppose if I had a reliable, fast internet connection, my attitude would probably be different, since I might be doing what many do (digital downloads, online games, etc). But only occasionally having internet access, and having that connection only occasionally have low latency, I kinda have to work with what I’ve got.
Also, as much as it makes me seem like a luddite, I’m wary about ‘downloaded’ games. I like having a physical copy on hand, just in case I want to install/reinstall the game on a new computer.
Just as an FYI, all the major digital distribution outlets (Steam, Amazon, Origin, etc) allow you to access and re-download your games whenever you need. I can have my Steam games installed on multiple computers (but only be logged into one computer at a time to play them). Or, I could throw my computer down a hole, get a new one and have all my games back just by logging into my accounts and re-downloading them. Arguably, it’s easier since I could go somewhere, get on a new computer, and install my entire library of games without needing to have brought the discs with me.
I understand you have other issues (connection speed, bandwidth) but just wanted to say that this specific concern doesn’t need to worry you.
If download connection speed is an issue, just move the Steam files to an external hard-drive once you’re done playing and want to free up some space. Then you can delete them from the local drive. When you want to play them next time, just shunt the files back and ask Steam to verify the cache intergrity. Works like a charm. (Heck, there’s nothing really keeping you from burning them out on a BD-disk if you want a physical copy.)
I’ve got 92 normal games on my Steam account and about a hundred small indie titles, all of them backed up on one 1TB external harddrive. It’d take me just two or three minutes to access any of them. Well, except for Max Payne 3, which is bloody massive, so 10 minutes for that one.
Comparable, maybe - but not favorably comparable, by most metrics.
I have a Wii and an Xbox, and I have some fun with that - but when things come close to being actually compared, they don’t compare with with the PC version at all.
Yeah, I have GTA IV for the Xbox - picked it up cheap - and I am playing it through again - but what an adjustment after playing the PC version on a budget PC with a middling video card. First thing I did was try to find something in the settings to adjust the resolution or the draw distance, because having everything all fuzzy and having objects wink into visibility somewhere in the middle ground is seriously disappointing when you’re used to it being sharp as anything and give you a good framerate where you can see to the horizon.
I also missed the ability to record the mayhem and then render it in movie mode where you can carefully set up camera angles for maximum drama - not to mention how frustrating it is to clumsily select weapons by cycling through them instead of being able to switch to any weapon with a single keypress, instead of “I want a molotov… okay assault rifle, smg, pistol, bat, fist, oh, I’m dead.” To simulate the experience of playing a FPS on a console when you are used to playing on a PC, take a couple of nembutals and then play the PC version. Sure, it’s still kinda fun… it’s just your perception is not as clear and you don’t have the sort of fine motor control you’re used to. An RTS? Forget it.
That’s not to say console games can’t be fun - have had some good times with the likes of Red Dead Redemption and Super Mario Galaxies, etc. It’s just that objectively, PC games > Console games > Mobile device games, in terms of potential to deliver a good experience.
You know, for some reason this really made me think. The one thing that all of my computers have in common are that my husband designed them. Now, he designs computer systems as part of his job with the FAA, but perhaps he is not the best person to design a home computer system for someone who mostly wants internet access and gameplay. Bill likes to take oddball and different drummer approaches to many things, from cooking to navigating around town. Perhaps his oddball approach to designing computers has caused many of my issues. I’ll have to think about this some more. But thanks, you might have solved one of my problems.
I think that what he’s saying is that a console is easier to use. That’s certainly what I’ve been saying. I’m willing to pay MORE for ease of use.
And I’m willing to pay more for a better experience. I think that’s where the disconnect lies.
As a gamer whose hobby IS gaming (well, gaming and historical martial arts, and programming - yes the total geek package), I care much more about enhancing my gaming experience over how easy it is to play my games, specially since, with my technical experience, the difference in difficulty for me, is negligible.
That may be the bottom line here. Most PC gamers I know, unless PC gaming is what they grew up playing, make a conscious, deliberate decision to become PC gamers. Games go from being time wasters, or something you do just for relax/me time, to a hobby. Where the console experience and console games (except for the odd really good exclusive) just aren’t enough.
It’s the difference between the guy that changes his own oil and looks at car magazines, to the guy who builds his own hot rods.
I’m 55. Pong didn’t even come out until I was in college. Back in MY day, young fella, we played pinball and we APPRECIATED it!
And it might be the difference in difficulty. You can probably look at a problem, know what it is, and solve it in less than five minutes. Whereas I’ll spend a few hours Googling the problem, then Googling the terms of the fix, because I don’t know the terms involved. And then I’ll spend a few hours on a phone to tech support, if the game even HAS a human tech support line.
If I could fix PC problems within a few minutes, my outlook would probably be totally opposite. As it is, though, I’m spending hours, which are sometimes spread out over several days, to twiddle something that you can ID and fix in a few minutes. And in between those hours, I’ve fired up my PS2 and I’m playing a classic game. Hell, my husband has dug our old C64 out of storage, and I’m hoping to find a copy of Psi 5 Trading Company or M.U.L.E. that works!
This is so ridiculously condescending.
That’s another cool thing about PC gaming, emulators! You can be up and running MULE in a few minutes. In fact I think there is a website somewhere that runs a C64 emulator through Flash.
But I agree with your point, PC and PC game problems can require technical knowledge and experience to fix.
But they can be fixed. If you have an issue with your xbox, you gotta send it out for three weeks to get fixed.
As said, Lynn appears ot have an inordinate amount of issues with her PC. I don’t know why, I’m not going to speculate, but the avarage PC gamers experience with trying to play a game is “click on game in library and play” NOT fiddle with this and fiddle with that. That is absolutely the exception for most, not the the rule.
There continues to be this perception amongsts console gamers that EVERY time you want to play a PC game you need to spend hours trouble shooting stuff. IT’s a ridiculous, ignorant notion.
That wasn’t my intent.
It’s just what I see among my friends and acquaintances. The hobbyists are almost all PC gamers. The casuals are almost all console gamers, with the exception of the ultra casuals which are all PC gamers too - they just play flash games and social games exclusively.
Can you be a hobbyist and be only a console gamer, sure. I’m not saying this isn’t possible or even satisfying. But in my experience these guys aren’t into PC gaming because they know nothing about PC gaming, not because they’ve tried it and decided console gaming is for them. And again this isn’t a PC gamer or console gamer thing. Most people I know do BOTH.
At the very least, as a hobbyist, you’re missing out. Most hobbyist console gamers on forum boards, like you, Justin, own multiple consoles. Why? Because they all offer something interesting and unique. The PC is no different. You are missing out on a ton of experiences simply because you refuse to give the platform a chance.
I don’t refuse to give PC games a chance. I prefer console games. But the difference between those two statements seems to escape you.
I like sitting on a couch a few feet away versus sitting right on top of the screen. I prefer using a controller (which was a big deal on the PC back in the 90s) versus mouse/keyboard. I have a weak spot for Nintendo exclusives (which you can’t get on a PC). And I have a weak spot for side-scrollers (which have only just recently jumped to the PC).
I don’t know if I mentioned it in this thread, but I used to play PC games all the time. In the mid 90s it was what I did. Doom, Duke Nukem, Rise of the Triad, Command & Conquer, Tomb Raider, MDK. PC gaming was the shit. But I got an N64 right around the same time as I got my PC. Before too long it needed an upgrade to play the latest and greatest and I felt my gaming budget was better spent on N64 games.
Years later I jumped on the PS2 because it could also play DVDs and my PCs since then have been a series of Best Buy specials. Again, I feel that putting the money or the time into building or buying a computer suitable for gaming is better spent on console (usually Xbox 360) games.
I made a choice that makes total sense to me, and your assertions that that makes me a lesser gamer are growing seriously tiresome (even if it’s not your intent, it’s there).