I’m an equal opportunity gamer, and as such greatly respect the merits of both platforms. However, the point about the high definition TVs needs to be repeated:
If you’re playing an Xbox360 game on a normal TV, a PC running that game at 800x600 is the only fair comparision.
When hi-def TVs are ubiquitous, it will again be true that console gaming is significantly cheaper.
It’s also worth noting that part of Microsoft’s new gaming initiatives, development of “Tray-and-play” games will become a priority. This doesn’t mean that you won’t still need to upgrade your computer hardware every couple years, but when you buy a game it should “just work” after you put it in the tray.
An NTSC signal has a resolution of 480 lines, so 640X480 is a more accurate comparison.
I used to have my computer hooked up to a video projector, and although my SVGA->NTSC adapter would accept a signal at 800X600, it wasn’t practical to run it that way because a lot of the detail got lost on the way to the TV, making it completely impossible to make out, for example, what was happening with the “radar” displays on games like Mechwarrior or the X-Wing franchise – and difficult to read text in mission briefings. If you wanted to play on the big screen, you had to scale back to 640X480.
For me, this (and the input devices) is the main advantage of a PC game over a console game.
And I would argue that this is a case in which the new generation of consoles are emulating the biggest failing of PC gaming. See, the trouble is, I don’t need hi-def. When you’re playing a game from halfway across the room in your couch, 95% of the time, standard NTSC resolution is perfectly fine. A higher resolution will be clearer, true, but there comes a point when diminishing returns come into play. I’m not spending $400 on a console, and then another $3000 getting a high-definition TV just to get shinier graphics on games that are identical to their predecessors in every other perceivable way.
The fact that the “hi-def revolution” seems to be the main selling point of the new generation of consoles is why I won’t be getting an Xbox360 or PS3 anytime soon. If I’m getting any console in the next two years, it will almost certainly be the Revolution, because Nintendo, at least, seems to understand that innovative game design trumps raw hardware specs every time. And this coming from a hardcore Xbox fan who never gave the Gamecube a second glance.
I just wish Nintendo could understand how to design a game controller. The SNES controller was the only well designed one they ever had. The NES one was just pointy in the meaty parts of my hand, the N64 required me to have three hands in order to use it, and the Gamecube controller is just AKWARD, with the Z button just squeezed up under the R button where I can mash it or miss it depending on which is least convenient for me. And what’s teh Revolution’s controller? Isn’t it like a magic wand or a TV remote or something? :mad:
Personally, I think the N64 controller was very well designed, and allowed for three different ways of holding it, depending on which was best for the game (I don’t know of any game that had your right hand on the middle though). The only real awkwardness was that the start button could be hard to reach if you weren’t using the centre prong (and I love where they had the Z button). A little strange to look at, but fairly natural to use. I’m with you on the Gamecube though–that’s just weird.
The thing I don’t like about the Gamecube controller is the c-stick. It’s fine for some games, but it really doesn’t work well with shooters. It’s too small and imprecise.
The Revolution is going to be so awesome though.
Yeah, the N64 controller was stupid looking, but it was actually extremely “playable” in terms of its actual use. Thirded on how downright silly the GC controller was in some of its design decisions (placement of Z button, C stick, design/alignment of the main buttons, etc etc etc).
