How much for the rest of the computer?
I get all hot and flustered when they call you “Beefy”.
And I cannot understand what those few poster’s problem(s) were in that other thread. So Beef made an alternate suggestion, politely? Jesus people, get a grip.
I don’t know, how much did you pay for your computer?
Edit: My point was that if you have a computer made in the last 3 years or so that isn’t bottom of the barrel, it’ll function well enough to be a gaming computer with the addition of just a video card. You already have a computer, so the cost of getting a gaming PC is only the hardware you need in addition to the computer you already use for general purposes.
My computer is a perfect example of this. It cost me $400 brand new off ebay about a year ago, and has an AMD dual core 64-bit processor, 4GB RAM and an Nvidia 9600GT video card. I already had an OS disk, monitor, keyboard, speakers, etc from my older computer so it ended up being pretty cheap. And I can play really graphics-intensive games like Crysis that would choke a 360 to death.
i think console gamers who decry pc games are just people who can’t or won’t do the homework to play their games. it doesn’t matter if it’s superior in every other way; they just want something that requires minimal effort on their part to work and are happy with ancient tech. just look at some of their rationale with the gamepads - they are happy to sacrifice freedom and control of their game, expecting it to be dumbed down instead to fit the limitations of their hardware.
consoles are popular for a reason - you buy a box and just plug it in. there’s not even much choice involved, it’s either a Sony or Microsoft. PCs on the other hand can be confusing even to PC users who have not kept up with the current cycle. so while i generally agree with you SenorBeef, unless i blindly trust the on-commissions salesman at my local pc store to upgrade my rig properly, you can’t really make a superior gaming PC for less time and effort than a console.
While I totally agree with the second half of your post, this first portion raises some issues that I disagree with.
You are quite right that I don’t want to do homework in order to play a game–in fact, you nailed it. I disagree with the assertion that “it doesn’t matter if it’s superior in every other way”–that is quite incorrect. For me, the PC does not offer a compelling enough game experience to justify the effort in playing them.
The only manner in which PC games are objectively superior are on technical merits, which essentially amounts to graphics. I don’t give a damn about graphics. Hell, the Wii is my ‘favorite’ console of this generation, and even then I rarely play it in lieu of the superior games of past generations, which not coincidentally, look much worse (on a purely technical basis) than any modern gaming platform.
The games I play–the ones that appeal to me–have not been “dumbed down” to fit onto a console. They are generally console specific (thus defying the issue entirely), and the few that are multiplatform play practically identically to their PC counterpart, short of the input method. As such, there is often no “sacrifice” in “freedom” or “control.” I will concede that, for shooters, an analog stick is less accurate than a mouse. But I don’t subscribe to the belief that greater accuracy = more fun. And it’s certainly–for me at least–less comfortable.
I have never seen one of these threads not be contentious. Not ever. Not just pc vs. console, but console vs. console. I find it hilarious - it’s the new “Mac vs. PC” :p.
I don’t really see the point in evangelizing myself. I play PC exclusively and just bought a new system ( after five+ years on my old one ) because it just plain can’t handle Dragon Age. But I have rarefied tastes - I play strategy and rpgs ( and their cousins like action-rpgs and tactical games ) almost exclusively and they are either unavailable on console ( like Paradox strategy games ) or benefit greatly from modding ( like Bethesda/Bioware rpgs ). My friends have been bugging me for years to pick up on X-Box, but frankly with all my gaming time taken already, it’d be a waste.
Each to there own, sez I.
I questioned this in the other thread and I have to bring it up here. If a PC game from years ago requires tweaking (however you wish to define it), it really shouldn’t count as a game you can play on a “modern PC.”
And as I said before, the various consoles offer a huge slate of backwards compatibility options. Jesus, a first-wave PS3 plays PSone and PS2 games as well. That’s a library of nearly 3,000 games. There are hundreds of games available through the Wii’s Virtual Console and WiiWare services. With maybe a handful also available for the PC.
Again, it all depends how you count, but the number of PC games released in the last decade is miniscule compared to the consoles. Unless you count the “seek-and-find” genre or Flash games.
Mods. If you only play consoles, you have noooooo idea. Graphics are the least of it.
I don’t play PC games recreationally. I do play them for work. I’m fully aware of the mod scene, there are almost none I care about, let alone for games that actually appeal to me.
Well, there is one advantage that some PC gamers have, which relates to the acquisition of games at a very significant fraction of the cost of console titles. I’m not really allowed to go into detail about it but it rhymes with “Lawrence.”
I’m also in agreement with the OP about using a keyboard and mouse for an FPS versus using a controller pad. The thumbs are not optimal for precision aiming such as is required in a good FPS, ideally with real iron sights on the weapons - you can’t get anywhere near the degree of fine control that mouse motion, which involves the entire hand and wrist, gives you - and the kind of multitasking involving inventory management and other such things that deep shooters will have is better accomplished with the keyboard/mouse combo.
Mod-ability is also far superior on the PC.
And I agree that a quality PC for gaming can be had for less than a console - especially when you factor in the cost of an HDTV which is basically essential to get any kind of enjoyment out of the newest generation of consoles.
So, more or less, I agree with the OP. I also agree that good PC games are getting rarer and rarer, and FPSs especially have been sucking donkey dick lately. I’m particularly annoyed at this new school of game design which saturates everything with light bloom, and at the same time has everything in really drab shades of brown and green. Fuck that shit, I want color in my games. One of my favorite PC games of all time is still Mafia, which was made like 10 years ago and manages to have an aesthetic that’s more fun to look at than 90% of today’s over-saturated, brown-gray PC games.
While this is true, I’m not encouraging it although it can be considered a benefit. But actually the price is an advantage too - PC games usually start at a price of $40 to $50 rather than $60 like consoles, and they tend to drop price more quickly. There’s a wider variety of games you can get for $20 or $30. There also tend to be a lot of cool independently developed games for $5-20, but I guess there’s something similar in xbox arcade.
So, just to take one incredibly mundane example, the ability in Fallout 3 to expand Three Dog’s playlist on GNR from 20 songs to 120 songs all in the same style and spirit of the original soundtrack isn’t an objective advantage?
Sorry, I’m just not understanding this. There’s a game I’d love, except that feature X would drive me completely batty. Being able to modify feature X isn’t an objective advantage?
Sorry, I posted my last reply while in the drive through from my phone, so I didn’t have time to respond in full.
Yes, mods are technically an objective advantage that I overlooked. It’s something I don’t even consider when I play games, so it doesn’t even register a blip on my radar for comparison. If a game is broken enough that it requires a mod to function, I’m not about to do more “homework” to fix it.
I also prefer to play games as the creators intended it–Doom 3 with a flashlight strapped to your gun is a fundamentally different experience from what was intended.
How do you lose? Aren’t 95% of games (with the current exception of MW2) like 25-40% cheaper on the PC than they are on the consoles? You are getting your games cheaper than me and, as you said, typically they have better graphics and controls (in your opinion).
So my Xbox and PS games basicaly susidize the development of your PC games.
Because there’s a trend to dumb down the games for consoles. Yeah, I know that sounds elitist, but there’s an obvious trend over the last few years in game development. Interfaces are simpler and less useful. Control schemes have less versatility (random example, the new call of duty game doesn’t have lean functions because there’s no room for them on the gamepad and they didn’t bother to put them in the PC port). Games that are complex, like simulations or strategy games, lose their market as more people shift from PCs to consoles. PC graphics are better than consoles, but they’re not as good as they could be if they utilized the hardware available to them now, which they don’t. Pre-current console era, games graphically advanced at a rapid pace - every year or two your mind would get blown. Now we’re stuck seeing what we can get out of 2005 hardware. The PC still looks better because of better resolution, post processing effects, better frame rates, etc. - but they still don’t challenge the PC hardware. In general, the trend for games in terms of storyline and complexity tend to be more suitable for the average xbox player, who from my few live experiences, is a 13 year old that screams “FAGGOT NIGGER FAGGOT NIGGER!”. In general, games are getting worse pretty much across the board, either in an absolute sense (crappy modern interfaces are often a step back from previous games of the genre, and the move away from dedicated servers for example) and in a relative sense (things would be better if they weren’t restrained by needing to work on a much more limited platform).
This will get even worse as time goes on. The current consoles are supposed to last a decade. A decade! In 2013, we’ll have PCs that are several times as fast as they are now, and yet we’ll still be running games that need to be able to run on a 2005 xbox 360. I mean - compare to gaming in 2009 to 1999. Imagine the huge leap. Now realize that the current console generation makes it so that it’d be like we didn’t advance at all from 1999 to 2009. That’s how it’s going to be in the next few years.
I have a PC (well, more like several PCs - hi, I’m Crown Prince, and I have a computer problem), and a PS3 - I wouldn’t say my main PC is a hot gaming machine (dual-core AM2 Athlon, Radeon 4830, Win XP), but it runs CoD4 and the Orange Box well enough, and when I download the occasional up to date game demo, it’s usually not a slideshow (except Crysis). Although it’s been already said, I must say that a 4350 is incapable of playing any kind of game at a playable framerate, at any rez above 1024x768, and with only a 64-bit memory pipe, it absolutely does not compare to the XBox 360 or PS3 graphics subsystems.
As for my preference, while I can’t stand FPS games on a console (I’m a mouse and keys guy), I do find most other types of games much more enjoyable on my living room setup. I think the biggest reason is that the experience on a big HDTV with surround sound is so much more immersive, compared to my 23" monitor and relatively anemic PC speakers.
Sure, folks can hook up a PC to their tv (I have one for movie streaming) - but fumbling around with both a keyboard and a wireless controller, and dealing with bootup times, and occasional driver issues - oy vey. If I wanna blow shit up, I want to do it now, not after bootup, and the inevitable update, and dealing with controller profiles, etc. etc. etc.
The average user is probably happier with the more seamless, immersive experience, and I don’t blame them.
I don’t really play anything all that much anymore but I play PC and consoles evenly, on the rare occasions I do play. On PC, I play FPSs and RTSs. On consoles (PS2, Dreamcast, N64, Gamecube, Xbox) I play third-person adventure games like all the Resident Evil games, Silent Hill, Onimusha, Shenmue, Metal Gear Solid 1/2/3 etc. The latter type of game, I prefer on a console. But for a shooter, no way am I using a control pad and thumb sticks.
I was unaware you could “tweak” a console to run games from years ago. Assuming I’m right, being able to run the game with tweaks is obviously better than not being able to run it at all.
Everything in the Wii Virtual Console is available for PC, and then some. Surely you know this. And surely you know they don’t make first-wave PS3s anymore. And yet, the PC mentioned above can run PS2 games, too.
This one just needs a single response: Cite?
Well, that and how can a self professed nerd manage to misspell minuscule? 
OP:
Anyways, the only thing that makes a console worth anything are its exclusive titles. (The ease of use argument is totally overblown in most cases.) I’ve seen maybe one or two from each console that is even remotely appealing. But I’ve thought FPS’s* were overrated since DOOM, and hate what I call twitchy RPGs (ones that integrate live action for some reason. You’re supposed to be judging how good the character is, not the player.)
*And, yes, that is the correct pluralization. You can’t just slap an s on something that ends with an s. And have you ever seen FPSes?
Why does he need a cite for this? I hate this requirement to provide a cite for any and all assertions on this board, no matter how mundane the comment is.
You can’t seriously believe that there have been even 50% as many PC games made in the last decade as there have console games.
Actually, I’ll ask YOU for a cite that proves otehrwise.