Geezer

It's not a case of nit picking, but you make unsubstantiated claims. You say a PC owns your PS3 in every area, but in reality, it has better graphics, that's all. I asked a pointed question about why a PC would be better playing COD5 other than graphics.........

I know a PC is a multi tasking machine, I use mine for all sorts, but the OP is about it as a gaming platform, so don't alter the argument.

The economics and the effort you have to put in simply don't add up anymore.

The PC is a great thing, for doing all sorts of things, but as a gaming platform it is diminishing in importance.

Geezer

1uke

iTrader: (2)

I think ur totally wrong im afraid but lets see what the future holds, You think there will be loads of different make consoles wasting peoples money, I think there will be 1 main computer for everything ie a pc. And with fps games graphics means alot and cod5 certainly looks alot better on half decent pc's with all the anti aliasing etc sharpening up edges, which consoles dont have as they just use buffering/smoothing technology as im sure you know. Try playing Bioshock on a decent pc you might be quite amazed how far things have come since ps3 was released.

Geezer

Of course, it's only opinions, but once again your view seems to based upon the fact that on a PC a game would look better. I still like the original Doom, great fun, but looks crap. There is so much more to games than graphics, there are plenty of very pretty games that are awful to play.

I can play online on a console, the game runs fine, it looks good, I can now receive updates and fixes for games just like I used to on a PC, download map packs or other extra content. Where exactly am I losing out? Please don't mention resolution, or texture shading or how many computations your GPU can do in a nanosecond, we have already covered that.

I have played Bioshock both on PC and PS3. It is not easy to tell which looks better, but I am willing to accept that on a decent sized screen and a decent GFX card, the pC will look better, but did it plat any better? Did I swoon over how much better it was on a PC? Certainly not. Did I have to upgrade the drivers on my PC to play it? Yes, on my PS3? No, just put it in.

You constantly return to the asthetics of PC gaming without actually bothering to answer any questions raised about the other, and usually, more important aspects of gaming. On some of them, it's equal, on others, like ease of use and convenience, the consoles are a clear winner.

You have already mentioned that games are becoming harder to find for the PC, and that is because there is a shift to wards consoles. As that shift has happened, the consoles have (because they had to) become more like what traditionally PC gamers demanded.

I don't know what the future holds either, but for gaming, I doubt it is the PC.

I don't say this as a console fan boy, I have been a gamer for 20+ years, and until recently held a similar view, PCs were my staple diet for gaming. But with this generation of consoles, things have changed, and the next generation will only make the paradigm shift more apparent.

Geezer

ScooByer Trade

That's a fair comment .

StickyMicky

Mate its not really us you have to try and convince, its the people who


1. make the games on the PC
2. sell the games for PC

they are shutting up shop and moving to consoles for various reasons including

and rapidly diminishing sales............

1uke

iTrader: (2)

I play some legit free games online which dont have good graphics but gameplay is pretty awsome imo (soe infantry), I know theres alot of cracked games out there and the hassle with them, if i like a game i will go buy it! Its a shame console companys charge so much for there games £40-£50 sometimes, i dont think a single game is worth that. I used to buy 1 plus games a week im lucky if i buy 1 a month now its just to much money to waste on a game i might play for 5 mins and not enjoy. And i could enjoy much more spending that on my scooby mayb i should keep my ps3 then lol?

StickyMicky

40 quid for 10+ hours entertainment not worth it ?

demos are available for most decent games for free, no excuse for any kind of argument really

Iain Young

Agreed. Much cheaper than a cinema ticket. Almost all games have demos available. There is no excuse for piracy of any kind, and it's one one the main reasons that games developers are leaving the PC.

You got all that for under £400? My machine is quite a bit faster than that, and will not run the latest games at full resolution, so not sure how you are managing.

I'd still be interested in seeing the spec you think you can get for £129 (the price of an xbox).

I do realise that. I program the things for a living, and have been building my own desktops for the last 15+ years The PS3 and 360 multitask as well you know...

That's unsurprising. You can usually build a much better machine yourself than you can get from the big manufacturers. Mainly this is because you can choose which components you actually want. When buying boxed machines you are limited to what they offer (which usually boils down to which components they could get the cheapest so they can maximise their profits).

Not true. There are more games appearing now which take advantage of multicore processing. It doesn't always make sense to do this in a gaming environment, but you should see performance gains from a quad core. When I changed my overclocked Core2 Duo to a Quad, I saw significant frame rate increases in some games (and diagnostics show that all 4 cores were being used).

The 290 chipsets offer more than just raw power. Stuff like enhanced hardware support for antialiasing, new rendering algorithms etc. They also now support CUDA which enables processing to be done on the GPU as well as the CPU. This can be very advantageous in many ways (not just in games).

Before you start slagging off the new chips/cards etc, try doing a bit of research first to get your facts straight

P1Fanatic

I dont think there is any doubt that PC's provide the best gameplay for FPS which other than role play games like WoW seem attract the most online players. The problem is the cost and practicality. Ive given up as can no longer be bother to research, build, monitor, troubleshoot, rebuild, upgade a PC to keep it competitive. The NG consoles are just plug and play. I mean the gfx on Killzone 2 are pretty darn sweet and the thing just loads up off the disk - for the PC that would take about 30 mins to install it to your hard drive, set your graphics, run a gfx test etc.

I do feel the whole online experience is more flexible with PC's. Just look at the number (thousands) of private servers available for popular games like CoD4 and older stuff like Counterstrike.

There are pro's & con's to each but the overall package offered by consoles is obvious and why they are doing so well. Youve also got to wonder how many people have gone and bought a new HD tv on top of their console purchase (I certainly did).

Simon

Geezer

I would say gameplay is a function of the software, not the hardware, so it is equally good on a console. The control method is superior on a PC though (that said, I have had Tomb Raider on both and a joypad is far better).


Absolutley, and this is one area where consoles need to catch up. I think they will though, just think how crap they were online a generation ago compared to what they are like now!

Geezer

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

The only games that are poorer on consoles,imo are RTSs simply because of the complexity of shortcut keys compared to 6 buttons then having to remember any button combo.
As for console companies charging £40-£50 it's normally the publishers of the games that dictate the price not Sony etc.
As for not finding an game worth it that's rubbish Morrowind,Oblivion and Fallout 3 as a single player experience are well worth it.
Whereas i find plenty of games on PC not worth it (Crysis for example hyped up to the extreme then find out it's just a run of the mill FPS)

P1Fanatic

In regard to higher game prices £40-£50 might be what you pay on the high street but since I bought my PS3 I think the most I paid was £32.99 and that was for Killzone 2 pre-order and special edition tin. Most have been around the £25 mark.

Simon

Scooby-kid

I don't want to get into an argument, but I'd like to put my view forward.

For the people who go on about having to upgrade PC's to keep up with the latest games, and play them on the highest settings, consider this;

Xbox and PS3 only play the latest games as developers know exactly how much processing power they have to deal with, so obviouly, they are going to tone down / spruce up their game accordingly, whereas with PC, then they know that the most powerful hardware can do this, so lets make the game to this - so if you don't have the latest and greatest hardware, then you just turn down the settings - Is this not the same as the game originally being toned down for console, but with the added advantage that some people can achieve just that little bit more?

Secondly, its OK saying that you PC is going to be too expensive to upgrade to keep up with current needs, but at least if your pc does start to fall just below the mark for the latest and greatest games, then at least you can still play them, with the settings turned down, but when the next console comes out, it won't be long until all titles are on the new console not the old one, and so you wont be able to buy anything new. whereas with the PC, you can still buy the new games, and it won't be long until you upgrade anyway, just for the sake of a more power hungry OS, or any other software for that matter.

Finally, for some people, a pc capable of playing high end games is not going to be that expensive (that sounds wired, but hear me out). Take me for example, I don't have an Xbox or a PS3, but I do have a quad core gaming pc, when I was pricing it up, I knew I wanted it to be future proof, I knew I wanted to run photoshop CS3 with ease, and not have to worry about converting 200 odd RAW files etc etc. So for me, If I were to spec it up a little more, then it would run games with ease (which I wanted anyway, but lets assume I only wanted raw power, not for gaming), so lets say I added another £100-£130 into my budget buying just a bit better graphics card, just a bit faster memory etc. On the other hand, I could have bought a 360 for what? Say, £130 in a bundle deal. If I were to go for the latter option, then Xbox live would cost £40 a year (not 100% sure) plus, new games are a tad more expensive usually, and on top of that, I have lost out on a little bit of pc performance for normal tasks. So in my situation, If I were to add in the cost of an Xbox in to my budget for my self build, then I would have got the best of both worlds, which I did. Plus, I do like my computer, in a geeky type of way .

And just because I can:

• Q8200
• 4gb OCZ ram
• 500gb segate drive
• ATi 4830
• Hiper Type M 530w psu
• 19" Acer 10000:1 contrast ratio monitor

It may not be the latest and greatest, but as I am only playing at 1440*900, I still get 70fps in COD 5.

Scott.

Geezer

Well, it's too expensive for developer's to work this way, and indeed they do not. They usually have a base system and then it's ported to another platform. Full utilisation of a given platform will not happen, unless it's exclusive to that platform.

Whilst this is true to a degree, it doesn't really represent what happens in reality. My PC really will not play some modern games, simple as, no matter how I have it set. Some new games it will, at 800x600 with minimum effects. Why would I want to do that? I know I have earlier said in this thread that graphics are the be all and end all, but I would at least like to run at a frame rate that is not jittery and looks like something off a Commodore 64! When there is a lot of action, even with setting s turned down it's simply too much and it slows down to an unacceptable, and sometimes unplayable, rate.

Consoles on the other hand will have games developed for them for a time period, that's true, and then they will move to another platform. But, take the Call of Duty games for instance, they are available on all the current consoles, and PS2. So, I could have kept my PS2 and still been able to play it, and because it was written for a PS2, it will be good on there. It will still play at an acceptable rate.

Even if I decide top upgrade to the latest and greatest console, say, after 5 years, the cost will be similar to the money spent on upgrading a PC to play them at the highest spec. That is quite important, because on a PC, you are constantly upgrading to play the latest games at a decent standard. So, once every 5 years or so, I will pay x hundred pounds for a new console, and then have 5 more years of gaming at a constant standard.

With my PC, I can have a cheap upgrade more often, or a big one at about the same gap, but my gaming experience will get progressively worse.

I think Iain put it most succinctly when he asked what spec PC you could get for £129 and get the same quality as an Xbox 360. No one has yet answered, and I suspect they won't. Even a PC at twice that cost will only match it, but for how long?



And when COD 6 comes out, what will you have to run it at? It's not even a consideration on a console.

Geezer




Scott.[/quote]

Dream Weaver

If you have enough time to spend hours and hours messing with a PC setting it up and re-installing the latest graphics card every year (i.e. you have no wife, kids or friends ) AND you don't mind sitting in a home office on your own every night playing games on at most a 24" monitor sat in an office chair then yes, PC Games are great.

If you prefer the comfort of a sofa and a big **** off Plasma screen then consoles will always be the winner, for me anyway.

Lets not beat about the bush, geeks love PC gaming, the rest of us use consoles.

GC8WRX

Shows what you know,

I have a decent gaming pc, and regularly play on my big **** off lcd in the front room, and at a better resolution that your so called high def console.

Name 5 games that are true 1080p that have no slow down in the busy parts.

All the graphically good games are 720, and even they get slow down!

I can game at 1920x1080 all day and get 100 plus fps, you get 40 at 720i, thats crap!

console are for kids!

I have a fit missus, a group of about 10 close mates, i drive a scooby and im going to ibiza at the end of june, i aint no geek, but pc gaming kicks console gaming in the nuts!

Go back to pwning 12 year olds at cod 5

GC8WRX

[/QUOTE]

No its not cos the xbox 540 will be out by then, so all xbox gamers will have to upgrade, and rumour has it cod 6 will be 720i only on ps3, thats a **** resolution for a high def game!

Iain Young

Ah, so it's resolution that makes great games is it? Sorry we all thought it was gameplay. I stand corrected

Given the number of 18 rated games, and vastly larger selection of games and genres available on the consoles, that's rather a strange point of view.

..and those statements alone make you sound like a teenager

p.s. Last time I played an fps game online on the pc, it was full of 12 year old Americans. Don't see the difference myself

StickyMicky

You da man!

honestly, bragging about a "fit missus" does not belong in this thread lol
bragging about how close you and you homiez, has no real place either?
driving a scooby is not something you should be bragging about, maybe 6-7 years ago yes, but nowadays?

and ibiza was declared a bit common a few years back didnt one of the dj mags run a piece that said something like ïts becoming a haven for the great unwashed who think they have made it because they can afford 5quid for a bottle of water"

GC8WRX

The point of that sentance was to sound like a cocky 12 year old!

And on the pc its all about ping, i dont play on any server with a ping of over 60, so ive never seen an american (they usuallly have 150 plus pings).

And, yes, gaming is about resulotion, with a better res i can see further, be more accurate and hide myself better, it affects my performance alot, i game much better on my pc than on my mates which runs 1280x1024!

Cod 5 is MUCH better on my pc than my mates ps3, it looks better, responds faster, sounds better (although i have a good sound card) and runs true high def!

GC8WRX

Jesus, it was a joke, i was trying (badly) to make an ironic point!

Console are still for casual gamers though

BTW were on scooby net, dont you drive a scoob?, if not why not?

StickyMicky

got rid of the scoob and now drive a rover 45

for what its worth i quite like a few of the characters on this forum, the banter is usually of a better, more intelligent standard, and my god the rover forums are dull as hell

Dream Weaver

I rest.

scoober101

IMO PC games and PC capabilities will rule supreme over any console ever released. A bold statement yes, but the PC is the most 'customisable' platform to use. When a console game is made and released, that is it, as it sits in its box, the game will never change, unless however the developers release updates to add new content via an online system.

With a PC game however, the mod community is massive with most games on the market, where the capability of a computer with windows installed can edit, change, modify, alter, improve, tweak almost anything in a game.

We live in an age where image is everything, with HD and Blu-ray etc, developers are driving the visual quality of games further all the time and a powerful PC would easily put console graphics to shame.

A lot of people say they would rather sit a comfy sofa with a controller in front of a TV than at a desk with a PC, keybaord and mouse. Well, the sofa and controller combo can be achieved with a PC. Just connect an LCD TV to your PC and buy yourself a wireless keyboard and mouse. PC gaming on the sofa!

For me personally, my fave choice of game is the first person shooter, on a console, I cant aim for s**t with a controller, give me a keybaord and mouse and I'm away. Alot of console games are 'adjusted' in such a way that realism is sacrificed to compensate for the un-accurate controls of a hand held pad. Id like to see someone play Counter Strike Source with a controller and win over a player with a keybaord and mouse!

This is all IMO though.

StickyMicky

we live in an age where MONEY is everything, and if the pc platform is not bringing in the money for the software people, then they will stop making games, which is exactly what has been happening for a while, and was predicted on this forum a while back

Dream Weaver

I would imagine you are young, single, no kids or any combo?

If I tried to hook a PC up to our living room TV I would be laughed at by the Mrs and my little lad would soon have pulled the whole lot over and be pouring water into it.

For me personally, TIME is everything and not resolution or graphics. I just want to pick something up, switch it on and manage a quick 30 minutes of my very sparse spare time driving stuff or shooting stuff. I don't want to have to install patches or mess about with anything.

Technically speaking PC games may be better than console games, but 99.9% of us are happy with the immense level of detail and fun you get with the console. This is the same as the FWD vs AWD debate.

Iain Young

Heard of Little Big Planet? Loads of user created content for that, and it's a console game.

True, although 99% of those mods are utter rubbish.

I disagree. I would say that at the moment, the exact opposite is the case. How else do you explain the success of the Wii? A console with very poor graphics, but is very easy to use. How about the Nintendo DS. Again not great graphically, but sells in bucket loads.

You need more practice then. I can use either method with ease. A bad workman always blames his tools

Of course PC game are so realistic aren't they. I'm sure all Navy Seals go into combat with a mouse and keyboard in real life

But they would be playing against other people using a joypad (unless they were doing cross platfiorm gaming which in reality isn't very likely). so this isn't a problem at all.

kernel

This comment made me laugh simply because I use my 360 so little every time I turn it on I have to download a patch before I can continue! Both consoles and PCs have their place, I'm mainly PC just now because I have over 100GB of scenery for my Flight Sim and the car racing leagues are much better.

1uke

iTrader: (2)

tuning/building pc's is the same as tuning/building my cars to me, another hobby! that doesnt make me any geek im certainly not cleaver enough to be labeled as 1 of those!!

I havent replied again on this thread again recently because a couple of c0*ks have turned this into something nasty rather than a nice debate etc..

I game on my pc in my lounge where I sit beside my gf and kid when there watching our nice big plasma tv , not in a office all alone!

Geezer

Well that's something different again. If you like doing it, then great.

There have been some rather silly comments on here about reslution and frame rates. For those to make a difference, you have to be playing cross platform, or you think it's important because it gives you an edge.

Well, on the first point, every one on a console is on an equal footing, skill takes precedence. The latter is like when you see all these rich boys in Lancers on rallies, they can't drive, but like the best car, they still get beaten by the guys with real talent

Consoles are getting closer to the PC gaming experience with each generation, and they sell in the bucket load, and are preferable for developers as they don't have to try and make it work with several different OS, god knows how many types if GFX cards etc, and this is why the PC will become a fringe thing.

And you can call me Susan if it isn't so

Geezer