The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We all argue once in a while about which console is 'best ever' but we never seem to mention PC's.
Consoles all come out, get a good supply of games and we end up playing and finishing them all. After that, a better game comes out. We all wow at its graphics, play it and finish it. Then the companies release a new console which is 'better than the previous consoles.' We all go out and buy them (Or many, many people have to save up for months and months until they finally have enough money to afford it.)We also need to buy more controllers and memory cards.
But when they do have enough money for it, the console is usually getting rather old, and everyone says "been there, seen it, done that." You end up thinking you wasted your money.
We never bother thinking about PC's. Once you have got a decent PC, you will have a HUGE games library to choose a game from. You dont need more memory cards or more controllers, just a mouse, keyboard an maybe a joystick. You can even update your PC, but you cant update a console.
Whats more is that you can do homework on a PC, and not on a console.
Consoles nowadays are being able to go online, but it is very slow and you end up with a huge bill. PC's are fast online and you can control the games better as you have much more buttons and controls.
So whats the choice, a console which will only last a year or two or a PC? I know a PC is much more expensive but it will last longer.
I know what I would choose...
Consoles all come out, get a good supply of games and we end up playing and finishing them all. After that, a better game comes out. We all wow at its graphics, play it and finish it. Then the companies release a new console which is 'better than the previous consoles.' We all go out and buy them (Or many, many people have to save up for months and months until they finally have enough money to afford it.)We also need to buy more controllers and memory cards.
But when they do have enough money for it, the console is usually getting rather old, and everyone says "been there, seen it, done that." You end up thinking you wasted your money.
We never bother thinking about PC's. Once you have got a decent PC, you will have a HUGE games library to choose a game from. You dont need more memory cards or more controllers, just a mouse, keyboard an maybe a joystick. You can even update your PC, but you cant update a console.
Whats more is that you can do homework on a PC, and not on a console.
Consoles nowadays are being able to go online, but it is very slow and you end up with a huge bill. PC's are fast online and you can control the games better as you have much more buttons and controls.
So whats the choice, a console which will only last a year or two or a PC? I know a PC is much more expensive but it will last longer.
I know what I would choose...
Page:
Im going to have to get into sleeping hours as i start 6th form on Tuesday. Not many late night chats soon then.
Grudgingly accepted..hm. Well, it's a start.
I'm getting through coffee at an alarming rate...I really should stop it and get back in to normal school sleeping hours...
Maybe..
Soon..
..Nah.
I'm getting through coffee at an alarming rate...I really should stop it and get back in to normal school sleeping hours...
Maybe..
Soon..
..Nah.
Ok im back...just. Yeah you make a good point i suppose.
Heh, will do...I only seem to post on here late at night now, so my posts either drop down the page or people can't be bothered to read them.
Ill have a read then, if i dont post again im laying on my keybored. Send help if this occurs. :)
Um...kind of a defence against the main criticisms of PCs, but also pointing out why there's space in the market for consoles too..
Sorry i have not read it, im tired and should go to bed but wont, what is it mainly about?
Hm, think I scared everyone off with that..
The amount of lag on a game has nothing to do with the fact that you're playing it on a PC...if anything, they're more suited to online multiplayers due to the wider variety of options - gamers can get a broadband connection, or subscribe to an ISP running games servers, which they get lower pings connecting to.
I've never tried multiplayers on consoles (aside from chuchu rockets, which was too lagged to be as much fun as using one console), but I suspect that it's only faster due to the dedicated servers configured for users on Dreamcasts - the 33.6k modem is very restrictive.
You'll find that many PC game servers are either run by people on their own connections, or on servers hosting multiple games on one connection. I couldn't imagine connecting to a 33.6k game server, and I suspect it's not possible to create your own games on the Dreamcast version of Q3.
Admittedly, PCs are designed to do more than just play games, but this is one of the major attractions for me.
Consoles are based around dedicated graphics chipsets, and this means that yes, they can outperform "similarly specified" PCs. But how do you compare them? You'll be hard pushed to find one internal component which is used in both a PC and a console - each one has parts custom designed.
For this reason, you can't fairly put a console spec against a PC one. "A 300MHz processor in the PS2 is much better than any 300MHz one in a PC". Very true, but as with Macs, the processor architecture is different, so speed alone is a very poor stat to base your judgement on. CPUs in consoles are designed to handle the sort of calculations commonly used in games, very graphically intensive, and the software run on them is specifically made to take advantage of these optimisations.
I do have a PC as a dedicated games machine - it wasn't cheap, but I enjoy playing first person shooters and strategy games, both of which I've found to be much better suited to PCs. This is mainly due to the increased level of control and more advanced multiplayer facilities, but I also enjoy LAN gaming, and whatever people say about the Sony iLink and connecting PS2s, try sticking 840 of them in a building and get a faultless network running...not going to happen.
I respect consoles for what they do - I have them myself, and I enjoy a quick game with my mates, I think they're much better for social events (in general..), but they do seem very monotonous to me. Football game, shoot 'em up copied off the PC, button bashing sports game, arcade platformers, racing games...Just don't appeal.
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but many of the more innovative titles never reach our shores because is the risks publishers have to make...the PCs greater internet and storage facilities mean you can download a wide range of games made by bedroom programmers. For now, this isn't possible on consoles - of course, with better internet access and hard drives coming in to the equasion, it will be soon, but doesn't this negate the point about price?
If consoles are to get all the extras PC owners have - peripherals such as keyboards and mice, modems, hard drives, removeable storage, microphones - then the price will be pushed up in line with PCs. You may still be able to get a basic gaming system which costs less, but to be able to do all the extra things that new consoles are advertising, which PCs have as standard, you will have to pay more...
I believe that all the things we use PCs for will become more and more widespread, making them an essential part of our lives. This would mean that people -had- to have, on top of any extra consoles, a PC. This could be modified slightly to make it better for gaming, and if you already have this perfectly capable machine, then why buy a console on top of it? As I said, for a machine primarily designed to play games to match up to these facilities, a lot of extras would be needed, as well as an extra screen capable of displaying a usable resolution - TVs are poor at displaying text.
While you can still argue that you get better performance for your money, that alone isn't enough to draw me to choose consoles over PCs. I enjoy the choice - the massive games library, other apps you can use with them, customisations, internet...and I still get great performance out of this machine, which cost me around ｣500, plays all my games, any new ones for the forseeable future, and also does all the other tasks I want to use it for.
Basically, I think that there's room in the market for both - people who only want a basic gaming machine would be much better off with a console, at least for now. It makes sense with the price, but doesn't offer as many options for the more demanding user.
Damn, I said I wouldn't write an essay...oh well, I was bored...
I've never tried multiplayers on consoles (aside from chuchu rockets, which was too lagged to be as much fun as using one console), but I suspect that it's only faster due to the dedicated servers configured for users on Dreamcasts - the 33.6k modem is very restrictive.
You'll find that many PC game servers are either run by people on their own connections, or on servers hosting multiple games on one connection. I couldn't imagine connecting to a 33.6k game server, and I suspect it's not possible to create your own games on the Dreamcast version of Q3.
Admittedly, PCs are designed to do more than just play games, but this is one of the major attractions for me.
Consoles are based around dedicated graphics chipsets, and this means that yes, they can outperform "similarly specified" PCs. But how do you compare them? You'll be hard pushed to find one internal component which is used in both a PC and a console - each one has parts custom designed.
For this reason, you can't fairly put a console spec against a PC one. "A 300MHz processor in the PS2 is much better than any 300MHz one in a PC". Very true, but as with Macs, the processor architecture is different, so speed alone is a very poor stat to base your judgement on. CPUs in consoles are designed to handle the sort of calculations commonly used in games, very graphically intensive, and the software run on them is specifically made to take advantage of these optimisations.
I do have a PC as a dedicated games machine - it wasn't cheap, but I enjoy playing first person shooters and strategy games, both of which I've found to be much better suited to PCs. This is mainly due to the increased level of control and more advanced multiplayer facilities, but I also enjoy LAN gaming, and whatever people say about the Sony iLink and connecting PS2s, try sticking 840 of them in a building and get a faultless network running...not going to happen.
I respect consoles for what they do - I have them myself, and I enjoy a quick game with my mates, I think they're much better for social events (in general..), but they do seem very monotonous to me. Football game, shoot 'em up copied off the PC, button bashing sports game, arcade platformers, racing games...Just don't appeal.
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but many of the more innovative titles never reach our shores because is the risks publishers have to make...the PCs greater internet and storage facilities mean you can download a wide range of games made by bedroom programmers. For now, this isn't possible on consoles - of course, with better internet access and hard drives coming in to the equasion, it will be soon, but doesn't this negate the point about price?
If consoles are to get all the extras PC owners have - peripherals such as keyboards and mice, modems, hard drives, removeable storage, microphones - then the price will be pushed up in line with PCs. You may still be able to get a basic gaming system which costs less, but to be able to do all the extra things that new consoles are advertising, which PCs have as standard, you will have to pay more...
I believe that all the things we use PCs for will become more and more widespread, making them an essential part of our lives. This would mean that people -had- to have, on top of any extra consoles, a PC. This could be modified slightly to make it better for gaming, and if you already have this perfectly capable machine, then why buy a console on top of it? As I said, for a machine primarily designed to play games to match up to these facilities, a lot of extras would be needed, as well as an extra screen capable of displaying a usable resolution - TVs are poor at displaying text.
While you can still argue that you get better performance for your money, that alone isn't enough to draw me to choose consoles over PCs. I enjoy the choice - the massive games library, other apps you can use with them, customisations, internet...and I still get great performance out of this machine, which cost me around ｣500, plays all my games, any new ones for the forseeable future, and also does all the other tasks I want to use it for.
Basically, I think that there's room in the market for both - people who only want a basic gaming machine would be much better off with a console, at least for now. It makes sense with the price, but doesn't offer as many options for the more demanding user.
Damn, I said I wouldn't write an essay...oh well, I was bored...
Page: