The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In the beginning there were vast computers, which would fill whole rooms, but would, only be capable of playing the simplest of games. Now we do not think twice when going to the local game store and picking up a copy of the newest game which is a massive file. In this respect we know that consoles evolved from PCs, as the earliest computer like the Atari St etc. Were actual computers, as I remember having to access the game by clicking on the floppy disk icon and loading the game from there? Now we have consoles, you put in the game, it loads, and you play it. But which is better? The Descendant or the ancestor lets find out.
If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next Generation’ consoles. The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something like 1.5Ghz, but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
If we think about our whole gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the difference.
Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless there is a fault with your game.
Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about average. This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the more casual gamer.
It has long been emphasised by Nintendo that gaming is a social event. When you are playing on your console you can sit with your friends on a comfy sofa staring at a massive screen and always have an amusing game of Goldeneye, Mario kart or whatever. But when gaming on your PC you are usually sitting at a desk staring at the screen, on your own, a very solitary practice. And in my opinion just not the same as trading insults with your mates in the same room.
Playing on the internet can indeed be a riotous affair, there have been times when I have just marvelled at the fact I have just tank rushed a guy from France from the comfort of my own home. However on consoles mainstream support of Internet play is still not fully implemented nor is the ability to be able to use your own choice of ISP for web play, which I find most frustrating. But I yearn for the day to come when I can play perfect dark against people all over the world, only time will tell when it will be.
Moreover I often feel that a developer could be more tempted to release a game before completion on a PC and update it with a patch at a later date, this leaves to some tiresome downloading and an unfinished game to pick your way through. Where as on a console late additions cannot be made, this means that games are usually of good quality when released, but conversely means that poorer games will stay poor. Where as PC games could be updated to be a little better. However since patches are usually minor changes, this doesn’t happen too often.
And to my final point, or if you will defining factor, portability. I don’t often find myself hauling my PC around to my friends house to show him the latest game I got, in fact the only time the computer is made portable is when its going to get fixed or upgraded. Therefore I feel that PC gaming is yet again just a one-man sport, unless of course you play over the Internet.
In conclusion I feel that although PCs are both more powerful and versatile than consoles, there is just so much more enjoyment you can obtain from the console than the PC, the whole experience is better, it is more economically friendly, PC gaming is more anti-social, consoles are more portable and mainstream online play is only a few years off.
Thanks for reading :)
Cookie Monster.
If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next Generation’ consoles. The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something like 1.5Ghz, but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
If we think about our whole gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the difference.
Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless there is a fault with your game.
Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about average. This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the more casual gamer.
It has long been emphasised by Nintendo that gaming is a social event. When you are playing on your console you can sit with your friends on a comfy sofa staring at a massive screen and always have an amusing game of Goldeneye, Mario kart or whatever. But when gaming on your PC you are usually sitting at a desk staring at the screen, on your own, a very solitary practice. And in my opinion just not the same as trading insults with your mates in the same room.
Playing on the internet can indeed be a riotous affair, there have been times when I have just marvelled at the fact I have just tank rushed a guy from France from the comfort of my own home. However on consoles mainstream support of Internet play is still not fully implemented nor is the ability to be able to use your own choice of ISP for web play, which I find most frustrating. But I yearn for the day to come when I can play perfect dark against people all over the world, only time will tell when it will be.
Moreover I often feel that a developer could be more tempted to release a game before completion on a PC and update it with a patch at a later date, this leaves to some tiresome downloading and an unfinished game to pick your way through. Where as on a console late additions cannot be made, this means that games are usually of good quality when released, but conversely means that poorer games will stay poor. Where as PC games could be updated to be a little better. However since patches are usually minor changes, this doesn’t happen too often.
And to my final point, or if you will defining factor, portability. I don’t often find myself hauling my PC around to my friends house to show him the latest game I got, in fact the only time the computer is made portable is when its going to get fixed or upgraded. Therefore I feel that PC gaming is yet again just a one-man sport, unless of course you play over the Internet.
In conclusion I feel that although PCs are both more powerful and versatile than consoles, there is just so much more enjoyment you can obtain from the console than the PC, the whole experience is better, it is more economically friendly, PC gaming is more anti-social, consoles are more portable and mainstream online play is only a few years off.
Thanks for reading :)
Cookie Monster.
PCs RULE over Consoles......
PCs RULE over Consoles
POP
Turbonutter wrote:
Well, despite the latest processors being 2ghz (not
> too in touch with this are you?) I think you'll find the PlayStation 2, GameCube
> and Xbox easily hold up against the fastest PC beasts. In fact, they perform up
> to a 1.6ghz with a GeForce 2 on Max Payne and Dues Ex (sorry, no link, but it's
> out there somewhere).
I did originally have 2ghz written down, but since i wasnt sure i lowered it to cover my back. :P
Well, despite the latest processors being 2ghz (not
> too in touch with this are you?) I think you'll find the PlayStation 2, GameCube
> and Xbox easily hold up against the fastest PC beasts. In fact, they perform up
> to a 1.6ghz with a GeForce 2 on Max Payne and Dues Ex (sorry, no link, but it's
> out there somewhere).
I did originally have 2ghz written down, but since i wasnt sure i lowered it to cover my back. :P
Reaper[oV] wrote:
> Sigh, again. PCs rule, give me a console that I can tweak, mod and benchmark and
> I'll change my mind.
Ahem, the EUNUCH project?
> Sigh, again. PCs rule, give me a console that I can tweak, mod and benchmark and
> I'll change my mind.
Ahem, the EUNUCH project?
Another day, another "analysis"...
cookie monster wrote:
> In the beginning there were vast computers, which would fill whole rooms, but
> would, only be capable of playing the simplest of games. Now we do not think
> twice when going to the local game store and picking up a copy of the newest
> game which is a massive file. In this respect we know that consoles evolved from
> PCs, as the earliest computer like the Atari St etc. Were actual computers, as I
> remember having to access the game by clicking on the floppy disk icon and
> loading the game from there? Now we have consoles, you put in the game, it
> loads, and you play it. But which is better? The Descendant or the ancestor lets
> find out.
> If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the
> weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next
> Generation’ consoles.
I very much doubt it.
> The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something
> like 1.5Ghz, but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than
> half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the
> PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
Well, despite the latest processors being 2ghz (not too in touch with this are you?) I think you'll find the PlayStation 2, GameCube and Xbox easily hold up against the fastest PC beasts. In fact, they perform up to a 1.6ghz with a GeForce 2 on Max Payne and Dues Ex (sorry, no link, but it's out there somewhere).
> If we think about our whole
> gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I
> find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default
> controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found
> myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the
> torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing
> Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console
> all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not
> merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the
> game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the
> difference.
I agree. Console gaming is far superior to PCs, unless you have a rip-off pad. However, I much prefer to sit on my bed kicking alien butt in my nice warm room with massive speakers than in my cold kitchen. I still maintain I can easily stand up to a keyboard+mouse player with my Dual Shock 2 on Quake 3.
> Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must
> be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be
> manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying
> moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is
> incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest
> assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless
> there is a fault with your game.
I don't think you ever get into a situation where it won't play, but some hardware has "issues" and then there's always the problem of getting it working in the first place (drivers, etc...). One thing you can be certain of though is the game WILL crash JUST after you've defeated the VERY last boss and are milliseconds from hitting "enter" to save. :)
> Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument
> centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end
> PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are
> looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about
> average.
LOL, yeah, Andi reckons he can build me a PC that will stand up to my PS2 for £200. Yeah, right...
> This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a
> console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console
> which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between
> £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the
> more casual gamer.
Also, the console will last a good 5 or 6 years, your PC won't go long before requiring "upgrades", and further expenditure.
> It has long been emphasised by Nintendo that gaming is a
> social event. When you are playing on your console you can sit with your friends
> on a comfy sofa staring at a massive screen and always have an amusing game of
> Goldeneye, Mario kart or whatever. But when gaming on your PC you are usually
> sitting at a desk staring at the screen, on your own, a very solitary practice.
> And in my opinion just not the same as trading insults with your mates in the
> same room.
Agreed, but playing over then 'net with people you know has a certain appeal also, expecially if they live in, say, Essex and you live in, say, Leeds. Just an example. ;-)
> Playing on the internet can indeed be a riotous affair, there have
> been times when I have just marvelled at the fact I have just tank rushed a guy
> from France from the comfort of my own home. However on consoles mainstream
> support of Internet play is still not fully implemented nor is the ability to be
> able to use your own choice of ISP for web play, which I find most frustrating.
> But I yearn for the day to come when I can play perfect dark against people all
> over the world, only time will tell when it will be.
Quite a long time, according to Nintendo. When the ever do get their Internet deals set up, you'll only be able to play with people in your area. Their idea is using an already in place network (the 'net), to set a LAN or MAN.
> Moreover I often feel
> that a developer could be more tempted to release a game before completion on a
> PC and update it with a patch at a later date, this leaves to some tiresome
> downloading and an unfinished game to pick your way through.
Yes, Sony have picked up on this and have assured all its customers that these games will never get past Quality Assurance, something you DON'T get with PC games. I remember being severely ticked off at paying £20 for HL + CS, only to be told I need to download the whole thing again when I got home.
> Where as on a
> console late additions cannot be made, this means that games are usually of good
> quality when released, but conversely means that poorer games will stay poor.
> Where as PC games could be updated to be a little better. However since patches
> are usually minor changes, this doesn’t happen too often.
> And to my final
> point, or if you will defining factor, portability. I don’t often find myself
> hauling my PC around to my friends house to show him the latest game I got, in
> fact the only time the computer is made portable is when its going to get fixed
> or upgraded. Therefore I feel that PC gaming is yet again just a one-man sport,
> unless of course you play over the Internet.
Meh, depends how you view your computer, but I think nothing of hauling it off somewhere (as long as I don't have to carry it).
> In conclusion I feel that
> although PCs are both more powerful and versatile than consoles, there is just
> so much more enjoyment you can obtain from the console than the PC, the whole
> experience is better, it is more economically friendly, PC gaming is more
> anti-social, consoles are more portable and mainstream online play is only a few
> years off.
Agreed. Consoles kick butt.
cookie monster wrote:
> In the beginning there were vast computers, which would fill whole rooms, but
> would, only be capable of playing the simplest of games. Now we do not think
> twice when going to the local game store and picking up a copy of the newest
> game which is a massive file. In this respect we know that consoles evolved from
> PCs, as the earliest computer like the Atari St etc. Were actual computers, as I
> remember having to access the game by clicking on the floppy disk icon and
> loading the game from there? Now we have consoles, you put in the game, it
> loads, and you play it. But which is better? The Descendant or the ancestor lets
> find out.
> If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the
> weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next
> Generation’ consoles.
I very much doubt it.
> The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something
> like 1.5Ghz, but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than
> half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the
> PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
Well, despite the latest processors being 2ghz (not too in touch with this are you?) I think you'll find the PlayStation 2, GameCube and Xbox easily hold up against the fastest PC beasts. In fact, they perform up to a 1.6ghz with a GeForce 2 on Max Payne and Dues Ex (sorry, no link, but it's out there somewhere).
> If we think about our whole
> gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I
> find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default
> controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found
> myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the
> torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing
> Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console
> all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not
> merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the
> game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the
> difference.
I agree. Console gaming is far superior to PCs, unless you have a rip-off pad. However, I much prefer to sit on my bed kicking alien butt in my nice warm room with massive speakers than in my cold kitchen. I still maintain I can easily stand up to a keyboard+mouse player with my Dual Shock 2 on Quake 3.
> Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must
> be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be
> manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying
> moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is
> incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest
> assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless
> there is a fault with your game.
I don't think you ever get into a situation where it won't play, but some hardware has "issues" and then there's always the problem of getting it working in the first place (drivers, etc...). One thing you can be certain of though is the game WILL crash JUST after you've defeated the VERY last boss and are milliseconds from hitting "enter" to save. :)
> Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument
> centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end
> PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are
> looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about
> average.
LOL, yeah, Andi reckons he can build me a PC that will stand up to my PS2 for £200. Yeah, right...
> This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a
> console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console
> which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between
> £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the
> more casual gamer.
Also, the console will last a good 5 or 6 years, your PC won't go long before requiring "upgrades", and further expenditure.
> It has long been emphasised by Nintendo that gaming is a
> social event. When you are playing on your console you can sit with your friends
> on a comfy sofa staring at a massive screen and always have an amusing game of
> Goldeneye, Mario kart or whatever. But when gaming on your PC you are usually
> sitting at a desk staring at the screen, on your own, a very solitary practice.
> And in my opinion just not the same as trading insults with your mates in the
> same room.
Agreed, but playing over then 'net with people you know has a certain appeal also, expecially if they live in, say, Essex and you live in, say, Leeds. Just an example. ;-)
> Playing on the internet can indeed be a riotous affair, there have
> been times when I have just marvelled at the fact I have just tank rushed a guy
> from France from the comfort of my own home. However on consoles mainstream
> support of Internet play is still not fully implemented nor is the ability to be
> able to use your own choice of ISP for web play, which I find most frustrating.
> But I yearn for the day to come when I can play perfect dark against people all
> over the world, only time will tell when it will be.
Quite a long time, according to Nintendo. When the ever do get their Internet deals set up, you'll only be able to play with people in your area. Their idea is using an already in place network (the 'net), to set a LAN or MAN.
> Moreover I often feel
> that a developer could be more tempted to release a game before completion on a
> PC and update it with a patch at a later date, this leaves to some tiresome
> downloading and an unfinished game to pick your way through.
Yes, Sony have picked up on this and have assured all its customers that these games will never get past Quality Assurance, something you DON'T get with PC games. I remember being severely ticked off at paying £20 for HL + CS, only to be told I need to download the whole thing again when I got home.
> Where as on a
> console late additions cannot be made, this means that games are usually of good
> quality when released, but conversely means that poorer games will stay poor.
> Where as PC games could be updated to be a little better. However since patches
> are usually minor changes, this doesn’t happen too often.
> And to my final
> point, or if you will defining factor, portability. I don’t often find myself
> hauling my PC around to my friends house to show him the latest game I got, in
> fact the only time the computer is made portable is when its going to get fixed
> or upgraded. Therefore I feel that PC gaming is yet again just a one-man sport,
> unless of course you play over the Internet.
Meh, depends how you view your computer, but I think nothing of hauling it off somewhere (as long as I don't have to carry it).
> In conclusion I feel that
> although PCs are both more powerful and versatile than consoles, there is just
> so much more enjoyment you can obtain from the console than the PC, the whole
> experience is better, it is more economically friendly, PC gaming is more
> anti-social, consoles are more portable and mainstream online play is only a few
> years off.
Agreed. Consoles kick butt.
cookie monster wrote:
> In the beginning there were vast computers, which would fill whole rooms, but
> would, only be capable of playing the simplest of games. Now we do not think
> twice when going to the local game store and picking up a copy of the newest
> game which is a massive file.
Massive group of files :)
In this respect we know that consoles evolved from
> PCs,
Consoles are PC's with an operating system designed primarily for game playing.
as the earliest computer like the Atari St etc. Were actual computers, as I
> remember having to access the game by clicking on the floppy disk icon and
> loading the game from there? Now we have consoles, you put in the game, it
> loads, and you play it.
The ZX Spectrum was a PC but all you had to do was put a game in and press one button (and play :) ) and the game loads for you to play.
But which is better? The Descendant or the ancestor lets
> find out.
Well, really both a PC and a console are decendants from the original Enigma machine (supposed to be the first programable computer). It wasn't a home PC, but it was a computer.
If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the
> weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next
> Generation’ consoles. The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something
> like 1.5Ghz,
Well my PC is an AMD Athlon 1700MHz which is supposedly faster than a P4 2Ghz
but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than
> half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the
> PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
Consoles do better because they are designed solely for gaming. They don't have much processing power taken up by other things like printers, USB ports (the hardware they scan for), and all the software that runs in the background on your PC.
If we think about our whole
> gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I
> find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default
> controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found
> myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the
> torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing
> Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console
> all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not
> merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the
> game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the
> difference.
Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must
> be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be
> manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying
> moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is
> incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest
> assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless
> there is a fault with your game.
Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument
> centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end
> PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are
> looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about
> average. This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a
> console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console
> which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between
> £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the
> more casual gamer.
However games are usually at a higher price and there are less of them.
> In the beginning there were vast computers, which would fill whole rooms, but
> would, only be capable of playing the simplest of games. Now we do not think
> twice when going to the local game store and picking up a copy of the newest
> game which is a massive file.
Massive group of files :)
In this respect we know that consoles evolved from
> PCs,
Consoles are PC's with an operating system designed primarily for game playing.
as the earliest computer like the Atari St etc. Were actual computers, as I
> remember having to access the game by clicking on the floppy disk icon and
> loading the game from there? Now we have consoles, you put in the game, it
> loads, and you play it.
The ZX Spectrum was a PC but all you had to do was put a game in and press one button (and play :) ) and the game loads for you to play.
But which is better? The Descendant or the ancestor lets
> find out.
Well, really both a PC and a console are decendants from the original Enigma machine (supposed to be the first programable computer). It wasn't a home PC, but it was a computer.
If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the
> weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next
> Generation’ consoles. The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something
> like 1.5Ghz,
Well my PC is an AMD Athlon 1700MHz which is supposedly faster than a P4 2Ghz
but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than
> half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the
> PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
Consoles do better because they are designed solely for gaming. They don't have much processing power taken up by other things like printers, USB ports (the hardware they scan for), and all the software that runs in the background on your PC.
If we think about our whole
> gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I
> find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default
> controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found
> myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the
> torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing
> Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console
> all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not
> merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the
> game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the
> difference.
Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must
> be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be
> manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying
> moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is
> incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest
> assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless
> there is a fault with your game.
Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument
> centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end
> PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are
> looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about
> average. This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a
> console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console
> which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between
> £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the
> more casual gamer.
However games are usually at a higher price and there are less of them.
Sigh, again. PCs rule, give me a console that I can tweak, mod and benchmark and I'll change my mind.
I think consoles are much better for playing games with, They're cheap, easy to configure and you can start playing instantly when you put the game in. PC's cost a fortune, are a hassle to configure all the options with, keyboard controls, resolution etc and playing a game in a desk chair isn't really my cup of tea.
PC's have always been more powerfull but i prefer just poping the game in, picking up the controller with everything done beforehand. All this download direct x and other stuff just does me head in. I used to be a keen PC gamer when Quake/jedi knight were around but always prefered the playstation.
PC's have always been more powerfull but i prefer just poping the game in, picking up the controller with everything done beforehand. All this download direct x and other stuff just does me head in. I used to be a keen PC gamer when Quake/jedi knight were around but always prefered the playstation.
In the beginning there were vast computers, which would fill whole rooms, but would, only be capable of playing the simplest of games. Now we do not think twice when going to the local game store and picking up a copy of the newest game which is a massive file. In this respect we know that consoles evolved from PCs, as the earliest computer like the Atari St etc. Were actual computers, as I remember having to access the game by clicking on the floppy disk icon and loading the game from there? Now we have consoles, you put in the game, it loads, and you play it. But which is better? The Descendant or the ancestor lets find out.
If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next Generation’ consoles. The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something like 1.5Ghz, but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
If we think about our whole gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the difference.
Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless there is a fault with your game.
Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about average. This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the more casual gamer.
It has long been emphasised by Nintendo that gaming is a social event. When you are playing on your console you can sit with your friends on a comfy sofa staring at a massive screen and always have an amusing game of Goldeneye, Mario kart or whatever. But when gaming on your PC you are usually sitting at a desk staring at the screen, on your own, a very solitary practice. And in my opinion just not the same as trading insults with your mates in the same room.
Playing on the internet can indeed be a riotous affair, there have been times when I have just marvelled at the fact I have just tank rushed a guy from France from the comfort of my own home. However on consoles mainstream support of Internet play is still not fully implemented nor is the ability to be able to use your own choice of ISP for web play, which I find most frustrating. But I yearn for the day to come when I can play perfect dark against people all over the world, only time will tell when it will be.
Moreover I often feel that a developer could be more tempted to release a game before completion on a PC and update it with a patch at a later date, this leaves to some tiresome downloading and an unfinished game to pick your way through. Where as on a console late additions cannot be made, this means that games are usually of good quality when released, but conversely means that poorer games will stay poor. Where as PC games could be updated to be a little better. However since patches are usually minor changes, this doesn’t happen too often.
And to my final point, or if you will defining factor, portability. I don’t often find myself hauling my PC around to my friends house to show him the latest game I got, in fact the only time the computer is made portable is when its going to get fixed or upgraded. Therefore I feel that PC gaming is yet again just a one-man sport, unless of course you play over the Internet.
In conclusion I feel that although PCs are both more powerful and versatile than consoles, there is just so much more enjoyment you can obtain from the console than the PC, the whole experience is better, it is more economically friendly, PC gaming is more anti-social, consoles are more portable and mainstream online play is only a few years off.
Thanks for reading :)
Cookie Monster.
If we are talking about technical specifications, then even the weediest of PCs are capable of out-processing even some of the so-called ‘Next Generation’ consoles. The most powerful PC has a processor capable of something like 1.5Ghz, but the nearest console rival, the Xbox has only 733Mhz, less than half the processing power of the PC. So consoles cannot really compete with the PCs power and still stay relatively portable.
If we think about our whole gaming experience as a whole then I feel that a console has the upper hand. I find it often impossible to play some PC games without personalising the default controls to some extent, and even still gaming is less than fluid. I found myself often mashing at the keyboard trying to find the relevant key to the torch whilst also trying to dive away from an oncoming Alien while playing Aliens Vs Predator 2. This scenario is not exactly ideal, where as on a console all of the buttons are localised to such an extent that manoeuvring is not merely fluid, but instinctive. This really adds to the whole enjoyment of the game that you are playing, intuitive controls can really make all the difference.
Furthermore there are certain incompatibility issues which must be overcome before enjoying your PC game. Since the innards of your PC can be manufactured by as many companies as you like, there is often that annoying moment when you find the game you have been waiting on for months is incompatible with your software. However if you by a console game you can rest assured that when you get it home it will run first time, every time, unless there is a fault with your game.
Perhaps the pinnacle of this argument centres more on this issue than any other. That is cost. If you want a high end PC that will run your games with the smoothest textures possible then you are looking at a large expenditure, a budget of on of just over £1000 is about average. This is certainly not ideal for everybody’s budget, especially as a console is more of an investment than a gaming piece. Where as a new console which still demonstrates great graphics will come in at anything between £150-£300, a massive price difference, and a tempting saving for the more casual gamer.
It has long been emphasised by Nintendo that gaming is a social event. When you are playing on your console you can sit with your friends on a comfy sofa staring at a massive screen and always have an amusing game of Goldeneye, Mario kart or whatever. But when gaming on your PC you are usually sitting at a desk staring at the screen, on your own, a very solitary practice. And in my opinion just not the same as trading insults with your mates in the same room.
Playing on the internet can indeed be a riotous affair, there have been times when I have just marvelled at the fact I have just tank rushed a guy from France from the comfort of my own home. However on consoles mainstream support of Internet play is still not fully implemented nor is the ability to be able to use your own choice of ISP for web play, which I find most frustrating. But I yearn for the day to come when I can play perfect dark against people all over the world, only time will tell when it will be.
Moreover I often feel that a developer could be more tempted to release a game before completion on a PC and update it with a patch at a later date, this leaves to some tiresome downloading and an unfinished game to pick your way through. Where as on a console late additions cannot be made, this means that games are usually of good quality when released, but conversely means that poorer games will stay poor. Where as PC games could be updated to be a little better. However since patches are usually minor changes, this doesn’t happen too often.
And to my final point, or if you will defining factor, portability. I don’t often find myself hauling my PC around to my friends house to show him the latest game I got, in fact the only time the computer is made portable is when its going to get fixed or upgraded. Therefore I feel that PC gaming is yet again just a one-man sport, unless of course you play over the Internet.
In conclusion I feel that although PCs are both more powerful and versatile than consoles, there is just so much more enjoyment you can obtain from the console than the PC, the whole experience is better, it is more economically friendly, PC gaming is more anti-social, consoles are more portable and mainstream online play is only a few years off.
Thanks for reading :)
Cookie Monster.