Viewing Thread:
"Consoles need to be PCs"

Can someone please tell me what all the big hoohaa is with consoles these days?

They are never as powerful as the PCs of their time and get outdated far too quickly to be of any practical use.

These days manufacturers say things like "Ooh, our next console will have a 10GB hard Drive" or "We will incorporate the GeForce T&L engine". WHY?? Why not just switch to producing PCs, instead of producing game machines that are made up of old PC parts?

The Playstation 2 is already inferior to many household computers, and by the time it is widely available, the majority of people with PCs will be able to look down on it.

I think it's time that manufacturers started to realise that consoles need to become more customisable, otherwise, their target audience will wake up to the fact that their money would be better spent on the latest PCs.

Insane Bartender

Bronzefinger wrote:
> The reason I like consoles better than PC's is that a game for teh
> Console can be tailored for the console, not for the multiplicity of
> different combinations of brands of PC, graphics cards, CPU, amounts
> of RAM, harddrive sizes, sound cards, 3dfx cards, etc.

This is true... developers do know the excat spec of their system before they even write their first line of code... and this does help a great deal when creating software

This means
> that you know what you are getting with a console game, you get no
> lag, except in extreme cases.

lag isnt due to the computer spec... its due to the quality of the internet connection... if Sonys/Nintendos/Microsofts ISP/online games become popular... you'll have just as much lag as using a PC... Surfing the net on a console is just as fast as surfing on a PC

Crashes are minimal (I have had one
> crash, and sometimes my SNES did not load games properly, but the
> N^$ has had no crashes).

I've only had on game crash on me in memory... Ultima9 ... which, given that I paod for the game, I more than deserved.

The point about smooth performance is
> only valid with CD based consoled, not for the N64, which was
> perfectly smooth loading from the cartridge.

lol... I noticed that with my N64 too :)

The price issue is
> important, as a console is a lot cheaper for the processing power
> than a PC. PC's may suppercede the current model of console, but
> the console will tend to punch above its weight, as the power, and
> RAM is devoted to gaming, not for running windows.

Well.. despite most PC's comming with 128-256MB RAM these days... you are right... the most expensive consolel is 300 quid... and cheapest computer (with the same shelflife as the PS2) will set you back around 300 more... doubling the price... which is great value for money if your intending to WP or Surf the net... but if your just after playing games... your suckering yourself...

I have a place
> in my heart for PC gaming, especially for strategy games, which
> proably do not need the processing power of the PC, unless they have
> impressive graphics.

PC games do suck.... but their the only computer gameing system around (sorry Mac owners)... and although I prefered the Speccy/Amiga times... theres currently no valid gaming computers around (that is until the keyboards, mice, HDs, etc.. become standard console kit) :)

I only have a Cyrix AMD K6 - 200, which runs
> old games, but hardly any new releases.

But when did you buy the system... probably around the same time the PSX was released right?... which means you could play PSX quality games for as long as PSX owners?...

I think that PC's cannot compete on sheer power, unless
> you have a lot of money to spend on buying the latest model, as PC's
> become obsolete quite quickly.

600 pounds will get you a 1GHz PC with 128MB ram and a 32MB graphics card... which is a better spec than the PS2... the same will be true when the GC and X-Box are released (although you'll be able to buy a better spec PC by then)

Although the big selling point is that there is supposed to be a BIG PC price war about to start pretty soon... so ludicriously cheap PCs for all! :)

I feel that the PC is very good
> (or mine is) For older classic games, such as Final Fantasy 7, or
> half-life. They tend to be cheaper, so I can discover the classics
> that I can run.

Half Life... old... has it been released for the DC yet?

How about Quake3... thats an old game too right...

oh... you mean old for PC's... new for consoles huh? :)

PC's are better for cutting edge titles, and new ideas... its cheaper to fail on the PC than it is on a console... so a lot of companies will be more willing to try stuff out on the PC market before it puts its money fully into the title

I don't think that consoles should try to be
> PC's, each have their place, consoles should stick to gaming, like
> the Gamecube, and PC's should have gaming, but not try to outdo
> consoles because the PC's that can do this are very expensive.
>

PC's are inheriantly more expensive than consoles... but then they are aimed at a different market... there are VERY few PC's built with the idea of having anything more powerful that solitaire installed...

Also the custom chips within consoles do allow them to provide a fantastic output at a fraction of the power/performance level of the PC...

Consoles are made for games playing... so if your after a system mainly as a gamer then consoles are the only sensible choice to make...

Besides... in a couple of years , they'll be marketing themselves as gaming computers anyway :)

PC's rule!

The reason I like consoles better than PC's is that a game for teh Console can be tailored for the console, not for the multiplicity of different combinations of brands of PC, graphics cards, CPU, amounts of RAM, harddrive sizes, sound cards, 3dfx cards, etc.

This means that you know what you are getting with a console game, you get no lag, except in extreme cases. Crashes are minimal (I have had one crash, and sometimes my SNES did not load games properly, but the N^$ has had no crashes).

The point about smooth performance is only valid with CD based consoled, not for the N64, which was perfectly smooth loading from the cartridge.

The price issue is important, as a console is a lot cheaper for the processing power than a PC. PC's may suppercede the current model of console, but the console will tend to punch above its weight, as the power, and RAM is devoted to gaming, not for running windows.

I have a place in my heart for PC gaming, especially for strategy games, which proably do not need the processing power of the PC, unless they have impressive graphics.

I only have a Cyrix AMD K6 - 200, which runs old games, but hardly any new releases. I have a PC for work mainly, and see gaming as another use. ALso the internet is another use for it. I think that PC's cannot compete on sheer power, unless you have a lot of money to spend on buying the latest model, as PC's become obsolete quite quickly.

I feel that the PC is very good (or mine is) For older classic games, such as Final Fantasy 7, or half-life. They tend to be cheaper, so I can discover the classics that I can run.

I don't think that consoles should try to be PC's, each have their place, consoles should stick to gaming, like the Gamecube, and PC's should have gaming, but not try to outdo consoles because the PC's that can do this are very expensive.

He never claimed this did he? he bvggered off without even claiming. Still makes a change from the others...

So, even if he isn't here I'd like to congratulate him anyway.

Congrats IB!!! YOU WON GAD! what you gonna choose?

gfd

> I would also like to say that
> I have never had trouble playing a full version of an official PC
> game on a computer which meets the minimum specifications since
> 1993, so I think that arguement is a little out of date.

You've been lucky then, IMHO.

I have Freespace 2 which frequently crashes, Tachyon which crashes EVERY time I get past a certain mission, and at Christmas had to return Project IGI as it crashed out on the intro movie to the very first mission. And that's with all the lastest drivers for my hardware!

Div-uk wrote:
> i strongly disagree with what bartender is saying.... although
> consoles are at the moment " inferior " to the top end
> pc's they are still part of alot of peoples life
Isnt there a topic a bit further down arguing that consoles are far superior to current 'top end' PC's?

>they are so much
> more convenient than pc's.....
This is very true...

> no viruses,
The majority of Home PC users will never see a virus in their lifes...

> no installing ,
Swings and roundabouts here... HD are much faster than CD/DVD drives, so installation, though initially taking time, does in the long run provide for a much smoother & quicker performance.

> no lag on
> internet...
Only if your dialling into the game servers.... for which there are a few for the PC... otherwise, lag will be found on the same degree...

i strongly disagree with what bartender is saying.... although consoles are at the moment " inferior " to the top end pc's they are still part of alot of peoples life

they are so much more convenient than pc's..... no viruses, no installing , no lag on internet...consoles have their bonuses and in my opinion it is best to have both.


another thing is they are becoming more and more like pc's anyway with internet access and the graphics devises in them..... just take a look at the x-box and u will see this

I am very much for PC gaming because PCs have far more games in relation to strategy than any console. Consoles seem to be great for games which have fast action and lots of movement (i.e. shoot 'em ups), but I prefer strategy games which need a lot of processing power to work. On the other hand I am a fan of some console games including the final fantasy series.

I would also like to say that I have never had trouble playing a full version of an official PC game on a computer which meets the minimum specifications since 1993, so I think that arguement is a little out of date. Fine, computers do occasionally crash, and games do need installing, but once a modern game is installed, running it involves turning on the PC, putting the CD in and clicking on play. In my humble opinion, this is hardly hard work!

Insane Bartender wrote:
> That is just good business sense really:
> destroy the opposition before they can destroy you.

> Believe me
> you would do the same if you were in the same position.

Again... I'm going to have to play the monopoly card here :)