View Full Version : The Great BD PC vs Console Debate
I have seen the overtones of this debate rumbling along a few threads so hopefully it can help from cluttering them up. On scale with the AMD vs Intel, Nvidia vs ATI and probably just as futile
These are just my musings and ramblings on it purely from my experience. Pretty much like everyone else it's opinions and there is no categoric right or wrong answer to it.
Instant GameplaySo to start us off where consoles take the lead is the out of the packet experience. So if you just want pure gameplay as soon as your DVD/CD hits your front door mat then the Console is the one for you. Plug it in, play it and your away. Certainly a lot better than installing on DVD That said the almost sanitised experience offered by the console is not for everyone. Some people do like the tweaking of a game, hacking and chopping some of the code.
Is there a clear winner ?? I would say no as its horses for courses.
Mouse & Keyboard are better than Control Pad - Fact Well is it a fact. Things have kind of gone full circle for me on this. Ever since the days of playing a scrolling 1st person shooter called Operation Wulf on the old Speccy, that used a controller. Then onto PC Gaming witht he mouse and keyboard and now back to a controller for Consoles.
Out of all three I would say that I am most comfortable with a mouse and keyboard but is that because it is what I have been used to using the most. Having played a bit of Gears of War 2 over the weekend I found it difficult but I think that was more to do with being used to using both hands. It is taking time getting used to moving the cursor with a thumb stick rather than zipping with the mouse. Over time I suspect I will get better.
Again no clear winner
Games need patching on release, I need to update grahics drivers
Again this can be looked at in one of two ways. If you want your game time out of a box and are happy with it then console gaming is for you. But ask yourself a question, why are driver updates released, in most cases it's to advance the performance of the existing hardware, so is it safe to assume that from a visual perspective at least my experience should get better with time. For me it's not really a big issue to download a driver update.
The last time I had an issue with a game out of the box was for Battlefield 1942 when the native drivers for the nvidia 5200 were gash. Other than that I have had no real issues with gameplay and performance because of incompatible hardware.
You need the latest PC Hardware to make it look good
This is think is a dangerous argument from the console gamers as it isn't factually true. Again from my experience you don't need to have the very latest hardware to run the very large percentage of games nowdays. Using one of my relatives as an example, an old Athlon 3700 and a Radeon 9700. His experience of Call fo Duty 4 is just as enjoyable to him as it is to me on Quad Core and 4850. Ultimately you don't have to upgrade all of your PC to get some very good performance issues.
The ExperienceConsole Fans would have us beleive that XBL is the best thing to happen to gaming because of the achievment system and social networking of gamers. Up until a few months ago I probably would have gone with that but I don't think it offers anything dramatically different to what Steam offers at present. All with integrated chat and match making. In some case I think Steam can be a little better given it's catalogue of top games available direct to drive. This gives the added benefit of not having an Apache Gunship (Xbox360)whirring underneath the TV whilst your playing your game
Where the PC fails on this count is that there is too many platforms. Steam, Xfire, GameSpy Arcade, Metaboli, Direct2Drive, Good Old Games, Gametap. Not to mention the ill fated PC Gamers alliance.
The other argument on the experience front comes from "Well I can just sit on my setee playing on my plasma whilst you are hunched over your desk" Well I am comfortable with each. One thing I will say is that console gaming has kind of turned my wife (Game Hater) into a casual gamer of sorts. We have had a real laugh playing SingStar on the PS3. Me and Litte Loki have had some good fun playing Little Big Planet and Fifa which I don't think can be replicated on PC.
That said gaming for me isn't about grinding out achievements or results, the social experience is far more important to me than any grinding session. I have made some very good friends over the years through gaming. A lot of the time I am happy chatting away on ventrilo to them talking the usual boys stuff whilst browsing the web, doing some work or watching a film and them doing something completely different. I doubt I could be arsed to fire up the console to do that in all honesty.
Conculsions
In a perfect world, you would want a system as quiet as PS3 with the games catalogue of the X360 on a platform like Steam. I think there is no clear winner in this and it is down to personal preference in a lot of cases.
What muddys the waters is that it is no always a level playing field. Too often we get caught up in the debate of Consoles sold x more games than PC so it is naturally better. In a lot of cases the official sales figures don't include digital downloads on platforms like steam or D2D. The only facts we do have is that there are less PC titles being released yet PC sales figures are up year on year (According to MCV) Console games also get more shelf space than PC Games.
If PC Gaming is to progress it absolutley needs to sort out DRM as a matter of urgency. It's amazing that the proper paid up gamers get treated worse than what the pirates do. I don't think it needs the dramatic overhaul some would have us believe. In as much as its great playing on a big screen with the family, I can still have my main PC plugged into it and it will look better than the console version like for like :p
Do I have a preference over what system I use ??? Well actually no and I am happy to put them in particular order. They all offer something different to me from what I want from my interactive gaming experience. I like the idea of playing on bigger multiplayer maps for PC Gaming but am really liking the story driven games on console. I also love the idea of some really classic games being transformed by some wondeful maps and mods on PC. So my gaming experince potentially is cheaper and lasts longer on PC than on console.
For me there is no clear winner. The cynic in me says that the only clear winner is the software houses as they will get a sale of there software regardless if you use a M & K or Controller.
Thanks for tuning in....
I agree with pretty much everything you said, consoles and PCs each have their own pros and cons. I love my PS2, and I want a PS3. Yet my PC is now capable of playing the latest games at ultimate settings, which is ace. For me, I'm on the fence, because despite getting into PC gaming more than past 2 weeks or so, I have a lot of fun with consoles. Take for example Gran Turismo series on the PS2. I love them to bits, and you're 100% spot on in terms of switching it on, and having a race in next to no time. I couldn't imagine it on PC either, the controls would just suck. The gamepad lets me steer and accelerate and the PS2 has those pressure sensitive buttons, so I can feather my car's throttle. It all just fits. Sure, it could look nicer, and a top end PC would render cars as gorgeous as Rachel Stevens in french knickers, BUT, it would be in exchange of playability IMO.
However, and this is a rather large however, PC still has another niche IMO, one which the console will struggle to fill, at least for me anyway. FPS shooters. It's my favourite genre. Nothing better than blasting terorists, zombies, germans etc with a big gun. The keyboard and mouse combination works amazing well, allowing for speed of aiming, good accuracy etc. Consoles struggle, even with 360 degree aiming controls, I still find myself struggling to aim, hence I suppose why assistance has been given in the likes of autoaiming etc.
Blighter
17-11-2008, 13:35
All we need is for the 360 to get a game where it allows use of a USB M&K. I already use a USB keyboard on my 360 for sending messages etc :)
Davey_Pitch
17-11-2008, 13:35
I don't think there's a need for a debate to be honest. Each system has their place IMO, as each does different things. I prefer playing games like Football Manager and stuff like that on the PC, but I prefer most other games on the console. That's just my personal preference, which is where the whole debate stemmed from - personal preference.
Blighter
17-11-2008, 13:36
Again in response to iCraig... I think FPS might be better with a mouse, but there are some (GoW for eg) that I can't imagine using anything other then my pad :)
Davey_Pitch
17-11-2008, 13:38
All we need is for the 360 to get a game where it allows use of a USB M&K.
You have no idea how dead set I am against that idea. The beauty of the 360 (consoles in general really) is that for games like that you're on a level playing field. You're on the same hardware, using the some controllers, so it's all boils down to skill. If you start giving people the option to use different control methods, you start bringing other factors into play, and I don't want that at all, UNLESS you get the option of only playing against people using the same control method as you.
Blighter
17-11-2008, 13:39
You have no idea how dead set I am against that idea. The beauty of the 360 (consoles in general really) is that for games like that you're on a level playing field. You're on the same hardware, using the some controllers, so it's all boils down to skill. If you start giving people the option to use different control methods, you start bringing other factors into play, and I don't want that at all, UNLESS you get the option of only playing against people using the same control method as you.
That is a very good point. I retract my comment :shocked:
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 13:48
For instant gameplay there is only one winner, that is consoles, that's what it does. The PC doesn't do instant gameplay, so it can't compete. The only time it can be remotely classed as that is if purchased and played through Steam or installing a No-CD crack, but by that point a console is already well into its game. Obviously some people like editing code etc.. to make it run better, but that's not the purpose of the game, nor the goal of the developer - the game is meant to just be played but without a definite system for design on PC it's an issue PC games will always have.
Mouse and Keyboard being better is a personal irk of mine as neither are better but both are different. One hilarious explanation for why M&K was made here the other day by someone saying "Try playing GTA on a console and then telling me a joypad is better - auto-aim ruins it", yet driving around (which is the major element to the series) is awful with a mouse and keyboard. Another thing I find amusing is that people say "M&K is more accurate" and sure, the mouse may be more accurate, but the statement made is ill conceived because there is no way in hell a digital key press is more accurate for movement than an analogue stick.
In this world there is space for both control methods, heck the PS3 allows for M&K support in games deemed 'necessary', which basically boils down to UT3. What I will say is that a joypad offers the best all-round solution across genre's, where as M&K offers a bigger advantage in a select few; RTS and FPS. I also don't wish for M&K support on consoles - a level playing field is much more important to me.
The last platform I'd want to use is Steam to be honest. We're talking about a platform that was released and slated because it was slow and didn't work. In that time since its release it has sped up, but only recently has it all started to work as something you could even class as a platform.
For more than 3 years the friends element of it didn't work most of the time. Features wise it doesn't really do anything and it's so far behind what Microsoft offer now that if I was to use it constantly I'd feel like I was going back to 2001 when the original Xbox Live was released. As for Steam having more 'top games', Steam is a shop for new titles, Xbox Live isn't. If you want to compare classics though then Xbox Live Arcade wins as that's what its aim is - selling classic games, so not comparable in a shop sense.
The reason Live would be the best choice is not only because of it's usability to get to stuff, but its integration with official websites or when in-game too. Play something like the PGR series and you get leaderboards, friends lists, and ghosts all right there, no editing, no downloading outside a game - right there, automatically. When you're not online it doesn't look like it's missing something either, it's brilliantly done. Halo 3 is probably the best example so far of game integration from a central point we've ever seen. Not only is it the sharing of service records across live, it's how everything is integrated into SP and MP both in the game and through the website. It stat tracks, takes screenshots, maps where battles took place and even records all your statistics in SP campaign when playing with friends. Some things have to be seen to be believed that can be done - not all games make the most of it, but several do a bloody amazing job. This is something that simply can not be done through Steam.
This also isn't the case on PSN where Sony didn't create a central service, instead leaving developers to their own devices, something which really irks me as Metal Gear Solid 4 quite clearly takes the mickey, 3 different registrations for player names, 2 different passwords and you HAVE to use the Internet and then PSN separately and this is just to get in game. Anyone who has played it online knows exactly what I'm talking about. This is why Xbox Live is head and shoulders better than everything else. It does more than any other service and also does it's things better than most.
Sure, it's not perfect, maximum of 2 player private chat is ridiculous, but that's fixed in the new update (Wednesday) allowing for 8 players. That for me was my major problem and I would really have to think hard for something else...
Something I would like to clear up however is this talk of 'grinding' achievements. This is something Xbox360 owners such as Haly, Abooie and Creature have heard time and time again as Xbox360 only users and was a complaint levelled at them from PS3 users and PC gamers. Playstation 3 has since had Trophy support which is Sony's imitation of Microsoft's Achievement service and has quietened that crowd since learning what it's all about. As a die-hard gamer I went through the whole confusion prior to the 360 launch and thinking 'What the hell is all this achievement palava about, seems pointless', and to a degree it is, but it offers many more positives than negatives...
When I've completed games in the past I've played from the start to the end and that's it, completed and I would enjoy the experience obviously, else I wouldn't play games. Achievements however turn it up a notch, you can complete the game and still have things to do, goals to achieve. It would give me reason to try and get these too, not because of the points, but often because they were tricky or difficult to get and when you look at your friends you realise you've got something they haven't, achieved a goal they haven't... it's something we've all had in the past "Oh, I can't do X/Y/Z on so and so game", you turn around "Oh, I've done that", "yeah right, I don't believe you", except with Achievements we have die-hard, concrete proof. Bragging rights if you will.
Achievements aren't made to be 'grinding' on a game, it's not like leveling up in an RPG or MMORPG, if you buy a game, love it, completing it and then completing those goals set out by the developer is a great feeling. What's more, some games have some very creative achievements, none more than Dead Rising, which by the way is one of the best games of the last 5 years, where it ranges from easy to incredibly difficult, some from amusing to rage fuelled frustration.
Achievements are an addition to a game and should be enjoyed, not seen as something that is none-fun and a case of repetition - if you spend £40 on a game surely something to add further depth and enjoyment to something is a good thing?
As for needing new hardware, it's not really a debate, it's a fact. If you want PC games to look their best you have to buy the best parts, but PC is the format for showing the bells and whistles and to do so games often outweigh the hardware available and are a generation ahead. This isn't anything new, this has been the case for a lot of years, but it's getting worse in a day and age where the top graphics cards are £500+. I have first hand experience of this, prior to getting this GPU second hand my previous 2 cost a combined £840 and neither lasted anything remotely long enough to show games how I would like them.
This is not a 'dangerous argument', consoles are a defined hardware set with games coded to take advantage of this. Developers learn shortcuts and techniques and get more and more out of these games. The Xbox360 has been out 3 years now and it plays the latest games at a smoother frame-rate with sharper graphics, more on-screen and more features, my graphics card also happens to be 3 years old and I played Crysis and Stalker last year and neither could be played at a level of graphics I would deem acceptable to play them, the former actually looking awful to be played and this is on a system that was updated just 2 years before playing these games. Yes, drivers get a little more out of this, but when I want to play games it's an annoyance to find out what drivers are out, what the benefits, or more to the point, side-effects are, finding the quickest download is, installing, restarting, booting, playing the game, tweaking and what do you get? Often 2-5fps more. On a console you get alerted to an update, it downloads and installs immediately (as they are never big updates), and you're good to go.
I prefer the relaxed nature of sitting playing consoles over a PC now because I spend so much time sat in front of a PC anyway, so much so that at the age of 24 I suffer from terrible lower back pains (a common family problem on my Fathers side) and so getting away from it, relaxing and playing with friends is just perfect for me.
A common complaint for the Xbox360 is its sound, and they aren't quiet, but in the dashboard my 360 is no louder than my PS3 and my PC is louder than either of them and that's without my WD Raptor banging about like it wants to escape.
What is clear is that Console gaming is serious business, this is what seems to bother so many from the PC crowd who like to see consoles as 'kids game machines' and that is no longer the case and often in doing so, the arguments put together make them look like hypocrites with childish complaints and uninformed comments, LeoWyatt sent me a link a couple of days ago from a professional PC gaming site which just further proved my beliefs (I shall post if people want). Console games is also the major market for developers, with many swapping primarily to console development. Consoles now often gets the games first and PC's second and the major developer for PC's, Epic, has now gone consoles and see's PC's as a black sheep of the market - not good for the creator of the most used gaming engine out there. I remember all the complaints that BioShock was made console first too and some of the 'issues' regarding the focus on consoles as a primary system on Overclockers are hilarious.
Am I anti-PC? No, I'm not. I think PC's are the largest gateway to many games and often the most accessible (though primarily down to the ease of piracy). If console games were as easy to access as PC games I guarantee a lot of PC gamers wouldn't be so negative towards it. Also, my 3 favourite games of all time were on the PC :p.
I am a firm believer that some games are better on PC too, firstly RTS games, I can't see them working on a console, not that it bothers me as they just aren't my bag, but interestingly I also thought FPS games couldn't be done on a console due to a 'lack' of buttons, but that wasn't true and it's been proven it can, though a lot of that comes down to the pad - the Xbox360 pad is brilliant to learn on due to the size of it, the positions of the joysticks, the quality of response from the sticks and the triggers - I still struggle to play FPS games on a Playstation pad and I've tried, it just isn't suitable for me due to it's small size (the West is a bigger gaming community Asia - sort it out you arrogant tools), poor joystick locations for FPS games, lack of joystick response (massive deadzones people) and convex triggers (what a stupid design idea).
If someone was saying console FPS'ing just wasn't right and tried doing so on a PS pad I'd fully understand where they were coming from and sadly, with the PS2 being so massively sold and a lot of PC gamers seemingly buying PS3's over Xbox360's (although I'm really not sure why), I think this is the case.
I agree with most of what you said so i'm not going to waste time typing virtually the same stuff again, so i'll just mention the bits I want to add to or disagree with :p
Instant Gameplay
I think this can work both ways. It's a given the console will play out of the box (though with the PS3 installation is usual so the only difference is in tweaking settings) however the PC then has the advantage over actually getting your game. Say we both decided we wanted to play Fallout 3 right now but neither owned it. You wanted it on console, I wanted it on PC. You'd have to mail order it or take a trip into town. I could load Steam, click click click and then 3 hours later it would be installed and ready to play with no further interaction from me. That's pretty awesome if you ask me, though with the pound turning to jelly compared to the dollar, the £1=$2 deals that abounded on Steam are gone somewhat now it's nearer $1.45 to £1.
Mouse & Keyboard are better than Control Pad - Fact
Depends what you play. FPS and RTS I don't think a controller comes anywhere near. Driving, sports, platformers etc. I think the controller wins hands down. Both are perfectly possible with the other but will never quite match up to the others strengths in the end.
Games need patching on release, I need to update grahics drivers
Patching I think is virtually a non argument as it covers both PC and Console and on both can be entirely automated. There is a brilliant program for PC which I forget the name of (I don't care enough about patches to bother, I only use manual ones when something is actually wrong on my machine. If it aint broke dont fix it) but that keeps a list of installed games and downloads any relevant patches for you as when they're released.
The need to update drivers is an odd one. With my old X800 I installed one set, upgraded once and then that was it for 2 years and it never once caused me a problem. Probably didn't have max performance but meh, it all worked. I'm probably going to update my GeForce ones more, if only because they actually have a noticeable improvement (I netted an extra 6 or 7 FPS in CoD4 with a driver update recently) and they've also got stuff like PhysX and CUDA in them, CUDA being something i'm quite intrigued by.
You need the latest PC Hardware to make it look good
Not entirely true. Games with crap engines like Crysis maybe, stuff done well such as Left4Dead still have the ability to look great and i'm running it on a 3 year old £800 PC with a £45 graphics upgrade (best value ever that too 8800GS/9600GSO).
The Experience
Depends what you're getting at here. One area I think consoles have always had an edge is single system multiplayer, sat with three mates all half beating the crap out each other in aid of playing PES or something. Consoles are starting to lose this now though with online gaming, as where I used to go round a mates and we'd do system link Halo with two teams in two rooms etc. and have a real blast, now most of them just play online, sat on their own with a headset and microphone, something the PC has done for years.
Conculsions
PC is better by miles ;)
Though really, it does come down to what you want from a system. There was a certain amusement factor to coming downstairs the other day to find my sisters boyfriend playing Mario Kart on my old GC and sitting down and kicking his ass at it just like that (he's not put it down since, he's determined to beat me) which we couldn't have done if i'd seen him sat in the other room playing RTCW on my old PC.
The other thing is just where your money is better invested. Ultimately, gaming isn't the biggest priority for my money at the moment as I can't afford to just waste it (he says going out and getting hammered most weekends) so dropping £300 on a console and accessories and subs etc. makes no sense to me, when I already have a PC that can play most of the same games and the ones that only the console has don't really appeal to me. Any gaming upgrades I do make to the PC, also benefit me elsewhere. I added some RAM at one point, which not only improved my games but Photoshop ran faster, the PC in general was quicker etc. which is a sort of multitasking value you can only apply to the TV part in a console. Everyone needs a PC anyway still and currently to me, it makes far more financial sense to have spent £100 on it to make it play the latest games and run faster overall than it would have done to spend £200 on a 360 and have an overall slower PC still.
Snip
I will post a full reply when I get home. Most points I agree with, three points I don't
I still don't think point about the latest hardware being essential is entirely correct. Yes if you want full AA and Anistropic Filtering along and really really high frame rate then you have to spend your wedge on card capable of doing that. However that will make it look better than the comparable console version.
The example of Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is valid bit certainly not representative of PC gaming in general. Crysis even on a £3000 pc will struggle to hit above 60 frames per second and have all the bells and whistles turned on at anything more than 1280x1024. No matter how much Crytek bleat on about piracy, it was a game that was poorly coded. STALKER on the other hand was over four years in production and went through a number of developers before it was released. Its biggest problem was that it came out at the same time as Vista, so the developers had problems from the outset getting it to run on that. As I say both valid examples but not representative of pc gaming in general.
Final point I take issue with is steam. Having used Live on PC, XBL and Steam, I would say Live on PC is the worst out of the three. Steam has come a long way, it's stable, easy to use and offers similar functionality to XBL and I genuinely don't see it being that bad from a user, developer or content perspective.
I will post a full reply when I get home. Most points I agree with, three points I don't
I still don't think point about the latest hardware being essential is entirely correct. Yes if you want full AA and Anistropic Filtering along and really really high frame rate then you have to spend your wedge on card capable of doing that. However that will make it look better than the comparable console version.
The example of Crysis and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is valid bit certainly not representative of PC gaming in general. Crysis even on a £3000 pc will struggle to hit above 60 frames per second and have all the bells and whistles turned on at anything more than 1280x1024. No matter how much Crytek bleat on about piracy, it was a game that was poorly coded. STALKER on the other hand was over four years in production and went through a number of developers before it was released. Its biggest problem was that it came out at the same time as Vista, so the developers had problems from the outset getting it to run on that. As I say both valid examples but not representative of pc gaming in general.
Final point I take issue with is steam. Having used Live on PC, XBL and Steam, I would say Live on PC is the worst out of the three. Steam has come a long way, it's stable, easy to use and offers similar functionality to XBL and I genuinely don't see it being that bad from a user, developer or content perspective.
I was going to point out the same three things tbh :p
I am a massive console lover, I grew up with console and pc gaming but the last 3 years I have only played FM and Mafia on my PC, its just so disjointed, you have such a big spectrum of users that the developers dont know what to do, look at Crysis brilliant graphics but probably the worst gameplay of any major PC releases.
The console has taken on the PC in every area and its matching it, online play, patches, game content, demos. Now with the 360 NXE where you can install games and play off the hard drive, quiet and faster loading times shows how far the humble console has come. The price argument is flawed because you can spend £1000s on a console AV setup and vice versa.
Console games seem to have more thought and love put into the game, some of the games seem like epic movies and trilogies, GoW series, Halo, MGS, Killzone etc. these game can make more money for a developer than your blockbuster film for the year and for £40 you are getting months of enjoyment from SP and MP.
The thing that worries me for PC gaming is the amount of exclusives it has lost out on, even Alan Wake is on PC/360, I would love splash £500+ on a PC tower for gaming but I know that I would not use it and that the hassle I have had before with pc games will just make me press the 360 on button.
Matblack
17-11-2008, 14:47
snip
I agree with a lot of this, I'm a recent convert to consoles as a sole gaming platform, there are a few things they don't do as well such as RPGs (I loved Guild Wars) and RTSs but they have so many pluses in their favor, not least of which is the investment too keep up with the latest game. I bought a 360 for half the price of a graphics card I would have needed to bring my PC up to a point where I'd have been able to play it on the PC and if I wanted to play Crysis there would have been another upgrade in between. These days I know I will get the same gaming experience as everyone else and my console will always play the latest games.
My PC is still a very very important part of my home media experience but not my gaming experience.
MB
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 15:07
I was going to point out the same three things tbh :p
But he only pointed out 2. One of which is moot because I never slated Steam and just pointed its shortfalls and how LIVE is a whole system that does more as opposed to a gateway client.
Again in response to iCraig... I think FPS might be better with a mouse, but there are some (GoW for eg) that I can't imagine using anything other then my pad :)
Is that a true FPS though? I've seen my flat mate play it and it seems, well, I don't know, gaitered into a set predetermined amount of movement. Duck, fire, duck, fire etc. Reminded me of Time Crisis, if you know what I mean? :)
Gears isn't an FPS, it's third person :)
Admiral Huddy
17-11-2008, 15:18
I've printed the OP off for a read on the train later. However, at this point I would like to add a few experiences I encountered this weekend alone:
I attempted to load Far Cry 2 on an upto date system, recent drivers. However, half way through the initial load it crashed. This was the preparation phase. Turns on that I needed the Nvidia Physics update. There was no mention of this. Then half way through the actual installation phase, I got a "un readable media” error message. I had to cope the exec file, apply a fix then run again. All this took over an hour or so of my valuable gaming time. I had problems with Hell's Highway too and was starting to doubt the credibility of the PC as a gaming platform.
I soon changed my mind when Pete and I played Vegas on his Xbox360. The slow unrealistic movement resembles puppet string physics. The moue keyboard combo wins.
However, with the price of PC hardware and its unreliable software set, it' no wonder soo many have turned to the consoles for their gaming fix.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 15:20
Gears isn't an FPS, it's third person :)
Gears is a FPS in a 3PS shell. Aiming is entirely FPS. A 3PS is more traditionally seen as a Resident Evil or Tomb Raider.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 15:25
I've printed the OP off for a read on the train later. However, at this point I would like to add a few experiences I encountered this weekend alone:
I attempted to load Far Cry 2 on an upto date system, recent drivers. However, half way through the initial load it crashed. This was the preparation phase. Turns on that I needed the Nvidia Physics update. There was no mention of this. Then half way through the actual installation phase, I got a "un readable media? error message. I had to cope the exec file, apply a fix then run again. All this took over an hour or so of my valuable gaming time. I had problems with Hell's Highway too and was starting to doubt the credibility of the PC as a gaming platform.
I soon changed my mind when Pete and I played Vegas on his Xbox360. The slow unrealistic movement resembles puppet string physics. The moue keyboard combo wins.
However, with the price of PC hardware and its unreliable software set, it' no wonder soo many have turned to the consoles for their gaming fix.
lol, you just criticised the slowest FPS on Xbox360 for being to o slow! :p
Gears is a FPS in a 3PS shell. Aiming is entirely FPS. A 3PS is more traditionally seen as a Resident Evil or Tomb Raider.
At no point am I in Marcus' head :/
Davey_Pitch
17-11-2008, 15:34
I soon changed my mind when Pete and I played Vegas on his Xbox360. The slow unrealistic movement resembles puppet string physics. The moue keyboard combo wins.
You're dismissing an entire console based on a single game, which is easily the slowest FPS I've ever played? You should try something like Call of Duty or Halo, there's nothing wrong with the speed of those games. :)
Davey_Pitch
17-11-2008, 15:35
Gears is a FPS in a 3PS shell. Aiming is entirely FPS. A 3PS is more traditionally seen as a Resident Evil or Tomb Raider.
Then Max Payne is also a FPS in a 3PS shell?
You're dismissing an entire console based on a single game, which is easily the slowest FPS I've ever played? You should try something like Call of Duty or Halo, there's nothing wrong with the speed of those games. :)
Davey, have you played COD 4 on PC at all. I find it to be quite fast and franetic but I suspect that is exagerated because there is more players in a server. I wanted to see how the multiplayer compares. I would expect the pace of the console COD4 to be a little slower by comparison :confused:
Matblack
17-11-2008, 16:04
Davey, have you played COD 4 on PC at all. I find it to be quite fast and franetic but I suspect that is exagerated because there is more players in a server. I wanted to see how the multiplayer compares. I would expect the pace of the console COD4 to be a little slower by comparison :confused:
You are almost certainly right, there is a compromise when you go over to a console, 360 graphics were behind PC graphics where the console hit the market and because the hardware hasn't been updated they still are. so there is a compromise but there sacrifices to be made to play PC games not least of which is the cost of the constant updating of hardware. If you can make the break then you will find gaming more affordable on a console but you will have to live with the fact you are no longer at the cutting edge of graphics not that 360 graphics are bad and the designers are constantly using new tricks to get the most out of the thing.
Would I prefer a cutting edge always up to date (hardware and driver) PC with all the games I can play on the 360 with a version of live which is accepted by all the games producers and a high quality joypad? If someone else is paying? Yes I would.
Would I rather compromise hundreds of pounds a year running into £1000s vs slightly worse graphics and the odd game which is slower for somthing which cost me ~£150 for 3-4 years (before it RRODs) gaming? Definately, and I did and ioon all honesty I don't regret it :)
MB
Flibster
17-11-2008, 16:08
I'm definately a PC gamer.
RTS, FPS and Simulations are so much better on the PC. I currently use a modified Logitech MX Revolution and normally a Belkin n52te or a Microsoft Natural 4000
I must be one of the few people who have never had any problems with the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games. Always ran fine.
I have plugged my machine into large screens, but then I usually have to turn the settings down. 24" CRT gaming goodness. :D
I have consoles, but my 360 is still in it's box as it has been for months, PS2 is covered in an inch of dust, Playstation, Nes, Snes, Megadrive, Master system, N64 are all boxed up. Wii and DS are the only ones that get any regular use.
I also don't really play online anymore - last game I really did play online was Desert Combat, but that seemed to become obscessed with Capture the Flag, which is a hugely enormous pile of poo, so I stopped playing it. So Live, Steam and all that are irrelivent to me.
Davey_Pitch
17-11-2008, 16:31
Davey, have you played COD 4 on PC at all. I find it to be quite fast and franetic but I suspect that is exagerated because there is more players in a server. I wanted to see how the multiplayer compares. I would expect the pace of the console COD4 to be a little slower by comparison :confused:
Only single player, not played MP on PC, but I do think it would be faster on the PC due to the extra players. I like the number of players on Xbox though, as I get killed enough as it is, adding even more skilled players would be very frustrating :D
I also don't really play online anymore - last game I really did play online was Desert Combat, but that seemed to become obscessed with Capture the Flag, which is a hugely enormous pile of poo, so I stopped playing it.
:shocked:
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 16:33
Then Max Payne is also a FPS in a 3PS shell?
Yep, that's how In see it.
Davey_Pitch
17-11-2008, 16:37
Yep, that's how In see it.
Weirdo :p If I see the game through the eyes of a character - First Person. If I can see all my character - 3rd person. Simple as that for me :)
I'm still baffled by this apparent problem that you need to spend £400 on a graphics card and 'constantly update hardware' to run games on a PC. You don't. You could build an entire dedicated gaming tower for £500/£600 that would look and play better than a console does and remain viable for a good 2 or 3 years.
Once you add in long term costs such a Live sub and the fact games are typically £10-£15 more expensive on console, I don't think the PC actually works out much more expensive anyway.
Anyone who 'runs into the £1000s' every year on a PC isn't doing it through necessity, it's because they're a muppet and have no control over their money and urge to buy overpriced unnecessary hardware.
You lot realise this thread will just go round and round in circles, right? :p
Yeah but it's better than doing work :p
leowyatt
17-11-2008, 17:25
You don't. You could build an entire dedicated gaming tower for £500/£600 that would look and play better than a console does and remain viable for a good 2 or 3 years.
Ok then answer me this. With your £500-600 PC, will every game look the best it can? For example no matter what 360 game I buy in the next 3 years, will look the best it can without me having to spend any extra money on hardware.
Justsomebloke
17-11-2008, 17:29
So many different answers to the same question & that's because it is Totally down to Personal preference/situation.
Me.
I prefer High numbers & Big maps & Mouse & keys for my FPS so PC wins hands down. I have played COD4 on 360 & PC & the 360 doesn't compare. Just the higher numbers would make me choose PC every time let alone the Mouse & Keys over a controller.
Also I personally get off on Tweaking games to run better & constantly tweaking my system, It's what I do well.
On Drivers though I have found myself taking up Single player again & have even completed a couple on the 360. I have Sims & a Momo for my PC but can't be arsed to set it up & grew sick of the Elitist BS you get surrounding PC Sim racing. On the 360 it's lovely to sit in my armchair with Only the controller & casually race online.
Being completely honest & maybe a little sad I Love my system & Enjoy my 360. I've had my 360 a full year now & it is gradually creeping into my life but my PC is everything I want it to be & more.
Please remember though I did say earlier that in my mind This Whole discussion is completly down to the individuals personal preferences & lifestyle, There is No overall winner.
I'm still baffled by this apparent problem that you need to spend £400 on a graphics card and 'constantly update hardware' to run games on a PC. You don't. You could build an entire dedicated gaming tower for £500/£600 that would look and play better than a console does and remain viable for a good 2 or 3 years.
Once you add in long term costs such a Live sub and the fact games are typically £10-£15 more expensive on console, I don't think the PC actually works out much more expensive anyway.
Anyone who 'runs into the £1000s' every year on a PC isn't doing it through necessity, it's because they're a muppet and have no control over their money and urge to buy overpriced unnecessary hardware.
Indeed, a top-end gaming machine is what £700-800? Considering it's all from scratch, monitor, keyboard and mouse, etc? It's going to be around the same.
How much is a 360/PS3 along with essential peripherals and new (most likely high resolution) TV to play it on?
I think PC gaming has a stigma behind it due to the enthusiasts, who literally do spend thousands a year on replacement hardware/upgrades/cooling solutions etc, when in reality, you can enjoy the latest games for a lot less than people think. Especially if you already have a PC and you don't need to spend anything on basic stuff, and can focus your budget on the new performance components, such as a new board, chip, RAM and GPU.
No it won't look the 'best it can' but then that's irrelevant if even when it isn't looking the best it can, it's still looking pretty damn good.
Just because you're not running at max settings all the time, doesn't mean it's suddenly crap and I certainly wouldn't refuse to play a game just because I can't max every setting available.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/richyj/l4d_dem_hospital01_apartment0000.jpg
Personally, I don't think that looks bad for a 3 year old PC with a pretty budget graphics upgrade a few months ago, do you? Certainly a match for the 360 version and more than good enough to be playable. (Though for some reason, maybe the way the AA is applied, that shot looks really aliased, which when actually playing it doesn't)
All your 360 games will look the 'best they can' on 5 year old hardware.
Would it be fair to say the usable gaming life of a ~£600 PC system would be considerably less than what would be expected from a current gen console?
Justsomebloke
17-11-2008, 17:37
The Money argument can be settled by using My system as an example.
My 200 quid upgrade a while back gave me
Gigabyte P35 DQ6 Mobo
Quad core, overclocked.
2 x 1950's in Crossfire.
2 Gig of Corsair XMS.
120GB Sata WD HD.
550w PSU inside a Coolermaster 7 series (Desmo I Love You :p)
Not found owt it won't play yet & honestly feel I still have head room over Any games requirements, With a bit of Tweaking Naturally ;)
You don't have to buy new you know ;)
Would it be fair to say the usable gaming life of a ~£600 PC system would be considerably less than what would be expected from a current gen console?
Maybe, but bear in mind once you have a "base" gaming system that performs well as it is, you have headroom to go higher. Faster graphics card, or a second one in xfire/sli, more RAM, new chip, new HDD etc. Over the course of a year or two, you'd probably spend around the same as a brand new shiny console and all its gubbins when your current one is made redundant.
If you're careful with your money on PCs and make sure you buy as future proof as possible, there's no reason why you can't having a long term gaming machine. If push comes to shove and your aging gaming rig starts to drop below 35fps on some new games, you could always reduce it from 8xAA and 16xAF to a lower setting and get even more life out of it. :)
Indeed, a top-end gaming machine is what £700-800?
£550 will get you...
Q6600 + Arctic Cooling Freezer 7
4GB RAM
HD4850 512MB
DFL LanParty Intel P35 Motherboard
550W PSU
640GB WD Caviar HDD
Antec 300 Case
DVD+-RW
Then for another £200
MX518 Gaming Mouse
Saitek Eclipse Gaming Keyboard
20" Widescreen TFT
Justsomebloke
17-11-2008, 17:50
Most that PC game though already have PC's & are only upgrading.
Would it be fair to say the usable gaming life of a ~£600 PC system would be considerably less than what would be expected from a current gen console?
Not really, especially when you take into account recurring costs like Live subscriptions etc. that could go into upgrading the PC later.
Cost wise, with a PC, you are infinitely better off buying a £600 PC and then spending £200 in 3 years time refreshing the graphics card and adding some RAM or something, than you are buying an £800 PC to begin with, which is probably the mistake a lot of people make. What £200 buys in you in improvements now is rubbish compared to what £200 buys in upgrades later if you should feel your PC can't handle something.
The only thing my PC hasn't been able to manage so far is Crysis, which is more because it was a crap engine than actually needs a better PC.
Not really, especially when you take into account recurring costs like Live subscriptions etc. that could go into upgrading the PC later.
I keep seeing you mention Live subs, and I'm not sure how drastic an impact they have. They don't apply to the PS3 of course, and it's not that expensive. To take your 3 years graphics upgrade cost, £200 would get you 8 years of Live gold, for example.
I mention it because, like MB by the sounds of it, cost (or perceived cost) would be the number one factor keeping me from returning to PC gaming properly. Close second would be distinct lack of games, but there's not a lot we can debate on that :D
My current PC has a lot of compute power, and some graphics kick (8600GT). My PS2 was an active gaming platform (at least in my house) for 6 years, so lets pretend I'm looking at a new gaming platform to invest in.
My current workstation isn't upgradable, so I'm looking at £600 for an above average PC rig, with ~£200 upgrade every 3 years. So over a 6 year lifespan, that's £1000.
I buy a 360, £150. Lets make it fair and take a price point earlier in it's life cycle, ~£200 last Christmas for what was the premium? 6 years gold subs, another £150. And lets say £100 on peripherals - an extra pad, chatpad, vision camera, play and charge kit (being a bit generous on the spend there). 6 years gaming for £450, less than half the PC. Hell, throw in £300 for a PC to do web browsing and word processing on (though I'd argue that's unnecessary, as we're talking strictly gaming platforms), we're still cheaper.
If I'm wrong then please correct me, I'm genuinely interested.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 18:11
Weirdo :p If I see the game through the eyes of a character - First Person. If I can see all my character - 3rd person. Simple as that for me :)
Not at all, the game may be from a 3rd person view, but the game plays as a First Person. It needs its own name sadly, but a lot gets lost.
It plays more like a generic FPS than a generic 3PS such as Tomb Raider or Resident Evil.
I'm not throwing out accusations or random points, I'm talking from experience. As I said, my last 2 GPU's before this were £415 and £425 respectively and they DID NOT last 2 or 3 years from that date, let alone getting a cheap one to fit into a full £500 solution alone that will last that long.
I went and got this 7800GTX second hand for £25 from Streeteh off this forums and it serves its purpose for net browsing etc.. but game performance just is not good enough.
Well, honestly if you're spending £425 on a graphics card and replacing it in a year, that's your problem because it's entirely pointless. You get about 5% more performance than one half the price at the time and in a year they both perform as near as damnit the same.
Besides, graphics cards have got a lot cheaper recently.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 18:21
I'm still baffled by this apparent problem that you need to spend £400 on a graphics card and 'constantly update hardware' to run games on a PC. You don't. You could build an entire dedicated gaming tower for £500/£600 that would look and play better than a console does and remain viable for a good 2 or 3 years.
I'm not throwing out accusations or random points, I'm talking from experience. As I said, my last 2 GPU's before this were £415 and £425 respectively and they DID NOT last 2 or 3 years from that date, let alone getting a cheap one to fit into a full £500 solution alone that will last that long.
I went and got this 7800GTX second hand for £25 from Streeteh off this forums and it serves its purpose for net browsing etc.. but game performance just is not good enough.
Not really, especially when you take into account recurring costs like Live subscriptions etc. that could go into upgrading the PC later.
Not really, Xbox Live costs 7.3p a day. :p.
I don't class £27 a year as expensive, and you don't have to buy it all in one go. It's also not needed if you don't play online.
Indeed, a top-end gaming machine is what £700-800? Considering it's all from scratch, monitor, keyboard and mouse, etc? It's going to be around the same.
Top end? The top end graphics cards are £500. 24" w/s monitor is £350+.
Yes, stuff like Memory has dropped in price, but stuff like GPU's and Mobo's are still expensive for the good stuff. My Mobo was £130 and Memory £180 when I upgraded 2.5 years ago.
Well, honestly if you're spending £425 on a graphics card and replacing it in a year, that's your problem because it's entirely pointless. You get about 5% more performance than one half the price at the time and in a year they both perform as near as damnit the same.
Besides, graphics cards have got a lot cheaper recently.
I never said I replaced it 'the next year', however what I stated is that it never lasted 3 years. I bought my first one for £415 and 6 months later I was already knocking down a lot of settings in games. I didn't mind. After spending more the second time though it really bothered me though as I was already knocking settings down the minute it was in my PC.
If I'm wrong then please correct me, I'm genuinely interested.
You seem to be missing an HDTV in there, so you can play at a resolution higher than 576p, after all, we wouldn't want to have it not looking the 'best it can' would we? ;)
I still defy anyone to tell me that the screenshot I posted looks crap and that therefore this PC is an unviable gaming machine.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 18:27
But HDTV's will be needed for the switch over anyway and are common in many houses, not just those with consoles. PC monitors are just for PC's.
You seem to be missing an HDTV in there, so you can play at a resolution higher than 576p, after all, we wouldn't want to have it not looking the 'best it can' would we? ;)
You didnt put a monitor on your original £600:
£550 will get you...
Q6600 + Arctic Cooling Freezer 7
4GB RAM
HD4850 512MB
DFL LanParty Intel P35 Motherboard
550W PSU
640GB WD Caviar HDD
Antec 300 Case
DVD+-RW
But hey, call it a £200 monitor for use with either. I'm talking about the platform, you could put a 20" monitor or a 47" TV on either and the cost would be the same.
Please, explain it to me. Talk me back to PC gaming.
[edit]I still defy anyone to tell me that the screenshot I posted looks crap and that therefore this PC is an unviable gaming machine.
Hope that wasnt aimed at me, because I'm not arguing that. In fact I'm not arguing anything, I'm just putting forward the landscape as I see it and why it's turned me to consoles, so please correct me. Break it down.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 18:29
I still defy anyone to tell me that the screenshot I posted looks crap and that therefore this PC is an unviable gaming machine.
It's an old engine that I've never rated anyway. It doesn't look 'bad' in that that engine doesn't really look any better, but in comparison to many other games it doesn't look that good.
When I loaded it up after playing Fallout 3, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Fable 2 and FarCry 2 (the games I've played just before L4D), Left 4 Dead looked by far the poorest (though still better than I thought from the Source engine). And I could list over 15 things with that image that I don't like, but you'd hate me forever.
Why would you want to play your 360 through a small monitor though, that defeats the entire 'I can sit in my lounge with my huge screen' argument before it's even begun.
The trouble with the PC is quantifying what the gaming components comprises. Personally, my PC is foremost an image editing tool, then a work tool, then a games tool. So for me, only about £200 worth of the investment was tailored towards games, the rest I would have had anyway.
A console probably is cheaper overall but by the end of that life you have the same problem as your non upgraded PC, the games aren't looking as good as stuff running on the latest tech, except with the PC a bit of additional spend can bump back up close, whereas it's time for you to get a whole new system soon.
I just take issue with the notion that PC gaming costs 'into the £1000s' every year. It doesn't. Spent sensibly, £600 can last you 3 years happily unless you have a massive desire to always have the latest graphics card even though it's probably entirely unnecessary. It probably is more expensive, but not nearly as much as some people tried to make out earlier. £425 on a graphics card is frivilous and never a sensible idea and trying to use things like that as an argument for why PC gaming is so expensive is silly, it's just a demonstration of (imo, stupid) personal spending habits.
pc i my choice
kb&m is the only option imho for a fps
but i'm a hardware and overclocking whore. for me gaming is ace but i love clocking my 8800gtx/watercooled c2d rig to notice a visible increase in smoothness and constant framrate. i love the fact you have to mess with video settings to find a good balance of quality graphics and speed of frames. pc gaming is very much for the modding enthusiasts and that is why i love it, as turning on an xbox and putting the disk in is just not enough for me
I'm not throwing out accusations or random points, I'm talking from experience. As I said, my last 2 GPU's before this were £415 and £425 respectively and they DID NOT last 2 or 3 years from that date, let alone getting a cheap one to fit into a full £500 solution alone that will last that long.
I went and got this 7800GTX second hand for £25 from Streeteh off this forums and it serves its purpose for net browsing etc.. but game performance just is not good enough.
That's weird to be honest, because I think top end graphics cards should last you a while. My flat mate has a single X800XT 512MB which he got in 2005. Yet he's had no problems with Half Life 2 and it's Episodes, and other new games. In fact he's only just starting the feel the pinch with Left4Dead, which he can't run on its fullest settings, but it still runs it beautifully with no slowdown and it looks fine, console standard at least. This is 3 years down the line, and there's still life left in it yet. I think he'll draw the line when he's forced to lower the bar to medium settings.
Top end? The top end graphics cards are £500..
Not quite, my Crossfire setup of two 4870s cost £350 and it's capable of killing everything I've chucked at it so far. Left4Dead is maxed out and it's smooth as greased satin. If you're playing at an even higher res that 1680x1050 you could invest in more RAM to 1GB of GDD5 per card, and that's still £100 short of your £500 statement. I think there's 2GB variants out there if you're able to cool them, but, you're really at the highest rung of the ladder already with that kind of setup, you're talking extra 3dmarks than actual noticeable increase in detail in the games.
The easiest way to settle the cost argument is to do a "start from scratch" scenario.
A gamer wanting to start with PC gaming. He doesn't own a PC, or monitor, speakers etc, so it's from the beginning.
A gamer wanting to start with console gaming. He doesn't own a console or a TV so it's from the beginning.
Two specifications of the essentials, what you need from either side to play the games properly. In PC terms it's a well equipped PC capable of high resolution, seamless high detail gaming and any peripherals for that. A decent mouse and usb combo, nice sized monitor etc. In console land it's a well equipped console and any neccessary peripherals (second controller and xbox live headset is must really?) as well as a TV capable of displaying the console's output in its high resolution, high detail display.
If there's anywhere more than £100 between them, it's probably safe to say one is cheaper than the other. Less than £100 and it's not enough to significantly show that cost is a real issue.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 19:22
Why would you want to play your 360 through a small monitor though, that defeats the entire 'I can sit in my lounge with my huge screen' argument before it's even begun.
I was on about buying a screen for a 'top end' PC. I never mentioned a small monitor for the Xbox360.
A console probably is cheaper overall but by the end of that life you have the same problem as your non upgraded PC, the games aren't looking as good as stuff running on the latest tech, except with the PC a bit of additional spend can bump back up close, whereas it's time for you to get a whole new system soon.
Because consoles are a finite hardware setup the games in 5 years time actually look a lot better than those at launch. Games continually look better. Just look at the PS2, it released God of War 2 and Shadow of the Colossus which blew away anything else on that system. Let us not forget that by the end of a consoles lifespan it's successor has often been out a while anyway.
I just take issue with the notion that PC gaming costs 'into the £1000s' every year. It doesn't. Spent sensibly, £600 can last you 3 years happily unless you have a massive desire to always have the latest graphics card even though it's probably entirely unnecessary. It probably is more expensive, but not nearly as much as some people tried to make out earlier. £425 on a graphics card is frivilous and never a sensible idea and trying to use things like that as an argument for why PC gaming is so expensive is silly, it's just a demonstration of (imo, stupid) personal spending habits.
No one said it costs £1000's every year.
You call it stupid, but do you know what I do? Did you think to ask why I spent so much?
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 19:26
That's weird to be honest, because I think top end graphics cards should last you a while. My flat mate has a single X800XT 512MB which he got in 2005. Yet he's had no problems with Half Life 2 and it's Episodes, and other new games. In fact he's only just starting the feel the pinch with Left4Dead, which he can't run on its fullest settings, but it still runs it beautifully with no slowdown and it looks fine, console standard at least. This is 3 years down the line, and there's still life left in it yet. I think he'll draw the line when he's forced to lower the bar to medium settings.
My £425 card was the opposition to that card, a 6800 Ultra and it also ran HL2 well, but later games it didn't.
Not quite, my Crossfire setup of two 4870s cost £350 and it's capable of killing everything I've chucked at it so far. Left4Dead is maxed out and it's smooth as greased satin. If you're playing at an even higher res that 1680x1050 you could invest in more RAM to 1GB of GDD5 per card, and that's still £100 short of your £500 statement. I think there's 2GB variants out there if you're able to cool them, but, you're really at the highest rung of the ladder already with that kind of setup, you're talking extra 3dmarks than actual noticeable increase in detail in the games.
Left 4 Dead should be smooth, it's not a stunning looking game with complex mapping, complex particle effects or an incredibly lighting system nor are the models complex, polygon riddled monsters either. If it ran poorly I'd be surprised.
Oh, and I've never been a 3D Marker.
I was on about buying a screen for a 'top end' PC. I never mentioned a small monitor for the Xbox360.
I was replying to someone else saying that you don't need a TV for a console, to just use the same monitor you would get for a PC.
Because consoles are a finite hardware setup the games in 5 years time actually look a lot better than those at launch. Games continually look better. Just look at the PS2, it released God of War 2 and Shadow of the Colossus which blew away anything else on that system. Let us not forget that by the end of a consoles lifespan it's successor has often been out a while anyway.
They might look better than other games on the same system yes but pale in comparison to stuff on newer systems, which was the point.
No one said it costs £1000's every year.
You call it stupid, but do you know what I do? Did you think to ask why I spent so much?
Actually, someone said exactly that.
I have no idea why you spent so much but if it was a reason other than so you had a personal gaming computer then it's not really relevant is it? You just presented the argument of "It's expensive, I had to spend £425 on graphics to run games", it's a bit pointless saying that if you're now going to say there was another reason why you actually had that card.
Why would you want to play your 360 through a small monitor though, that defeats the entire 'I can sit in my lounge with my huge screen' argument before it's even begun.
I absolutely dont. I'm a gamer, I enjoy gaming. When I was at home, I had a 17" monitor in the corner with a couple of stereo speakers. Now I'm lucky enough to have my own place, I have a front room with a big telly and surround sound system. I could put a PC or console on either, the circumstances dictated the kit, not the platform.
The trouble with the PC is quantifying what the gaming components comprises. Personally, my PC is foremost an image editing tool, then a work tool, then a games tool. So for me, only about £200 worth of the investment was tailored towards games, the rest I would have had anyway.
It's why I split them off. If I had a gaming PC hooked up to the TV in the lounge, I couldn't work on it, so I'd still have my workstation in the office. A PC can just be a game platform if that suits circumstance, certainly the case for me.
A console probably is cheaper overall but by the end of that life you have the same problem as your non upgraded PC, the games aren't looking as good as stuff running on the latest tech, except with the PC a bit of additional spend can bump back up close, whereas it's time for you to get a whole new system soon.
If having games looking as good as they do on latest tech is important to you, then PC is the way for sure, but the costs do go bananas. When the console reaches end of life, like anything does, I'll evaluate the situation just as I did this time, but the way things are going I expect consoles to be the better long term investment as they have been this generation.
I just take issue with the notion that PC gaming costs 'into the £1000s' every year. It doesn't. Spent sensibly, £600 can last you 3 years happily unless you have a massive desire to always have the latest graphics card even though it's probably entirely unnecessary. It probably is more expensive, but not nearly as much as some people tried to make out earlier. £425 on a graphics card is frivilous and never a sensible idea and trying to use things like that as an argument for why PC gaming is so expensive is silly, it's just a demonstration of (imo, stupid) personal spending habits.
Totally agree, I'm very careful with my money. PC gaming didnt see as sound an investment as console gaming does, which is why I'm on 360 for this generation :)
The easiest way to settle the cost argument is to do a "start from scratch" scenario.
A gamer wanting to start with PC gaming. He doesn't own a PC, or monitor, speakers etc, so it's from the beginning.
A gamer wanting to start with console gaming. He doesn't own a console or a TV so it's from the beginning.
There that console+tv/pc+monitor thing again. I really dont understand that - why, for example, if you had a perfectly good monitor in your room/office and decided to buy a console, would you need to buy a big telly, and why if I bought an uber gaming rig wouldnt I hook it to my TV? Never understood that.
It's not so much the need for it but if you're going to eliminate the TV part from it, all the arguments about playing on a nice huge TV and having the experience vs 'being hunched over a desk' all fly out the window.
I'm not trying to say a PC is categorically cheaper than a console but I think the PCs costs get exagerrated by people picking on the typical gear whore who pisses £500 up the wall on the latest extreme edition CPU, then 2 months later when a 200MHz faster one comes out, does it again. But none of that is essential for decent PC gaming and buying sensible value for money components rather than the bleeding edge overpriced ones that provide little to no extra speed after a year is actually really not a hugely expensive way to go about things.
To take my PC for example, when I bought it, I had a choice between an X800XT for like £300 or an X800XL for £175. I went with the XL. Interestingly, when I got to Uni (that's why I was buying one to start with) there was a guy with virtually the same spec PC with a slightly slower CPU (3200+ vs 3500+) but with the X800XT. Initially, his PC would be able to wind the setting up a bit more than mine but come mid way through the second year, getting newer games, my XL began to catch up as the 'scale' of performance was getting squashed and his 20FPS advantage 18 months before was now closer to 5FPS.
Hell, just be thankful we picked the 360 to compare to mostly, rather than PS Triple. Yo. Ballin. :p
It's not so much the need for it but if you're going to eliminate the TV part from it, all the arguments about playing on a nice huge TV and having the experience vs 'being hunched over a desk' all fly out the window.
Aye maybe. Perhaps its just me, I have the space now so I dont want to play in my office or work in my lounge, so I separate the two.
I'm not trying to say a PC is categorically cheaper than a console but I think the PCs costs get exagerrated by people picking on the typical gear whore who pisses £500 up the wall on the latest extreme edition CPU, then 2 months later when a 200MHz faster one comes out, does it again. But none of that is essential for decent PC gaming and buying sensible value for money components rather than the bleeding edge overpriced ones that provide little to no extra speed after a year is actually really not a hugely expensive way to go about things.
Hell, just be thankful we picked the 360 to compare to mostly, rather than PS Triple. Yo. Ballin. :p
Well, the live subs of the 360 offset the extra cost of the Playstation, but I agree, lets not go there :p
We seem to agree that console gaming is cheaper than mid-range pc gaming, and while the costs aren't staggering like when compared to high end pc fanboyism, I believe they're noticeable.
Any extra quality in the experience wouldn't make me jump back, however if the PC had a far superior game library to what it does currently, the combination would better justify the cost difference.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 20:21
I have no idea why you spent so much but if it was a reason other than so you had a personal gaming computer then it's not really relevant is it? You just presented the argument of "It's expensive, I had to spend £425 on graphics to run games", it's a bit pointless saying that if you're now going to say there was another reason why you actually had that card.
What I said was that I owned a £425 graphics card and a by product of it, which was playing games (though not the only reason) was that it didn't last as long as I would have liked.
Whether or not it was bought purely for games isn't the point, my point was that I had that graphics card and it didn't last as long as this "2-3 years" comment that I hear all the time.
I switched to consoles because the PC has a web browser and the temptation to quit out and fap was too great.
But seriously. :confused:
I used to only play PC games, upgrading a few components occasionally, then buying a whole new system every three years or so, selling the old one off as a non-gaming rig to a friend or family member who just wanted a quick, cheap PC. In 2004 I built a whole new up-to-date system with a £900 interest-free loan from work and it worked great for all the new games and made my old games look better as I no longer had to ramp the settings down. I still cringe a little when I think I spent £350 of that on an X800 (considering I paid that for my 360 on release day), but I wouldn't change those gaming hours for the same on the equivalent console at the time.
Only a year later I was finding most games still played OK - the Half-life episodes still used the same engine so played and looked great, for example - but some really didn't. FEAR was practically unplayable, and having only just paid that loan off six months prior I was in no mood for any more upgrades. In December '05 I bought a 360 and haven't touched the PC since (aside from a few brief CS sessions with BDers back in the day, and STALKER which I'd had on pre-order @ £17 for almost three years). I've probably spent less than a grand over those three years, and solely on games. Luckily I already had an HDTV simply because I needed a new TV and had no room for a big tube.
As far as I'm concerned, it felt right for me using a PC up until that switchover, and it has felt right playing consoles since. This is in terms of (variously and variably) enjoyability, economics, my social and physical situation, change in lifestyle, and convenience. I've no regrets, except maybe spending out so much on my last PC, considering it now sits under my desk gathering dust due to my Mac now being my main computer.
FPSs will always play better on a keyboard and mouse but since buying a console I've broadened the genres of games I play.
And that's my little story of why this argument is fruitless. :D
Until they release a browser for the 360, godammit.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 20:25
It's not so much the need for it but if you're going to eliminate the TV part from it, all the arguments about playing on a nice huge TV and having the experience vs 'being hunched over a desk' all fly out the window.
Not at all. Most houses in the country have a TV whether they have a games console or not. That's because TV is primarily for watching Television shows, consoles were made to connect to these. With the switchover happening and the cost of HDTV's dropping they are becoming common place. Heck, my 70+ year old grandparents have a 42" Pioneer plasma screen.
A PC monitor is purely for using a PC on and very few people would actually own one without owning a PC.
That's where that argument falls on its face.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 20:28
Until they release a browser for the 360, godammit.
Incredible oversight really considering Microsoft could easily use Internet Explorer.
Not at all. Most houses in the country have a TV whether they have a games console or not. That's because TV is primarily for watching Television shows, consoles were made to connect to these. With the switchover happening and the cost of HDTV's dropping they are becoming common place. Heck, my 70+ year old grandparents have a 42" Pioneer plasma screen.
A PC monitor is purely for using a PC on and very few people would actually own one without owning a PC.
That's where that argument falls on its face.
Similarly though, most people will have or be buying a PC anyway for going on the internet, word processing, music, photographs and a myriad of other things so moving from the realms of a standard PC to a gaming PC eliminates a huge chunk of the cost too.
You can't use the argument that everyone would already have an HDTV (and how many people really do, that dont have it for a console, seeing as virtually nothing else provides HD content bar bluray players and silly expensive sky/virgin packages) and then pretend like they wouldn't have the PC anyway.
What I said was that I owned a £425 graphics card and a by product of it, which was playing games (though not the only reason) was that it didn't last as long as I would have liked.
Whether or not it was bought purely for games isn't the point, my point was that I had that graphics card and it didn't last as long as this "2-3 years" comment that I hear all the time.
Well, I spent £175 on a slightly slower rival of the time and it did last me 3 years. If you immediately bin hardware as soon as you can't set everything to max then of course it won't last you but then we're back to needlessly spending to achieve something that isn't required, just desired. I only upgraded to my 8800 for CoD4 on my 20" widescreen, everything else i had thrown at my X800XL was fine really. It didn't need replacing in the slightest and I find it hard to believe your 6800GT needed replacing so soon, seeing as it was a faster card.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 20:49
You can't use the argument that everyone would already have an HDTV (and how many people really do, that dont have it for a console, seeing as virtually nothing else provides HD content bar bluray players and silly expensive sky/virgin packages) and then pretend like they wouldn't have the PC anyway.
What an odd comment. That's like saying "virtually nothing provides SD content bar DVD's, Terrestrial, Freeview and Sky/Virgin". You say virtually nothing provides HD content when in fact many things do, including HD downloads on PCs/consoles.
There is plenty of HD content.
I also don't really get what you're getting at with saying a monitor offsets the cost of a PC? That's not really the opposite of what I said, I just said a TV wasn't primarily for console use where as a PC monitor is solely for PC use.
Yeah but a TV is something that needs to be considered just as much of a cost to a console as the fact you would be buying a PC anyway, offsetting much of the cost.
It's not like if someone didn't spend £600 on a gaming PC, they'd then spend nothing on no PC at all, so really, a gaming PC isn't costing all of that £600, just like a console isn't really costing all of the money you spent on the TV it uses.
You can't confine the console to just it's own material costs but then not do the same with the PC. It's just with the console it's easily definable things so it's easy to do, with a PC it's more upgraded components.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 20:54
Well, I spent £175 on a slightly slower rival of the time and it did last me 3 years. If you immediately bin hardware as soon as you can't set everything to max then of course it won't last you but then we're back to needlessly spending to achieve something that isn't required, just desired. I only upgraded to my 8800 for CoD4 on my 20" widescreen, everything else i had thrown at my X800XL was fine really. It didn't need replacing in the slightest and I find it hard to believe your 6800GT needed replacing so soon, seeing as it was a faster card.
Games just didn't work at a level I would deem acceptable, Stalker and Crysis the 2 PC exclusives that I was talking about. I also use a 24" monitor so games must run at 1920x1200 and that just wasn't possible on that 6800Ultra and still isn't on this 7800GTX on newer games.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 20:58
Yeah but a TV is something that needs to be considered just as much of a cost to a console
It seems that the only reason it "needs to be considered" is so that you can try and make a point that doesn't exist, stick.
You can't confine the console to just it's own material costs but then not do the same with the PC. It's just with the console it's easily definable things so it's easy to do, with a PC it's more upgraded components.
I completely disagree. That's like saying a 79p toilet duck freshener can't be classed as cheap because you had to pay £100 for the bog in the first place.
My point is that a TV is a common place item in homes, a PC monitor simply is not. Consoles are made to use TV's and not the other way around, this is not the case with a PC and a monitor. Much how a toilet is common place in a house and so any extra's don't need the price of the toilet to be included.
Well Crysis doesn't work on anything, because it was coded by monkeys. You could spend £10k on a PC and Crysis will barely break 60fps, Stalker I don't know, i've not tried it but it's not a game that ever interested me.
Running games at 1920x1200 is a very high demand though, something consoles don't have to compete with considering they mostly render much lower and upscale. Demanding that games run at the absolute highest settings possible and then complaining that its expensive to do so is a bit besides the point.
It seems that the only reason it "needs to be considered" is so that you can try and make a point that doesn't exist, stick.
Have fun playing your 360 without a TV then :huh:
You seem to be trying to deny it to pretend that to go gaming with a console only costs you £300 once off.
I completely disagree. That's like saying a 79p toilet duck freshener can't be classed as cheap because you had to pay £100 for the bog in the first place.
My point is that a TV is a common place item in homes, a PC monitor simply is not. Consoles are made to use TV's and not the other way around, this is not the case with a PC and a monitor. Much how a toilet is common place in a house and so any extra's don't need the price of the toilet to be included.
I'd say for anyone contemplating buying a gaming PC anyway, they're likely to have a PC already and you seem to be completely ignoring the aspect of the gaming elements just being additions to the basic PC anyway.
You're hardly just going to go without a PC at all, if you don't get a gaming tailored one are you?
A TV may be commonplace, an HD one is not. Maybe amongst techheads on forums like OcUK they are, elsewhere they definitely are not. But then you're playing low res and getting inferior visuals, so that nullifies your arguments about graphics cards being defunct because they cant play stuff at 1920x1200.
What I think, and don't shoot me here, is that those pushing PC gaming are maybe mainly still in a bedroom? And if you're limited to just your bedroom, I can understand wanting to PC game. Heck, I used to.
When I became a home owner with full access to the main room, sofa, big TV, 5.1, there was a natural pull towards wanting to move my gaming there, and a sense of freedom from being able to.
If we were to argue PC vs small LCD & 360 next to said PC, I can genuinely see a good debate, if we're talking PC in the corner of the dining room vs large TV in the lounge I really can't.
:D
Basically, what i'm trying to get across is that you need to consider alternatives and how that affects the costs.
A £600 gaming PC hasn't really 'cost' £600 unless the alternative is just not having a PC at all is it? If you would already have spent £300 on a lesser specced PC for general usage, then it's really only cost £300 over the alternative hasn't it? In this case, the £300 on higher specced parts over the basic ones is the cost to game.
With a console, you either buy it or you don't. There isn't a halfway point like with a PC, you can't get an XBox 180 that doesn't play games for example. So in this case, the price of the console is the price of the ability to game.
This is why I feel it is unfair to lump the whole cost of the PC in comparison to a console, because very very very rarely is a PC ever bought solely for just playing games on and never used for anything like working, or socialising etc.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 21:17
Running games at 1920x1200 is a very high demand though, something consoles don't have to compete with considering they mostly render much lower and upscale. Demanding that games run at the absolute highest settings possible and then complaining that its expensive to do so is a bit besides the point.
I never said it had to be at it's "absolute highest". :confused: I said it didn't play them at a standard I deemed acceptable.
Have fun playing your 360 without a TV then :huh:
You seem to be trying to deny it to pretend that to go gaming with a console only costs you £300 once off.
The concept that most people ALREADY own a TV seems to continually go over your head. Everyone I've ever known in my 24 years on this earth has owned a Television. Consoles can be played on those.
Not one single person in my 24 years has already owned a monitor.
I game on my PC, although I'm not really a massive gamer anyway and thats probably why I don't bother with consoles.
The games I do play are 99% FPS, so the PC is generally the best option here and the whole PC 'thing' is a bit of a hobby as well.
My PC is an all in multimedia rig connected up to my HDTV and Hi-Fi amp and I like the fact that I can do everything with it from recording TV, web, office, to playing games without having to switch to another appliance.
Just as you feel your point about already having a TV is going over my head, I feel the same about your total ignorance to my point that the cost of a gaming PC is deferred by the fact you'd have to be spending a lot of the cost anyway to get a regular PC.
The way I see it, if you want to lump the whole cost of the PC in, you should add the TV to the console too. If you don't want to include the TV, fine, but then it's only fair to acknowledge the gaming elements of a PC don't comprise the entire cost of the PC.
I'm trying to visualise them on as level a field as possible yet it feels like you're trying to have your cake and eat it somewhat by only including the 'gaming relevant' necessities of one method but not the other.
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 21:22
That's definitely the good side of PC's (though all that you mentioned can be done on PS3), and I can understand how PC's can be a hobby, I've been there and it's great fun when you get a University loan in and you splash out. I guess now that I've finished University I can see how stupid it all was and that it really wasn't disposable after all ;D
NokkonWud
17-11-2008, 21:25
Just as you feel your point about already having a TV is going over my head, I feel the same about your total ignorance to my point that the cost of a gaming PC is deferred by the fact you'd have to be spending a lot of the cost anyway to get a regular PC.
If you want to up the power from a 'standard' PC to a gaming PC you are incurring, often, the cost of a new Motherboard (as was the case for me, going 775 from 939 and DDR to DDR2), Memory, CPU, Graphics Card, Sound Card and Power Supply. By the time you get the gamers goods you're as near as dammit buying a whole PC anyway, you're only keeping the case and drives and also, if you're happy with standard sound, that too, which is why I never felt the need to respond.
That assumes upgrading though, look at it more from the 'from scratch' view.
You can either buy a E2180 or an E8400
1GB of RAM or 4GB
£30 graphics card or £150 graphics card
etc. etc.
The costs incurred making the thing a gaming rig rather than a regular rig are minimal.
If you want to look at upgrading from an existing old set up, again, the fairer comparison would be to then compare to an old AV set up where you have a 32" SD CRT with Scart inputs etc. IMO.
In essence, I just don't think it's fair to assume that in the situation of a console someone will already have their complete HD AV set up ready to go and bang, £200 means you're away but then by the same token assume a PC owner will be incurring every single part of the PC as a gaming cost.
Streeteh
17-11-2008, 21:33
Hmmm, I couldn't care less which cost more (within reason) or which controlled better (within reason also), all i care about is the games. At present consoles have produced all of my favorite games this year, I haven't played a single game on the PC this year that has been particularly fantastic.
PC used to have the best games, at that point it was my favorite platform, now consoles do. If the roles were to reverse, my 'allegiance' would go with it.
And yes, i am taking cross platform games into consideration, my favorite games this year have been MGS4, Uncharted and little big planet. Crysis: Warhead deserves an honorable mention for being the best FPS of the year, however, it still didn't stand up as one of the best games of the year overall.
Forgive me if my posts seem somewhat disjointed too, i've been waging war on another forum about inverting Y axis and why inverting Y isn't the same as inverting X :p
Hmmm, I couldn't care less which cost more (within reason) or which controlled better (within reason also), all i care about is the games. At present consoles have produced all of my favorite games this year,
:thumbsup:
Same here :)
My £425 card was the opposition to that card, a 6800 Ultra and it also ran HL2 well, but later games it didn't.
Well I'm not sure, I remember that when Half Life 2 was released there was the infamous stutter bug, as well as a noticeable slide towards ATi hardware running it better. I could be remembering wrong though.
Left 4 Dead should be smooth, it's not a stunning looking game with complex mapping, complex particle effects or an incredibly lighting system nor are the models complex, polygon riddled monsters either. If it ran poorly I'd be surprised.
Actually, quite a few people on my friends list who have the demo struggle to play it. I think it's reasonably demanding for what it is. It's the source engine so yeah it's not 100% cutting edge, but there is a dollop of processing power behind it, the AI director apparently chugs away a fair amount of work during each game.
There that console+tv/pc+monitor thing again. I really dont understand that - why, for example, if you had a perfectly good monitor in your room/office and decided to buy a console, would you need to buy a big telly, and why if I bought an uber gaming rig wouldnt I hook it to my TV? Never understood that.
People seem to be lumping the price of a decent monitor in with a gaming PC, so it stands to reason you'd have a decent TV for your console setup.
It's just a side-by-side comparison, from scratch, which would mean lump a monitor in with the PC and lump a TV in with the console, as they're both neccessary for the machine, and if you really are looking at absolute cost comparison for gaming setups, they need to be factored in.
I want a PS3, but if I get one it won't be just the PS3 I'll be blowing money on. It'll be a decent HDTV to enjoy bluray etc, the current 19" standard LCD TV we have would be wasted on that.
NokkonWud
18-11-2008, 01:25
It ran better on ATi, my friend actually imported an X800 XT PE at the same time so that was ideal to compare. However, my nVidia card was also the best on the market on that side, so it didn't struggle like some other nVidia ones.
As for the lumping a TV and a Monitor comment, read what I have said iCraig.
Forgive me if my posts seem somewhat disjointed too, i've been waging war on another forum about inverting Y axis and why inverting Y isn't the same as inverting X :p
Eh, well they're a different axis for starters :p
NokkonWud
28-12-2008, 22:39
Even with practice on a pad the PS3 pad is crap for FPS games. If I could use my 360 pad I'd be happier. However, can you not use your mouse and keyboard on Resistance 2?
SidewinderINC
29-12-2008, 00:02
Even with practice on a pad the PS3 pad is crap for FPS games. If I could use my 360 pad I'd be happier. However, can you not use your mouse and keyboard on Resistance 2?
That's not really a fair statement.
I find the PS3 controller much easier to use than the Xbox controller, it's all about what you're used to.
use your mouse and keyboard
:D
everybody loves misquotes \o/
NokkonWud
29-12-2008, 03:59
That's not really a fair statement.
I find the PS3 controller much easier to use than the Xbox controller, it's all about what you're used to.
Playstation 2 always struggled with FPS games whilst Xbox never did, same can and is said about Xbox360. The closeness of the 2 joysticks, the left stick being too low, the pad being too small and the triggers being abysmal all count against the PS3 controller.
Playstation 2 always struggled with FPS games whilst Xbox never did, same can and is said about Xbox360. The closeness of the 2 joysticks, the left stick being too low, the pad being too small and the triggers being abysmal all count against the PS3 controller.
FPS control methods is not an argument we want to start again :p
NokkonWud
29-12-2008, 14:11
It's not the method that's the problem :p.
An argument between the 360 pad and the PS3 about which is better for FPS is like arguing whether a bottle of shampoo or a tube of a pringles is better for playing football with ;)
An argument between the 360 pad and the PS3 about which is better for FPS is like arguing whether a bottle of shampoo or a tube of a pringles is better for playing football with ;)
But what if the Shampoo was Sour Cream and Chive. Never mind :p
Davey_Pitch
29-12-2008, 14:51
An argument between the 360 pad and the PS3 about which is better for FPS is like arguing whether a bottle of shampoo or a tube of a pringles is better for playing football with ;)
You do realise it's annoying when you try to turn every little discussion into a "PC is better" debate don't you? ;)
Almost as annoying as the utter lack of ability of anyone on here to take a bloody light hearted joke for what it is.
Davey_Pitch
29-12-2008, 15:10
Almost as annoying as the utter lack of ability of anyone on here to take a bloody light hearted joke for what it is.
I hope you're directing that comment at yourself, as the wink in my post indicated I was joking.
NokkonWud
29-12-2008, 16:21
An argument between the 360 pad and the PS3 about which is better for FPS is like arguing whether a bottle of shampoo or a tube of a pringles is better for playing football with ;)
A tube of Pringles is better for playing football with
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9QUl-UoJwGI
An argument between the 360 pad and the PS3 about which is better for FPS is like arguing whether a bottle of shampoo or a tube of a pringles is better for playing football with ;)
Keyboard & Mouse isn't 'better', it's just 'easier'...
A Place of Light
31-12-2008, 16:56
Keyboard & Mouse isn't 'better', it's just 'easier'...
I'm not so sure as AFAIK the console versions of FPS games have the code optimised for pad control as it's simply impossible to be as precise with a pad as you are with a mouse.
That's basic ergomomics, having every muscle in your hand/wrist controlling movement up against one finger doing the same job.
One day this argument will die, one hopeful day :(
A Place of Light
31-12-2008, 19:19
One day this argument will die, one hopeful day :(
I really don't see it as an argument as the playing field isn't level.
The console versions of games are adapted to suit the limitations of the gamepad. If the port between the two platforms were identical then this would be easily demonstrated, but it's not.
If you could be as precise with one finger as you could with your entire wrist and hand then you'd see joypads on endoscopes/cranes etc etc.
It's much the same reasoning behind the existance of auxhilliary console controllers for games like flight sims/driving games ie you have a far greater degree of precision and accuracy in your entire hand or foot than you have in one single finger.
I can see why some may see it as a console versus PC argument, but it's a simple matter of ergonomics to me and an easy way to show this is by plugging in a pc gamepad and trying to draw something in MSPaint. Repeat the exercise using a mouse and see which result both looked better and took less time. The mouse will win every time.
NokkonWud
31-12-2008, 19:31
Yes, the mouse is very good for a very limited number of things. Great for FPS games for example, and RTS games. Rubbish for everything else where as the joypad may not be as accurate as the mouse in those games, it's a much better peripheral consistently over all game types.
A Place of Light
31-12-2008, 19:36
Yes, the mouse is very good for a very limited number of things. Great for FPS games for example, and RTS games. Rubbish for everything else where as the joypad may not be as accurate as the mouse in those games, it's a much better peripheral consistently over all game types.
Where I think it goes wrong for the Mouse/keyboard combo is when more controls are required than basic operations. The gamepad puts all the possible controls to hand, so to speak, whereas the PC gamer needs keyboard overlays etc.
I wouldn't necesarily say that I'd agree with your description as being limited to a small number of tasks though.
NokkonWud
31-12-2008, 20:23
Outside of RTS or FPS, or something like Football Manager I can't think of anywhere it shines over, or equal to a joypad.
Mouse & Keyboard is useless for racing games, platform games, flight games and is no better than a joypad for stuff like RPG's. Your proper PC gamer needs a joypad, mouse, keyboard and joystick to play a large range of games where as a joypad will do a solid job on them all, which is all I said.
Though I do openly admit that a joypad was made for gaming and mouse and keyboard has been adapted to games over time.
A Place of Light
31-12-2008, 20:54
Your proper PC gamer needs a joypad, mouse, keyboard and joystick to play a large range of games where as a joypad will do a solid job on them all, which is all I said.
I'd tend to disagree there. If you play something like UT on a PC, then try to use a gamepad you will be crucified as the code relating to aiming has been made more demanding because the makers know the user has the increased precision of a keyboard and mouse. To then use a gamepad would be incredibly difficult as it's a simple matter of dexterity listed in my previous posts. The console version of the same game has different control software to enable a gamepad to be used with any degree of success.
One day this argument will die, one hopeful day :(
That was in reference to it cropping up in other threads and derailing them badly. Now it's contained in this thread, I can safely ignore the never ending debate :D
NokkonWud
31-12-2008, 21:47
I'd tend to disagree there. If you play something like UT on a PC, then try to use a gamepad you will be crucified as the code relating to aiming has been made more demanding because the makers know the user has the increased precision of a keyboard and mouse. To then use a gamepad would be incredibly difficult as it's a simple matter of dexterity listed in my previous posts. The console version of the same game has different control software to enable a gamepad to be used with any degree of success.
You have misunderstood what I said.
Psymonkee
31-12-2008, 22:32
Equally Keyboard + Mouse worked wonderfully well in Prince of Persia for me :)
Much prefer GTA with keyboard and mouse too....
Different controllers for different games IMO. Wipeout is easily best on a PS pad. FPS is better, faster, more accurate on a PC keyboard and mouse. I don't see any argument over this TBH.
NokkonWud
01-01-2009, 13:57
Faster and more accurate definitely. So it's 'superior' in that aspect, I wouldn't say better though as over the last couple of years I'd say I prefer to play games with a pad.
However no one can argue that a M&K isn't faster and more accurate.
A Place of Light
01-01-2009, 14:06
You have misunderstood what I said.
well, you said that a proper PC gamer needs both a joypad and keyboard+mouse, and that the gamepad will do a solid job on all games.
Where I disagreed was when you try to play certain PC games on a PC using a gamepad, where the gamepad certainly will not do a solid job at all.
Try it for yourself.
Play something like Unreal Tournament on your PC and play using a gamepad.
You will be crucified by players who are less able than you but are using the keyboard/mouse control system. Ergo, using the gamepad has put you at a disadvantage. This doesn't mean that playing the same game on a console using a gamepad will give the same results however, as the coding pertaining to "aiming" on console FPS is written to be a little more forgiving than that of a PC version due to the lack of absolute precision of the gamepad that we're all in agreement about.
You're spot on about things like driving games though, as the gamepad "involves" you so much more than a keyboard/mouse ever can.
As Phykell pointed out, the type of game tends to dictate which is the better type of control system to use.
well, you said that a proper PC gamer needs both a joypad and keyboard+mouse, and that the gamepad will do a solid job on all games.
Where I disagreed was when you try to play certain PC games on a PC using a gamepad, where the gamepad certainly will not do a solid job at all.
Try it for yourself.
Play something like Unreal Tournament on your PC and play using a gamepad.
You will be crucified by players who are less able than you but are using the keyboard/mouse control system. Ergo, using the gamepad has put you at a disadvantage. This doesn't mean that playing the same game on a console using a gamepad will give the same results however, as the coding pertaining to "aiming" on console FPS is written to be a little more forgiving than that of a PC version due to the lack of absolute precision of the gamepad that we're all in agreement about.
You're spot on about things like driving games though, as the gamepad "involves" you so much more than a keyboard/mouse ever can.
As Phykell pointed out, the type of game tends to dictate which is the better type of control system to use.
Just because something is 'easier' doesn't make it better per se.
I could devise an eye tracking system that would crucify a keyboard/mouse user but it wouldn't make it more enjoyable or 'better'. It would be 'better' re. easier to be more accurate but it wouldn't be 'better' re. an enjoyable user experience.
As long as the playing field is level, which it is on a console, I've found playing fps with a controller to be as much, if not more, of a fulfilling experience as I used to with mouse/keyboard.
A Place of Light
01-01-2009, 14:29
Just because something is 'easier' doesn't make it better per se.
No, you're absolutely right. Sometimes the opposite is true, in that something more difficult feels more rewarding. But that's not what we're talking about here.
The FACT of the matter, is that you have far more dexterity, muscle control and thereore, precision, with your entire hand than you have with one finger. I can't see anyone disagreeing with that one. This means that the same level of precision the "mouse" gamer has simply isn't acheiveable by the gamepad gamer. It's nothing about easier/harder at this point, it's a fundemental shortcoming of the pad itself. To compensate, the software on console versions of FPS games "helps" the player with his/her aim.
Justsomebloke
01-01-2009, 15:56
As a nub to the HD scene I have to say that adding a 40 inch HD to my 360 set up has put it into a class of its own. It's one thing chatting 360 & another chatting 360 + large HD. I am a bit embarrassed to write that I haven't switched my Quad core Crossfire system on since getting my forty.
Once my head & body has got used to this working malarkey I'll use it for my BF2 fix but apart from that 360 + Large HD + Leather easy chair reclined slightly with feet on matching poofay Wins Every single time ;D
NokkonWud
01-01-2009, 20:01
well, you said that a proper PC gamer needs both a joypad and keyboard+mouse, and that the gamepad will do a solid job on all games.
Where I disagreed was when you try to play certain PC games on a PC using a gamepad, where the gamepad certainly will not do a solid job at all.
What I said was that there are a lot of games unplayable with *just* mouse and keyboard and to play some you need a joypad too (beat-em ups, platformers, racing games) where as a joypad can play all games to a really good standard bar perhaps RTS (though Civilization Revolution plays outstandingly well).
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.