I've just installed Devil May Cry 4...

[loki]

Originally Posted by Davey_Pitch

Ease of use for one. I don't have to worry about making sure my hardware is up to spec, or my drivers up to date. I don't need to worry about whether I need to tweak settings to get a game to run at a certain res. I just pop the game in, sit on my comfy couch, and enjoy HD gaming on my 42" TV.

Again not entirely true. Whilst the cost of consoles (Xbox360) has come down considerably you still need an investment of at least £300.00 for a half decent size LCD to go with it. The cost of entry for PC gaming is also at an all time low. Contrary to popular misinformation, you don't actually need to upgrade every single time nor do you need to upgrade every single component to enjoy a high quality gaming experience. My wifes uncle has been playing COD 4 quite merrily on his AthlonXP 3700 with an 9800GT. Graphic wise it will stand upto the visuals of the X360. It's only the very high(over) speced games such as Crysis that claim to need some uber system to play it on and even then thats more for the fan boys.

As I said previously, i'm not overly fussed as I should have all 3 platforms by next week. It's all about the personal experience that makes it fun. Is XBL & PSN Good - Damn straight it is. Is the PC as bad as it's made out to be, Absolutley not.

[dirtydog]

Also PC games are generally a fair bit cheaper than console games. £18-£25 for the new releases versus what, £35-£40 for console games.

[Davey_Pitch]

Originally Posted by dirtydog

I think PC gamers care about framerate, and prefer games to run well above 30fps. Although you don't care about framerate, I'm betting you would enjoy playing some of your 30fps games at 60fps. You would see and feel the difference and you'd like it IMO.

But yeah let's not turn this into another dreaded 30fps debate

Oh, I'm not saying there's not a difference, but we've both seen that a lot of people don't place a lot of importance on it. For me, it's always been about the gameplay. I'd rather have a 30FPS game that played beautifully than a 60FPS that is rather average. If they can manage both, great, but if not then no big deal for me.

Originally Posted by loki

Again not entirely true. Whilst the cost of consoles (Xbox360) has come down considerably you still need an investment of at least £300.00 for a half decent size LCD to go with it.

That's true, but I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people already have a decent LCD now, considering how cheap they are. Saying that though, I used to play the 360 on a 21" standard TV, and while there is a noticeable difference in graphical quality, it doesn't affect the quality of the gameplay at all. I guess the same could be said though for playing PC games at low-medium settings.

Is XBL & PSN Good - Damn straight it is. Is the PC as bad as it's made out to be, Absolutley not.

I don't think anyone is saying the PC is bad (I'm certainly not anyway), I just think more and more people are shifting to consoles now as gaming platform of choice.

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Also PC games are generally a fair bit cheaper than console games. £18-£25 for the new releases versus what, £35-£40 for console games.

That's true, but thanks to supermarkets many new games are being released at £30 on consoles, which is much better. There's also a booming 2nd hand market for those happy to wait a couple of weeks, games become so much cheaper. I do concede that PC games are cheaper though.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by dirtydog

Yeah I remember the loading times on my Commodore 64 as well. I forget how spoiled we are these days with games loading off fast hard drives in seconds!

I remember my neighbour had a Spectrum and she would start loading a game, play for an hour, then come back to a loaded game and more often than not think 'meh' and not play it. These days 10 seconds irks the hell out of me.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by dirtydog

As well as better controls.

That would be a first for a GTA game on PC!

[dirtydog]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

That would be a first for a GTA game on PC!

debatable! GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas are all vastly better on the PC in my not so humble opinion!

[Haly]

C64 loading times were absolutely ridiculous
Can't believe I could put up with it patiently at the age of 6, yet get annoyed by a few seconds in a 360 game now. I swear my patience is going in reverse the older I get

[dirtydog]

Not only do games load in a flash nowadays compared to then, the quality of games in terms of gameplay, graphics and sound is orders of magnitude better than we would have dreamed possible in those days. It is easy to forget that when we, and I am no different, complain about relatively insignificant issues in today's games!

[divine]

Originally Posted by loki

It's only the very high(over) speced games such as Crysis that claim to need some uber system to play it on and even then thats more for the fan boys.

I remember saying very very shortly after its release on OcUK that Crysis was a poorly optimised engine and I got absolutely shot down in flames by pretty much every single poster there bar maybe dirtydog I think it was.

Look back now and what do you see? Most of the forum slagging Crysis for having an appalling engine

Like I was saying in another thread, i'm not really convinced PC gaming is especially more expensive than console gaming because, yes whilst a good gaming PC is £500-£600 now, you'd be spending £400 on a normal PC anyway, so arguably the 'gaming' additions to the spec are only costing you £200. Much the same as arguing a TV is a cost of console, most people will have one anyway, so it isn't strictly fair to lump it in with the cost of the console.

[loki]

Originally Posted by divine

I remember saying very very shortly after its release on OcUK that Crysis was a poorly optimised engine and I got absolutely shot down in flames by pretty much every single poster there bar maybe dirtydog I think it was.

Look back now and what do you see? Most of the forum slagging Crysis for having an appalling engine

Like I was saying in another thread, i'm not really convinced PC gaming is especially more expensive than console gaming because, yes whilst a good gaming PC is £500-£600 now, you'd be spending £400 on a normal PC anyway, so arguably the 'gaming' additions to the spec are only costing you £200. Much the same as arguing a TV is a cost of console, most people will have one anyway, so it isn't strictly fair to lump it in with the cost of the console.

Very true.

I think the thing that annoys cross platoform gamers is when you are told PC gaming is more expensive. In reallity the cost is probably very simillar. If you were entirely new to gaming and had £600.00 to burn you could either get a console and TV or a PC and Monitor. The entry costs are simmilar. What distorts it is when your traditional console gamer says you need £x ammount of money to run a game when in reality it's only a few of the latest games that might need a bump on the RAM side or a slightly faster CPU.

Horses for courses and I will be plugging in my new X360 tonight to see how it stacks up agains the PS3.

Better get your practice in Nokkon at FIFA '09 as i'm coming after ya