The Great BD PC vs Console Debate

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by divine

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.

[divine]

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.

[luke]

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

[iCraig]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

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.

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

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.

[iCraig]

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]

Originally Posted by divine

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.

Originally Posted by divine

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.

Originally Posted by divine

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]

Originally Posted by iCraig

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.

Originally Posted by iCraig

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.

[divine]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

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.

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

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.

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

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.

[Daz]

Originally Posted by divine

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.

Originally Posted by divine

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.

Originally Posted by divine

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.

Originally Posted by divine

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

Originally Posted by iCraig

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.

[divine]

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.