PC vs 360

BassPunk · 17 Sep 2006 at 17:39

Pc for certain games + 360 for others

both are great in different ways

PC may be faster but the 360 has taken a lot of the titles I would be playing on the PC so I play both

cokecan · 17 Sep 2006 at 17:47

Buzza said:
I must say though, Online gaming is vastly superior on PC. It has Dedicated servers, higher numbers of players and you can also jump straight into a game with no waiting around.

waiting around? you dont wait around on the 360 either. just the small waiting times while it connects to the game just like you would a pc?? if anythin its the other way round, ive spent a good 15 mins before tryin to find a game thats got a lot of people in on BF2 that wasnt full or CS etc. cant say ive had to do this on the 360 on the few games ive played online (admitidly not that many, but still)

also thought there were the same number of players on both platforms?? i havnt seen any pc games support more than 64 players at a time?? and im pretty sure 360 supports this too (depending on what game, that goes for both as not ever pc game supports 64 players either)

Darkwave · 17 Sep 2006 at 17:49

cokecan72 said:
i havnt seen any pc games support more than 64 players at a time??

What about MMOs?

cokecan · 17 Sep 2006 at 17:50

lol true, but theres an mmo on the 360. from what i hear its crappy but still, its there!

Final8y · 17 Sep 2006 at 19:08

cokecan72 said:
i havnt seen any pc games support more than 64 players at a time?? and im pretty sure 360 supports this too (depending on what game, that goes for both as not ever pc game supports 64 players either)

That point is in-valid ,its not a point worth making cos you have not ever seen a 360 game have 64 players.

cokecan · 17 Sep 2006 at 19:17

didnt know there were no 360 games that supported 64 players??? thought bf2 or even perfect dark might have?? lol ah well, nevermind me then

Psypher5 · 17 Sep 2006 at 19:25

Joint ops does 150man maps

cokecan · 17 Sep 2006 at 19:32

lol well and truely owned on my false point there

but anyway onto my previous point. i see no reason why anyone should limit them selves to just the PC, there are plenty of games suited to the 360 more as has allready been said. have the best of both worlds and be happy

....then get a wii and be even happier

Darkwave · 17 Sep 2006 at 19:39

The PC suits my personal gaming needs and more 150%, the only reason I even bother with consoles is in case friends are round or whatever. I currently have an Xbox (original) for that, but I will be selling it and buying a Wii I imagine.

Really though, it won't be touched unless there's friends over. My Xbox gathers plenty of dust.

Buzza · 17 Sep 2006 at 20:06

cokecan72 said:
waiting around? you dont wait around on the 360 either. just the small waiting times while it connects to the game just like you would a pc?? if anythin its the other way round, ive spent a good 15 mins before tryin to find a game thats got a lot of people in on BF2 that wasnt full or CS etc. cant say ive had to do this on the 360 on the few games ive played online (admitidly not that many, but still)

also thought there were the same number of players on both platforms?? i havnt seen any pc games support more than 64 players at a time?? and im pretty sure 360 supports this too (depending on what game, that goes for both as not ever pc game supports 64 players either)

In most 360 games, the game searches for players then creates a new server and starts the game, this can often take a fair while.

Also, 360 games tend to have no more than 12-16 players(from what ive seen) and can be laggy when near full(from my experiences anyway). On PC games there are usually around 32-64 players running on dedicated servers and then you have MMO's. You can also connect and drop into games straight away, even after the game is started(unlike 360).

There are a lot of servers for PC games. When i play DOD, CS, BF2 etc etc, there tends to be a lot of them in a huge list and plenty with space on to join.

Darkwave · 17 Sep 2006 at 20:09

Someone mentioned Perfect Dark on the X360; I played that in a four-player at a mate's house on Tuesday night, and is it me or does that game run like a three-legged dog? :confused:

DaveyD · 17 Sep 2006 at 20:27

Ulfhedjinn said:
Someone mentioned Perfect Dark on the X360; I played that in a four-player at a mate's house on Tuesday night, and is it me or does that game run like a three-legged dog?

Yup, ran like crap, but I thought it was a rubbish game to begin with anyway, and I guess it's more optimised for playing online vs. more people.

Vicar · 17 Sep 2006 at 20:54

Be interesting though when the PS3 eventually makes it's way to the scene as many game's will be coded for it first and the rest later, aint saying that PC will be inferior, but.... it will be interesting.

Darkwave · 17 Sep 2006 at 22:59

DaveyD said:
Yup, ran like crap, but I thought it was a rubbish game to begin with anyway, and I guess it's more optimised for playing online vs. more people.

At first I thought it was the motion blur effects but that was just making the low framerate look even worse. Honestly, I was having no fun playing against my mates on that game.

We put Burnout on after that though, fantastic game and it didn't run like carp. :cool:

I'm not sure if it makes a difference but we were running the games on my mate's HDTV (1080i?), maybe Perfect Dark is just really badly optimised or something for higher resolution playing (especially in four-way splitscreen.)

cheets64 · 17 Sep 2006 at 23:58

PDZ is a poor game graphics wise, PGR 3 is awesome to look at.

easyrider said:
My PC is faster than any console.

And it always will be.

Nuff said.

and how much did your PC cost, compared to £200 setup straight out of a box.

Also TDU 60,000 servers.

Darkwave · 18 Sep 2006 at 00:08

cheets64 said:
and how much did your PC cost, compared to £200 setup straight out of a box.

I am sure I could make a PC that plays current gen games in 640x480 too with £200.

times_champion · 18 Sep 2006 at 00:25

Ulfhedjinn said:
I am sure I could make a PC that plays current gen games in 640x480 too with £200.

Maybe, but to be fair a 360 would play those same games in a much higher red, and also still be playing contempory games in 4 years time, wheras the £200 PC would be worthless for games! In terms of price (thinking purely for games) the 360 is the easy winner.

Warbie · 18 Sep 2006 at 01:58

The problem with pc gaming is that sod all decent games are coming out (imo of course). Things have been getting a little stale of late and my £1000+ rig barely gets any use.

Consoles have a cracking selection of varied and original games and pump out decent title after decent title. Since the DS and 360 came out the pc hasn't had a look in, even the old GC and PS2 get more play time these days.

bledd · 18 Sep 2006 at 03:12

the only games that make consoles worth getting are multiplayer games, and tekken

FPS on a pad is just retarded, halo owners on xbox will swear blindly that its the best fps ever, i know otherwise

Buzza · 18 Sep 2006 at 08:53

Vicar said:
Be interesting though when the PS3 eventually makes it's way to the scene as many game's will be coded for it first and the rest later, aint saying that PC will be inferior, but.... it will be interesting.

That was true of the PS2, but the 360 is looking to be the lead console at least for the time being, as it will have a bigger user base(it will have been out a year by the time the PS3 comes) and its also easier to work on.