Why are there more console posts?

[4T5]

^^ Fair point.
I didn't look at the member names of those that post here & do agree that the console members here i can think of are Very Internet savvy. It was more of an overall irl feeling. A lot of the kids i know with consoles only use there connection for gaming & don't browse/forum at all.


Edit.
I think i am going round in circles here & making no sense,
Sorry it is obviously to early for me

 

[GazD]

LOL another thread that has turned into PC v Console argument. Well here are my thoughts.

I bought a 360 sometime around April. Played it got a few games for it, loved it for 3 months then got bored and sold it. There was something about my PC that kept me coming back, I would put a game in my 360 play it for 30 mins then go rip it up on my PC on BF2 or CS:S. I think it was the extensive multiplayer aspect of my PC that kept me coming back, XBL was great dont get me wrong, but taking ages to get into a game on R6:V then the host abandoning and the fact that the max players was 16 just didnt cut it for me.

Yea the cost of PC's are dearer than 360, but for me upgrading my PC is all part of it, and my PC didnt go bang, or if it did I could at least fix it myself.

 

[eekfek]

its probably true that the console world is a money milking pit, they sell more new games per month(regardless of quality and lifespan) than the PC market, as with any business it would therefore make more sense to release games on the platform that will bring in the quickest and biggest return ..

Pc Gamers are more prudent in the software they buy, for instance Css/Battlefield players can play the same game for many many hours every night for years on end, making the initial investment of ,on avg, £20 seem insignificant to the return in terms of value/monies worth

The initial outlay for a good PC rig might be twice that of the current console , a PC is for more than just gaming its designed to function in more ways, even the most ardent player will watch films , chat to friends, use the net or do work on it .. it offers better value in the long term than the churn we see weekly on consoles, look at how superior GOW is on the PC than the 360; an avg shooter thats had tons more content added with the gfx improved and will sell for half the consoles price ..

 

[C64]

pc will always be better and here's why
free games/software
customizable games such as pes6 miles better on pc
when you add the sounds graphics stadiums etc
and overall just better games just look at counterstrike
it's a billion miles better than anything on the 360
and the best games on consoles at the moment seem to be
forza and motostorm well live for speed gtr2 on pc completely trash those
only thing that consoles are good for is 3d beat em ups
which are not online over here yet but even tekken 5 and Vf5
will be laggy online until i can play games like that with little lag online
sticking with a pc.

 

[KNiVES]

It's simply because console gaming has a larger audience. It's more accessible.

 

[Chronictank]

I am on the fence, i have both a powerful (ish) pc, and consoles i really dont understand the hostility towards consoles by some of you, there really is no justification for it other than fanboism, back in the day of N64's, Playstations and such your argument may well hold true but today its a crock of sh**

Principle arguments in this thread:
-There are more good pc games
Not really, it is pretty much 50/50 to be frank. Consoles have just as many quality titles (more so of late) as pc titles, and consoles have the added advantage that the game will work as the developer intended not at the level your pc can handle.
-PC's are cheaper
Depends what you use them for, you need 4 pc's to have a quick game with friends you need
4 descent pc's and assorted bits
4 copies of the game
networking gear
-FPS's are better on a pc
You can now use kb&m on a console, UT3 is rumoured to allow kb and mouse on the ps3
-PC games are more customizable
So can a console, there are SDK's available for console games and most modern consoles have HDD's to save content


Now a pc you get better gfx, you can do more at the same time (e.g. stick on winamp and have a download going in the background while you play), games are cheaper (unless you want to play a quick game with friends), the content is more customizable in most cases (e.g. you can completely overhaul a game a la project reality), you can hack out games to your own preferences (ableit illegaly in some cases ), pc's are more flexible (pc not fast enough? add a new gfx card/cpu for example)
BUT:
-Consoles are quicker to get playing, PC games require installing, this may not be a issue to most (as it isnt to me anyway ) and even then if you want a quick game you have to wait for windows to load up then wait for your various software apps to load, then wait for the game to load, then wait for the level to load. but a console is quicker for a quick game as you simply turn it on, the game loads in seconds, the console loads the level and away you go
- PC hardware is a lot more expensive, but games are cheaper so it evens out. Lets be honest if you wanted to play games at the quality the developer wanted you to, you would be upgrading a lot more often than you do in reality
-PC games require tweaking, you need to change settings to balance quality/performance, whereas on a console games are pre-setup for your hardware

Thats all off the top of my head, but nontheless there is no clear winner as they both have pros/cons altho the gap is closing between consoles and pc's, Halo 2 showed off the streaming install which i hope they bring to all pc games personally.
Consoles now have online content, you have net access, you can plug in a mouse and keyboard, movies, music etc etc..

 

[Margaret]

You can now use kb&m on a console, UT3 is rumoured to allow kb and mouse on the ps3

Great, so that's 1 game with proper keyboard and mouse support.

I think the main thing is people forget that a console is a console, a PC is a whole different thing, it does far, far more than just play the odd movie and game.

Sure, if I spent like 1000 quid JUST to play games I'd be thinking where'd my money go? But I use it all the time for other stuff so really the cost is more than justified.

 

[Chronictank]

Great, so that's 1 game with proper keyboard and mouse support.

Most games dont need it,
Personally i think gow is perfect on a console, same with rainbow six vegas and halo to name 3
Most football games imo are better on a console

Resident evil 4 is BETTER on the wii, as is zelda

Edit: such sneaky editing

Sure, if I spent like 1000 quid JUST to play games I'd be thinking where'd my money go? But I use it all the time for other stuff so really the cost is more than justified.

True but thats not the discussion, we are discussing games and games only and what is "better".
I am viewing this as if you had the choice to buy a pc for games or a console what would you buy, as "other stuff" can be done on a £200 (if not less) pc too

 

[Margaret]

Most games dont need it

UT3 is no different they could easily work it out to be done on a controller, if Quake 3 Arena can be done on a Dreamcast UT3 can be done on a 360/PS3.

Or maybe Epic realized how bad the PS3 controller is for FPS games.

I am viewing this as if you had the choice to buy a pc for games or a console what would you buy, as "other stuff" can be done on a £200 (if not less) pc too

Well that's not really a fair argument then, even if someone says they are just getting a PC to play games they won't really just use it for that, and my "other stuff" can't really be done on a £200 PC, the encoding and what not would take ages.

 

[Chronictank]

UT3 is no different they could easily work it out to be done on a controller, if Quake 3 Arena can be done on a Dreamcast UT3 can be done on a 360/PS3.

Or maybe Epic realized how bad the PS3 controller is for FPS games.

Different type of fps, different set of controllers
Both gears or war and R6 vegas are "duck and cover" types of games as i like to call them, which imo are better suited to a gamepad.
I have played r6 vegas on both pc and console (ableit a poor port we are just discussing the controls so its of little consequence), i prefered the console
Same with chronicals of riddick, i have it both for the xbox and the pc (you got extra content for the pc), and prefered the xbox version.
Splinter Cell, another game i prefered on a console rather than a pc.


UT is more of a open aim and shoot game, hence better suited to a keyboard and mouse (shouldn't have really said halo as it is a hybrid), i personally though Quake 3 on the dreamcast was crappy, the controls were too slow and clumsy for my liking but then i am a pc gamer really

 

[Margaret]

Different type of fps, different set of controllers
Both gears or war and R6 vegas are "duck and cover" types of games as i like to call them, which imo are better suited to a gamepad.
I have played r6 vegas on both pc and console (ableit a poor port we are just discussing the controls so its of little consequence), i prefered the console
Same with chronicals of riddick, i have it both for the xbox and the pc (you got extra content for the pc), and prefered the xbox version.
Splinter Cell, another game i prefered on a console rather than a pc.

Well pretty much every FPS on the 360 has controlled really well, bar The Darkness, the aiming on that was horrific.

I preferred Vegas on PC because it isn't frantic movement like Gears is, though looking forward to playing Gears on the PC as sniping was annoying with the 360 pad on that game.

Dreamcast Quake 3 was alright, not bad considering it only had the single analog stick.

 

[Chronictank]

Well that's not really a fair argument then, even if someone says they are just getting a PC to play games they won't really just use it for that, and my "other stuff" can't really be done on a £200 PC, the encoding and what not would take ages.

The average punter wont be doing encoding, but for sake of argument that just requires a beefy processor, a c2d will do like in most pc's you find in an office.
You dont need a £200 gfx card aside from video editing which, lets be honest, is a specialised userbase.
vista recommended requirement:

# Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

* WDDM Driver
* 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
* Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
* 32 bits per pixel

Which will definitely not run the latest dx10 games at their recommended level

Well pretty much every FPS on the 360 has controlled really well, bar The Darkness, the aiming on that was horrific.

I preferred Vegas on PC because it isn't frantic movement like Gears is, though looking forward to playing Gears on the PC as sniping was annoying with the 360 pad on that game.

Personal preference i guess as i didnt have any difficulty with it, but i hope you got my point

 

[Margaret]

The average punter wont be doing encoding, but for sake of argument that just requires a beefy processor, a c2d will do like in most pc's you find in an office.
You dont need a £200 gfx card aside from video editing which, lets be honest, is a specialised userbase.

Average or not though it all comes into the cost.

It's like if you buy a high spec PC, you're set to do anything, the possibilities are huge where as with the consoles you're locked in, to a degree at least.

That's why I think the cost is fair enough, you get far more for your money then the lower costs of games helps even more.

 

[Chronictank]

Average or not though it all comes into the cost.

It's like if you buy a high spec PC, you're set to do anything, the possibilities are huge where as with the consoles you're locked in, to a degree at least.

That's why I think the cost is fair enough, you get far more for your money then the lower costs of games helps even more.

Yes but what exactly is the average user going to use a £200 gfx card for? realisticly other than games

I have yet to meet someone who isnt a gamer/work in the media who has use for a powerful gfx card

As for a console being locked it, why does it matter? by the time its dated the new gen is out anyway at the cost of a gfx card

 

[Margaret]

Yes but what exactly is the average user going to use a £200 gfx card for? realisticly other than games

Well you wouldn't buy the graphics card if you have little intention to use it, I imagine you wouldn't buy a console either if you have little intention on gaming.

 

[Chronictank]

Well you wouldn't buy the graphics card if you have little intention to use it, I imagine you wouldn't buy a console either if you have little intention on gaming.

your argument is that it can be used for other things,
but if you are not going to, then surely the point is mute?