X360 vs PC Game Versions: Big Differences

FlukeRogi said:
I own consoles based on software releases for those systems - it's as simple as that. It gives me the widest possible range of choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a fair argument. I'm just too stingy to plump for more than one gaming system and no longer get as excited as I once did about particular game releases (I'm not talking about age here, just interest in gaming).
 
I don't think I have EVER seen a game on PC that looks worse than the console version.

The PC versions run at higher resolutions, loads faster have better FPS/more stable FPS and nearly always have better graphics.
 
AWPC said:
TR Underworld: More shader FX, environmental mapping on Lara, less buggy controls & collision detection. More skybox details & better HDR.
Click to expand...

Didnt seem to look any better when I tried the 360 demo. In fact the framerate seemed to struggle - just like Legend did on 360, it suffered the same dodgy camera and collision detection as on PC, and looked decidedly jaggy (the 360 version apparently runs at some obscure res). Overall I would say Underworld on PC is the best looking out of all the versions. Same with Dead Space.
 
AWPC said:
No PC games I wanted to get so recently bought the following 4 games cheaply for the X360 to get the achievements on.
Click to expand...

You buy games based on if you can get achievements on? each to their own i guess, but i put gameplay at the top of my list :)
 
Have been PC gaming for years, before that it was the Atari ST, Speccy etc. However, the 360 is a lot less hassle. I have better things to do than keeping up with driver installs, looking for patches and then sitting in the computer room playing games. Sure, you can move it into the living room but that means surfing the net on a 32" telly, which I don't want to do.

I have not played a game on my PC for a couple of months now.

Sure, if something decent comes out then I may have another go :)
 
I think you'll find that there are patches available for games on the 360 and PS3. The great thing about the previous computers you mentioned (C64 / Amiga / ST / Speccy - of which I still own) was that you could mess with them you could program on them, yes loading times sucked somewhat but in them days it added to the experience (i.e. Oceans loading music, mini games, etc.)

Simply from a gaming point of view the PC is vastly superior. The flexibility and upgradability of it simply means that the games keeps pushing the hardware.


M.
 
m4cc45 said:
I think you'll find that there are patches available for games on the 360 and PS3. The great thing about the previous computers you mentioned (C64 / Amiga / ST / Speccy - of which I still own) was that you could mess with them you could program on them, yes loading times sucked somewhat but in them days it added to the experience (i.e. Oceans loading music, mini games, etc.)

Simply from a gaming point of view the PC is vastly superior. The flexibility and upgradability of it simply means that the games keeps pushing the hardware.


M.
Click to expand...

Patches are pretty much automatic on the 360. I remember OFP gold edition on the PC and it was a pain trying to find the right patch for the version you were running.

PC gaming eats into time and requires a fair amount of dedication. For example, upgrading components requires money, the installation and hoping there is not a clash with previous drivers or whatever. Software designers, while pushing the boundaries in the visuals stakes, have grown somewhat lazy. Consoles allow designers to work to a specification, which makes optimising a little easier.

I did enjoy modding OFP and AA, two games that really won't be seen on a console, but at the end of the day it is a time and money pit.

As for the old games. Well, there were some great ones but to play them now requires tolerance for shoddy visuals, crap sound and hardcore game play. Loading times were a nightmare. Things were new then, advancements in game tech were rapid. However, there was an awful amount of rubbish about. Rehashes of the same isometric format, poor arcade conversions, dodgy scrolling and brutal game play. We tolerated it because it was a novelty.
 
Margaret said:
Bad Company is ****.
Click to expand...

the only thing that lets bad company down is its control method using a ps3 pad(they suck for fast twitch fps games),but if you play the game using "xim" which enables me to use my logitech keyboard and mouse from my pc then its like playing battlefield 2 all over again!
Bad company has a far superior engine to bf2 and is just as good as bf2 if not better in my opinion.....my bf2 account....
http://bf2s.com/player/44395510/

Also you get to "own" the console players with there inferior pads...i never ever finish a game under 5th place and thats is classed as a bad round for me ;)
 
I should hope the bf bc engine is better its a new engine compared to bf2's, the frost bite engine would look far superior on the pc to a console, pointless thread in every way the pc will always look better it has cutting edge hardware rather than outdated hardware like consoles.

Those console shots of dead space says it all to me blurry textures on the consoles and spot on on the pc and as someone said in the thread i had no issues running dead space on my pc at 1920x1200 on my lowly 8800gt.
 
thevet said:
the only thing that lets bad company down is its control method using a ps3 pad(they suck for fast twitch fps games),but if you play the game using "xim" which enables me to use my logitech keyboard and mouse from my pc then its like playing battlefield 2 all over again!
Bad company has a far superior engine to bf2 and is just as good as bf2 if not better in my opinion.....my bf2 account....
http://bf2s.com/player/44395510/

Also you get to "own" the console players with there inferior pads...i never ever finish a game under 5th place and thats is classed as a bad round for me ;)
Click to expand...

yeah go you.
 
Resolution and distance view from makes a differance. Try moving off the sofa towards the screen, even a 1900x1080 one, and PQ appears to degeaded dramatically on consols.
 
If consoles supported keyboard and mouse nativly then there would be a hard argument to fight against them but they dont, i prefer consoles for sports related games, pga tour, fifa etc. But for Fps gaming you just cant beat a board and mouse, that and i know my Pc is never going to start to flash red at me like its giving me the midlde finger!
Shiny graphics are nice and a strong point for the pc and is the trade off for the slightly slower load times but for conveaniance you could forgive the lack of this on the console for keyboard and mouse support.

End of the day PC seems to have plus sides that out-weigh consoles unless your a lazy gamer who prefers the lack of user input to optamize there games.
 
The real question is can anyone build a PC for 130 quid (the price of the 360 arcade) that competes?

And for those bringing up reliability issues, ive had 5 RROD 360's since launch, Thats a lot LESS problems than i get from the average high spec PC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom