There's no denying that PC games are way better than console games. Anyone who disagrees is a tool.
KINGDOM HEARTS IS THE MOST GAME EVAR!!!
PC games are only "better" graphically. Other than that, with a few (mostly freeware) exceptions, they're fairly bland and unimaginative. And the people who play them are all like >>1.
That's like saying that live action is better than animation, only there's even less of a difference between the two in this case.
One thing that PC's do have that the Consoles lack, is good, realistic tactical FPS type games, flight simulators, and the RTS genre. And the Western RPG genre. 99% of console RPGs are Japanese.
But there aren't a lot of Japanese PC games, that's for sure. A lot of the more cinematic ones are for the PS, like MetalGearSolid etc.
>>4 is right - there is no overall "better" type of gaming, it just depends what kind of games you like. PC is better for FPS, RTS, simulation and Western RPGs, while console is better for general third-person "action" games, racing, fighting, and Japanese RPGs.
My beef with the whole PC gaming is the constant upgrading that is required to keep up with the new games. At least with consoles, I buy one and I could still play it's new games for a few years. With PC it's like I need to upgrade each year.
You obviously know nothing about PC gaming. This misconception is common among console fear mongers. Have you looked at the specifications of modern games? Even a 5 year old graphics card can play them. Really, you need only to upgrade as often as a new console comes out, but you have more choices than consoles. PC graphics are vastly superior to consoles, and the ability to upgrade allows people to improve their system, unlike consoles.
Generally, it's true that a console reaching the end of its life-span will appear a little dated against the newest PC games running the newest graphics cards. But generally, games are released in iterations of DirectX and Nvidia/Radeon GPU sets, the same standards that ultimately find themselves in consoles. Right now where midway through the DX9 era, all the mainstream cards are designed around that fact. Generally, the new, next-gen cards come out a couple years before the next-gen games start becoming available, I guess to give the hardcore a chance to upgrade in time, but most wait for the prices to go down first.
This way, it's possible to have a system that will always be more powerful than the current consoles. The PS3 learned a hard lesson trying to emulate that kind of processor-intensive power.
Anyone hardcore enough to shell out for a PS3 already has a better PC.
most game genres widely available on the PC are more intellectually stimulating compared to their console counterparts. consoles are for the button smashing no brainers, anyone finding the use of a little brainpower enjoyable would have gone for a PC instead.
true, but honestly, with my ps2, I can buy any game released for ps2 and put in my release day ps2, and it will always work. I don't need to worry about graphics cards, driver, OS (Linux owners and Mac owners get fucked in the game market), whether upgrading my pc software will fuck up some other program I like (I've had that happen several times), etc. I just decide if I want the game.
Okami won't fuck my hard drive and install half a dozen unwanted programs all over my system, it won't overwrite my drivers, it won't require me to be locked into the dominant Windows system ATM, and I'll never have to worry that my hardware on my ps2 won't handle it. I buy the game, take it home and play it.
Now if you don't mind all of that, PC is better. It has better graphics, and it has the good RTS games on it. But for convienience, it's console all the way.
> with my ps2, I can buy any game released for ps2 and put in my release day ps2
Except all of those Japanese ones. Oh, and if you're in Europe, lol. I guess that's a minor consideration compared to what you're talking about, though.
My Penis is bigger than your Penis.
This argument is only for lazy, inept people. It isn't that hard to get PC games working. Most of the time, it's very simple: put the disc in, install and play. You're complaining that PCs are too complicated, whereas consoles give you no options and choices. I'd rather have choices and options than being stuck with a mediocre console that can't be upgraded or have parts replaced easily.
Don't forget that there is emulation on PCs. This extends the PC gaming library back to... 1979? Many emulators also enhance, interpolate, or anti-alias the graphics from the older consoles. Potentially hundreds of thousands of games [and porno!!!] in a single self-contained box.
> anti-alias the graphics from the older consoles.
massive argument against PCs right there. well, at least lazily coded emulators that don't let you turn off anti-aliasing
>>16
I haven't seen any emulators that force anti-aliasing on. Most in their early stages don't even offer any AA to begin with.
Not for lazy inept people, but for people who don't feel the need to reconfigure drivers and API after an install rewrites something that another program uses.
I've had that happen to me several times. I've upgraded my OS and found that programs could no longer use the "new improved" .dll file that the OS uses. I've had games install new programs, change my default settings, and fuck up my hard drive with new media players. It doesn't ask, it just overwries the files. And this can be a problem when I use my computer for other things as well. And for most people, that's what a computer is there for. My PC is occasionally a game machine, but most of the time it's a work computer. If it doesn't work for that purpose because some dumbass decides that my drivers and .dll files are out of date, that's a good reason for me NOT to buy PC games.
And between that and having to worry about graphics cards (my pc is about 4 years old, I can't really run the graphics powerhouse games -- by a long shot), and RAM it just isn't worth a marginal improvement in graphics to play a PC game. Besides which, upgrading every 2-3 years is pretty expensive. I'm not poor, but I can think of many better things to spend $100 or more on than a new graphics card so I can play a $40 game.
PC games aren't bad per se, but for the convienience and cost factors, consoles win.
My main objection to PC games is that the majority don't run on either of the two operating systems I tend to use on all my PCs.
Consoles are a convenient way out of that problem as it puts the games on a separate, inexpensive machine... rather than making me buy a second expensive PC and a copy of a shitty OS which will be capable of running the game.
Consoles are less expensive, and you never need to update your console.
PC's are better for online gaming, I'll give you that.
But otherwise, consoles are better.
>Consoles are a convenient way out of that problem as it puts the games on a separate, inexpensive machine...
Unless your console is a PS3 XD