So, you think PC and console have the same review standards?

I have seen alot on this lately and i'd just like to try and show what most Pc gamers mean when they claim PC has higher standards. Also it should show why 2 versions getting the same score aren't always equal.

I's just like to say this is not an elitist hermit thread, just hoping it explains this concept.

Ok, I'd like to use 2 recent reviews, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2. Both these versions scored equal on PC and 360. PC gamers claim they have the better version of both yet 360 gamers say no, they scored the same so are the same......well, lets just look at that claim for a moment.

Lets just imagine the PC version of these games was 100% identical to the 360 version. No differences at all. Lets imagine the Pc version had a maximum res of 720p, no graphics options(it ran at the level the 360 does), no AF and little AA. No dedicated servers for online play with 16 player limits (if they support online). Lets imagine it only had the option for one control method, in this case a pad. Lets imagine it had no quicksave option, just checkpoints Lets imagine they played at around 30fps on every machine and had fps problems now and then. Lets imagine they had 0% chance of any mod support at all. Taking all these things into consideration do you really think the PC version would have still scored as high as the 360 version? No, it wouldn't. Even though both version would be 100% identical the PC version would be regarded as a total mess.

You see, every game is reviewed in relation to the platform it is on. All the above make a game better yet on Pc are standard. This means they won't affect the score. I'm not saying those playing the PC version will get a better experience as such, both versions are great, both versions provide the same gameplay and the same experince. PC just has more to offer overall.

Now, i know i will be flamed as a PC elitist, that is not what this thread is about, i'm just trying to explain why PC gamers often make this claim. Thanks for reading.

*Raises flame shield*

Of course the PC version will always be the best, you have more freedom on the PC do do whatever you want. The reason why they give PC multiplats the same score as their console counterparts (only if they are released at the same time though) is probably just for simplicity reasons.

Now, i know i will be flames

Frozzik

The ability to change the very composition of your being and become fire?

Who are you!?

ON TOPIC EDIT:

Usually the PC version is the best. Everyone knows that. But many times people have their own reason to get the console versions instead, that may have nothing to do with which version is truly the best.

reviewers do not judge mods or custom content also if the game always ran at a decent FPS and looked just as good then ya both would have scored the same.JangoWuzHere

Why shouldn't they?

If I pick up a game that I know that is easy to mod (such as Half-Life 2 etc), then I'm pretty much assured to get a huge amount of replayability from it due to the fact that people are able to extend upon, or completely change the gaming experience.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

Now, i know i will be flames

jethrovegas

The ability to change the very composition of your being and become fire?

Who are you!?

ON TOPIC EDIT:

Usually the PC version is the best. Everyone knows that. But many times people have their own reason to get the console versions instead, that may have nothing to do with which version is truly the best.

Yeah, i'm tired, working nights, i noticed a few typo's in the post. Just too lazy to change them. Anyway, now one has been quoted may aswell leave it lol. Made me laugh actually.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]reviewers do not judge mods or custom content also if the game always ran at a decent FPS and looked just as good then ya both would have scored the same.G013M

Why shouldn't they?

If I pick up a game that I know that is easy to mod (such as Half-Life 2 etc), then I'm pretty much assured to get a huge amount of replayability from it due to the fact that people are able to extend upon, or completely change the gaming experience.

Mods are just one aspect anyway, i do know if a 360 game had great mod support like PC does it would definately affect the score. Look at LBP, its hyped for the user content and praised for it.

i think its hilarious how you guys think the PC has some real UBER standards in comparison with consoles when in fact they are all reviewed similarly

All you need to do is look at the Mass effect scores for the PC and 360. 8.5 on 360 and a 9 on PC. sure the PC version fixes a few of the bugs and makes inventory/power/weapon use more better thanks to the keyboard/mouse but if these features were standard for PC titles shouldnt the game have scored the same? Going by the TC's logic the PC version should have scored an 8 seeing how the PC has like a gazillion RPGS.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]reviewers do not judge mods or custom content also if the game always ran at a decent FPS and looked just as good then ya both would have scored the same.G013M

Why shouldn't they?

If I pick up a game that I know that is easy to mod (such as Half-Life 2 etc), then I'm pretty much assured to get a huge amount of replayability from it due to the fact that people are able to extend upon, or completely change the gaming experience.

I would think that they probably review the game based on what the devs meant for you to experience. I'm sure the replayability with mods on the pc is just understood.

i think its hilarious how you guys think the PC has some real UBER standards in comparison with consoles when in fact they are all reviewed similarly

All you need to do is look at the Mass effect scores for the PC and 360. 8.5 on 360 and a 9 on PC. sure the PC version fixes a few of the bugs and makes inventory/power/weapon use more better thanks to the keyboard/mouse but if these features were standard for PC titles shouldnt the game have scored the same? Going by the TC's logic the PC version should have scored an 8 seeing how the PC has like a gazillion RPGS.

snipakilla

Judging what I read from the TC he is saying you have to go the extra mile on a multiplat game for it to score the same as the console versions. Which is exactly what you described with mass effect.

I think they do have higher standarts. For example...lack of save anywhere and no FSAA is completely ignored in console games, but when PC one have those it's bashed for it. Another example is players limits in online game, 8-16 is great for console game, not so much for PC. Then there are genres that are PC-only like RTSes or adventure games, so when finally somebody makes a decent one for consoles it's getting overrated (shooters have been so long on consoles now that this doesn't happen with console FPSes, they aren't overrated anymore, reviewers got used to quality FPSes on consoles).

But now with Gamespot's new rating system I don't think the difference in standarts is that prominent aside from mentioned advnenture and strategy games

i think its hilarious how you guys think the PC has some real UBER standards in comparison with consoles when in fact they are all reviewed similarly

All you need to do is look at the Mass effect scores for the PC and 360. 8.5 on 360 and a 9 on PC. sure the PC version fixes a few of the bugs and makes inventory/power/weapon use more better thanks to the keyboard/mouse but if these features were standard for PC titles shouldnt the game have scored the same? Going by the TC's logic the PC version should have scored an 8 seeing how the PC has like a gazillion RPGS.

snipakilla

If they were released at the same time i am sure they would have been. Mass effect was different anyway. The 360 game had flaws, they fixed 99% of these flaws on the PC version. That is why it scored higher. Almost every point that affected the 360 versions score was fixed on the PC version, the PC version was what the 360 version should have been.

[QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]reviewers do not judge mods or custom content also if the game always ran at a decent FPS and looked just as good then ya both would have scored the same.G013M

Why shouldn't they?

If I pick up a game that I know that is easy to mod (such as Half-Life 2 etc), then I'm pretty much assured to get a huge amount of replayability from it due to the fact that people are able to extend upon, or completely change the gaming experience.

They should, but honestly it doesn't come out of the box which is why they don't.

I think they do have higher standarts. For example...lack of save anywhere and no FSAA is completely ignored in console games, but when PC one have those it's bashed for it. Another example is players limits in online game, 8-16 is great for console game, not so much for PC. Then there are genres that are PC-only like RTSes or adventure games, so when finally somebody makes a decent one for consoles it's getting overrated (shooters have been so long on consoles now that this doesn't happen with console FPSes, they aren't overrated anymore, reviewers got used to quality FPSes on consoles).

But now with Gamespot's new rating system I don't think the difference in standarts is that prominent aside from mentioned advnenture and strategy games

AdrianWerner

dam, i forgot to add the quicksave option to my post, will edit it now.

I have seen alot on this lately and i'd just like to try and show what most Pc gamers mean when they claim PC has higher standards. Also it should show why 2 versions getting the same score aren't always equal.

I's just like to say this is not an elitist hermit thread, just hoping it explains this concept.

Ok, I'd like to use 2 recent reviews, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2. Both these versions scored equal on PC and 360. PC gamers claim they have the better version of both yet 360 gamers say no, they scored the same so are the same......well, lets just look at that claim for a moment.

Lets just imagine the PC version of these games was 100% identical to the 360 version. No differences at all. Lets imagine the Pc version had a maximum res of 720p, no graphics options(it ran at the level the 360 does), no AF and little AA. No dedicated servers for online play (if they support online). Lets imagine it only had the option for one control methos, in this case a pad. Lets imagine they played at around 30fps on every machine and had fps problems now and then. Lets imagine they had 0% chance of any mod support at all. Taking all these things into consideration do you really think the PC version would have still scored as high as the 360 version? No, it wouldn't. Even though both version would be 100% identical the PC version would be regarded as a total mess.

You see, every game is reviewed in relation to the platform it is on. All the above make a game better yet on Pc are standard. This means they won't affect the score. I'm not saying those playing the PC version will get a better experience as such, both versions are great, both versions provide the same gameplay and the same experince. PC just has more to offer overall.

Now, i know i will be flames as a PC elitist, that is not what this thread is about, i'm just trying to explain why PC gamers often make this claim. Thanks for reading.

*Raises flame shield*

Frozzik

So, according to that ignorance, every game should be scored accoding to their potential, and we should assume that the PC version of the game is always running on the super-computer at Langley.

Obviously the PC version has higher potential. However, we're not talking about potential here. While the PC might be the best "version" it is not necessarily the best "choice" for most gamers.

If I wanted to play Fallout 3, I cound run out to the store, drop 250 bucks, and be home playing it, in 10 minutes.

If I wanted to play Falllout 3 like I wanted to on the PC, I would have to ugrade potentially upgrade my computer, run an hdmi cable, that I would have to buy, to my HDTV, configure my 360 controller to run via my PC, and install the game.

That's the problem with the generally accepted assumptions of PC superiority. You're always talking about potential with no thought whatsoever to convinience and accessibility.

Yes, if I were you, the PC version might be the best choice for me...but I'm me...and most of us, like me, the best, or at least most convinient option is the 360 version.

Not to mention the 360 exclusive DLC, or the securom DRM that fallout 3 ruins your 1000 dollar gaming rig with.

Here's why the 360 and PC versions scored the same:

All of the options on the PC version, you mentioned, don't make or break the game. They barely matter. The game runs at a nice steady clip on the 360, and a standard gaming PC. What the PC version has is:

1. Lack of convinience verses smoother framerate and higher resolution depending on the rig(but again, I've broken my rule already, as the game also has the potnetial to not run on some PC's or run poorly, a negative the 360 version does not). Running the same on all consoles is not always a negative.

and

2. Eventual usermods verses eventual DLC, neither of which matter at launch, or at the time of the review.

3. A spyware virus that will slow down your computer permanently verses 30 fps.

I always hear about the pros of PC, but the truth is, if the PC was put under the same scrutiany fanboys of the 360 or PS3 put on each others console, its flaws would also become apparent. Acting like PC gaming is the best thing since sliced bread, is Bull. Trust me, I've been a PC gamer all my life.

[QUOTE="snipakilla"]

i think its hilarious how you guys think the PC has some real UBER standards in comparison with consoles when in fact they are all reviewed similarly

All you need to do is look at the Mass effect scores for the PC and 360. 8.5 on 360 and a 9 on PC. sure the PC version fixes a few of the bugs and makes inventory/power/weapon use more better thanks to the keyboard/mouse but if these features were standard for PC titles shouldnt the game have scored the same? Going by the TC's logic the PC version should have scored an 8 seeing how the PC has like a gazillion RPGS.

Espada12

Judging what I read from the TC he is saying you have to go the extra mile on a multiplat game for it to score the same as the console versions. Which is exactly what you described with mass effect.

Mass Effect didn't get the same scores, the PC version did more and got a higher score because of that. The PC title was also released almost a year later which usually brings down the score.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I have seen alot on this lately and i'd just like to try and show what most Pc gamers mean when they claim PC has higher standards. Also it should show why 2 versions getting the same score aren't always equal.

I's just like to say this is not an elitist hermit thread, just hoping it explains this concept.

Ok, I'd like to use 2 recent reviews, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2. Both these versions scored equal on PC and 360. PC gamers claim they have the better version of both yet 360 gamers say no, they scored the same so are the same......well, lets just look at that claim for a moment.

Lets just imagine the PC version of these games was 100% identical to the 360 version. No differences at all. Lets imagine the Pc version had a maximum res of 720p, no graphics options(it ran at the level the 360 does), no AF and little AA. No dedicated servers for online play (if they support online). Lets imagine it only had the option for one control methos, in this case a pad. Lets imagine they played at around 30fps on every machine and had fps problems now and then. Lets imagine they had 0% chance of any mod support at all. Taking all these things into consideration do you really think the PC version would have still scored as high as the 360 version? No, it wouldn't. Even though both version would be 100% identical the PC version would be regarded as a total mess.

You see, every game is reviewed in relation to the platform it is on. All the above make a game better yet on Pc are standard. This means they won't affect the score. I'm not saying those playing the PC version will get a better experience as such, both versions are great, both versions provide the same gameplay and the same experince. PC just has more to offer overall.

Now, i know i will be flames as a PC elitist, that is not what this thread is about, i'm just trying to explain why PC gamers often make this claim. Thanks for reading.

*Raises flame shield*

Zenfoldor

So, according to that ignorance, every game should be scored accoding to their potential, and we should assume that the PC version of the game is always running on the super-computer at Langley.

Obviously the PC version has higher potential. However, we're not talking about potential here. While the PC might be the best "version" it is not necessarily the best "choice" for most gamers.

If I wanted to play Fallout 3, I cound run out to the store, drop 250 bucks, and be home playing it, in 10 minutes.

If I wanted to play Falllout 3 like I wanted to on the PC, I would have to ugrade potentially upgrade my computer, run an hdmi cable, that I would have to buy, to my HDTV, configure my 360 controller to run via my PC, and install the game.

That's the problem with the generally accepted assumptions of PC superiority. You're always talking about potential with no thought whatsoever to convinience and accessibility.

Yes, if I were you, the PC version might be the best choice for me...but I'm me...and most of us, like me, the best, or at least most convinient option is the 360 version.

Not to mention the 360 exclusive DLC, or the securom DRM that fallout 3 ruins your 1000 dollar gaming rig with.

Here's why the 360 and PC versions scored the same:

All of the options on the PC version, you mentioned, don't make or break the game. They barely matter. The game runs at a nice steady clip on the 360, and a standard gaming PC. What the PC version has is:

1. Lack of convinience verses smoother framerate and higher resolution depending on the rig(but again, I've broken my rule already, as the game also has the potnetial to not run on some PC's or run poorly, a negative the 360 version does not). Running the same on all consoles is not always a negative.

and

2. Eventual usermods verses eventual DLC, neither of which matter at launch, or at the time of the review.

3. A spyware virus that will slow down your computer permanently verses 30 fps.

I always hear about the pros of PC, but the truth is, if the PC was put under the same scrutiany fanboys of the 360 or PS3 put on each others console, its flaws would also become apparent. Acting like PC gaming is the best thing since sliced bread, is Bull. Trust me, I've been a PC gamer all my life.

1. Convience you say? I just intalled my fallout and played dunno how your post is so long about that

2. PC has the DLC and mods .. fail

3. Your fault for getting it. Oh here what? RROD that permantly decreases your FPS to 0

If I wanted to play Falllout 3 like I wanted to on the PC, I would have to ugrade potentially upgrade my computer, run an hdmi cable, that I would have to buy, to my HDTV, configure my 360 controller to run via my PC, and install the game.

Ok so you don't have to buy a 360, run component cables, or configure your controller on the 360? Seriesly?Also I'd like to know what configuring you have to do to get the 360 controller to work on PC. The configuring on 360 is just pressing the middle button for the game to detect it, on PC it's just installing the software from MS.

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I have seen alot on this lately and i'd just like to try and show what most Pc gamers mean when they claim PC has higher standards. Also it should show why 2 versions getting the same score aren't always equal.

I's just like to say this is not an elitist hermit thread, just hoping it explains this concept.

Ok, I'd like to use 2 recent reviews, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2. Both these versions scored equal on PC and 360. PC gamers claim they have the better version of both yet 360 gamers say no, they scored the same so are the same......well, lets just look at that claim for a moment.

Lets just imagine the PC version of these games was 100% identical to the 360 version. No differences at all. Lets imagine the Pc version had a maximum res of 720p, no graphics options(it ran at the level the 360 does), no AF and little AA. No dedicated servers for online play (if they support online). Lets imagine it only had the option for one control methos, in this case a pad. Lets imagine they played at around 30fps on every machine and had fps problems now and then. Lets imagine they had 0% chance of any mod support at all. Taking all these things into consideration do you really think the PC version would have still scored as high as the 360 version? No, it wouldn't. Even though both version would be 100% identical the PC version would be regarded as a total mess.

You see, every game is reviewed in relation to the platform it is on. All the above make a game better yet on Pc are standard. This means they won't affect the score. I'm not saying those playing the PC version will get a better experience as such, both versions are great, both versions provide the same gameplay and the same experince. PC just has more to offer overall.

Now, i know i will be flames as a PC elitist, that is not what this thread is about, i'm just trying to explain why PC gamers often make this claim. Thanks for reading.

*Raises flame shield*

Zenfoldor

So, according to that ignorance, every game should be scored accoding to their potential, and we should assume that the PC version of the game is always running on the super-computer at Langley.

Obviously the PC version has higher potential. However, we're not talking about potential here. While the PC might be the best "version" it is not necessarily the best "choice" for most gamers.

If I wanted to play Fallout 3, I cound run out to the store, drop 250 bucks, and be home playing it, in 10 minutes.

If I wanted to play Falllout 3 like I wanted to on the PC, I would have to ugrade potentially upgrade my computer, run an hdmi cable, that I would have to buy, to my HDTV, configure my 360 controller to run via my PC, and install the game.

That's the problem with the generally accepted assumptions of PC superiority. You're always talking about potential with no thought whatsoever to convinience and accessibility.

Yes, if I were you, the PC version might be the best choice for me...but I'm me...and most of us, like me, the best, or at least most convinient option is the 360 version.

Not to mention the 360 exclusive DLC, or the securom DRM that fallout 3 ruins your 1000 dollar gaming rig with.

Here's why the 360 and PC versions scored the same:

All of the options on the PC version, you mentioned, don't make or break the game. They barely matter. The game runs at a nice steady clip on the 360, and a standard gaming PC. What the PC version has is:

1. Lack of convinience verses smoother framerate and higher resolution depending on the rig(but again, I've broken my rule already, as the game also has the potnetial to not run on some PC's or run poorly, a negative the 360 version does not). Running the same on all consoles is not always a negative.

and

2. Eventual usermods verses eventual DLC, neither of which matter at launch, or at the time of the review.

3. A spyware virus that will slow down your computer permanently verses 30 fps.

I always hear about the pros of PC, but the truth is, if the PC was put under the same scrutiany fanboys of the 360 or PS3 put on each others console, its flaws would also become apparent. Acting like PC gaming is the best thing since sliced bread, is Bull. Trust me, I've been a PC gamer all my life.

This guy hit it spot on IMO.

Judging what I read from the TC he is saying you have to go the extra mile on a multiplat game for it to score the same as the console versions. Which is exactly what you described with mass effect. Espada12

8.5 on 360 and 9.0 on PC after being released like 6 months later on PC. I think it should have been obvious that the technical bugs would have been fixed (none of them major) in that much time and the inventory system would be easier to use on PC. If the reviewers were considering these upgrades to the game for PC version "standard" then the game should have scored the same.

I think RPG's are roughly same on PC and consoles shooters PC definitely gets the edge. Adventure and action games i prefer on consoles and most of them suck on PC. and yeah RTS games are obviously way better on PC.

Yes the PC has mods and obviously better graphics but i prefer to lie on my couch and play on a controller that feels right in my hands. That alone negates the advantages of PC for me. (i was a hardcore PC gamer until 2005)

I think zenfolder explained what i was trying to say a lot better

i used to be a PC gamer till 2005.

The TC hit a great point. The criteria for PC reviews themselves are higher than console standards. Its logical that each platform should be judged by their own criteria, but at the same time it create a lot of problems for gamers who only look at review scores as an indication of quality.

Far Cry 2 is a great example, 8.5 across the board, but honestly the PC version was far superior due to the any time save feature(the console saving system is the most annoying peice of crap ever). Whereas measuring against the console version it should have been a 9.0, but then again every PC game have the save anytime feature and reviewers didnt award the obvious improvement over the console version as a merit within PC standards.

On the flip side, same screen co-op is always taken for granted on the console, and reviews dont seem to award console titles extra points for this feature. It all balances out I think, in the same way technical superiority is taken for granted on PC versions.

Well PCs are upgradable so it will always have an edge from a technological stand point. And not every one will be able to play a PC game on high settings so it varies from Hardware as where the consoles are standardized, but since the PC has the capabilities you have to give the benefit of doubt that the user will be playing the game on high to maxed settings.demoralizer

although the review score become bad indicators for the other half of the PC gaming community who dont have top notch rigs.I guess the reviewers are expecting PC users to deduce corresponding review scores based on their own PC.

For certain genres...

Like FPS, RPG, RTS, MMO - off the top of my head.

Hell no

The PC does have far higher standards than consoles... which is wrong because you are not supposed to compare games to one another but rate them upon their own merits. Gamespot has a flawed reviewing system in that they base review scores off the "established standards" which previous games have supposedly "set."foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Frozzik"]

I have seen alot on this lately and i'd just like to try and show what most Pc gamers mean when they claim PC has higher standards. Also it should show why 2 versions getting the same score aren't always equal.

I's just like to say this is not an elitist hermit thread, just hoping it explains this concept.

Ok, I'd like to use 2 recent reviews, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2. Both these versions scored equal on PC and 360. PC gamers claim they have the better version of both yet 360 gamers say no, they scored the same so are the same......well, lets just look at that claim for a moment.

Lets just imagine the PC version of these games was 100% identical to the 360 version. No differences at all. Lets imagine the Pc version had a maximum res of 720p, no graphics options(it ran at the level the 360 does), no AF and little AA. No dedicated servers for online play (if they support online). Lets imagine it only had the option for one control methos, in this case a pad. Lets imagine they played at around 30fps on every machine and had fps problems now and then. Lets imagine they had 0% chance of any mod support at all. Taking all these things into consideration do you really think the PC version would have still scored as high as the 360 version? No, it wouldn't. Even though both version would be 100% identical the PC version would be regarded as a total mess.

You see, every game is reviewed in relation to the platform it is on. All the above make a game better yet on Pc are standard. This means they won't affect the score. I'm not saying those playing the PC version will get a better experience as such, both versions are great, both versions provide the same gameplay and the same experince. PC just has more to offer overall.

Now, i know i will be flames as a PC elitist, that is not what this thread is about, i'm just trying to explain why PC gamers often make this claim. Thanks for reading.

*Raises flame shield*

Zenfoldor

So, according to that ignorance, every game should be scored accoding to their potential, and we should assume that the PC version of the game is always running on the super-computer at Langley.

Obviously the PC version has higher potential. However, we're not talking about potential here. While the PC might be the best "version" it is not necessarily the best "choice" for most gamers.

If I wanted to play Fallout 3, I cound run out to the store, drop 250 bucks, and be home playing it, in 10 minutes.

If I wanted to play Falllout 3 like I wanted to on the PC, I would have to ugrade potentially upgrade my computer, run an hdmi cable, that I would have to buy, to my HDTV, configure my 360 controller to run via my PC, and install the game.

That's the problem with the generally accepted assumptions of PC superiority. You're always talking about potential with no thought whatsoever to convinience and accessibility.

Yes, if I were you, the PC version might be the best choice for me...but I'm me...and most of us, like me, the best, or at least most convinient option is the 360 version.

Not to mention the 360 exclusive DLC, or the securom DRM that fallout 3 ruins your 1000 dollar gaming rig with.

Here's why the 360 and PC versions scored the same:

All of the options on the PC version, you mentioned, don't make or break the game. They barely matter. The game runs at a nice steady clip on the 360, and a standard gaming PC. What the PC version has is:

1. Lack of convinience verses smoother framerate and higher resolution depending on the rig(but again, I've broken my rule already, as the game also has the potnetial to not run on some PC's or run poorly, a negative the 360 version does not). Running the same on all consoles is not always a negative.

and

2. Eventual usermods verses eventual DLC, neither of which matter at launch, or at the time of the review.

3. A spyware virus that will slow down your computer permanently verses 30 fps.

I always hear about the pros of PC, but the truth is, if the PC was put under the same scrutiany fanboys of the 360 or PS3 put on each others console, its flaws would also become apparent. Acting like PC gaming is the best thing since sliced bread, is Bull. Trust me, I've been a PC gamer all my life.

Whilst you do make some valid points what i said in my op still applies.

I'd like to point out some flaws in you argument too. Most Pc gamers, myself included, (and i mean people who use PC as main gaming platform) have good hardware so never worry about system requirements. Spyware? again, if like me you look after your pc spyware should never ever become an issue, if it does its the user's fault not the PC's. HDMI? i have my pc hooked up to my HDTV using a simple vga cable, you know the same kind you use on analogue monitors. I still play in 1080p and games look stunning.

I'm not getting into the PC vs Console crap in this thread, ive always stated its a matter of opinion, i was simply stating the different standards in reviews. If you honestly think they are the same then fine, live in denial, like i said, if infact they were identical the PC would score less.