Which is better. . . console gaming or PC gaming? (POLL!)

I used to be a console gamer but I am now a PC gamer and I also own a 360 for a few exclusives.

I use my PC for arma 2, world of warcraft, dragonage origins and multi platform games.

Compare a game like batman arkham asylum at 1920x1200 with physx and 60fps to the 360 version for some massive improvements.

I know the 360 is cheap and the hardware is now old but that's the beauty of being a pc gamer, you upgrade when you can or need to.

And upgrading your pc does not need to cost a fortune.

I bought an evga GTX295 for £260 and this is a GPU that runs nearly everything at 1920x1200 at a constant 60fps.

The steam distribution method for me is the future and I think it's fantastic.

No more boxes and dvds sitting on shelves taking up space.

Also the publishers will embrace it as it kills the trade in market that the stores love but were the publisher loses out.

I can really see the next gen of consoles moving towards that type of distribution.

I know console games are the publishers new cashcow and that the PC mostly gets the scraps but I only give games that get the proper PC development like dragon age origins my money.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

[QUOTE="xDimMaK"]You really have no idea just how vast the PC's game library is, do you?

Arach666

I clearly mentioned I was talking about current gen games. Don't see why you would count 10 year old games that can be played on a $30 dollar garage sale computer.

Having a lot more crappy games is not something to be proud of

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

I clearly mentioned I was talking about current gen games. Don't see why you would count 10 year old games that can be played on a $30 dollar garage sale computer.

GioVela2010

Having a lot more crappy games is not something to be proud of

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

I clearly mentioned I was talking about current gen games. Don't see why you would count 10 year old games that can be played on a $30 dollar garage sale computer.

GioVela2010

Having a lot more crappy games is not something to be proud of

Let's keep this a civil discussion, please!

The1337Gamer

PC gaming, if more of my friends played it it would I would mostly game on the PC.

Since getting a gaming rig my ps3, has received very little attention.

Having a lot more crappy games is not something to be proud of

GioVela2010

I'll take any one of my PC games over a whole consoles collection any day. Just that one PC game would have more life than all those console games. I mean, try playing Halo 2 online...doh!

I much prefer a take-notes type of game like Civilization or Total War to the twitch-fest console offerings.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

Having a lot more crappy games is not something to be proud of

br0kenrabbit

I'll take any one of my PC games over a whole consoles collection any day. Just that one PC game would have more life than all those console games. I mean, try playing Halo 2 online...doh!

I much prefer a take-notes type of game like Civilization or Total War to the twitch-fest console offerings.

That's cool but Console Gaming has more great games (or better) according to the boss (Gamespot)

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

Having a lot more crappy games is not something to be proud of

GioVela2010

I'll take any one of my PC games over a whole consoles collection any day. Just that one PC game would have more life than all those console games. I mean, try playing Halo 2 online...doh!

I much prefer a take-notes type of game like Civilization or Total War to the twitch-fest console offerings.

That's cool but Console Gaming has more great games (or better) according to the boss (Gamespot)

That's nice but read that second line above. That means that games scores are only comparable to games on the SAME PLATFORM. We've seen this before where the reviewer states the PC is the best platform for a given game and then gives the console a higher score. They're only rating games against games on the same platform, and it's up there in black-and-white text. Sorry you don't see it.

And PC has more AAA titles than all consoles put together. We aren't stuck in 'generations', that's a console term. Hell, I still have Homeworld installed, and still play it (online at that), and it's STILL better than the crap RTS games on console.

Handheld/portable gaming gets no love. :(Zerkrender

@Giovela2010. Again you amaze me with the subjectivity. I'll play the game too. If you want to compare, I hope you remember that PC games has been around before the ranking switch. That is before your picture of the new ranking system. Here is how it was before June 25 2007.

Notice that a 10 back then was of the upmost requirement compared to the new policy. This is again a example of getting too deep into a number game and not seeing past what you want to see. As brokenrabbit just stated to you, its each gaming platform has a different context of a score given. What could be considered a 8.5 on pc could easily be a 9+ on other platforms or even vice versa. In the end, the number game as you are trying to present it is contextually flawed.

As other members have stated

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

I'll take any one of my PC games over a whole consoles collection any day. Just that one PC game would have more life than all those console games. I mean, try playing Halo 2 online...doh!

I much prefer a take-notes type of game like Civilization or Total War to the twitch-fest console offerings.

br0kenrabbit

That's cool but Console Gaming has more great games (or better) according to the boss (Gamespot)

That's nice but read that second line above. That means that games scores are only comparable to games on the SAME PLATFORM. We've seen this before where the reviewer states the PC is the best platform for a given game and then gives the console a higher score. They're only rating games against games on the same platform, and it's up there in black-and-white text. Sorry you don't see it.

And PC has more AAA titles than all consoles put together. We aren't stuck in 'generations', that's a console term. Hell, I still have Homeworld installed, and still play it (online at that), and it's STILL better than the crap RTS games on console.

If you wanna go buy 20 year old games than go right ahead, I understand desperate times call for desperate measures.

Name me 2 games in which the PC version was said by the reviewer to be best, but the console version got the higher score.

And read the part highlighted in blue:

Console gaming for me.

If you wanna go buy 20 year old games than go right ahead, I understand desperate times call for desperate measures.

Name me 2 games in which the PC version was said by the reviewer to be best, but the console version got the higher score.

And read the part highlighted in blue:

GioVela2010

You think Homeworld is 20 years old? Hahaha.

And the text you highlighted above just proves my point. Perhaps you should re-read it, specifically the sentence right before you started highlighting. :lol:

As for a review that says the PC version is better and gives a lower score:

Oblivion. Excerpt from review:

Ultimately, which version you choose should depend on whether you have a high-powered PC and whether you have an Xbox 360 hooked up to a home theater. If you don't have the former, the Xbox 360 version is a relatively safer bet

So the review is saying 'prefer the high-powered PC version, but barring that...'

PC score: 9.3

X360 score: 9.6

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

If you wanna go buy 20 year old games than go right ahead, I understand desperate times call for desperate measures.

Name me 2 games in which the PC version was said by the reviewer to be best, but the console version got the higher score.

And read the part highlighted in blue:

br0kenrabbit

You think Homeworld is 20 years old? Hahaha.

And the text you highlighted above just proves my point. Perhaps you should re-read it, specifically the sentence right before you started highlighting. :lol:

As for a review that says the PC version is better and gives a lower score:

Oblivion. Excerpt from review:

Ultimately, which version you choose should depend on whether you have a high-powered PC and whether you have an Xbox 360 hooked up to a home theater. If you don't have the former, the Xbox 360 version is a relatively safer bet

So the review is saying 'prefer the high-powered PC version, but barring that...'

PC score: 9.3

X360 score: 9.6

They are both still AAA games, it's not like the PC version was downgraded to AA status for having high standards.

i prefer console gaming, i like both but more of my favorite games are on consoles

Console. But the pc is very nice to.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

If you wanna go buy 20 year old games than go right ahead, I understand desperate times call for desperate measures.

Name me 2 games in which the PC version was said by the reviewer to be best, but the console version got the higher score.

And read the part highlighted in blue:

GioVela2010

You think Homeworld is 20 years old? Hahaha.

And the text you highlighted above just proves my point. Perhaps you should re-read it, specifically the sentence right before you started highlighting. :lol:

As for a review that says the PC version is better and gives a lower score:

Oblivion. Excerpt from review:

Ultimately, which version you choose should depend on whether you have a high-powered PC and whether you have an Xbox 360 hooked up to a home theater. If you don't have the former, the Xbox 360 version is a relatively safer bet

So the review is saying 'prefer the high-powered PC version, but barring that...'

PC score: 9.3

X360 score: 9.6

They are both still AAA games, it's not like the PC version was downgraded to AA status for having high standards.

They are both still AAA games, it's not like the PC version was downgraded to AA status for having high standards.

GioVela2010

The point still stands: the standards are different.

Take for example World in Conflict. Look how many bad things the review lists: nothing. And it still couldn't score a 10.

Look at the PS3 review for GTA IV. It's got two bad points against it: AI and visual glitches. Yet it scores a 'perfect' 10.

The difference? The PC has many strategy games that WiC has to rise above, and some games do some things better than WiC (like troops taking cover in Company of Heroes). So while there was nothing wrong with the game per se it just has a lot of competition that's just as good.

GTA IV, at the time of release on the PS3, had little to compare against. Since it was basically the only real contender in its genre and it was well accomplished, it got the golden 10. Ask most people today if it would score that now that there are more PS3 games out, and, well, we've had those polls here on SW. Maybe you should go check one out.

PC doesn't being it's library at the launch of the 360, our library goes back decades.

I like playing older games.

Planescape, The Longest Journey, Another World 15th AnniversaryEdition are some of the greatest games and still outshine most games today.

That goes for console games too.

Just because a game is old doesn't mean it is bad.

Also with a bigger, better and longer lasting community I can still play games like Halo, Unreal Tournament/99/2004, Half 1&2, and Counterstrike with hundreds of people online at any given time.

I'd say console gaming. I hardly Game on the PC and there's a lot of Games I can find on Consoles that are not on the PC.

Asking System Wars to have a civil discussion is like the French beating the Germans. L'Impossible

As for the actual topic, console gaming is fun for playing with friends i.e. halo and what not, I prefer PC for my actual gaming

lostrib

Napoleon and the French crushed the Germans before. (Prussia at the time)

Anyway PC gaming is better.

More and better games.

Better graphics.

Better controls (M+KB, + hundreds of gamepads, wheels, and flightsticks to choose from).

Better multiplayer.

Better social networking (steam, xfire, gameranger, etc).

Cheaper games.

Bigger community.

User created content.

3D gaming.

And it does more than just play games and media.

Consoles just have the backing of multibillion dollar corporations, guaranteeing a few high budget exclusives a year. Other than that, PC just does it better.

PC. I may sound ignorant in saying this, but anyone who says console is just being ignorant. I have my PS3 and Wii to compliment my PC with their exclusives, but PC gaming is far superior in all areas (customization, game selection, controler input selection, graphics, internet, multi-functional use, mods, game prices, and digital purchases aka Steam).

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

They are both still AAA games, it's not like the PC version was downgraded to AA status for having high standards.

br0kenrabbit

The point still stands: the standards are different.

Take for example World in Conflict. Look how many bad things the review lists: nothing. And it still couldn't score a 10.

Look at the PS3 review for GTA IV. It's got two bad points against it: AI and visual glitches. Yet it scores a 'perfect' 10.

The difference? The PC has many strategy games that WiC has to rise above, and some games do some things better than WiC (like troops taking cover in Company of Heroes). So while there was nothing wrong with the game per se it just has a lot of competition that's just as good.

GTA IV, at the time of release on the PS3, had little to compare against. Since it was basically the only real contender in its genre and it was well accomplished, it got the golden 10. Ask most people today if it would score that now that there are more PS3 games out, and, well, we've had those polls here on SW. Maybe you should go check one out.

PC doesn't being it's library at the launch of the 360, our library goes back decades.

What do you mean the point still stands, you cant complain that Consoles have more AAA games than PC games because of standards when no PC game has been given a lower status because of standards. Or no Console game been given a higher rating because of standards. Especially not when Gamespots explanation of how they review games states that "An excellent game on whatever platform is an excelent game by any standards"

And, You think Gamespot should have gave WiC a 10? It's not even AAA at Gamerankings!:lol:

If Gamespot had given it a 10 it would be the most overated game of this generation, maybe of all time.

GTAIV got docked point on PC for being a lazy/bad port, and for being 7-8 months late on PC. A 1 point deduction for that seems perfectly acceptable

PC. Gamspot and MC scores prove this.

/thread.

Dataleak

Something like this cannot be proven by scores. It's subjective.

PC gaming is relatively cheaper in the long run (you save a lot of money on software, and i don't mean by pirating)

it's also more addictive and thanks to mods and communities, generally last longer (which is great when you just want to play more of 1 game)

that said i'd never give up console gaming just because consoles always have games that i enjoy

What do you mean the point still stands, you cant complain that Consoles have more AAA games than PC games because of standards when no PC game has been given a lower status because of standards.

GioVela2010

Again,explain then why MW2,even if it is the exact same game and it even has better graphics scored lower than the console versions?

PC version was downgraded to the console lower standards,thus recieved a lower score. How hard is for you to understand that?

What do you mean the point still stands, you cant complain that Consoles have more AAA games than PC games because of standards when no PC game has been given a lower status because of standards. Or no Console game been given a higher rating because of standards. Especially not when Gamespots explanation of how they review games states that "An excellent game on whatever platform is an excelent game by any standards"

GioVela2010

Actually, if I remember correctly the new splinter cell game was docked points for bugs, and for being too easy because pc controls are better.

Either way, this is a stupid discussion.

^^^ I can back that up with this.. Kevin V wrote

[QUOTE="oldkingallant"]

It got the BAD Emblem for "Too Easy". So shouldn't the 360 version receive it as well? Hmmmm.

Kevin-V

I have been long of the mind that developers need to compensate for improved precision in PC versions of their games. The 360 version was easier than your traditional stealth game but it was fine. On the easy side, but not too easy.The PC version of the game is so easy that even on realistic, the campaign never feels all that challenging. This is a big thing in a game that relies on tension (stalking your prey) and release (performing your execution). There were moments in the PC version where it just felt like I was playing bad Gears of War, because I could just pop up, land a headshot, and boom, I was done.

I finished the campaign on realistic in a little over four hours. That might give you an idea of how easy it is.

"and the precision of the keyboard and mouse controls dissolve much of the tension the short campaign tries to generate" Yeah good controls, that's horrible. :P Not surprised at the score though, no voice chat or text? That makes no sense.tagyhag

The PC should have awesome controls. It's what you expect. And smart developers know this, and compensate for it in different ways. Hell, even the same developer made adjustments in the PC version of Avatar to keep it on equal footing. I think the review makes it clear that the issues isn't that the controls are too good--but that the game is super, super easy on the PC. Note that there are all sorts of subtle differences between the reviews in addition to the bigger ones. I reworded things where difficulty was concerned in several places, including "the bad," to make it clear that while the other version was easy-ish, this version is a cakewalk.

For what it's worth, I drew the comparisons between the controls because, for better or for worse, readers want to know the differences. If there was no other version of the game, I could have just said, hey, the game is super easy. Because there was another version, however, I need to be more specific about the reason why. People will wonder: Why did you say this game was too easy on the PC, but not on the 360? As a result, I mention the keyboard and mouse precision as compared to a controller. I originally wrote a clause in one sentence that said something like "The keyboard and mouse offer greater precision, but the level of difficulty wasn't adjusted to compensate." Or some such thing. But I took it out of my first draft because it just clunked the sentence up and made it seem wordy.

Perhaps I should have left it in!

In any case, I think you get the idea. If this game were just on PC, I almost guarantee you the developers would have made the game more difficult. But as is too often the case, the PC version is just a quick-and-dirty port.

Too be honest, once diablo 3 arrives, I will not touch my ps3 or 360 for a very long time.

just depends on what you're looking for, really.

What do you mean the point still stands, you cant complain that Consoles have more AAA games than PC games because of standards when no PC game has been given a lower status because of standards.

GioVela2010

First of all I wasn't comparing PC GTA IV to anything. I don't know why you went off on that tangent.

And I'm not complaning about consoles having more AAA games because they don't. You have to impose TWO RULES that ONLY AFFECT THE PC in order to make the consoles look good:

1. Ignore the PCs extensive library and artificially force it to 'start over' at the beginning of this console gen. PC games don't have generations like that, that's a console term, so why apply this stupid rule to PCs? So console games can 'keep up'.

2. 3 against 1, becasue we all know what happens when you put one console up against the PC.

How about I get to pick two rules for consoles we must follow that would only benefit the PC at the detriment to the consoles? How fair would that be?

Without those two artificial rules above, PC gaming stomps all over anything backwards, forwards, and upside-down and sideways.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

What do you mean the point still stands, you cant complain that Consoles have more AAA games than PC games because of standards when no PC game has been given a lower status because of standards.

br0kenrabbit

First of all I wasn't comparing PC GTA IV to anything. I don't know why you went off on that tangent.

And I'm not complaning about consoles having more AAA games because they don't. You have to impose TWO RULES that ONLY AFFECT THE PC in order to make the consoles look good:

1. Ignore the PCs extensive library and artificially force it to 'start over' at the beginning of this console gen. PC games don't have generations like that, that's a console term, so why apply this stupid rule to PCs? So console games can 'keep up'.

2. 3 against 1, becasue we all know what happens when you put one console up against the PC.

How about I get to pick two rules for consoles we must follow that would only benefit the PC at the detriment to the consoles? How fair would that be?

Without those two artificial rules above, PC gaming stomps all over anything backwards, forwards, and upside-down and sideways.

To say PC is better than 360, PC is better than PS3, and PC is better than Wii is fare, but to say PC Gaming is better than Console Gaming is absolutely false. Looks like we're on the same page here.

And I'm not ignoring PC Gaming's past titles, I just don't feel like digging up every game ever made on PC and every game ever made for consoles, including Genesis, NES, SNES, Saturn, Dreamcast, Atari and every other past console. Don't have the time for that, therefore the launch of 360 seems like the fairest cutoff date possible.

And the closer we make the cutoff date to the present, the more Console Gaming absolutely slaughters PC Gaming, just look at the last 1,2, and 3 years of games..

GioVela, you keep on ingoring the fact that console gaming as a whole is sorta one platform since games are becoming more and more multiplatform. Next set of console will even be worse then this set. Because each console will have a much harder time differentiating from each other since most if not nearly all big titles made by 2nd/3rd devs will be across all platforms. Then You keep on ingoring the fact with ranking system is not stanardized, since console games tend to get hyped, to reviewers being bought giving higher ratings/reviews to sale those games. Pc standards as a whole are higher then consoles, so say a game on Pc got a 7, that same game would get an 8 or even 9 on console. Thats not a real true way of comparing Pc vs Consoles. The fact still remains even with the flawed system the Pc exclusive rankings out pace all consoles meaning that there are more exclusive highly rated games on Pc.

If Pc is better then 360, Pc is better the PS3 and is better then the Wii, then Pc is better then Consoles.....

And the closer we make the cutoff date to the present, the more Console Gaming absolutely slaughters PC Gaming, just look at the last 1,2, and 3 years of games..

GioVela2010

Gio, you do realize that only like 1 PC game in 6 is reviewed at GS, right? Many of my favorite games I can't add to my collection in my profile because they aren't listed. Some are listed but never reviewed like Distant Worlds.

The fact is that the PC industry is HUGE, especially in eastern Europe and Asia, and many awesome games local to those areas never make it over here. But yay internet and DD!

Look what's happening to all the console devs: they're all getting ate up by large publishers because they can't afford the risk of making a console game by themselves. This isn't a problem for PC devs, and we have a huge industry of independant devs that continue to deliver. Whereas on consoles, studios keep shutting down or getting swallowed up because of the ginormous costs associated with developing for consoles.

Which formula do you think will last longer?

And once PC devs are brave enough to aim only at 64-bit Operating Systems, you'll see the PC smoke console tech because that will put devs over the 4GB memory limit imposed by 32-bit operating systems that they all write for now. If it wasn't for that 32-bit issue, PC would be far ahead of where it is now, and even where it is now smokes the consoles.

If Pc is better then 360, Pc is better the PS3 and is better then the Wii, then Pc is better then Consoles.....

04dcarraher

Yup. His argument is along the lines of: "Your Porshe may smoke my Pinto, but my Pinto, Gremlin and Brat smoke your Porshe." :roll:

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

And the closer we make the cutoff date to the present, the more Console Gaming absolutely slaughters PC Gaming, just look at the last 1,2, and 3 years of games..

br0kenrabbit

Gio, you do realize that only like 1 PC game in 6 is reviewed at GS, right? Many of my favorite games I can't add to my collection in my profile because they aren't listed. Some are listed but never reviewed like Distant Worlds.

The fact is that the PC industry is HUGE, especially in eastern Europe and Asia, and many awesome games local to those areas never make it over here. But yay internet and DD!

Look what's happening to all the console devs: they're all getting ate up but large publishers because they can't afford the risk of making a console game by themselves. This isn't a problem for PC devs, and we have a huge industry of independant devs that continue to deliver. Whereas on consoles, studios keep shutting down or getting swallowed up because of the ginormous costs associated with developing for consoles.

Which formula do you think will last longer?

And once PC devs are brave enough to aim only at 64-bit Operating Systems, you'll see the PC smoke console tech because that will put devs over the 4GB memory limit imposed by 32-bit operating systems that they all write for now. If it wasn't for that 32-bit issue, PC would be far ahead of where it is now, and even where it is now smokes the consoles.

I dont think the 32-bit 4gb limit is the real issue, I think the real issue is that since all the big companies/Devs focus on the closed and limited consoles making games for thelowest common denominator. They dont spend the time as they use too on Pc gaming when & where they started out. EA, Activision, and many others have looked away or were shutdown because of the greed of money and being to big for their own good. There are few games any more that you can see real effort and soul put into games, the rest are cash cows, feeding the masses.04dcarraher

I'm referring to PC-exclusive games. The 4GB limit is really holding them back right now, especially from really taking advantage of multiple cores. Imagine if they programmed a PC game so that each of four cores took advantage of as much as 2GB of RAM each. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

Pc standards as a whole are higher then consoles, so say a game on Pc got a 7, that same game would get an 8 or even 9 on console.

04dcarraher

Care to explain why that has never happened with any multiplatform game? :lol:

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]

And the closer we make the cutoff date to the present, the more Console Gaming absolutely slaughters PC Gaming, just look at the last 1,2, and 3 years of games..

br0kenrabbit

Gio, you do realize that only like 1 PC game in 6 is reviewed at GS, right? Many of my favorite games I can't add to my collection in my profile because they aren't listed. Some are listed but never reviewed like Distant Worlds.

The fact is that the PC industry is HUGE, especially in eastern Europe and Asia, and many awesome games local to those areas never make it over here. But yay internet and DD!

Look what's happening to all the console devs: they're all getting ate up by large publishers because they can't afford the risk of making a console game by themselves. This isn't a problem for PC devs, and we have a huge industry of independant devs that continue to deliver. Whereas on consoles, studios keep shutting down or getting swallowed up because of the ginormous costs associated with developing for consoles.

Which formula do you think will last longer?

And once PC devs are brave enough to aim only at 64-bit Operating Systems, you'll see the PC smoke console tech because that will put devs over the 4GB memory limit imposed by 32-bit operating systems that they all write for now. If it wasn't for that 32-bit issue, PC would be far ahead of where it is now, and even where it is now smokes the consoles.

Distant Worlds? :lol:

If a game is irrelevant, it doesn't get reviewed by anybody, and thats why no game site/magazine has reviewed Distant Worlds

Distant Worlds? :lol:

If a game is irrelevant, it doesn't get reviewed by anybody, and thats why no game site/magazine has reviewed Distant Worlds

GioVela2010

You're just showing your ignorance and attitude now. :roll:

Distant Worlds is better than Sins of a Solar Empire, and look at the score that got. Matrix Games is a small publisher and don't advertise. That doesn't mean their games are bad. In fact, some of my favorite games are Matrix games.