Why would anyone not own a gaming PC?

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The past and the distant future are irrelevant. We are comparing the now.

TheSterls

LMAO the guy who thinks a 6600 and 7600 will look better then the PS3 or 360 on any current games. Sorry but there not even in the same league now. He is under the impression that Prey on the 360 was a max effort that pushed the console to its limits eventhough its probalby one of the ugliest games on the system.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

GAMING PC:

$560 with rebates:

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1973/560pc.jpg

· Case

· DVD Drive

· 550W PSU

· KB/M + Speakers

· AMD Quad Core Black Edition 2.5ghz

· CPU Fan

· AM2+ MOBO

· Windows 7

· 2GB DDR2 800

· 320GB HDD 7200rpm

· ATI 5770 1GB

· USB TV Tuner

PC Review Standards:

"It's a given that the PC version of a multiplatform game is gonna look better. But MW2 on PC is getting compared to other PC shooters. I played that version, not the console versions, and while MW2 looks good, it looks no better than what you'd expect it to look like. If our standard of comparison for PC games was "the console version," the PC version would get a higher score than the others over 90% of the time." Kevin V

TheSterls

@TheSteris You just ignored this because I'm right and used facts to back up my claims.

You didnt use any facts to back up your claims, I got my post deleted because I said something about being reported to the mods . Regardless what does this post have to do with my argument? I didnt mention MW2 in my post at all . I dont even own the game and could care less about it.The games I mention SF4 and SC.C were better on consoles yes ive played both and the visual settings are only due to resolution. so please tell me how MW2 is relevant to this post? There are some games better on consoles simple as that.

You also need to work on your math. Thats a 600$ pc not 500.

If our standard of comparison for PC games was "the console version," the PC version would get a higher score than the others over 90% of the time." Kevin V

I would say money. My game PC cost me 4K Australian and was a beast at the time it is no slouch for the games I have, but the newer games I have are on the consoles since I can play them and have them look better than on the PC. In Australia PC games are generally cheaper than consoles but if you have to factor in, perhaps a video card upgrade to allow me to play newer games the cost starts to be a factor. But my PC gaming heart will always be with RTS, but I will say if the console comes up with a better control scheme (no keyboard, tough to play with them while lying on a couch) then i might switch. The argument that 500bucks will buy you a decent gaming rig doesn't wash here. I would say that 800 to 1000 australian dollars will get you something middle of the road. But I think personally, spending 400 on the console, well it is half price and if I have the 800 to spend, Console and 400 bucks worth of games for me. mike_on_mic

That is australia. You guys are being brutally ripped off along with us canadians.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] total conversion, and mod, are seperate terms, TC is making a new game out of a game engine that another uses, and I don't mean UE3 and you build it with the newest crap, its like making a new game with UT3 tools and not getting the sdk. A mod is a modification to change the mechanics/graphics or something of the original at any rate, CS is its own game, and very few mods are fleshed out and polished and end up sucking tremendouslysavagetwinkie

No I'm afraid Total Conversions are mods in every way. Saying otherwise is laughable. Its why mods are so good.

"Mods that add new content to the underlying game are often called partial conversions, while mods that create an entirely new game are called total conversions and mods that fix bugs are called unofficial patches." yo

in b4 wikilol

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="argetlam00"]

No I'm afraid Total Conversions are mods in every way. Saying otherwise is laughable. Its why mods are so good.

-Feath-

"Mods that add new content to the underlying game are often called partial conversions, while mods that create an entirely new game are called total conversions and mods that fix bugs are called unofficial patches." yo

in b4 wikilol

See I could have done that, but I hoped rationality would prevail.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You didnt use any facts to back up your claims, I got my post deleted because I said something about being reported to the mods . Regardless what does this post have to do with my argument? I didnt mention MW2 in my post at all . I dont even own the game and could care less about it.The games I mention SF4 and SC.C were better on consoles yes ive played both and the visual settings are only due to resolution. so please tell me how MW2 is relevant to this post? There are some games better on consoles simple as that.

lundy86_4

He was just refuting your 1st point about a $500 PC not being a gaming PC. That's all the post was, the last part, i'm not too sure.

The pc he has listed is $600 so how does that refute my point?

That is australia. You guys are being brutally ripped off along with us canadians.

argetlam00

You should live in the UK. Compared to that Canada is a God-send. I used to live in the UK, and since moving here my life has gotten easier :P

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You didnt use any facts to back up your claims, I got my post deleted because I said something about being reported to the mods . Regardless what does this post have to do with my argument? I didnt mention MW2 in my post at all . I dont even own the game and could care less about it.The games I mention SF4 and SC.C were better on consoles yes ive played both and the visual settings are only due to resolution. so please tell me how MW2 is relevant to this post? There are some games better on consoles simple as that.

TheSterls

He was just refuting your 1st point about a $500 PC not being a gaming PC. That's all the post was, the last part, i'm not too sure.

The pc he has listed is $600 so how does that refute my point?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=366177

This is from 2009. Expect these parts to be significantly cheaper today. 500 dollar PC lets you run Crysis 30+ FPS max.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

@TheSteris You just ignored this because I'm right and used facts to back up my claims.

NVIDIATI

You didnt use any facts to back up your claims, I got my post deleted because I said something about being reported to the mods . Regardless what does this post have to do with my argument? I didnt mention MW2 in my post at all . I dont even own the game and could care less about it.The games I mention SF4 and SC.C were better on consoles yes ive played both and the visual settings are only due to resolution. so please tell me how MW2 is relevant to this post? There are some games better on consoles simple as that.

You also need to work on your math. Thats a 600$ pc not 500.

If our standard of comparison for PC games was "the console version," the PC version would get a higher score than the others over 90% of the time." Kevin V

Looks like SC:C and SF4 are going to be that 10% so yet again whats your point?

no its a missconception, A tc is a new game built out of an old game a mod is a change in the original a tc does make modifications to the original this is true, but to the point where they are attempting to build a new game and not alter the original the difference is with intention, what their end result will besavagetwinkie

http://www.moddb.com/mods/mechwarrior-living-legends

MechWarrior: Living Legends (MWLL) is a total conversion modification for Crysis.

The pc he has listed is $600 so how does that refute my point?

TheSterls

I didn't say he did refute it, I just meant he was trying to refute it, my bad. Some cheaper parts and you could probably bring the cost down.

Either way, a gaming PC should be able to run games more than reasonably, and that PC could definately do it,

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You didnt use any facts to back up your claims, I got my post deleted because I said something about being reported to the mods . Regardless what does this post have to do with my argument? I didnt mention MW2 in my post at all . I dont even own the game and could care less about it.The games I mention SF4 and SC.C were better on consoles yes ive played both and the visual settings are only due to resolution. so please tell me how MW2 is relevant to this post? There are some games better on consoles simple as that.

You also need to work on your math. Thats a 600$ pc not 500.

TheSterls

If our standard of comparison for PC games was "the console version," the PC version would get a higher score than the others over 90% of the time." Kevin V

Looks like SC:C and SF4 are going to be that 10% so yet again whats your point?

why :|

I take it from the lack of response that there are no major non-Online RPG / non-Strategy exclusives on the horizon (aside from possibly The Witcher 2)? Not that it matters, just for SW reference.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"] Yes you could, build a Pc that had better graphics with games. I had a sub $500 Pc back in 2005 with a single core cpu 1gb of memory and a geforce 6600. And games looked better on that then the 360 like Prey, CoD 2 and FEAR. and in late 2005 I upgraded to a 7600 because I got a bigger monitor. And ran with that until Crysis in 2007, where I did almost a complete overhaul which Im still using today and still playing games on high or maxed.04dcarraher

LMAO the guy who thinks a 6600 and 7600 will look better then the PS3 or 360 on any current games. Sorry but there not even in the same league now. He is under the impression that Prey on the 360 was a max effort that pushed the console to its limits eventhough its probalby one of the ugliest games on the system.

The PS3 can use all 512mb for gaming and a 6600 cant even fully utilize a gig properly . We have posted links time and time again showing comparisons and the 6600 gets romped hell look the guys links to cod2 . You are wrong simple as that give it up. Gears of War on the 360 looks far better then a pc running it on a 7600 or 6600.

Not to mention the Ps3 can use the spu's to render complete lighting models, animation effects, shader effects and free the GPU up to do ohter things. A pc with a 6600 or 7600 cant compete with a ps3 and it shows on any current multiplat where they acutally use the spu's.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Oh I'm sorry it was in the $500 range all you need to do is find a couple cheaper parts, and oyu have it said and done also this was what I was directing at you.

If our standard of comparison for PC games was "the console version," the PC version would get a higher score than the others over 90% of the time." Kevin V

argetlam00

Looks like SC:C and SF4 are going to be that 10% so yet again whats your point?

why :|

The online community on the pc version is non existant. Thats important in a online fighting game and its only visual upgrade comes to resolution quality as it uses the exact same assets at max settings. If you honestly think the pc has higher standards when it comes to fighting games then you are wrong and im pretty sure kevin V wasnt thinking about fighters when he made that statement. The standard for fighting games on the console market is far higher as SF4 is theo only major one to come to pc's in years and they totally missed out on the superior SSF4.

Why would I spend £500 now, so I can sit back and moan on SW about how all my games are being consolised (BF3, Crysis 2, COD series) and how all the consoles are holding back technology? :P I'm being half serious, but that seems to be a recent trend in posts.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Looks like SC:C and SF4 are going to be that 10% so yet again whats your point?

TheSterls

why :|

The online community on the pc version is non existant. Thats important in a online fighting game and its only visual upgrade comes to resolution quality as it uses the exact same assets at max settings. If you honestly think the pc has higher standards when it comes to fighting games then you are wrong and im pretty sure kevin V wasnt thinking about fighters when he made that statement. The standard for fighting games on the console market is far higher as SF4 is theo only major one to come to pc's in years and they totally missed out on the superior SSF4.

Yet SF4 got the same score on PC as on consoles.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]

My favorite part of this whole thread? I love how all the PC die-hards want to convince people that PC gaming is so simple, anyone can do it. They wonder why anybody would think it is "too complex"....and then they make 100 posts basically debatingwhich components are the best, which are really necessary, what the best price really is, which graphics card is really the best, which graphics card is really necessary to play games for the next while, etc, etc, etc.

Seriously, my head hurts just looking at all that and you guys want to know why people would rather not bother and just play consoles?

argetlam00

We PC die hards do that so you don't have to :) How is this different than console fanboys fighting over a few pixels?

So who should I listen to then? You and your choice of upgrades, brands and where to buy them, or the other 5 guys who all have their own ideas of what is better and cheaper and more effective?

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Looks like SC:C and SF4 are going to be that 10% so yet again whats your point?

TheSterls

why :|

The online community on the pc version is non existant. Thats important in a online fighting game and its only visual upgrade comes to resolution quality as it uses the exact same assets at max settings. If you honestly think the pc has higher standards when it comes to fighting games then you are wrong and im pretty sure kevin V wasnt thinking about fighters when he made that statement. The standard for fighting games on the console market is far higher as SF4 is theo only major one to come to pc's in years and they totally missed out on the superior SSF4.

Why would I spend £500 now, so I can sit back and moan on SW about how all my games are being consolised (BF3, Crysis 2, COD series) and how all the consoles are holding back technology? :P I'm being half serious, but that seems to be a recent trend in posts.

Ravensmash

Why should we sit back and accept dumb down, inferior console titles of top PC games.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

why :|

argetlam00

The online community on the pc version is non existant. Thats important in a online fighting game and its only visual upgrade comes to resolution quality as it uses the exact same assets at max settings. If you honestly think the pc has higher standards when it comes to fighting games then you are wrong and im pretty sure kevin V wasnt thinking about fighters when he made that statement. The standard for fighting games on the console market is far higher as SF4 is theo only major one to come to pc's in years and they totally missed out on the superior SSF4.

Yet SF4 got the same score on PC as on consoles.

Yep as they dont factor that in there but consolites are already playing SSF4 a game you dont even get.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The online community on the pc version is non existant. Thats important in a online fighting game and its only visual upgrade comes to resolution quality as it uses the exact same assets at max settings. If you honestly think the pc has higher standards when it comes to fighting games then you are wrong and im pretty sure kevin V wasnt thinking about fighters when he made that statement. The standard for fighting games on the console market is far higher as SF4 is theo only major one to come to pc's in years and they totally missed out on the superior SSF4.

TheSterls

Yet SF4 got the same score on PC as on consoles.

Yep as they dont factor that in there but consolites are already playing SSF4 a game you dont even get.

I have a PS3, so I do just dont care. Fighting games and racers are the worst genres ever.

Anyway, you haven't contradicted Kevin V in terms of SF4.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]

Why would I spend £500 now, so I can sit back and moan on SW about how all my games are being consolised (BF3, Crysis 2, COD series) and how all the consoles are holding back technology? :P I'm being half serious, but that seems to be a recent trend in posts.

argetlam00

Why should we sit back and accept dumb down, inferior console titles of top PC games.

because they prefer console gaming?

I take it from the lack of response that there are no major non-Online RPG / non-Strategy exclusives on the horizon (aside from possibly The Witcher 2)? Not that it matters, just for SW reference.

SakusEnvoy

http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2010/

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The online community on the pc version is non existant. Thats important in a online fighting game and its only visual upgrade comes to resolution quality as it uses the exact same assets at max settings. If you honestly think the pc has higher standards when it comes to fighting games then you are wrong and im pretty sure kevin V wasnt thinking about fighters when he made that statement. The standard for fighting games on the console market is far higher as SF4 is theo only major one to come to pc's in years and they totally missed out on the superior SSF4.

TheSterls

Yet SF4 got the same score on PC as on consoles.

Yep as they dont factor that in there but consolites are already playing SSF4 a game you dont even get.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]

Why would I spend £500 now, so I can sit back and moan on SW about how all my games are being consolised (BF3, Crysis 2, COD series) and how all the consoles are holding back technology? :P I'm being half serious, but that seems to be a recent trend in posts.

argetlam00

Why should we sit back and accept dumb down, inferior console titles of top PC games.

Funny those dumb down inferior console titles are the wins winning GOTY for the past 4 years now? To bad pc cant compete at the highest lvl.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Your the one who thinks that the PS3 is god and has no ends..... My god your one of a kind... lets see, the PS3 has what? 256mb for the system and 256mb for video memory, while the memory bus on the RSX is equal too a 7600 and chipset is based off of what? guess? a 7800 chipset. Lets see, 6600 pixel shader 3 check 256 mb of memory check 512mb of memory check, 7600 pixel shader 3 check, 256mb and 512mb check. A 7800gtx shader model 3 check, 512mb check. The RSX shader model 3 check, 256 mb check, 512mb nope. Believe it or not the geforce 6's and 7's arent all that much different. the fact you keep on forgetting is that those Pc gpu's can have more memory *which* allows higher resolutions and detail whilenot having too much of a performance hit. Plus having more resources to call on from the system gives you less loading and better overall gaming (things not being vut down or toned down. I bring up prey as an example to show the differences in what memory can do to a game's detail .

The PS3 can use all 512mb for gaming and a 6600 cant even fully utilize a gig properly . We have posted links time and time again showing comparisons and the 6600 gets romped hell look the guys links to cod2 . You are wrong simple as that give it up. Gears of War on the 360 looks far better then a pc running it on a 7600 or 6600.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]

Why would I spend £500 now, so I can sit back and moan on SW about how all my games are being consolised (BF3, Crysis 2, COD series) and how all the consoles are holding back technology? :P I'm being half serious, but that seems to be a recent trend in posts.

TheSterls

Why should we sit back and accept dumb down, inferior console titles of top PC games.

Funny those dumb down inferior console titles are the wons winning GOTY for the past 4 years now? To bad pc cant compete at the highest lvl.

I highlighted the part you missed :|

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Your the one who thinks that the PS3 is god and has no ends..... My god your one of a kind... lets see, the PS3 has what? 256mb for the system and 256mb for video memory, while the memory bus on the RSX is equal too a 7600 and chipset is based off of what? guess? a 7800 chipset. Lets see, 6600 pixel shader 3 check 256 mb of memory check 512mb of memory check, 7600 pixel shader 3 check, 256mb and 512mb check. A 7800gtx shader model 3 check, 512mb check. The RSX shader model 3 check, 256 mb check, 512mb nope. Believe it or not the geforce 6's and 7's arent all that much different. the fact you keep on forgetting is that those Pc gpu's can have more memory *which* allows higher resolutions and detail whilenot having too much of a performance hit. Plus having more resources to call on from the system gives you less loading and better overall gaming (things not being vut down or toned down. I bring up prey as an example to show the differences in what memory can do to a game's detail .

The PS3 can use all 512mb for gaming and a 6600 cant even fully utilize a gig properly . We have posted links time and time again showing comparisons and the 6600 gets romped hell look the guys links to cod2 . You are wrong simple as that give it up. Gears of War on the 360 looks far better then a pc running it on a 7600 or 6600.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Yet SF4 got the same score on PC as on consoles.

Ravensmash

Yep as they dont factor that in there but consolites are already playing SSF4 a game you dont even get.

I got it on the PS3 because i like the controller better but most the people have moved on to ssf4 on psn and im guessing its the same on xbl. You will also notice people pick alot more characters in ssf4 while in SS4 more then half the people you play will pick Ryu or ken.

because they prefer console gaming?

clone01

I don't game on a PC so that people like you can make threads like this. :P

Also I just don't like it. I don't like gaming on a small screen, I don't want to hook my PC up to my TV, I don't like using a keyboard, I don't want to buy a controller to configure with my PC.

I don't game on a PC so that people like you can make threads like this. :P

Also I just don't like it. I don't like gaming on a small screen, I don't want to hook my PC up to my TV, I don't like using a keyboard, I don't want to buy a controller to configure with my PC.

VladJasonDrac

Define small screen.

Consoles for the most part are hassale free compared to computer gaming, and because I cannot play Halo: Reach on a computer. Gamers go where the games are they like which is why their are different consoles.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The PS3 can use all 512mb for gaming and a 6600 cant even fully utilize a gig properly . We have posted links time and time again showing comparisons and the 6600 gets romped hell look the guys links to cod2 . You are wrong simple as that give it up. Gears of War on the 360 looks far better then a pc running it on a 7600 or 6600.

savagetwinkie

Consoles run & move this industry/ market.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Why should we sit back and accept dumb down, inferior console titles of top PC games.

argetlam00

Funny those dumb down inferior console titles are the wons winning GOTY for the past 4 years now? To bad pc cant compete at the highest lvl.

I highlighted the part you missed :|

will then why not get top console titles that are rated higher period and cant even be played on pc :|

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Funny those dumb down inferior console titles are the wons winning GOTY for the past 4 years now? To bad pc cant compete at the highest lvl.

TheSterls

I highlighted the part you missed :|

will then why not get top console titles that are rated higher period and cant even be played on pc :|

PC has most AAA exclusives and has more high scoring exclusives than all consoles combined. Try again.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yep as they dont factor that in there but consolites are already playing SSF4 a game you dont even get.

TheSterls

I got it on the PS3 because i like the controller better but most the people have moved on to ssf4 on psn and im guessing its the same on xbl. You will also notice people pick alot more characters in ssf4 while in SS4 more then half the people you play will pick Ryu or ken.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Funny those dumb down inferior console titles are the wons winning GOTY for the past 4 years now? To bad pc cant compete at the highest lvl.

TheSterls

I highlighted the part you missed :|

will then why not get top console titles that are rated higher period and cant even be played on pc :|

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Your the one who thinks that the PS3 is god and has no ends..... My god your one of a kind... lets see, the PS3 has what? 256mb for the system and 256mb for video memory, while the memory bus on the RSX is equal too a 7600 and chipset is based off of what? guess? a 7800 chipset. Lets see, 6600 pixel shader 3 check 256 mb of memory check 512mb of memory check, 7600 pixel shader 3 check, 256mb and 512mb check. A 7800gtx shader model 3 check, 512mb check. The RSX shader model 3 check, 256 mb check, 512mb nope. Believe it or not the geforce 6's and 7's arent all that much different. the fact you keep on forgetting is that those Pc gpu's can have more memory *which* allows higher resolutions and detail whilenot having too much of a performance hit. Plus having more resources to call on from the system gives you less loading and better overall gaming (things not being vut down or toned down. I bring up prey as an example to show the differences in what memory can do to a game's detail .

04dcarraher

The PS3 can use all 512mb for gaming and a 6600 cant even fully utilize a gig properly . We have posted links time and time again showing comparisons and the 6600 gets romped hell look the guys links to cod2 . You are wrong simple as that give it up. Gears of War on the 360 looks far better then a pc running it on a 7600 or 6600.

TheCPU renders visuals to it has access to all 512mb for visuals and yes GeoW looks far better on the 360 then it does a 7600 or 7800. Why dot you dont you post some proof show me any benchmark of any title thats come out in the past 2 years that looks better on a 7800gtx or better yet a 6600 or 7600 then the 360?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

I highlighted the part you missed :|

clyde46

will then why not get top console titles that are rated higher period and cant even be played on pc :|

im pretty sure those games will never come to pc regardless . not sure what your point is.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

I highlighted the part you missed :|

clyde46

will then why not get top console titles that are rated higher period and cant even be played on pc :|

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

will then why not get top console titles that are rated higher period and cant even be played on pc :|

TheSterls

im pretty sure those games will never come to pc regardless . not sure what your point is.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The PS3 can use all 512mb for gaming and a 6600 cant even fully utilize a gig properly . We have posted links time and time again showing comparisons and the 6600 gets romped hell look the guys links to cod2 . You are wrong simple as that give it up. Gears of War on the 360 looks far better then a pc running it on a 7600 or 6600.

TheSterls

TheCPU renders visuals to it has access to all 512mb for visuals and yes GeoW looks far better on the 360 then it does a 7600 or 7800. Why dot you dont you post some proof show me any benchmark of any title thats come out in the past 2 years that looks better on a 7800gtx or better yet a 6600 or 7600 then the 360?