Why would anyone not own a gaming PC?

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Well lets put it this way. If the PC got every game a console had would you still not want to game on a PC?

I never meant my argument to be subjective as it is null. I would rather approach it from an objective view point like hardware and potential.

WhenCicadasCry

I would 100% play on console if given the choice with the same games. 3rd party voice chat, server browsing, lame community. I can do without it. Besides PC gaming is becoming consolized anyways, so it won't be much longer before there is no difference.

Which will soon change once the PS3 and 360 gets "Wiiified". You'll all be running to the PC. :P

Teh PC iz teh winzz!!!

I really do wish PC gaming did interest me anymore. My friends still play, but I can't bring myself to build another masterpiece just to have it sit in the corner.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

So then we can agree that they are valid reasons for changing platforms and that in both cases we are choosing by preference? That was the goal of this thread.

tempest91

Well lets put it this way. If the PC got every game a console had would you still not want to game on a PC?

I never meant my argument to be subjective as it is null. I would rather approach it from an objective view point like hardware and potential.

I would 100% play on console if given the choice with the same games. 3rd party voice chat, server browsing, lame community. I can do without it. Besides PC gaming is becoming consolized anyways, so it won't be much longer before there is no difference.

It's the other way around... Consoles are becoming more and more like PCs.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Oh good God, anybody can join TS or Vent...

Bebi_vegeta

Man... I love it when someone just comes in the debate with another arugment that had nothing to do with the point.

Anyway, if you don't like TS or Vent, then don't use it. The IG chat is garbarge compared to them but it works.

Besides, there's one difference between PC and console with respect to in-game vs. 3rd party chat - on consoles, everyone is forced to use the in-game chat, so there's no risk of dividing up the server. Putting every player in the in-game voice client gives the game designers control of who you can hear and who can hear you - voice becomes another tool they can use to design exactly the game they want.

Local split-screen and 500 dollars is still steep. I have a gaming PC, but I definitely won't upgrade for a long time.

It costs. Just because you want to spend almost or over a grand on one doesn't mean alot of other people would want to. If you want a really good one, It'll most likely cost you an arm and a leg so I'll stick to console gaming. I'm sure that they aren't bad but it's just the pricing. Graphics? Yes they're nice but that's not important. I got a crappy game but the graphics are off the chain.:P

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] How are TS/Ventrilo supposed to react to events in game? For example, switching squads or teams, broadcasting voice to anyone within earshot (so that the enemy can hear you if you're not being careful), knocking out all audio for a few seconds after being hit with a flashbang, etc.? lowe0

Man... I love it when someone just comes in the debate with another arugment that had nothing to do with the point.

Anyway, if you don't like TS or Vent, then don't use it. The IG chat is garbarge compared to them but it works.

It all depends what situation you're in... there's just plenty of different situations. But, one thing is for sure... they should make better IG voice chat.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

I would 100% play on console if given the choice with the same games. 3rd party voice chat, server browsing, lame community. I can do without it. Besides PC gaming is becoming consolized anyways, so it won't be much longer before there is no difference.

tempest91

I really do wish PC gaming did interest me anymore. My friends still play, but I can't bring myself to build another masterpiece just to have it sit in the corner.

Why did you lose interest? Aside from the console exclusives, what doesn't the PC do better then the consoles? The exclusive argument is completely true, and I can understand that.

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

What effort? You buy the components, which can easily be picked out by someone with knowledge. You pay someone $40 to build it, or if you're a fan of Mechano, or Lego, you can build it yourself, then you're up and away.

Hakkai007

Well that's the point. A lot of these posts are from hardcore computer geeks who know the latest and greatest specs on every little piece of hardware that goes into their PC. Nvidia rtx778000 clocked at 0-75mphmghz in 2 seconds with 30nm gpu cpu graphics cards blah blah blah blah blah blah. You and Gabe Newell can discuss that. We don't know and we don't care. We just want to play games man. So we do. On a console. Where none of that is an issue or a thought.

Well some of us like to have superior looking games and a system with more potential and options.

That is your preference but not everyone's.

And you forget a computer is not just for gaming and is used for many important things.

Without those computers you would have your console games in the first place.

Well I had several consoles in my home before I ever saw a home computer so maybe without those consoles PC gaming wouldn't be what it is today. I think the Atari 2600 in 1977 sold more games than home computers sold games in 1977. Amirite? I also think that if you wanted a PC in the 70's you needed to be really rich and wouldn't have a lot of use for one anyway.

My consoles are used for many important things. Games, movies, social networking, internet etc. There really isn't a lot you can do on a PC that can't be done on a console nowadays. At least when talking about the average computer user.

But like I said, most people don't care. Most of the PC gamers in here post ridiculousy technical responses about CPUs, GPUs, graphics cards and more. The average consumer doesn't care. They want to play games not worry about if their PC is up to standards for this new game, or has a virus, or needs a new monitor or graphics card or GPU or CPU, or to configure their PC to play the game, or to configure a controller to their PC or to configure their PC to play games on their TV screen etc. etc. That's way too much nonsense for the average gaming consumer. You buy a console and you plug it in and play games without worrying about any of that.

It costs. Just because you want to spend almost or over a grand on one doesn't mean alot of other people would want to. If you want a really good one, It'll most likely cost you an arm and a leg so I'll stick to console gaming. I'm sure that they aren't bad but it's just the pricing. Graphics? Yes they're nice but that's not important. I got a crappy game but the graphics are off the chain.:P

coolkid93

You can build a PC for about 500. PC isn't just graphics. Thats just ONE of the MANY bonuses.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Well lets put it this way. If the PC got every game a console had would you still not want to game on a PC?

I never meant my argument to be subjective as it is null. I would rather approach it from an objective view point like hardware and potential.

argetlam00

I would 100% play on console if given the choice with the same games. 3rd party voice chat, server browsing, lame community. I can do without it. Besides PC gaming is becoming consolized anyways, so it won't be much longer before there is no difference.

Lol at lame community. I'd best the worst PC communities are better than the best console communities. Lets also ignore the superior versions of multiplats, the mods, the far superior graphics and gameplay (provided from actual features of K+M)

I can smell no bias here, and have instantly rediscovered the ridiculous arrogance I love so much about the PC community. Also, KB+M = Meh. Graphics are very overrated and only a small percentage of mods (excluding Valve of course) are worth the time.

PS, i already identified in a previous post that the console community is no better.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Detail and resolutions is all dependant on memory (resources) not all about processing power. Better graphics needs memory to store and process then render that. the higher the detail and resolution the more memory is used . This is why you dont see too many demanding 1080 games on ethier the PS3 or 360 because their isnt enough memory to store that data. Games like the Unreal engine on high settings with 4xAA above 1280x720 uses more then 400mb of video memory. This why all console games have really really tweaked out settings with low medium and high settings, with small linear levels, baked on static graphics&effects. Even not demanding games like left for dead using an updated source. engine from 2004 cant be run on high settings like Pc because they lack the memory to do so. And that games was designed correctly to use those consoles, you can see the low resolutions, low detail on some objects and some objects not even present in the console versions when the Pc version had them. Memory plays a bigger role then you think. Hakkai007

DMC4, RE5, SC.C , ME2 are several games where the console version uses the exact same texture assets at max settins as the pc version. You could not push the assets above the ones on consoles with a 6600 or 7800gt on any current game and get a playable framerate. And L4D was yet again another pc port, it wasnt even released on the PS3 and GeoW on the 360 looks better then the pc running it on medium settingsPERIOD so how is a 6600gt going to outperfrom that. You act like ALL games are using gimped settings and they dont.

Actually DMC4, RE5 and ME2 uses different settings. Not sure about Splinter Cell Conviction since I haven't played it.

Also why are you talking about the 6600gt? When the 360 came out the 7800 series was already out for many months.

And if I lowered the settings as much as the consoles do I could push a 7800gt just as well.

Here is GeoW on medium settings on the PC which still looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

WhenCicadasCry

I really do wish PC gaming did interest me anymore. My friends still play, but I can't bring myself to build another masterpiece just to have it sit in the corner.

Why did you lose interest? Aside from the console exclusives, what doesn't the PC do better then the consoles? The exclusive argument is completely true, and I can understand that.

I don't like the community much and there was just far too long of a gap in games that interested me. It seemed like decent game, MP, MP, MP....(months go by) decent game. It just doesn't get the support from developers I like as it used to.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Actually a PC that is a around 500 USD can be 4x more powerful than any console.

Hakkai007

I played Metro 2033 at Very high directx 10 with that computer and it looks many times better than the console version.

It is tied with Crysis as best looking game ever.

Also Games like GeoW look a lot better on the PC with new add ons like a few missions on larger campaign maps.

Prince of Persia The Forgotten Sands also looks a lot better especially with better lighting and effects.

Mass Effect looks a lot better.

GTA IV looks a hell of a lot better.

Just Cause 2 looks a hell of a lot better.

Dragon Age looks a hell of a lot better.

Oblivion looks a hell of a lot better.

I could go on and on.

Consoles have severe limits to what they can handle and this is why you get lower settings.

There is no magical power that the consoles have.

And higher resolution makes a big difference that a low AA cannot replicate as well.

I have compared these games side by side from console to PC and I see the big difference.

My friend who has been a console gamer for over 15 years had finally bought a PC and he notices the big difference too.

Mass Effect doesnt look better at all with the exception of resolution and ive proved that with side by side picks nor does POP. There is basically a handful of games that have lower settings more then half use the max . Im sure that will change the longer these conosles are out but to say ME2 looks alot better on pc is hillarious.

Im running a pc with a GTX285 I simply have to hit the source button and I can compare the images one after the other. So some of the massive diffrence you claim exist dont and i know that as personal fact. ZOMG TEH DIFFRENCE

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

[QUOTE="coolkid93"]

It costs. Just because you want to spend almost or over a grand on one doesn't mean alot of other people would want to. If you want a really good one, It'll most likely cost you an arm and a leg so I'll stick to console gaming. I'm sure that they aren't bad but it's just the pricing. Graphics? Yes they're nice but that's not important. I got a crappy game but the graphics are off the chain.:P

argetlam00

You can build a PC for about 500. PC isn't just graphics. Thats just ONE of the MANY bonuses.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

I would 100% play on console if given the choice with the same games. 3rd party voice chat, server browsing, lame community. I can do without it. Besides PC gaming is becoming consolized anyways, so it won't be much longer before there is no difference.

tempest91

Lol at lame community. I'd best the worst PC communities are better than the best console communities. Lets also ignore the superior versions of multiplats, the mods, the far superior graphics and gameplay (provided from actual features of K+M)

I can smell no bias here, and have instantly rediscovered the ridiculous arrogance I love so much about the PC community. Also, KB+M = Meh. Graphics are very overrated and only a small percentage of mods (excluding Valve of course) are worth the time.

PS, i already identified in a previous post that the console community is no better.

Name me a console community with mods and that creates unofficial patches to fix countless bugs that the devs won't fix. I doubt little kids yelling racial slurs over xbox live are capable of that. KG+M is a significant advantage. Playing shooters with controller can be unbearable after experiencing it. Graphics aren't overrated on PC. They are often WAY better. If you can't find good mods for popular games like Fallout 3, Civilization, Battlefield, Total War, etc, you aren't even looking. Its amazing how there is not even a cent of truth in your post.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Well that's the point. A lot of these posts are from hardcore computer geeks who know the latest and greatest specs on every little piece of hardware that goes into their PC. Nvidia rtx778000 clocked at 0-75mphmghz in 2 seconds with 30nm gpu cpu graphics cards blah blah blah blah blah blah. You and Gabe Newell can discuss that. We don't know and we don't care. We just want to play games man. So we do. On a console. Where none of that is an issue or a thought.

VladJasonDrac

Well some of us like to have superior looking games and a system with more potential and options.

That is your preference but not everyone's.

And you forget a computer is not just for gaming and is used for many important things.

Without those computers you would have your console games in the first place.

Well I had several consoles in my home before I ever saw a home computer so maybe without those consoles PC gaming wouldn't be what it is today. I think the Atari 2600 in 1977 sold more games than home computers sold games in 1977. Amirite? I also think that if you wanted a PC in the 70's you needed to be really rich and wouldn't have a lot of use for one anyway.

My consoles are used for many important things. Games, movies, social networking, internet etc. There really isn't a lot you can do on a PC that can't be done on a console nowadays. At least when talking about the average computer user.

But like I said, most people don't care. Most of the PC gamers in here post ridiculousy technical responses about CPUs, GPUs, graphics cards and more. The average consumer doesn't care. They want to play games not worry about if their PC is up to standards for this new game, or has a virus, or needs a new monitor or graphics card or GPU or CPU, or to configure their PC to play the game, or to configure a controller to their PC or to configure their PC to play games on their TV screen etc. etc. That's way too much nonsense for the average gaming consumer. You buy a console and you plug it in and play games without worrying about any of that.

Seriously, a PC is a work tool. Now please, before you say there's not alot of things PC can do that a Console can't, get your facts straight.

Consoles exist for people who just want to play games hassle free.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Usually yes, but it can change in the longterm. Furthermore, how much is a PS3, 300 dollars? then you gotta start popping 60 dollars a game + HDMI cables + controllers. When I got my PS3 I spent over 400 dollars on it, with the games and all. Some of the very best PC games can be found very cheaply on Steam.

[QUOTE="Logan832"][QUOTE="-Hoax-"]I dont like KeyBoard and Mouse...argetlam00

You can plug in a controller if you don't like to use M+ K for a particular game. Though I HIGHLY suggest you do for shooters and RTS ;)

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="coolkid93"]

It costs. Just because you want to spend almost or over a grand on one doesn't mean alot of other people would want to. If you want a really good one, It'll most likely cost you an arm and a leg so I'll stick to console gaming. I'm sure that they aren't bad but it's just the pricing. Graphics? Yes they're nice but that's not important. I got a crappy game but the graphics are off the chain.:P

coolkid93

You can build a PC for about 500. PC isn't just graphics. Thats just ONE of the MANY bonuses.

Nope. Ignore those bizarre myths about PC gaming. My PC is 2 years old and I paid £650 for it, and it still maxes out ALMOST EVERY multiplat, at 60fps, some at 30fps, Just Cause 2, Metro 2033 DX10 ect, and can play most graphical intensive PC exclusives maxed no AA at 1080p 30fps minimum. Even if you simply upgraded your GPU and maybe your PSU for like $90, you can turn your home PC into a gaming PC. In this day and age there's simply no excuse to not atleast give PC gaming a chance. It's never been cheaper. I could keep my current PC until the end of this console gen, and still achieve graphics better then the consoles, without having to upgrade.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] That too! I don't mind the mouse.. But keyboard keys have always seemed uncomfortable and awkward to play games with.campzor

You can plug in a controller if you don't like to use M+ K for a particular game. Though I HIGHLY suggest you do for shooters and RTS ;)

I bought a PS3 before I bought a PC, before I discovered its greatness ;) I used to be like many other consolites here. Who think PC is a $2000 gaming machine with no games, bugs, no community, etc

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Lol at lame community. I'd best the worst PC communities are better than the best console communities. Lets also ignore the superior versions of multiplats, the mods, the far superior graphics and gameplay (provided from actual features of K+M)

argetlam00

I can smell no bias here, and have instantly rediscovered the ridiculous arrogance I love so much about the PC community. Also, KB+M = Meh. Graphics are very overrated and only a small percentage of mods (excluding Valve of course) are worth the time.

PS, i already identified in a previous post that the console community is no better.

Name me a console community with mods and that creates unofficial patches to fix countless bugs that the devs won't fix. I doubt little kids yelling racial slurs over xbox live are capable of that. KG+M is a significant advantage. Playing shooters with controller can be unbearable after experiencing it. Graphics aren't overrated on PC. They are often WAY better. If you can't find good mods for popular games like Fallout 3, Civilization, Battlefield, Total War, etc, you aren't even looking. Its amazing how there is not even a cent of truth in your post.

I'm not claiming truth, I'm presenting my opinion. I've played most all of those games on max setting with mods and the excitement wears off really fast. The mods are just holding people over until the next decent PC exclusive comes out. KB + M is only an advantage for those who prefer it. I personally find no advantage and suffer not dip in performance when using a gamepad on PC or console. The thing I find the funniest about this whole thing is that every argument here is invalid to you and that having a different opinion is somehow wrong now. I have built several high end gaming PC's. I work on computers every day and know them extremely well. I've played PC games for many years, and I now prefer console games. It's that simple. You are trying much too hard to explain this to yourself. Mods and customization will never make up for exclusive games. Never.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] no i mean each is an option where pc is notsavagetwinkie

He said for 200$... with that you get no games, no internet option and no extra accesories. What the heck can you do with a budget of 200$??????

for 500, you can get a horribly low end gaming PC

for 600 you can get a horribly low end gaming PC w/ some games or splurge a bit on the video card

Wrong and wrong!

$630 with rebates:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8713/630pc.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

· GTX 460

· FREE: Just Cause 2

$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

· USB TV Tuner

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Oh and I just love how every time someone quotes PC prices, it's based on a building it yourself. Can you not get it through already that there are numerous consumers who just don't want to build their own rigs!

Arach666

Here where I live we have stores that do that for you.

Don´t know how to build a PC? Guess what,you don´t have to.

Which would essentially be the same as buying a pre-made boxed computer, and thus more expensive than one you built yourself. And that was the point, the PC cost vs the console cost, and for those who buy pre-built PCs, its always more expensive than a console.

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

He said for 200$... with that you get no games, no internet option and no extra accesories. What the heck can you do with a budget of 200$??????

NVIDIATI

for 500, you can get a horribly low end gaming PC

for 600 you can get a horribly low end gaming PC w/ some games or splurge a bit on the video card

Wrong and wrong!

$630 with rebates:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/8713/630pc.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

· GTX 460

· FREE: Just Cause 2

$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

· USB TV Tuner

FAIL!

Xenos >>>> GTX460 and H5770 combined!

Teh Cellz >>>>>>>>>> AMD Quad Black Edition

:P

[QUOTE="coolkid93"][QUOTE="argetlam00"]

You can build a PC for about 500. PC isn't just graphics. Thats just ONE of the MANY bonuses.

WhenCicadasCry

Nope. Ignore those bizarre myths about PC gaming. My PC is 2 years old and I paid £650 for it, and it still maxes out ALMOST EVERY multiplat, at 60fps, some at 30fps, Just Cause 2, Metro 2033 DX10 ect, and can play most graphical intensive PC exclusives maxed no AA at 1080p 30fps minimum. Even if you simply upgraded your GPU and maybe your PSU for like $90, you can turn your home PC into a gaming PC. In this day and age there's simply no excuse to not atleast give PC gaming a chance. It's never been cheaper. I could keep my current PC until the end of this console gen, and still achieve graphics better then the consoles, without having to upgrade.

Trip to local PC vendor

"Hi. I'd like to purchase a Pentium D, 512MB of RAM and a Ati X1800XT"

:|

Vendor:

That's pretty much what people are doing when they purchase a Xbox 360. :P

WhenCicadasCry

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

Seriously? Despite all the advantages, there are still pure console gamers and it blows my mind.

PC gaming is:

1) not that expensive. I've seen good PC's built for 500 if your REALLY on budget.

2) Has more high scoring exclusives than all 3 consoles combined

3) Has mods, I've seen mods offered for free that are superior to expansion packs. Infact, many games IMO like Rome Total War would be garbage without mods. They can completely revolutionize a game.

4) I've found that PC games generally have the best and most mature community of players

5) PC gaming has unmatched technical power and the versatility it gives is next to none. While consoles are likely to be stuck with 1080p even on the NEXT generation, PC gaming, if you are willing to spend the money, can be running across multiple monitors with features like eyefinity.1920x1200 x 3 is 5760p.

6) Yes, PC gaming can be played on your "comfy" couch and you can connect your PC to your HDTV. If you don't want to use the superior M+K (superior for most genres that is) for a game, you can just connect a controller. LIke I said before, VERSATILITY

7) Best versions of all multiplats. Infact, some multiplats are so good on PC that they might as well be considered a whole different experience. Case in point, Team Fortress 2.

So, why do some people actually not game on PC?

argetlam00

I didn't actually care for the rest (since I'd rather not do a long negative response like many people have here), but metacritic says otherwise as does GS. No AAAA games nor any game scores above a 96. If by more you mean a higher number than you are ignoring the drop in quality old 90';s era games experience and how a 60gb PS3 can play PS2 and PS1 titles that pretty much rival PC titles in number.

That is all.

[QUOTE="coolkid93"][QUOTE="argetlam00"]

You can build a PC for about 500. PC isn't just graphics. Thats just ONE of the MANY bonuses.

WhenCicadasCry

Nope. Ignore those bizarre myths about PC gaming. My PC is 2 years old and I paid £650 for it, and it still maxes out ALMOST EVERY multiplat, at 60fps, some at 30fps, Just Cause 2, Metro 2033 DX10 ect, and can play most graphical intensive PC exclusives maxed no AA at 1080p 30fps minimum. Even if you simply upgraded your GPU and maybe your PSU for like $90, you can turn your home PC into a gaming PC. In this day and age there's simply no excuse to not atleast give PC gaming a chance. It's never been cheaper. I could keep my current PC until the end of this console gen, and still achieve graphics better then the consoles, without having to upgrade.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Trip to local PC vendor

"Hi. I'd like to purchase a Pentium D, 512MB of RAM and a Ati X1800XT"

:|

Vendor:

That's pretty much what people are doing when they purchase a Xbox 360. :P

TheSterls

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Well some of us like to have superior looking games and a system with more potential and options.

That is your preference but not everyone's.

And you forget a computer is not just for gaming and is used for many important things.

Without those computers you would have your console games in the first place.

Bebi_vegeta

Well I had several consoles in my home before I ever saw a home computer so maybe without those consoles PC gaming wouldn't be what it is today. I think the Atari 2600 in 1977 sold more games than home computers sold games in 1977. Amirite? I also think that if you wanted a PC in the 70's you needed to be really rich and wouldn't have a lot of use for one anyway.

My consoles are used for many important things. Games, movies, social networking, internet etc. There really isn't a lot you can do on a PC that can't be done on a console nowadays. At least when talking about the average computer user.

But like I said, most people don't care. Most of the PC gamers in here post ridiculousy technical responses about CPUs, GPUs, graphics cards and more. The average consumer doesn't care. They want to play games not worry about if their PC is up to standards for this new game, or has a virus, or needs a new monitor or graphics card or GPU or CPU, or to configure their PC to play the game, or to configure a controller to their PC or to configure their PC to play games on their TV screen etc. etc. That's way too much nonsense for the average gaming consumer. You buy a console and you plug it in and play games without worrying about any of that.

Seriously, a PC is a work tool. Now please, before you say there's not alot of things PC can do that a Console can't, get your facts straight.

Consoles exist for people who just want to play games hassle free.

Wait what? What type of work? If I am using a PC as a work tool it is usually while I am at work and I am not allowed to play games on it lol

This PS3 thing Sony made has some crappy video editor and USB ports for keyboards and printers and stuff and a web browser. Really these consoles can do most of what a PC does. I expect the next gen to improve on this. I look for the PS4 to have an ad campaign that says "It only does everything". Except this time it won't be a lie and it really will do everything :)

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Detail and resolutions is all dependant on memory (resources) not all about processing power. Better graphics needs memory to store and process then render that. the higher the detail and resolution the more memory is used . This is why you dont see too many demanding 1080 games on ethier the PS3 or 360 because their isnt enough memory to store that data. Games like the Unreal engine on high settings with 4xAA above 1280x720 uses more then 400mb of video memory. This why all console games have really really tweaked out settings with low medium and high settings, with small linear levels, baked on static graphics&effects. Even not demanding games like left for dead using an updated source. engine from 2004 cant be run on high settings like Pc because they lack the memory to do so. And that games was designed correctly to use those consoles, you can see the low resolutions, low detail on some objects and some objects not even present in the console versions when the Pc version had them. Memory plays a bigger role then you think. 04dcarraher

DMC4, RE5, SC.C , ME2 are several games where the console version uses the exact same texture assets at max settins as the pc version. You could not push the assets above the ones on consoles with a 6600 or 7800gt on any current game and get a playable framerate. And L4D was yet again another pc port, it wasnt even released on the PS3 and GeoW on the 360 looks better then the pc running it on medium settingsPERIOD so how is a 6600gt going to outperfrom that. You act like ALL games are using gimped settings and they dont.

Your wrong again. Every game I listed has the exacet same assets on consoles as the pc version as max settings THAT IS A FACT. The 7800gtx can not run any of those games at max settings at 60fps with 720p res. thus I prove my point.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Seriously? Despite all the advantages, there are still pure console gamers and it blows my mind.

PC gaming is:

1) not that expensive. I've seen good PC's built for 500 if your REALLY on budget.

2) Has more high scoring exclusives than all 3 consoles combined

3) Has mods, I've seen mods offered for free that are superior to expansion packs. Infact, many games IMO like Rome Total War would be garbage without mods. They can completely revolutionize a game.

4) I've found that PC games generally have the best and most mature community of players

5) PC gaming has unmatched technical power and the versatility it gives is next to none. While consoles are likely to be stuck with 1080p even on the NEXT generation, PC gaming, if you are willing to spend the money, can be running across multiple monitors with features like eyefinity.1920x1200 x 3 is 5760p.

6) Yes, PC gaming can be played on your "comfy" couch and you can connect your PC to your HDTV. If you don't want to use the superior M+K (superior for most genres that is) for a game, you can just connect a controller. LIke I said before, VERSATILITY

7) Best versions of all multiplats. Infact, some multiplats are so good on PC that they might as well be considered a whole different experience. Case in point, Team Fortress 2.

So, why do some people actually not game on PC?

SPYDER0416

I didn't actually care for the rest (since I'd rather not do a long negative response like many people have here), but metacritic says otherwise as does GS. No AAAA games nor any game scores above a 96.

That is all.

More, not the highest rated...

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Trip to local PC vendor

"Hi. I'd like to purchase a Pentium D, 512MB of RAM and a Ati X1800XT"

:|

Vendor:

That's pretty much what people are doing when they purchase a Xbox 360. :P

WhenCicadasCry

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

That pc couldnt play Crysis and yes if optimzed a 360 could do it and do it quite well if Crysis 2 is any indication.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Trip to local PC vendor

"Hi. I'd like to purchase a Pentium D, 512MB of RAM and a Ati X1800XT"

:|

Vendor:

That's pretty much what people are doing when they purchase a Xbox 360. :P

WhenCicadasCry

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

I really hope you're joking.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Trip to local PC vendor

"Hi. I'd like to purchase a Pentium D, 512MB of RAM and a Ati X1800XT"

:|

Vendor:

That's pretty much what people are doing when they purchase a Xbox 360. :P

WhenCicadasCry

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Well I had several consoles in my home before I ever saw a home computer so maybe without those consoles PC gaming wouldn't be what it is today. I think the Atari 2600 in 1977 sold more games than home computers sold games in 1977. Amirite? I also think that if you wanted a PC in the 70's you needed to be really rich and wouldn't have a lot of use for one anyway.

My consoles are used for many important things. Games, movies, social networking, internet etc. There really isn't a lot you can do on a PC that can't be done on a console nowadays. At least when talking about the average computer user.

But like I said, most people don't care. Most of the PC gamers in here post ridiculousy technical responses about CPUs, GPUs, graphics cards and more. The average consumer doesn't care. They want to play games not worry about if their PC is up to standards for this new game, or has a virus, or needs a new monitor or graphics card or GPU or CPU, or to configure their PC to play the game, or to configure a controller to their PC or to configure their PC to play games on their TV screen etc. etc. That's way too much nonsense for the average gaming consumer. You buy a console and you plug it in and play games without worrying about any of that.

VladJasonDrac

Seriously, a PC is a work tool. Now please, before you say there's not alot of things PC can do that a Console can't, get your facts straight.

Consoles exist for people who just want to play games hassle free.

Wait what? What type of work? If I am using a PC as a work tool it is usually while I am at work and I am not allowed to play games on it lol

This PS3 thing Sony made has some crappy video editor and USB ports for keyboards and printers and stuff and a web browser. Really these consoles can do most of what a PC does. I expect the next gen to improve on this. I look for the PS4 to have an ad campaign that says "It only does everything". Except this time it won't be a lie and it really will do everything :)

What do you mean what work? You just proved... your using your PC to work, not a console. Why do you think that is?

Try to find me a console that can do some photoshop, music editing... you know, work related stuff.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="coolkid93"] I know it's not just about graphics, I was just saying. Sure I can build one for 500 bones but don't you have to update it every once and a while? I wouldn't mind having a PC but it's just the price of it. I can't afford it at the moment.SilverIce7

Nope. Ignore those bizarre myths about PC gaming. My PC is 2 years old and I paid £650 for it, and it still maxes out ALMOST EVERY multiplat, at 60fps, some at 30fps, Just Cause 2, Metro 2033 DX10 ect, and can play most graphical intensive PC exclusives maxed no AA at 1080p 30fps minimum. Even if you simply upgraded your GPU and maybe your PSU for like $90, you can turn your home PC into a gaming PC. In this day and age there's simply no excuse to not atleast give PC gaming a chance. It's never been cheaper. I could keep my current PC until the end of this console gen, and still achieve graphics better then the consoles, without having to upgrade.

Nope.

Crysis 720p 4xAA. I can turn off AA and run it at 1080p 30fps. Notice my GPU model? 2008.

Here's during a heavy combat scene with over 10+ AI. Remember, Crysis at 20fps with motionblur is suprisingly smooth.

Here's Mass Effect 2, a title released this year, maxed at 1080p 60fps. Check top right of image for FPS.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

Ravensmash

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

I mean tech wise. Some PC exclusives can't be ported to the consoles. :P

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

A pc with those specs couldnt even run any 360 game . A pc with 512mb of RAm is dead in the water trying to do any console title.

Ravensmash

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

Awesome... a X360 cant play Wii and PS3 exclusive and vice versa...

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

DMC4, RE5, SC.C , ME2 are several games where the console version uses the exact same texture assets at max settins as the pc version. You could not push the assets above the ones on consoles with a 6600 or 7800gt on any current game and get a playable framerate. And L4D was yet again another pc port, it wasnt even released on the PS3 and GeoW on the 360 looks better then the pc running it on medium settingsPERIOD so how is a 6600gt going to outperfrom that. You act like ALL games are using gimped settings and they dont.

TheSterls

Actually DMC4, RE5 and ME2 uses different settings. Not sure about Splinter Cell Conviction since I haven't played it.

Also why are you talking about the 6600gt? When the 360 came out the 7800 series was already out for many months.

And if I lowered the settings as much as the consoles do I could push a 7800gt just as well.

Here is GeoW on medium settings on the PC which still looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

Post pics then. And yes they do have higher settings.

You are all talk and no show.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

A 360 can't play most PC exclusives, ie Crysis.

WhenCicadasCry

I mean tech wise. Some PC exclusives can't be ported to the consoles. :P

Every PC exclusive can be played on a 360/PS3 if optimized for the system. Played =/= maxed out and since Crysis 2 is on both, this proves that it can be done.

because people like me spend over 600 dollars on new rig hardware only to find out it wont turn on..your guaranteed a working console...that is if you buy a ps3 ;) but in my opinion unless you can just spend money whenever you like or screw something up and your ok with waiting 2 months till it works id tell people to get a console

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] but its not 4x better looking, alot of the power goes into pushing higher res on monitors, which is partially why there isn't as much of a difference as there should be. I guess paying twice as much and not getting something that looks twice as good kind of is a little dissapointingTheSterls

I played Metro 2033 at Very high directx 10 with that computer and it looks many times better than the console version.

It is tied with Crysis as best looking game ever.

Also Games like GeoW look a lot better on the PC with new add ons like a few missions on larger campaign maps.

Prince of Persia The Forgotten Sands also looks a lot better especially with better lighting and effects.

Mass Effect looks a lot better.

GTA IV looks a hell of a lot better.

Just Cause 2 looks a hell of a lot better.

Dragon Age looks a hell of a lot better.

Oblivion looks a hell of a lot better.

I could go on and on.

Consoles have severe limits to what they can handle and this is why you get lower settings.

There is no magical power that the consoles have.

And higher resolution makes a big difference that a low AA cannot replicate as well.

I have compared these games side by side from console to PC and I see the big difference.

My friend who has been a console gamer for over 15 years had finally bought a PC and he notices the big difference too.

Mass Effect doesnt look better at all with the exception of resolution and ive proved that with side by side picks nor does POP. There is basically a handful of games that have lower settings more then half use the max . Im sure that will change the longer these conosles are out but to say ME2 looks alot better on pc is hillarious.

Im running a pc with a GTX285 I simply have to hit the source button and I can compare the images one after the other. So some of the massive diffrence you claim exist dont and i know that as personal fact. ZOMG TEH DIFFRENCE

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

I can't seem to get the pics to bump up the resolution it is too small to see anything.

Here is my own screenshot from Mass Effect 1

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Actually DMC4, RE5 and ME2 uses different settings. Not sure about Splinter Cell Conviction since I haven't played it.

Also why are you talking about the 6600gt? When the 360 came out the 7800 series was already out for many months.

And if I lowered the settings as much as the consoles do I could push a 7800gt just as well.

Here is GeoW on medium settings on the PC which still looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

Hakkai007

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

Post pics then. And yes they do have higher settings.

You are all talk and no show.

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

"However, perhaps the biggest surprise in putting together our comparison is that the Xbox 360 version is running at the PC's equivalent of having virtually every setting at the absolute maximum (anti-aliasing and resolution apart, obviously)"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tech-comparison-resident-evil-5-pc-article

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"] A PC can't play any 360/PS3 or Wii exclusives.tempest91

I mean tech wise. Some PC exclusives can't be ported to the consoles. :P

Every PC exclusive can be played on a 360/PS3 if optimized for the system. Played =/= maxed out and since Crysis 2 is on both, this proves that it can be done.

Crytek openingly said Crysis could not be ported, period. Napeleon Total War, no way. Stalker, and it's A-Life AI? No way.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

TheSterls

Post pics then. And yes they do have higher settings.

You are all talk and no show.

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

We don't even know what setting or what PC they were using...

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Oh and I just love how every time someone quotes PC prices, it's based on a building it yourself. Can you not get it through already that there are numerous consumers who just don't want to build their own rigs!

AdobeArtist

Here where I live we have stores that do that for you.

Don´t know how to build a PC? Guess what,you don´t have to.

Which would essentially be the same as buying a pre-made boxed computer, and thus more expensive than one you built yourself. And that was the point, the PC cost vs the console cost, and for those who buy pre-built PCs, its always more expensive than a console.

Starcraft 2 completely maxed out everything on ultra at 1080p. Cutscene is in real time, and ingame pic is from possibly the most insane level in SC2.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Post pics then. And yes they do have higher settings.

You are all talk and no show.

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

We don't even know what setting or what PC they were using...

Sigh, obvious troll, but ill bite. A console is a gaming device. Pc's are expensive and require constant upgrades. Alot of people including myself dont have the know how to do this.

kipohippo021