[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]
It is a common sense not to include office-pc's or low-end pc's, and also I never said every pc.
I get it, you don't like the idea that a very old pc outperform the consoles, that is ok with me, but don't try call me liar or even worse autism(like you did in your post above).
MK-Professor
I didn't say every cloud, every dog, every personal computer, every car, every American, or every pc from 2006 in the post above, so that means all of those sentences are true, right? Even though there can be clouds with no rain, many dogs have no spots, most personal computers run on Windows, people drive cars all the time without getting arrested, way more Americans do not live in Wyoming than do, and the vast majority of PCs, even those bought for gaming, are not more powerful than consoles (at least not in a way that translates to new games running better... or at all).I have no problem accepting that a 2006 pc that cost at least $1200, and likely a good deal more, outperforms a console from 2006 that cost $400-600. Why would I have a problem with that? The only thing I said was a lie was your initial statement "if you have a pc from 2006, you already know it plays any games better than consoles." I have a pc from 2006. It doesn't play games better than consoles. Ergo, the statement was not true. Also, I never called you autistic, or even implied that you might be. At this point, despite my usual tendency to continue an argument as long as the other party keeps going, I really think I just need to walk away on this one.
I think it is bothers you that a PC from 2006 play games better than console, because it makes consoles not a good investment because pc's are more cost effective and also you get better gaming experience (better graphics, better gameplay, etc). So that is why you try to prove my statement wrong, despite the fact that i have prove to you many times that my statement is true.
I'm going to just go ahead and assume that either English isn't your native language, or you are pretty young and still in school. I try not to be too judgemental about such things, so I'll just chalk our whole argument up to a misunderstanding about what it was I was trying to explain to you. But just for good measure, I'll repeat once again: It doesn't bother me at all that a pc from 2006 might be able to run games on higher settings than a console. How does it make a console a bad investment or make pcs more cost effective? Its the opposite, if anything. In order to have a 2006 pc that still plays all the new games, much less plays them at or above console performance levels, you'd have had to spent way more money... making the pc less cost effective, as far as gaming hardware costs. And, yeah... I'm not going to try to explain again why you have not actually proven your statement that I refuted to be true. If you haven't understood what I was saying in my other posts on the matter, one more is unlikely to yield any better results.
Log in to comment