Alright. You're new here, it seems--I don't think much anyone else would borderline flame the board's most tempermental moderator in the middle of his own section, otherwise. But other than the Fanboy stuff--which is only borderline anyway--you were pretty civil, so I'm going to just respond.
The first thing I should probably say, is that I DO own a PS2 and an Xbox, though I never play the Xbox (because I can't stomach a 15 frame per second game online).
The second thing is akin to Kimfu's point--I bought this computer in 2001. I can still play pretty much everything. I don't upgrade because I can no longer play--it doesn't usually get to that point, ever, to be honest with you. It's more like I upgrade to improve the quality of the gaming experience, as the stronger games don't always run as well, but right up to Oblivion I managed to get my stuff working every time without any real problems.
I hope you realize that you made a lot of illogical statements when you quoted all those parts of my post. As you're about to learn, a debate with Pride is a hard thing to win.
On Power vs. Consoles said:
No, it isn't. For approximately 1/3 of every generation, the PC is less powerful than the console for pure dollar value. Even after that period is over, the console has staying power while the PC needs an upgrade or it can no longer play the newest games. Increasing the cost so much that you can add both the other consoles and still save money over PC gaming.
I don't know where you get your figures. A powerful computer that can run anything put out for the next four or five years on max, is only about 900 dollars. Yeah you have your console for 10 years, but you seem to be under the impression that you have to shell out 3,000 bucks every two months to play the latest games. And as I said before, that only happens to uneducated consumers. As for power versus the consoles, I'm not even going to argue this; the consoles, mechanically, are a FRACTION of modern computers. When your Xbox has an SLI motherboard and a dual core processor with two monstrous 512 megabyte video cards in it, I'll change my stance on this. But that will never happen, because they are built invariably on current technology--it will NEVER be cost effective for any console manufacturer to put fully state of the art equipment into their machines. Granted, they don't necessarily need it, but still. They will always have low end versions of the parts in current circulation--and even if they WERE state of the art, a new video card or technology comes out every other month in the world of the PC, so it wouldn't last long at all.
On Mods said:
Mods aren't useful to everyone. And they aren't that big a deal. I'd rather move on to a new game than stay stuck on an old one for ages.
I don't get this either. You have a very biased opinion of this. It's not being 'stuck' on an old game--it's somebody making a new, usually very creative one, out of your old game, and making it available to you for free. Free innovative games with consistent updates and great concepts = good, I can't see how you can find any other way to spin this. Welcome to the ESF forums, by the way.
On PC having better control ability said:
In a couple genres maybe, not overall. And the second keyboards become more widely used on console, you'll have lost the point completely.
The PC is the king of custom control schemes, so this is another moot point. You can completely customize the keys of any game, the only one I ever played where you couldn't was this drab anime game called 'Oni' which, ironically, would have been a lot more at home on the PS1. You get one controller, maybe a steering wheel, and a keyboard and mouse addon for consoles (that you can barely use because your sitting on a couch and not at a desk). Well the PC has flightsticks, laser mice, game mice (mine has five buttons--all assignable on a per game basis), and best of all there are controllers available for the PC (again, all with customizable keys for all games) that have a million shapes and sizes, including that of the PS2 and Xbox controllers. Yeah you've got your little stylus thing on the DS, but we have that too; the new Nintendo controller is only just catching up to the capability of the mouse, which is--what? 25-30 years old? Even once it DOES catch up, it's sensitivity will probably be completely unadjustable and I bet all kinds of things will screw with its signal. We have wireless laser mice, too, have for years. Nice of the consoles to try to play catchup, after so long.
On Customization said:
Most of your customising comes from developers having to deal with multiple hardware setups. It isn't needed on console.
I was referring to customization on MY end. I have over 40 user-made add-ons for World of Warcraft. In Halo you get to pick one of 8 colors, on one of three character models. There is an entire other website dedicated to ESF itself, and additional character models, maps, sound effects, graphical sprites. In the world of the PC, is someone out there sees a way a game can be made better, he can ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Not just sit and hope when he pays fifty bucks for the inevitable sequel, that the developers made it better. In a lot of situations, it is WE THE GAMERS of the PC world who have defined new kinds of gameplay and such in our games. World of Warcraft is the perfect example--do you know how many of the UI components in that game's current patch, were originally add-ons, which made the developers go, "Hey, that is a pretty good idea, that should be a part of the game in the first place!" We have a voice, and a choice in how we play--console gamers don't.
On dedication to gaming and Pride's alleged fanboyism said:
Says you. I say you're full of it. In fact, I go so far as to say that you are undedicated to gaming, for attempting to put one platform over all others exclusively. A true gamer would have a PC AND consoles. I guess you aren't as dedicated as some here though.
As I said, I own both sides of the coin, and have found the PC to be uniliaterally better. Calling me undedicated when your main gripe is that having a PC is a costly bother is a little asinine, don't you think? I am willing to spend more money and more effort on my gaming habit then you; any avid PC gamer is, bottom line. You want it to be cheap and easy, you want instant gratification, and you don't care if you have to pay 50 bucks every two weeks to get mediocre games, so long as you don't have to exert any effort in making them perform better or be more enjoyable to yourself. That's fine and all, but calling me undedicated to gaming is probably the furthest thing from the truth you could say.
On console online vs. PC online said:
Nah, you've been owned by the networks being set up by console manufacturers. The 360 is already superior to most PC online. In time it will conquer the rest. Sony and Nintendo may take a little bit longer seeing as they waited a bit longer before setting up, but they'll get there too.
I don't know what internet you've been on, man. I can play World of Warcraft with 10,000 people and no lag with the graphics as high as they go (on a five year old computer). I can play Unreal Tournament on hundreds of servers which appear instantly in the list the millisecond I click online. I can TYPE. I can download other apps and files off the internet directly to my computer. In Unreal Tournament when I connect to a place that is using maps that I don't have, it downloads them--in like 15 seconds. I don't need to use a clunky controller to navigate the internet, I have my keyboard and mouse, which allows me to do other unique things--like post back to you right now. Can you even view the reply box on the Xbox live internet? Can you even GO ON the Internet at all with it (Seriously, I don't know, but if you can...I doubt it)? If you're talking about internet play well that's just a load of crap. I haven't actually had any netlag for the last 4 years, since I got my cable modem. City of Heroes with thousands of people (HUNDREDS ONSCREEN AT ONCE), World of Warcraft with thousands of people in the same server, Planetside with thousands of people at once (ONSCREEN AND SHOOTING/DRIVING VEHICLES)...never had a lag problem. I set up my PS2's online and I got unplayable stupid lag on every different setup I used. I never even bothered with the Xbox because only Halo is worth playing multiplayer on it and as a PC person I can't stomach playing with ONLY 32 people maximum. The same way I can't stomach dying because a guy got behind me and unloaded his gun into my back but the control scheme doesn't allow me to turn around any faster than the speed of a cripple in a wheelchair with a missing wheel.There's no argument here--the PC is and always will be better at the internet play than consoles. If you think playing laggy games with a handful of people on a big goofy control scheme while they scream in your earpiece is 'better' than PC online gaming, you obviously haven't had much experience with the PC.
On how consoles aren't trying to be like PCs said:
No, actually they are trying to be more than that. Nintendo aside, anyway. They are trying to make a single purchase cover your stereo, DVD player, tivo, etc. PC has never been a substitute for any of those in the general market.
The PC can do all of those things.
On console-only games said:
Self owned hard core. No real time strategy on console? And yes, those games were great. But then so is Zelda. So is Final Fantasy. So is Metal Gear. So are a hundred other titles that don't tend to make it to PC.
I can emulate what doesn't get officially released. Play it with whatever controller I want, whatever controls I want, and be able to save anywhere...plus have better graphics in some cases.
That's opinion. Entertainment is a lot more than just gaming. A LOT more.
At the end of the day, a computer that can play current-gen video games halfway well at decent settings can also do any other technological hobby in existence. So?
I don't think I even have to answer this. You can't make a movie with your Xbox. You can't record your band with it, either. Hell, you can't even do your homework on it. Call me when you guys get Wordpad and MS Paint and I'll rethink my point.
On cumulative eyesight damage said:
You said a point against PC gaming, then failed to prove it wrong. The reason PC monitors tend to be harder on the eyes is proximity to the screen. It has nothing to do with framerate.
Look at a 60hz 800x600 monitor for ten minutes. Your eyes will water and sting and your head will start to pound if you look at it long enough. Now look at a 120hz flatpanel CRT with 1280x1024 resolution. I stare at one all day at work and I don't wear glasses yet.
On Pride's computer's age said:
Good for you. Five years ago? Too bad you can't play the newest games eh?
Actually, I can. They cost less, look better, play better, and have a way longer enjoyability than any console game I've ever played (except for sports games, really). Not including mods or multiplayer, of course.
Compare and contrast said:
Well you're wrong. Because I have gamed on a good computer, and the consoles. And neither is truly superior to the other. Both have their strong points, both have their weaknesses. Only a fool would ignore 1/2+ of new games simply because of their fanboy attitude.
1.) The fact you are unwilling to learn how to maintain a PC or are unwilling to pay the price for one is not a weakness. The PC as a machine has no weakness versus the consoles. A PC game can be any size they want, it can use all the latest technologies, it can easily implement fully functional multiplayer, in some cases it spawns a whole line of brilliant and interesting modifications, it can support vastly more players, it doesn't require a proprietary network to access its internet support, it supports any type of input device ever created, and has vastly superior capability in all technological points of interest. Graphics, sound, video--it crushes any console. EASILY.
I wouldn't call me a fool, either. Like I said, I own consoles, always have. I own a PC too. If anyone is ignoring the virtues of the other side of the fence, it's you. To me the consoles have their niche, that much is undeniable. Third person action games are the console's, right now, as are sports games. But what most people fail to see, as I see, is that these things exist only because the PC does not feel the need for them in its own libraries. If the PC devs decided to do something along any of those console niche games' lines, it would be better--of that I have absolutely no doubt (except, of course, with the wrestling game--but if I bought a controller, even that doubt would evaporate).
Senseless belief of ownage with no basis said:
Uh, no. Revolution aside, the consoles own PC's for the next year or two. Sorry.
You know, ya waltz into my section and start shooting off these snippy one-line answers. 'Consoles own PCs.' Where are your facts? Where's your point, even? 'Consoles own PCs.' How? Do you have an explanation worth sharing or are you just so desperately attached to this notion that you can't help but repeat it despite the mounting evidence to the contrary?
On Warcraft 3's longevity... said:
So you got stuck on a game for three years. Good for you. I've played dozens of games in the last 3 years, and probably spent just as much or less money on it as you.
No. I got my money's worth, out of a game I paid for. I too played dozens upon dozens of OTHER games during that time frame, of course--but my point still stands. There is a reason why EB and Gamestop don't have PC game 'trade in' sections. We're still playing these old games because they are great--and also, are constantly being upgraded. I also have something like 200 maps for War3, and it comes with the very map editor they used to make the single player campaigns. You've got...what? 16, in Halo 2? Heh.
How can you argue that enjoying a game for longer rathern than shorter amounts of time is a negative?
Gaming roots said:
No, we owe it to companies like Nintendo, Capcom, Square-Enix, etc. Companies that have always supported consoles over PC's. Easily debateable. PC gaming didn't go anywhere until console and arcade gaming did. They all effectively started at the same time.
Actually, you owe any three dimensional polygon-based video games to one Mr. John Carmack, who was one of the first people to commercialize the use of 3d accelerator APIs to make game environments. Even if they hadn't been the ones to push it, the idea was floating around for a long time--Wolfenstein 3D and Doom made people see the great potential of a fully 3D environment. The consoles did not start to use polygons until many years after that point. They only started using actual graphics processors in the last generation of machines, I believe. Behind the technology of the day, always. Yes, they started at the same time, but the PC is an independent market that has pushed the technology of the industry in all kinds of new directions. The consoles only just got environment mapping. Environment mapping was made on Quake III. The time frame is the same, but you never see the consoles inventing a new technology. It ALL came from, or is partially derived from, the PC.
Irony said:
LOL! Console games don't have lame-ass mods made by fans that trick you into thinking the developer deserves $50 for content they didn't even create!
Well that's asinine. Most of those mods are created with tools provided by the developers with the game. They usually ARE made of the developers' content--ESF is a rare exception to that rule. Oh, did I welcome you to the ESF forum yet...?
Affordability said:
Says the person with no kids I'm guessing. Or who hasn't noticed how many people are below the poverty line. Console is cheaper. You fail.
Actually, YOU fail. If you have kids or are below the poverty line you shouldn't be pissed you can't afford a PC, and you damn sure shouldn't be going out and buying a playstation, either.
On PCs being worth the investment said:
I run my life through my PC. I write books on my PC. I do my work on my PC. I pay bills with my PC. I play video games with my PC. I write, compose, and record music with my PC. I edit videos with my PC. I store my memories on here by way of saving hundreds of photos taken at family and friend-related events. I keep a journal on my PC. I use my PC to keep in contact with old friends and make new ones. I used my PC to buy my car, after using it to heavily research things. I use my PC to consolidate my school loans. I use my PC to check my minutes on my cell phone. I use my PC to learn how to cook things I don't know how to cook. I use my PC to order food when friends are over sometimes. I use my PC to keep up with the world around me. I used it to research medical problems when I had no health insurance. I used it to learn how to play some songs on guitar I could never figure out. I even used it to join a little-known mod's forum some years back, which puts us right where we are right now.
At the end of the day, my computer has...well, really, it's changed my life, in ways. Now how in the hell can you tell me it's not a worthwhile investment?
