I am really not much of a gamer, therefore I like the PC more than anything else. For games the PC is probabally not the best choice, but since I already have one that is what I use for all of my really high-tech games. As for the others, they are all for either my DS, my GBA, or my GB. As you can see I only have Nintendo systems, so I can't really make a good comparison, but all of my systems have been dropped, kicked, frozen in a car, and heated in a car. After all of that, only the DS's touch screen broke, and Nintendo replaced it for free.
If I had an Xbox or a PS2 I probabally wouldn't upgrade to the next-gen version because really the only new features in either one are faster proccesors and built in Wi-Fi connectivity. If I had a GameCube, I would probabally upgrade to the Revolution because it acctually has cool, useful new features. Maybe it's just me, but I think Nintendo is really the leader in technology, while everybody else is just sorta following. I also think that Nintendo has the widest variety of games; XBox has mostly violent, gory, shoot-em-up kinda games (my parents would never let me buy one of those); the PS2 is better, but it still doesn't have as many as nintendo. As I said, you will probabally never see another game that's all about dogs. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think Nintendo is really the way to go when it comes to consoles. For now, I think I'm happy with my computer.
Radix...
Assuming you have the at least half the average kliker's technical knowledge, I'm sure you know that fatal bugs can exist on any system. You don't find them in consoles, but then again, they're hard to find on PCs as well (unless it's one of those expensive applications, which are loaded to the brim with fatal bugs. Though the part about the standardized hardware helps.
If you really think that $500 PCs these days are equivalent to old consoles, either PCs are helluva expensive in your place, 4 years out of date, or you're buying from a crappy PC manufacturer like Dell. $500 is more than enough to get me a nice 3 Ghz Pentium IV, 512 MB DDRAM, a 80 GB HDD, and one of those old, crappy graphics cards (which still exceed the XBox's) with a TV-out so I can play it on my massive plasma screen TV (if I had one). Far Cry ran perfectly well on the computer I bought 3 years ago and I've never even modified a thing inside.
As for that computer I had before the PS2 existed, that was an ancient computer that's existed back in the days when people were worried about Y2K. Sure it had a few upgrades, but all the money I spent on upgrading it is still less than I'd have to spend buying a XBox someone's trying to sell off.
Salvage for PCs is very, very easy to obtain. All you have to do is look in salvage pit of some university or fairly stable company that throws out perfectly good PCs to replace them with the shiny latest ones just so they have something to finish their budget money on. Finding scrap GC's in a university's trash? Not very likely.
BTW, I was being sarcastic about the state-of-the-art X360 HDD. Kinda annoys me how some idiot electronic engineering undergrads out there used to compare it's l33tness to the PS2's 8 MB memory card. PC scrap r0x0rs the latest Microsoft hardware technology any day .
Finally, while you can technically play X-Com 2 on an PS2, where's the fun in that? Personally, while I'm good enough at PS2 Quake II and FIFA 2004 for all my buddies to gang up on me in them, I still can't use an analog controller as well as a mouse. All in all, I feel more control having 3 fingers on a mouse & 3 on the arrow keys over a thumb on analog and another on the arrow keys.
Playing a PS2 game on a computer is nothing. Forget emulators, all you have to do is plug in a PS2 card into the computer. With a TV-out gfx card, you can plug it straight to the TV and play it like an actual PS2. I've seen a buddy who owns a cyber cafe do it when he needed more PS2s, and the game ran like a charm on his scrap computer-PS2 thingy. Though I'm not really sure whether those cards are legal in all countries and I think the drastically falling prices are making the actual thing cheaper than the card..
However, I still respect controllers on console games. I think wierd games like Black & White and Darwinia with those miracle gestures would actually do better on them. And Fight Night R2 used them very nicely. I'm looking out for Nintendo's latest controller, as well as one I'm planning to make once I get out of uni .
Yeah, Clickteam should focus on handheld game portability. Their attempt to get into the the 3D world sucked bad... should at least focus on finding a bigger market for something that already works decently.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
AndyUK: It wouldn't really need to be built-in to MMF. Someone would have to make an interpreter/runtime for the target hardware, and then you'd attach it to a specially compiled source to form the ROM or whatever.
Muz: Come on dude, give it a rest. Your initial comment was clearly ignorant. Just quit embarrassing yourself.
I'll keep responding to you, but remember all of these were originally your points, all you're doing is repeatedly throwing up smokescreens after I show where you're wrong. It's getting tiring.
Assuming you have the at least half the average kliker's technical knowledge, I'm sure you know that fatal bugs can exist on any system. You don't find them in consoles, but then again, they're hard to find on PCs as well (unless it's one of those expensive applications, which are loaded to the brim with fatal bugs. Though the part about the standardized hardware helps.
For the second time I must reiterate this point: fatal bugs can exist on console games, but don't. The reason for this is irrelevant, and it is extremely common for one to have to patch a PC game directly after purchase.
You claimed: Non-existent patches = unfixable bugs. However, significant bugs do not emerge on console games.
If you really think that $500 PCs these days are equivalent to old consoles, either PCs are helluva expensive in your place, 4 years out of date, or you're buying from a crappy PC manufacturer like Dell. $500 is more than enough to get me a nice 3 Ghz Pentium IV, 512 MB DDRAM, a 80 GB HDD, and one of those old, crappy graphics cards (which still exceed the XBox's) with a TV-out so I can play it on my massive plasma screen TV (if I had one). Far Cry ran perfectly well on the computer I bought 3 years ago and I've never even modified a thing inside.
We're talking about playing games. You claimed: By today's standards, the PS2 and Xbox are trash compared to the average $500 PC. However, consoles 5 years old are capable of playing games comparable to cutting-edge cgames on the PC without an upgrade.
You said that. And despite the fact that it's a false claim, even considering that a five-year-old, 500-dollar console is comparable to a contemporary $500 PC shows the superiority of dedicated hardware in the realm of games.
As for that computer I had before the PS2 existed, that was an ancient computer that's existed back in the days when people were worried about Y2K. Sure it had a few upgrades, but all the money I spent on upgrading it is still less than I'd have to spend buying a XBox someone's trying to sell off.
This is the four-year-old PC that's older than the five-year-old PS2, yeah?
Salvage for PCs is very, very easy to obtain. All you have to do is look in salvage pit of some university or fairly stable company that throws out perfectly good PCs to replace them with the shiny latest ones just so they have something to finish their budget money on. Finding scrap GC's in a university's trash? Not very likely.
Completely fucking irrelevant. You can get anything no-cost, that doesn't decrease the value of the hardware. Your magical time-travelling PC has a value. That value plus the cost of upgrades is the expendature required to play contemporary games. That cost will be significantly greater than the one-time expendature of a console, which itself has a play life of five years without upgrades.
BTW, I was being sarcastic about the state-of-the-art X360 HDD.
No you weren't. You're backpedalling. I'm sure this is fairly evident to everyone.
Finally, while you can technically play X-Com 2 on an PS2, where's the fun in that?
You claimed: Though if they ever made a good-looking remake for that game on any console, there might be a chance that I'd buy one. I doubt the motivation for this is lack of fun.
Playing a PS2 game on a computer is nothing. Forget emulators, all you have to do is plug in a PS2 card into the computer.
Console-On-Cards are what it says on the can. It's console hardware on a card. If I plug my Master System into a TV, that doesn't mean the TV is playing Sega games.
Radix, you should know me by now. I never argue to prove that I'm right. I just do it for the sake of having something to argue about .
It's true that significant bugs don't emerge... but the lack of patches means that those that somehow might slip in to a rushed release mean that the game is doomed. The only difference is that jerks like Microsoft don't go all, "Oh, sorry about the major security flaws, blue screens, fatal crashing. But it's not our fault you didn't download the patch". You won't even FIND the really buggy, yet fun games on consoles, e.g. Temple of Elemental Evil, Uplink, Fallout Tactics, etc. Despite the higher profits of console games, smaller companies without proper QA and testers will never make console games because of this patch deal.
However, consoles 5 years old are capable of playing games comparable to cutting-edge cgames on the PC without an upgrade. You said that. And despite the fact that it's a false claim, even considering that a five-year-old, 500-dollar console is comparable to a contemporary $500 PC shows the superiority of dedicated hardware in the realm of games.
The 5 year old console is only able to play the contemporary $500 PC game when that game is severely downgraded, with lots of chunky, blocky, graphics, and things that use processing power taken out (like AI and physics). Compare any contemporary PC game to its console equivalent... unless it's a sports/racing game, any reviewer will say that the PC one is far more fun. Not sure about Far Cry, though, haven't tried the console version. But I'd say that most games I've played on both... Prince of Persia: SOT, Max Payne, FIFA 2004, Counter-Strike, Quake II, are a lot more fun on the PC.
Dedicated hardware means nothing if the game is no more fun . Sure, the latest new XBox 360, PS3, Revolution are better than their PC equivalents in terms of costs for now... but in another 4 years, the costs for gfx cards will fall low enough for me to STILL be able to get an obsolete one that's better than those consoles, AND I can still burn DVDs, download music & video clips, download pictures to my computer, send them to friends easily... all those things the revolutionary XBox 360 are capable of doing. And I'll still have my 120 GB HDD too .
As for that computer I had before the PS2 existed, that was an ancient computer that's existed back in the days when people were worried about Y2K. Sure it had a few upgrades, but all the money I spent on upgrading it is still less than I'd have to spend buying a XBox someone's trying to sell off.
This is the four-year-old PC that's older than the five-year-old PS2, yeah?
No, no, it's the PC that's that's EVEN older than the 4-year old PC, the PS2, the XBox, but not as old as the PS1. Got 2 PCs, one stuffed with preservatives, the other one still fresh, new, and capable of running the best PS2 and XBox equivalent games at full quality and higher resolutions. Also have other salvaged PCs, but let's not get to that .
Completely fucking irrelevant. You can get anything no-cost, that doesn't decrease the value of the hardware.
Value != cost. Supply & demand, buddy. There be excessive supplies of valuable PCs, while there just aren't many scrap consoles. That makes the cost of valuable PCs significantly lower than that of equivalently powerful consoles. A PS2 goes for an average of $100 at Ebay. All I can do to get something better is find a scrap pc at one of the unis, then buy a $50 graphics card and a $50 to get something better.
BTW, I was being sarcastic about the state-of-the-art X360 HDD.
No you weren't. You're backpedalling. I'm sure this is fairly evident to everyone.
What I said was 120 GB hard drives are cheap these days, compared to the state-of-the-art 20 GB XBox drive. If that doesn't sound like sarcasm to you, I guess there's just too many noobs in the community .
Yes, I'd play an X-Com 2 remake on an XBox, especially if the gfx were as nice as Halo, but the original just isn't worth porting over to a console.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
It's true that significant bugs don't emerge
Yes, it is.
The 5 year old console is only able to play the contemporary $500 PC game when that game is severely downgraded, with lots of chunky, blocky, graphics, and things that use processing power taken out (like AI and physics).
Untrue. Console architecture is specifically designed to handle things like physics and graphics, and downgrading ports of PC games doesn't happen anymore. Unecessary details like high-res textures tend to be removed because they'd be invisible on an ordinary TV.
Compare any contemporary PC game to its console equivalent... unless it's a sports/racing game, any reviewer will say that the PC one is far more fun.
Untrue, and I don't know where you're pulling this from. It's probably often true PC-to-console ports of FPS games, but hardly exclusively, and you'll find the opposite happening with console-to-PC ports.
Dedicated hardware means nothing if the game is no more fun
Does it make them less fun? Hardly. This lends nothing to your claim, even if true (and it's subjective so I'll not bother).
Sure, the latest new XBox 360, PS3, Revolution are better than their PC equivalents in terms of costs for now... but in another 4 years, the costs for gfx cards will fall low enough for me to STILL be able to get an obsolete one that's better than those consoles, AND I can still burn DVDs, download music & video clips, download pictures to my computer, send them to friends easily... all those things the revolutionary XBox 360 are capable of doing. And I'll still have my 120 GB HDD too .
That's great, but we're talking about games. Nobody's saying you shouldn't have a PC, but I don't expect my stereo to make toast.
The state-of-the-art comment was clearly sarcasm, but that doesn't mean you didn't intend the rest of the paragraph to be a serious argument, which you clearly did. You were suggesting that the Xbox HDD is inferior to a PC HDD, yet the Xbox HDD is a PC HDD.
SNES games can very easily be emulated on a PC . As well as the Sega Gen.. er Megadrive.
There's quite a difference between high-res and low-res textures on TV, quite obvious when you compare some of the prettier high-res textures like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance to say... GTA 3. And when it comes to games where your face is often against the wall, it makes a huge difference .
Hmm... I'm not sure what game you mean from a PC-to-console port or vice versa, but it seems that all my favorite games work out that way. My main trusted reviewers are usually Gamespot and XPlay. I don't know why I bothered but it seems that just about every game I typed in on GS, except the horror games got higher ratings on the PC. Some, like the Total War series, don't even exist on consoles. But after all, when you port a PC game to a console, you'll have to chop down on graphics and memory loading/saving, but by porting a console to a PC, you don't lose anything except maybe an analog controller and it's vibrator.
I was suggesting the XBox HDD is inferior to a PC HDD in terms of costs. You could buy a 120 GB HDD for the price that some people are willing to pay for the XBox one. The serious argument was on the idiocy of the people praising something that's existed for years .
Sure, the latest new XBox 360, PS3, Revolution are better than their PC equivalents in terms of costs for now... but in another 4 years, the costs for gfx cards will fall low enough for me to STILL be able to get an obsolete one that's better than those consoles, AND I can still burn DVDs, download music & video clips, download pictures to my computer, send them to friends easily... all those things the revolutionary XBox 360 are capable of doing. And I'll still have my 120 GB HDD too .
That's great, but we're talking about games. Nobody's saying you shouldn't have a PC, but I don't expect my stereo to make toast.
Another remark saying that the PC can do yet another of the "main features" of the XBox 360. Don't get me wrong... it's a good thing, but dammit... you could do that with any roadside PC. Of course, I don't have to tell you guys that, but I've probably had to repeat it to almost every other layman 360 fanatic.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
I wouldn't call them main features. I mean, they shouldn't be. There's a heap of bloaty crap on the X360 because MS are trying to push their media center garbage.
You should be aware that Gamespot is a terrible website. Its reviews, in fact any of its content, mean jack shit.
The point was that while PC-to-console ports (mainly FPSs, as most other genres benefit greatly from a console interface) may rate lower, console-to-PC ports will also rate low. Its a problem with porting, not the hardware.
On high-res textures: televisions take analogue input at around a resolution of 640x480, although the effective resolution is greater due to the natural sort of blur filter you get on TV CRTs. So porting over high-res textures that would be used in PC games by some players is pointless. This is another factor in why current-gen (next gen hasn't really started yet) consoles can handle modern games competently: they're rendering at 640x480 per frame, as opposed to the 1024x768p/f or whatever the upper limit is on PC cards.
Next-gen will be different, with HDTV support (although since the Rev is dropping it they'll have a graphical advantage on analogue displays).
I must say, the new gen consoles look quite impressive, but I'm going to stick with my PC for gaming because I prefer the types of games you can get on a pc, mainly RTS and FPS. I would choose the precision of a mouse and keyboard over a controller any day, especially for those types of games.
PC games are also significantly cheaper. Xbox & PS2 games cost around £30 here in the UK, and xbox 360 games £40, PC games typically cost around £18-25 for the new releases, £27 at the most unless you're shopping somewhere awful. That doesn't sound like much but if you buy a lot of games that extra few pounds adds up to quite a bit. Also with the PC you have a huge back catalogue of games where you're bound to find something decent you haven't played yet which costs next to nothing.
Edited by the Author.
-
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
1st December, 2005 at 12:40:52 -
"You should be aware that Gamespot is a terrible website."
Perhaps you want to back that up Radix? I use GameSpot regularly and I agree with its reviews 95% of the time. Compared to IGN it's brilliant.
My godfather (wow I love saying that) brought his US import Xbox 360 over today, hooked it up to my HDTV and I gotta say it does look nice in HD. None of his games interested me though. much like the original Xbox when that first came out. until I realised I liked Halo 1 and bought it purely for that game. even HD graphics doesn't make it a fun console to play, as little game makers ourselves we all know that graphics mean shit.
This was only my 720p room TV. it would probably have looked better on the downstairs 1080p. if it even supports 1080p.
@Radix and Muz: Your argument is getting pointless, I'm not even bothering to read the most recent "additions" because they all sound the same. The PC and Consoles both have their advantages and disadvantages, end of argument.
Natress: Both Gamespot and IGN have built themselves terrible reputations (though like phizzy I use GS for trailers as well as IGNs database). Their rating system isn't consistant, hell Gamespot's bias against MS is the stuff of fucking legend. Their reviews, and articles especially, are packed with innaccuracies and I often wonder if they've actually played what they're talking about. Who are these two big sites owned by again? There's no way they can be impartial.
Advertisement
Post Reply
.
Edited by the Author.
