Slashdot Mirror
Gaming Platform of Choice - Console
An anonymous reader writes "Sick of PC snobs bragging about their "superior" gaming rigs? This opinion piece (a rebuttal lobbed at a previous article taking the opposite stance) presents the other side of the eternal debate over gaming preference — consoles vs. PCs. Get 10 good reasons why consoles are a better way to game with your hard-earned dollars.
"
That article just wasted 2 whole minutes of my life. If you're brand new to the console/pc flamewar it'll give you the same arguments that everybody else has already heard a million times, but if not, don't bother.
I read the internet for the articles.
For any two items with varying characteristics in multiple dimensions where neither is obviously worse or superior, the decision about which is "better" says more about the decision metric/weightings than the items being judged.
It's basically just a definition debate; once you accept a definition of "better", you almost immediately have your answer about which is better.
Defitition debates can be dry, but productive. Defitition debates where the participants don't realize they're in a definition debate, and argue as if their definition is some sort of universal, are boring and stupid.
Console vs. PC arguments tend to fall in the latter category.
I really gotta write up "definition debate" so I can just link to it.
There's no chance of being distracted by all that pesky work that's sitting on the computer waiting to be done.
Does it matter what platform a game comes out for? If a game is based on using the mouse or internet, it's currently served best by PCs. Hence the still-high number of RTS and FPS games. If it's adaptable to both PCs and consoles, a game tends to come out for both. And if it's made for a controller, it's a console game. The only real difference is the interface.
This article just trots out the same tired "reasons" that everyone's heard already, and attempts to justify them as valid rationale for choosing consoles at the expense of PC gaming. Woohoo. Or you could not click on it, and save yourself from 4 pages of ad-heavy journalism practice. I don't think I've seen an article with more of that "intelliTXT" crap.
I just got tired of games crashing my computer. Or segfaulting in the middle of the action.
Standalone devices with predictable specs are just more stable than the zoo of general purpose computing systems, be they desktop, laptop, or mobile phone. Keep games where they belong.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Generally, I'm more of a PC gamer, but that's because I've always had a lot of PC hardware for work, home entertainment (yes, that's one way of saying high definition streaming porn) and the intertubes, so it's easier to grab a game for one of my boxes rather than run out and buy a console. Saying that, I still have quite a few consoles from years past. The NES still gets cracked out from time to time when I'm feeling nostalgic.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
Mouse, keyboard = full, configurable control. Just about every game lets you set up the keyboard however you want.
PS2 controller = cure for carpal tunnel? Puhleeze. PS2 controllers are a plot by the apes to destroy our thumbs, and thus, eliminate our evolutionary advantage of opposeable thumbs.
So the flamewar has been going on for a few years now, but the one key difference that gives the edge to the PC gamers is the ability to patch a game. Personally, I've made the switch to console games for basically the same reason as the article author - time, money, convenience. The one major problem with console games is the speed at which patches are created for them - aside from the fact that patches are needed.
We are talking about console games, and they need patches today. Why? Because games are being rushed to market. Imagine buying your nintendo, getting it home, popping in Super Mario Bros, and every time you jumped on the flag at the end of the first level - your game froze. That is basically where we are heading with console games, as it is becoming obvious the mentality is - we'll put it out there, they'll buy it, and then we'll worry about fixing it.
Now, after accepting the fact that console games NEED patches these days...you would think that by having a standardized platform you would be able to patch a problem with a game relatively quickly. This is also not the case, as typically this patch is given a low priority and even after it is created, it needs to pass through "QA" before it is even given to the public. Which takes a few weeks, or months.
With console systems being packed with hard drives being standard and online play becoming the norm in every household - are we as consumers going to put up with this laziness?
If the pain of having to wait for a patch to play your new game vastly outweighs the pain of building/buying a new computer system, people may start migrating back.
Some genres just don't work on Consoles and some just don't work on PCs.
For instance, Street Fighter or Tekken just don't work on PCs and RTS don't work on Consoles. One genre that I think works well on both platforms though are First Person Shooters. I really don't think anyone can say that Golden Eye didn't work on the N64.
Summation 2
I have a family member that writes for a major gaming website, the single largest reason why he perfers console gaming:
The games just work.
You open a game, pop it in, and in a few minutes you're into the game (depends on how long the cut scenes are). There's no installation, configuration, tweaking. Nothing. It just works. Now, he plays ALOT of games, but even when he gets home to enjoy them, he still picks up a pad. The only games I've seen on his PC are the ones that came with Win2k. It's not that he CAN'T play a PC game, he just doesn't enjoy messing around with drivers and that sort of thing when he could be shooting zombies in the head instead.
As geeks we're addicted to tweaking stuff, but you can't forget the joy when you open up something, plug it in, and it just works.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
1. It's cheaper.
This is hard to argue with, but as the saying goes, "You get what you pay for." Despite what they are trying to turn consoles into, you still can do more things besides gaming with a PC. (And they are not all boring things like typing papers and doing spreadsheets.)
2. Every game is guaranteed to work.
Um, not quite true. I have known a few games because of defects that would not work right out. Granted these were manufacturing errors and nothing else. Also, if you are truly PC gaming, the odds of running into a game that will not work are low. You will likely have a system meant to run the games you play. Also, the return statement is a bit off. Some places will take back open items and those that don't often won't take back your open console game either, so this point is sort of moot.
3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
How many games have I had to overly tweak or specialize....maybe two. The settings allow more PCs to play games, and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out. Most games implement the Bad, Better, Best system of setting for the real dim witted ones. And as for the articles, you get what is advertised with a console game, this is not true. I simply point to the PS2 debacle. You know, when they were not clear pre-launch about shots being in-game.
4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from.
This is becoming a bit rarer. If those are the games you want, fine. If they are not, this point is, well, pointless.
5. Xbox Live.
Well, let's see. Free online play (except for a few games). The point about chatting while watching a movie, I point you to Steam (so every Valve game, which happen to have the highest online numbers short the MMOs). Oh, and don't forget the extremely high number of people paying to play MMOs. There is a business making money hand-over-fist.
6. Backwards compatibility.
You are joking right? The Xbox 360 has half-assed backwards compatibility. We shall see what the PS3 brings. The Dreamcast, as much as I loved it, never had backwards compat to the Saturn. Then there is that time we switched Nintendo consoles, how many of those were backwards compat, unless they sold add-ons. Of course, nothing was backwards compat with the Cube, cause well we went from Cart to CD. These examples sort of shoot the Win98SE to XP argument, which can be resolved with various tools and emulators, which are legal. So there goes that idea.
7. Virus, adware, and spyware free.
This is a point? Users only have themselves to blame for viruses, adware or spyware. With a few exceptions, this shit has to be installed by the user in the end. Most PC gamers are savvy enough to know how to avoid this stuff. And don't think that with online connectivity, people will not find a way to add viruses to the mix with consoles. (Or possibly spyware or adware for that matter.)
8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
So can a PC. Remember, that cards are coming out (and many sub-$400) that are being designed for HDCP output, which means they should work with TVs fairly well, and will be able to play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (or both) once PC drives are available. Your other next gen consoles currently will have Blu-Ray (PS3), HD-DVD (360 w/ add-on), and neither (the Wii). So tell me who wins this one. The guy who can have both formats.
9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse.
HAHA. You can buy controllers for a PC. Controllers still have some use in the PC game world, but you play an FPS between a gamer with controllers and one with Keyboard/Mouse, and you will see the controller boy get slaughtered. It is this separation that keeps most developers from allowing the console and PC versions to be played together.
10. Controller innovation.
Again, you are kidding right. You think they h
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
"4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison. Whether you're hot for Mario, Kratos, or Ryu Hayabusa, you'll find their newest releases on consoles. Sure, the PC has some exclusive titles, but sooner or later they'll find their way onto your living room television since that's where the money is at."
Yeah.. lot's of console exlusives.. for DIFFERENT COLSOLES... How about that newest Metal Gear Solid for your X-Box or Wii, or Perhaps you're wanting to play Halo3 on your shiny new PS3. What are you going to do, go out and buy 3 different systems to play all the games you want? I've seen people do it. Point being, consoles have their downside too.
So did the PS2 with the FFXI HDD. And this was last generation. Nevermind the 360 and PS3, where patches are practically mandated, with the rushed releases and hardware faults and such (yeah, the PS3 isn't out yet, but I can't imagine it not having lots of problems)...
PC gaming has some advantages to console gaming, but patches is NOT one of them anymore.
In fact, it's kinda debatable as to whether patching is an advantage at all. Patches are perfect for balancing online games, and I welcome them. However, too often I see games that are obviously rushed out to release, and the company releases patch after patch just to get the game playable (see: Battlefield 2). The problems are 1) the game shouldn't have been that damned broken to begin with, and 2) haphazards patches can screw things up, either relating to gameplay or general system stability.
At first, I was happy that the XBox would allow for patches/expansions to be downloaded, but now I'm fearful that the next-gen of consoles is gonna suffer from the same problems as PC gaming, with devs rushing their game to make release, then subsequently releasing many patches just to fix the damned thing.
Seriously though whats wrong with this?
1. Cheaper
Yea if you go per-console, not over time. Not when you compare replayability vs cost vs Free games. Even more so when you start to compare capability vs cost.
2. Every game is guarenteed to work
This is the only true advantage to consoles. It's also only true because stupid users BREAK their PC's. Not a fault of the platform, it's a fault of the user. Consoles protect you from yourself.
3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
i.e. You _CAN'T_ tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look BETTER.
4. Lots of console exclusives
Lots of PC exclusives. While consoles lead in single player games, they're a few generations away from being able to compete as ONLINE gaming platforms, beyond the 10 year old FPS "matchmaking" style online play.
5. xbox live
See previous comment
6. backwards compatibility
Backwards compatiblity is broken only relatively rarely, and historicly has been made available again fairly soon. When dealing with consoles this becomes even more true. How many of us owned an NES or an SNES? How many of us can STILL play our games on those consoles? Vs., How many of us owned an NES or SNES and now have to play the games we owned on emulators, on a _PC_?
7. Virus, adware, and spyware free.
"No porn. 'Nuff said."
8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
No they don't. Bigger screen does not mean looks better. A HD TV from a couch is an entirely ACCEPTABLE way to game, but it's by no means anywhere near a match for contemporary computer displays. Compare the cost of that HDTV with the cost of a good CRT, LCD, or Projector.
9. Controllers are more comfortable
Console controllers are ideal for some games. Keyboard and mouse are INFINITELY better for any sort of FPS game. Cursor based games range from difficult to impossible to implement well on a console. At the same time, console style controllers are readily available for PCs for MUCH less than the cost of an extra console controller.
10. Controller innovation.
Yea, nintendo has finally come up with a way to implement SOME cursor based games on a console. It's an innovation for consoles, not games in general.
To start, I'm primarily a PC gamer. I like the genres more, I like the controls more, and I like having the best looking visuals. However, not for a second can I delude myself into thinking that PC gaming is cheaper than modern console gaming. A lot of people here seem to be railing on PC gaming being cheaper with the argument that you have to get completely new hardware every 4-6 years.
A modern, well-equipped gaming PC will run you at the moment probably close to $1,000.
A modern console will average you about $500 with extra controllers and addon-bits (I'm averaging from the Wii to the PS3).
We're not going to include the cost of a TV (high def or otherwise) into the cost of the console, since many people would have one regardless of their console purchase.
Ok. So you spend $500 every 4 years when your new console iteration comes out.
Now, what happens if you don't upgrade that PC for 4 years? Chances are the games in year 4 won't run. PC gamers need to continually feed cash into their systems to be able to play current games. The console will play games released for it the same at year 1 as year 4. For the sake of argument, I'm going to say that PC gamers will try to be frugal and just upgrade their video card yearly, and they'll be price conscious about it and buy one card behind current bleeding edge. Those run you about $250.
So, in terms of hardware, after 4 years the spending looks something like this:
Console gamer: $500.
PC Gamer: $2,000. ($1000 PC + $250/yr)
And that's a very conservative estimate for the PC gamer. I know I put way more into my PC yearly. RAM, video cards, and then every four years or so you probably need to do such a fundamental upgrade for new tech (AGP -> PCIe, the move to 64bit, whatever) that you'll essentially buy a new PC again.
The console is clearly the cheapest gaming option. That doesn't make it "better" by any means, it just simply is cheaper.