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.
Why should I buy a console when I can just use an emulator to play all these games on my PC?
OK, now let's pretend for a moment you actually paid for all those games...
Summation 2
Because I already bought one, so they must be better!
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.
Yah, that's page 3, where the article rehashes the same crap every console gamer always says. The other 3 pages are just stupid flames. The whole article is basically meant to be a humor piece, but if you're just re-hashing the same article that's been posted constantly all over the Internet for the past 20 years, the humor is likely to be just as tired as your arguments.
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.
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
7. [...]No porn [...] 'Nuff said.
Well, that's it. PC for me.
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.
I'd have to disagree. When the 360 came out IGN did a poll asking if people thought the PC or 360 version of games looked better (using what was currently a bleeding edge PC), in most cases the PC version was voted as having somewhat better graphics but COD2 was one that was considered to be clearly better looking on the console. (I'd link the article but it's difficult to find now that it's months old).
Keyboard and Mouse isn't necessarily better, you can make the argument that the mouse is more accurate but are you sure you don't prefer that method simply because that's the control mechanism you learned how to play FPSs with? Personally I'll take a gamepad over a keyboard and mouse any day of the week, it's just more comfortable for me and feels more natural to me, I currently use a console like controller for all of my PC gaming because it's my preferred input device.
As for online matches "online system is everything I would ever need on the PC" is hardly an argument for why PC gaming might be BETTER. The two are fairly equivalent feature wise but I feel I find more quality matches on Xbox Live... at very least it's easier to find people of similar skill and easier to maintain that in-game relationship for future matches and games. Things like that are what make Xbox Live more then just playing games online... it's a community, much like you'll find in an MMO, but it spans across every game you play online using that console.
You're making arguments as if you don't own an Xbox 360 yourself, if you don't own one then IMO you aren't entirely qualified to make such arguments. It'd be like saying running is more enjoyable then swimming, but you've only ever read about and watched other people swim as opposed to spending some time and learning how to do it yourself before making such a claim.
Collector's Edition
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.
Gnome vs. KDE?
Don't be silly, everyone knows that Gnome sucks
Summation 2
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.
1. It's cheaper.
Console is cheaper. Console gaming is more expensive - for the very reason you mentioned: More expensive games. If you want to buy 1-2 games a year, console may be the choice. But then switching to 0 games a year is a better choice.
2. Every game is guaranteed to work.
Except for scratched DVDs. I heard this one way too often. Harddisks don't get scratched as often. And you can make backups. And there's a dozen of troubleshooting steps you can take to get the game to work. If your XBOX game ceases to work for some reason, you're screwed.
3. You needn't tweak, optimize, or otherwise fiddle with a console game to make it look good.
You can't make your game look any better. You're stuck with certain level and the only possible upgrade is to buy a PC. With a good gfx card, PC blows XBOX out of the water. Of course consoles have better bang for the buck, but you're stuck with what you got.
4. Lots of console exclusives to choose from. Pick your poison.
This all will be available for PC in 3 years through emulation. From ALL the consoles. Plus usually you get "[console X] AND PC" so the total for PC is much better than for any single console. For one console exclusive there are three or so "And PC" ones. For EACH of the consoles. Plus quite a few PC-exclusives.
5. Xbox Live.
Are we talking Console or Xbox?
Besides, thank you very much, I've heard enough of the XBOX
6. Backwards compatibility. When I upgraded from Windows 98 SE to WinXP, I lost the ability to play some of my favorite classic games.
And when you upgraded from XBOX to XBOX360?
Or from SNES to Playstation?
Or from...
Currently I play all these on PC, using emulation. And I can always double-boot or multi-boot to any system I want. Or run Dosbox. Or even WINE.
Backwards compatibility is a VERY rare animal for consoles. And cross-platform compatibility is nonexistent. In the meantime, you have to dig up a really antique game to be unable to come up with a current setup unable to run it.
7. Virus, adware, and spyware free. No porn, no viruses. 'Nuff said.
No porn. 'Nuff said.
8. Games look better in high-def...from the couch.
Your assumptions are wrong. I don't care if the device under the desk is a console or PC if it does what I need it to do. And I can alt-tab and find a webpage with a hint to the game I'm playing if I got stuck.
9. Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse.
A console-like controller for PC costs like $10. And has all the functionalities of the console one. But you really don't want to use one when you play first person shooters. I really feel for poor misguided kids who think XBOX controller is better than a mouse+keyboard to play HALO.
And I cuss at games that try to emulate console interface (Hi, Oblivion!) by digging every frigging option 3 levels down a menu and providing you with 6 assignable hotkeys.
Most popular Oblivion mod for PC? BTMod, interface rewrite to make it less XBOX-like.
10. Controller innovation.
PC is here usually a step behind consoles. And generally nobody found anything better than mouse+keyboard for FPS games yet, and it's going to stay that way.
11. Multifunction
If you pay your $399, you get a game console and a DVD player. It can hardly do anything else. If you want to surf the net, or get some work done, or write a letter, you need a PC. So the choice is: not PC or console. The choice is PC plus console or just PC. And I prefer to spend my money to beef up my PC because the extra investment will be useful not only for gaming.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
It's too bad the apes never evolved more intelligence, so they'd know that they have opposable thumbs too. If they had, they'd realize our intelligence is our advantage.
ResidntGeek
I don't know why this myth is still alive. Yeah, it was true back in the day--very, VERY true when you compared a $100 Nintendo with a $2000+ lower end PC--but the price of consoles keep rising while the price of a PC has been in a freefall for years now.
Do the math. If you save the chassis/ps, monitor, hard drive (really, a 5 year old 60-80 giger is just fine for gaming--any more is necessarly only for media collection) and peripherals from your current box and pick up a good mobo+proc deal on Outpost.com or Newegg.com along with some value ram, you can easily have a modern machine for under $200, even under $150. (If you're skiddish about DIY boxes, you can troll a site like Fatwallet.com and within a month I'll guarantee you'll see a very respectable box for under $300 shipped--probably a Dell or eMachines--but for the moment let's assume you're not technophobic.)
So how much was the 360 again... with a hard drive? Oh look, that leaves you with $200 for a shiny new graphics card, which is good enough to easily play games for many years to come. No, in 3 or 4 years' time you probably won't be able to set the resolution and antialiasing features to the max without some slowdown, but you'll still kick the crap out of console graphics, if indeed graphics is your sole reason for PC gaming--me, I'm more inclined to buy a $100 graphics card. (I'm a PC gamer not for the graphics, but because the games I like--RTSes/TBSes, FPSes, non-Final Fantasy style RPGs--have very crappy/nonexistent console equivalents. Morrowind for the PC is a completely different game from Morrowind for the Xbox, and Halo isn't even remotely close to HL2 or Battlefield 1942/Vietnam/2. And yes, there was HL2 for the Xbox, but it was an utter joke.)
And hell, most of the time you won't even have to spend the $200 to upgrade your mobo/proc/ram. Mine are 3 year old and still more than enough for today's games. Moore's Law might not be dead (depends on whom you ask), but the need for exponentially faster CPUs for gaming certainly is. I wouldn't be too shocked if a mid-range system of today can run games in 2012 so long as you've got a couple gigs of ram and a video card that's only 1-2 years old.
So yeah, console gamers you keep telling yourselves that your $400 Xbox 360 and the extra $10/month you spend for the privlege of playing it over the internet (I didn't even take this into account--this is an additional $120 a year, thus rendering any price quibbing moot. An additional $500-$600 spent between console generations means a PC will *always* be cheaper.\) saves you sooooo much money. Just pardon us if us stereotypical, elitist PC gamers laugh our asses off at you and your crazy delusions.
Now, for the caveats: I'm willing to grant the Wii an exception to all this because 1) It's going to be cheap. 2) Online play will be free. 3) The Gamecube had tons of wonderful games that simply have no PC equivalent (Mario Party, Smash Bros. Melee, platformers, etc.) and I expect the same will be true of the Wii. I'm also willing to grant an exception for the techno-phobic who absolutely do not want to open their box even to swap out a graphics card--for these people, it'll always be cheaper to buy a new console. But I do NOT think this is an acceptable excuse here, amongst my fellow geeks. If you prefer platformers and party games and FF-style RPGs and thus you prefer consoles then say so, but enough with the "OMG PCS ARE SO EXPENSIVE!!!11" bullshit. It's not true, and it hasn't been true for years now.
You claim to be a PC gamer and think $1000 is the starting point for a machine that plays games?
Full systems decked out with Core 2 Duos are selling at Dell right now for just over $500 that will play every game on the market right now at graphical settings that STILL beat consoles, AND they do a hell of alot more than play games.
On the flipside, consoles (which used to be in the sub-$200 category), are quickly approaching the $500++ range for just the BASE SYSTEM (see PS3). Then you need to buy extra controllers and all that other rubbish which is ridiculously overpriced (~$30 per controller?!?).
Consoles USED to be the cheaper option. Those days are long past.
If people put more money into their comp than I've already stated, it's because they want fancier graphics...ala F.E.A.R @ 1600 x 1200 w/ all graphicals goodies turned on. That stuff requires top dollar parts. To simply run the game at a respectable resolution (say 800 x 600) with medium to high graphical settings, comparable to what you might get from a console, does _not_ require such an investment.