Modern PC can do the 1080p, max AA and not break a sweet. And not break your bank. Get a Nvidia 460 1gb card for $200 and you got yourself a nice card that kicks ass.
What about the rest of the system? For some people, $200 for a video card is a lot. For the same price you can get a gaming console with some games.
Not at all. Microsoft got caught flat footed when the Internet went public. Windows was never able to be used safely on anything but a trusted network, and after almost twenty years it still isn't.
Depends on the version. Windows versions that don't expose services to the Internet have been as good as trouble-free.
The people who complain about poor performance are those who insist on pushing all the game settings up to maximum.
Not always. I have a PC that exceeds the recommended system requirements for Phantasy Star Universe, and it runs crappily on it at low settings.
Finally, if you decide to revisit an old game in a few years time, your console game won't age as well as a PC game because you will be able to use all the maximum settings on your upgraded PC. That comparison is assuming your PS4 or XBOX 720 will actually run the old software.
Not necessarily. See: PS3 playing PS2 games upscaled to HD.
Have you ever considered that it depends on taste and/or habits? The console controllers are horrible to you because you've gotten used to the keyboard and mouse combo. Personally I far prefer a console controller as as a keyboard and mouse combo feels so unnatural to use for any kind of gaming that's not a real-time strategy game.
This is a case of "the grass is greener on the other side". If you didn't have the PS3 and Xbox 360 to compare to, you wouldn't complain. Did you think the Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube or Xbox graphics were lacking? I don't think so, yet they are of lower quality than the Wii's.
I think the perfect example of this phenomenon is the PS3 vs. Xbox 360, Wii, and NDS. The latter two have been pirated for years while the PS3 was foolproof, but the sales of the 360 have trumped the PS3, while the DS has swamped the other two combined. The DS is on its way to break the record for hardware and software units sold *ever* for a standalone gaming unit (maybe it has already?). The Wii has demolished its competition. Arguing that pirates have harmed Nintendo's sales is just greedy, myopic, and ridiculously short-sighted.
One phenomenon you have ignored is that a lot of third-party games don't sell well on the Wii, especially those that aren't targeted at the casual gamer. You know why? Those non-casual games get pirated by the more savvy gamers (a lot of them own a Wii next to their PS3/Xbox 360, make no mistake) who know how to pirate. Then they got on message boards and complain about the lack of Wii games that interest them.
Here's to hoping that Nintendo focuses more on the hardware this time. Don't get me wrong, there have been some amazing games released for the Wii (Muramasa: The Demon Blade being one of the better ones), but I'd like to see more emphasis on gaming prowess rather than a focus on the "general" market.
What does the graphics arm race have to do with games not aimed at the casual audience?
Finally, the hardcore gamers will have a Wii anyway just for the heck of it.
Then there are those like me that could be considered "hardcore", but aren't interested in the types of games that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 get. I'm not interested in games like Call of Duty, Street Fighter IV, or Mass Effect. That's why I own only a Wii out of the three current consoles.
It's ridiculous that a game console manufacturer has to change their architecture and graphics card brand in order to be considered "next-gen" instead of just an upgrade.
the Wii was cool but the problem is that it's processing power is the slowest of the bunch.
Could you also explain why that is a problem? Remember that it doesn't do HD, which makes it require less processing power for that part.
i've read that MS had to gimp Kinect a little because it requires a lot of CPU power.
Apples and oranges. The Kinect is a very different beast from the Wiimote. One is a camera that is supposed to allow a game to identify human movement, while the other is a motion sensor. I'd think analysing images would be much more CPU-intensive than motion information.
On the other hand, Google :
- can read my e-mails
- can look at my calendar
- knows my bank account number
- knows my address and my telephone number. Ditto my girlfriend's, my parents', my friends'.
- knows what I buy on Ebay/Amazon (thanks to confirmation e-mails)
- knows what I look for on the Internet
- knows which RSS feeds I'd like to read, and which I actually read.
If you're aware of this, why are you still using their services?
Whenever a new annoying feature pops up that people complain about, there are always a couple of comments that go "oh, but you can easily turn it off". That's great if you are only going to use one computer regularly.
For everyone else who does need to use several computers in a week, it's very annoying to almost always have to tweak the default settings to something that doesn't bug you. School computers, work computers, library computers, etc. all carry default settings that don't necessarily migrate with you between sessions when changed.
Turning off JavaScript won't save the results from being infested with results that come from a search term that approximates what you searched for. The "Did you mean...?" feature has essentially taken over the entire engine.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the rest of the system? For some people, $200 for a video card is a lot. For the same price you can get a gaming console with some games.
The fact that you call the Wii "ancient tech" proves your bias.
Actually, it is. A game with great gameplay and bad graphics is a better game than one with great graphics and bad gameplay.
Great, now we're arguing that machines 15 years ago didn't have good graphics? Give me a break.
Depends on the version. Windows versions that don't expose services to the Internet have been as good as trouble-free.
Not always. I have a PC that exceeds the recommended system requirements for Phantasy Star Universe, and it runs crappily on it at low settings.
Not necessarily. See: PS3 playing PS2 games upscaled to HD.
What does this have to do with an irrational hate for PC gaming? It has more to do with hatred for the geek culture.
The cinematic graphics are pretty much all cut-scenes. Good luck finding real-time cinematic graphics.
Have you ever considered that it depends on taste and/or habits? The console controllers are horrible to you because you've gotten used to the keyboard and mouse combo. Personally I far prefer a console controller as as a keyboard and mouse combo feels so unnatural to use for any kind of gaming that's not a real-time strategy game.
I think you do. Here's a partial list:
This is a case of "the grass is greener on the other side". If you didn't have the PS3 and Xbox 360 to compare to, you wouldn't complain. Did you think the Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube or Xbox graphics were lacking? I don't think so, yet they are of lower quality than the Wii's.
I don't believe you for a second (that they all suck). Have you tried all of these third-party games?
Because pirating on those game consoles is an order of magnitude harder. It's really easy on the Wii.
One phenomenon you have ignored is that a lot of third-party games don't sell well on the Wii, especially those that aren't targeted at the casual gamer. You know why? Those non-casual games get pirated by the more savvy gamers (a lot of them own a Wii next to their PS3/Xbox 360, make no mistake) who know how to pirate. Then they got on message boards and complain about the lack of Wii games that interest them.
There's more to the Wii than just a CPU upgrade and more RAM. The video chipset has been greatly improved. The motherboard is entirely new. etc.
That doesn't mean it's not an upgrade, but to pass it off as insignificant or just an overclocked GameCube is ignorant.
A bad dev kit wasn't a problem for the PS2, though. But there were other factors at work there.
What does the graphics arm race have to do with games not aimed at the casual audience?
Then there are those like me that could be considered "hardcore", but aren't interested in the types of games that the PS3 and the Xbox 360 get. I'm not interested in games like Call of Duty, Street Fighter IV, or Mass Effect. That's why I own only a Wii out of the three current consoles.
It's ridiculous that a game console manufacturer has to change their architecture and graphics card brand in order to be considered "next-gen" instead of just an upgrade.
Could you also explain why that is a problem? Remember that it doesn't do HD, which makes it require less processing power for that part.
Apples and oranges. The Kinect is a very different beast from the Wiimote. One is a camera that is supposed to allow a game to identify human movement, while the other is a motion sensor. I'd think analysing images would be much more CPU-intensive than motion information.
Tell that to all the idiots who blame Windows XP users for using an OS from 2001.
If you're aware of this, why are you still using their services?
Go troll elsewhere.
Whenever a new annoying feature pops up that people complain about, there are always a couple of comments that go "oh, but you can easily turn it off". That's great if you are only going to use one computer regularly.
For everyone else who does need to use several computers in a week, it's very annoying to almost always have to tweak the default settings to something that doesn't bug you. School computers, work computers, library computers, etc. all carry default settings that don't necessarily migrate with you between sessions when changed.
Turning off JavaScript won't save the results from being infested with results that come from a search term that approximates what you searched for. The "Did you mean...?" feature has essentially taken over the entire engine.