Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[de5me7]

I doubt that will happen, ed.

Consoles have to keep cheap, the more specialized and crappy the components, the cheaper it will be. You can't say much of that about the PS3, but take the Xbox... DVD reader that breaks down and they couldn't even spend another 10 bucks to put in a better fan in there?

Of course not. They have to minimise losses.

i dont think pc and consol will merge, but over the past few years they have become more simular in terms of games, and versitility. Ive been playing consols and pcs since the late 1990s, in that time consols have developed from playing essentially arcade games to  detailed fps and even some rts and more complex rpgs games. Theyve become dvd players and music systems, they have permanent hard drives and can download stuff, you can use the internet etc. If you added an office package and decent email consoles would do what 'most' people use their pcs for.

also, i still have never seen a ps3 in action, strange, ive seen and used the wii and crossbox for years but just dont know anyone with a ps3

[Deus ex Machina]

This is pretty interesting, seems that PS2 had almost 150 million sales, whilst PS3 had a little over 30 million, though the PS2 did have 2 more years.

It's probably because the PS3 is prohibitively expensive, even if Sony is selling them at a loss.

[Chaoswizkid]

Consoles
Pros:

• Action, Platformer, RPGs Feel Comfortable

PCs
Pros:

• FPS/RTS/TBS/SIMs and Some RPGs Feel Comfortable

What? RPGs? Not comfortable on PC? Have you ever seen Dragon age on console? It has no ability to pause mid-battle, removing the tactical battles and pretty much the whole point, there's some awkward spell selection system and the inventory is practically not there compared to the PC version.

Anywho, RPS have now released another list of awesome PC-exclusives for 2011.

I would say for the most part that RPGs on consoles feel comfortable. Do all of them? Certainly not, there are exceptions (such as your Dragon Age example), but I think for the most part they feel comfortable. Then again, they are designed for that format.
As for only some RPGs feeling comfortable on the PC...

The only RPGs for PC, that don't feel comfortable, are console ports, as they aren't designed to be operated with mouse+keyboard.
Also there are fewer RPGs for console, than there are for PC.

That's mostly where I thought of the issue. There's TONS of RPGs you can play on ROMs that would just feel better with a gamepad. Yes, the PC can play them with a gamepad and have them feel completely comfortable, but that would go under having to buy accessories or hardware to be able to enjoy them.
Also, some platforming RPGs for the PC that have to do with puzzles have a good opportunity to be bogged down by inadequate controls with a PC.

Arguing that consoles have better controllers for ANYTHING is silly, since PC works with console controllers AND more, whereas consoles work only with their own specific controller.

I don't know. I feel that for some arcade and fighting games, having a standard console controller is just better. Playing SSBB on the keyboard would be a nightmare. I do acknowledge that computers can just use console controllers, but that'd have to go under buying hardware and accessories, which is still a detriment.

[G-Flex]

It's already been mentioned in this thread twice: The Dreamcast. Released before the PSX, I'm pretty sure

Haha, what? It was released 4-5 years after the PlayStation.

[lordnincompoop]

I doubt that will happen, ed.

Consoles have to keep cheap, the more specialized and crappy the components, the cheaper it will be. You can't say much of that about the PS3, but take the Xbox... DVD reader that breaks down and they couldn't even spend another 10 bucks to put in a better fan in there?

Of course not. They have to minimise losses.

i dont think pc and consol will merge, but over the past few years they have become more simular in terms of games, and versitility. Ive been playing consols and pcs since the late 1990s, in that time consols have developed from playing essentially arcade games to  detailed fps and even some rts and more complex rpgs games. Theyve become dvd players and music systems, they have permanent hard drives and can download stuff, you can use the internet etc. If you added an office package and decent email consoles would do what 'most' people use their pcs for.

also, i still have never seen a ps3 in action, strange, ive seen and used the wii and crossbox for years but just dont know anyone with a ps3

How is that even mildly related to what I said?

Not to mention I was being facetious.

As for my two cents: Computers and consoles are aimed at different markets, no matter how slight those differences can get. And as long as those markets remain thus, I doubt we'll see a merger soon.

[Chaoswizkid]

It's already been mentioned in this thread twice: The Dreamcast. Released before the PSX, I'm pretty sure

Haha, what? It was released 4-5 years after the PlayStation.

Jeez, I meant the PS2. I was thinking of the original Playstation for my argument, but when I argue for the Dreamcast I argue it against the PS2, so I got jumbled up. Thanks. Retracting statement.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Yeah, the Saturn was the PSX's contemporary. The Dreamcast lost to PS2. Yet another reason to hate current-gen consoles, I guess. Without Sony, we'd have Sega Rasalhague or something by now.

[de5me7]

@ lordninconpoop
it isnt really, but it was related to eds post, which had been responded too an then quoted so i just picked up the most recent quotation rather than going to source, sorry if i offended

[Mandaril]

Soo, I guess this whole console vs PC issue may be described like this..
-Consoles are for people who just want to play the game, no extra hassle.
-PC is for people who want the extra hassle (hardware upgrades, game mods, multitasking with the PC while playing etc.)

The consoles are also popular for the reason that not everyone is "computer literate". However as an IT-guy I feel that consoles are way too restricted for me and thus I select PC.

I don't really see either dying, I see them living side-by-side.

[G-Flex]

Soo, I guess this whole console vs PC issue may be described like this..
-Consoles are for people who just want to play the game, no extra hassle.

I find this is becoming less and less true with every generation, and that one reason you can "just play it and it works" is because, in a lot of cases, the games aren't even run with very good settings. Did you know that some 360 games are rendered at only 576 lines of resolution? We were getting (much) better than that on computers in 1995.

[Djohaal]

The consoles are also popular for the reason that not everyone is "computer literate". However as an IT-guy I feel that consoles are way too restricted for me and thus I select PC.

Truth in there. it really amuses me how even at PC there's a dumbing down trend. Lately most companies have the option to choose the folder you want the game installed as an "advanced" option.
On ye olden days of gaming selecting the folder was a vital step, advanceds included... well advanced stuff like compact installs and such.

[Sean Mirrsen]

About that folder selection as well, it still surprises (and frustrates) me to no end how every time you get a default path to install a game in, it's always "Program Files/CompanyName/GameName", at best. I haven't installed a game into Program Files ever since I learned English, and that was before I became computer-literate.

The lazy man inside of me (well, that is me, mostly) quickly found a way to deal with it without using a keyboard. With just a few drag-clicks and right-click->Cut selections, you can turn "Program Files/etc" into the proper install path. Hurray lazyness! Even if using a keyboard would be quicker. >_>

[G-Flex]

About that folder selection as well, it still surprises (and frustrates) me to no end how every time you get a default path to install a game in, it's always "Program Files/CompanyName/GameName", at best. I haven't installed a game into Program Files ever since I learned English, and that was before I became computer-literate.

Er, why shouldn't it default to that? Why is that frustrating? That's kind of weird programs are supposed to install to by default, generally speaking. It's not their fault that you personally don't like to install them there.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I usually separate Games and Programs. Especially due to later versions of Windows having special reservations about everything going into Program Files.

[G-Flex]

I usually separate Games and Programs.

That's your own personal and arbitrary preference and leaves no reason for you to be frustrated that the whole of the software industry does not share it.

Especially due to later versions of Windows having special reservations about everything going into Program Files.

This is true of all software, not just games, and you specifically said that this was true before you were computer literate, which I assume was before you were using Windows 7.