Print

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

[Frumple]

No, but reading that made me think: Max Payne 3, starring John McCain.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Th'2008 Republican presidential candidate.

[Soulwynd]

With Sarah Palin as the heroine in distress. Obviously, Obama would be the main enemy, a socialistic terrorist that is trying to destroy the american dream.

[Acperience]

He's also a Muslim Nazi, born in Iraq and is an illegal immigrant from Mexico.

Palin would be shooting people in the face rather than be distressed I think.

[Chaoswizkid]

Hell, just these exlusives of 2011 convince me PC gaming isn't dead.

That list. That list of games. Games the likes of which slake the thirst of the nostalgic.
Games that make me want to vomit the laughter of innocent children and cry tears of searing-hot, liquid joy.


Now that that's over,

No, sorry it wasn't over yet. Now it is.
Maybe.

Seriously though, for the intent of the OP, to say that PC Gaming is dead is to say that another market is dominating what it provides. It provides interactive entertainment. While there are certainly many formats of interactive entertainment out there, the clear 'dominator' out of the bunch would have to be the Console Gaming market. Stating the obvious? Obviously. I just say that to make the point that anyone who says PC Gaming is dead suggests that Console Gaming is doing better. Alternatively, they are bitching because PC Games that they can't personally stand are getting wildly successful, like RTS haters, FPS haters, Casual haters, etc., and not the games they love with no sequels/similars being released. The mentioned wild success of certain games in those genres should be a clear testament that PC Gaming isn't dead. Maybe this is also stating the obvious, but I state it clearly just to make the point that those who go "PC Gaming Is Dead" are either fanboiz/gurlz of consoles or are whiny little children.

Since I can't help the whiny little children, I'll move on to tackling the consoles.

Consoles
Pros:

• Plays Console-Only Games
• Motion Gaming
• Controller Format
• Standardized Hardware
• Action, Platformer, RPGs Feel Comfortable
• Console-Only Niche-Dominating Games (Such as Rockband)
• Additional Controllers/Accessories for Enhanced Experience
• Media Player
• DRM is Scarce

Cons:

• Can't Play PC-Only Games
• Strongly Suggested to Buy Additional Controllers/Accessories
• FPS Controls Outshined By Mouse+Keyboard
• Auto-Aim for FPS (Compensating for Controller-Inferiority)
• RTS/TBS Painful to Manage, Often Not Done Correctly
• Standardized Hardware
• Inferior Web-Browsing

PCs
Pros:

• Can Play PC-Only Games
• Can Play 'Console-Only' Games (ROMs)
• FPS/RTS/TBS/SIMs and Some RPGs Feel Comfortable
• 'Indy' Games
• Unstandardized Hardware
• Office Use
• Media Player

Cons:

• Can't (Easily) Play Console-Only Niche-Dominating Games
• Additional Accessories/Hardware Sometimes Necessary
• Platformers and Certain Action/RPG Games Feel Uncomfortable
• Media-Center Integration More Difficult Compared to Consoles
• DRM and Online Activation Infestation
• Viruses
• Unstandardized Hardware

Between the two, there are certainly some things that are better for consoles, and some things that are better for the PC. As I'm sure you'll notice, both 'Standardized Hardware' and 'Unstandardized Hardware' were listed twice. This, I believe, is the main area of issue between consoles and PCs. A major plus for consoles is that, when you buy a game for that console, you know your console runs it (unless your console is dead). There are certain times when you may need an internet connection to download an update, but for the most part, your console runs the game. Your game was made for your exact console, because, with the exception of special editions, your console is a carbon-copy of the one they developed the game on. There should be no stability issues or glitches, because developers often only get one shot for releasing their game. Whatever you buy, granted you enjoy the type of game you buy and the developers aren't terrible, you should easily enjoy it.

For PCs, you don't have standardized equipment. You don't even have standardized operating software. Who knows what machine the game you just bought was developed on. For all you know, it could be Linux with 1 TB of RAM. Common practice is to develop the games for average, but higher-end machines, with greater content scaled with just how high-end the machine is. This means that some people can go out and buy a game and not even be able to run it. Some people buy a game and are only able to play a piss-poor version of it as it lags at critical times that frustrates you. However, you do have the ability to play your games with a machine that has clear sides and neon lights with sweet case designs. You can also upgrade your machine to be able to play those new games: a machine from 2005 can play brand-spankin'-new 2010 releases. I'd go further than that, but I think some motherboard limitations with processors would limit it there. That weakness is its strength. When games are released at the end of a console's life cycle, they are clearly limited by that console. Technology can go so much further, but they have to give that up because the console can't handle it. A new console is released, and the old one is practically abandoned. Unless you're some tech-deviant, it's almost worthless, can't be upgraded to handle the future.

That's sort of where it stands. What's better, constantly upgrading a PC, or shelling out all at once for a new console? A game limited to definite hardware capabilities, or able to be expressed on the here-and-now bleeding edge?

The only way to really equal it out is to allow consoles to be upgraded, which would mean people are just selling specialized mass-produced PCs. Sure, you could say that all games released will play on the standard equipment console and just get better with the upgrades, but that'd be the same thing as releasing a game for an average PC. PCs that can't run the game would just be like older consoles that couldn't be upgraded without paying a lot to cover for certain incompatibilities.
To me, this seems like an argument that can't be won. If you have an XBox, great, you're like everyone else with an XBox. If you have a badass PC, you're the king of the playground. If you buy a game for your PS3, it'll run it unless you've killed it somehow. If you buy a PC game, you need to be sure your PC runs it first, and often that it's far better than the 'Required' specs. When your console is old, if you want to keep with the times, you need to invest in a brand new one. If your PC is old, just spend some money on upgrading the limiting hardware. I would think this is up to personal criteria, as there's no clear victor.

Looking at other factors, I'd say there's more general benefit to the PC than a console, due to ROMs and more genres fitting in comfortably. At that point, it really only matters what genres you like most and what your controller preference is.

Then again, if your problem is that games in general for the PC suck, or they aren't releasing good games with good concepts, I refer you to the list in the OP. Yes, that list. That list of games.

tl;dr: Feature-wise, looks like PC wins, but everything boils down to what type of gamer you are, which means the war is pointless.

and of course the emergence of indie developers.

You mean, like, the 90's?

[Kitsunin]

One of my favorite things about PC's, which nobody seems to notice, is that you can get a laptop (Okay, they are very expensive and not upgradable) and you basically have a portable system that's as more powerful than a console, okay, almost portable, you need a bag instead of simply needing a pocket.

Oh hey, I almost forgot, what about the companies that get all sorts of in the way of people trying to make games for their console?  Remember that very important Monday Night Combat patch that took a full (Or was it two) month for micro$oft to finally allow?  What about this whole BS with Dungeon Defenders having to push their release date back two months thanks to either M$ or Sony not letting them release their game (My bets are on M$) and then further not allowing them to release it on any other console due to a parallel release thingy on their contract.  Of course, even we on the PC are getting the shit out of that deal.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I wouldn't say PC games can have better graphics than consoles.

FF XIII is still the prettiest game I've seen.  It'll be beaten by a PC game at some point, but then we get the next generation of consoles, and the next Square-enix game.

Shogun 2: Total War comes pretty close though.

You're confusing graphics with art there.  You like the art of FF13 and think it's the prettiest you've ever seen.  If FF13 was designed for PC however it'd look even better.

[lordcooper]

I wouldn't say PC games can have better graphics than consoles.

FF XIII is still the prettiest game I've seen.  It'll be beaten by a PC game at some point, but then we get the next generation of consoles, and the next Square-enix game.

Shogun 2: Total War comes pretty close though.

You're confusing graphics with art there.  You like the art of FF13 and think it's the prettiest you've ever seen.  If FF13 was designed for PC however it'd look even better.

Not on mine, it wouldn't  no, actually 

And I'm not confusing the two.  To compare it to an earlier suggestion, I found the graphics in Far Cry to be far too contrast heavy.  For a more applicable example, the special effects in Last Remnant seemed a lot less vivid when I played it on PC.  Although that could be the difference between playing on a 19" monitor and a 55" plasma TV.

That another plus point for consoles IMO.  Who the hell has a 55" monitor?

[Kitsunin]

Um, someone made a game for a console and you liked the art of that game more than any other game made, even though that says nothing at all about the console, but rather says that someone knew what they were doing when making the art design for said game, and also decided not to make it a PC game.  It would, maybe not subjectively, but undoubtedly if Square Enix were to release FFXIII on PC, barring a total goof on their end, it would, objectively, have better graphics, unless your machine isn't good enough, which is your own fault, not that of the PC.

I actually have been to someone's house who had their PC with this crazy movie projector style setup...it was AMAZING, that's what I want to do after I make it big!  Which is totally going to happen -.- Actually I have the proper setup right now that if I owned a TV I could hook my computer up to it and play games like that, err, I think.

My point...PCs are better in most every way...but only if you're very very wealthy, and ignoring the non-technical aspects (Game selection, simplicity, etc.)

[Cheese]

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.

[Kitsunin]

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

Those aren't PC-exclusives!  Err, Monaco isn't anyhow, the website says they are going to have it "On PC and at least one console"

[Cheese]

I misread. Not so PC exclusive then.

[Ioric Kittencuddler]

I wouldn't say PC games can have better graphics than consoles.

FF XIII is still the prettiest game I've seen.  It'll be beaten by a PC game at some point, but then we get the next generation of consoles, and the next Square-enix game.

Shogun 2: Total War comes pretty close though.

You're confusing graphics with art there.  You like the art of FF13 and think it's the prettiest you've ever seen.  If FF13 was designed for PC however it'd look even better.

Not on mine, it wouldn't  no, actually 

And I'm not confusing the two.  To compare it to an earlier suggestion, I found the graphics in Far Cry to be far too contrast heavy.  For a more applicable example, the special effects in Last Remnant seemed a lot less vivid when I played it on PC.  Although that could be the difference between playing on a 19" monitor and a 55" plasma TV.

That another plus point for consoles IMO.  Who the hell has a 55" monitor?

Anyone with a 55" HDTV has a 55" monitor.

[DJ]

Aren't even HDTVs a lot grainier than computer monitors?

[Kitsunin]

Aren't even HDTVs a lot grainier than computer monitors?

Yes.  Quite a bit.

Really, I think monitor vs TV is pretty even, they come out to having about equal p, my monitor's resolution is 1366x768 (It was a cheapy) and I guess HDTV's can have as little as 1,280×720 pixels in resolution.  They have bigger screens, but you sit further away, it pretty much balances out.  Difference is, though, they actually do make monitors in TV sizes that still have about the same PPI (Pixels Per Inch, or did I just make that term up?  And I might be wrong anyway)  They do not, however, make TVs that get that high-res.

[Mindmaker]

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.

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.