dr-ripple
Bluelighter
the sims and warhammer if I had a richus computer
-
SPORTS
AND
GAMING -
-
Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak
PC gaming vs Console gaming
- Thread starter Portillo
- Start date
I'm getting through 'Fallout 3'; I think I've spent around nine hours playing non-stop today and I'm not bored of it. The game isn't the best game ever, but it runs like a dream on the only one of my computers that currently runs Windows and works. This is being typed up on a li'l EEEPC that's, with some exaggeration, the size of a bible and so very useful!
Consoles are good. I like to see them pushed to their limits, not so much used just as a platform to run games, but to also be explored in new ways.
For example, take the Nintendo DS and the 'Brain Training' series of games; educational software is available for the PC, but these deal specifically with that console and its hardware. You use the pen, the two screens; the software is capable of recognising numbers and letters drawn onto the screen. The machine even has a microphone!
The port of 'Resident Evil: 4' from the Gamecube to the Wii is another example: the controls have been enhanced and made more interesting and involving than the developers having simply grafted them from the GC controller to the Wiimote without altering anything. Okay, tennis is obvious.
But what about swords? Nintendo seems to favor the less-violent games, with some ports--such as that 'Star Wars' game--coming onto it. But these get pushed across all systems, including the PC. How about using the Wiimote as we'd all (probably) enjoy? A good, solid 'Soul Calibur' style game would be nice.
If swords are a little too obvious, how about turning it into a paint brush instead? A platform-style game could easily involve the player having to draw doors, holes or other things, with enough leaping about like a fool to make it fun.
The PC has its keyboard and mouse; first person shooters needn't worry so much about their graphics, but realistic physics for projectiles, other weapons, collisions and, of course, management of the input. If the cursor on-screen doesn't respond as it should when the mouse is moved, or worse, bullets appear to collide with targets when your crosshair is a few pixels off, then who's going to be happy with that?
Microsoft and Sony appear to have put the hardware and processing capabilities first with their consoles and that's fine; there are numerous brilliant games available for both using the controller with their analog sticks and buttons. Playing the 'Halo' trilogy isn't all that hard as one simply adapts to the responsiveness and feel of the controller used.
Nintendo thought of something new and 'outside of the box' and that gives their console an edge, however it isn't all that powerful. But it's light, compact and fun. The 'fun' is something important, but with this console, I'd say multi-player games certainly have more of an appeal than single player games and this, too, is important.
If I were developing for the Wii, I'd consider a project that would make full use of the controller with multi-player features and gameplay being most important. However, were I coding something for the 360/PS3, I'd go for something single-player and impressive graphics...
The consoles serve different purposes. A computer is useful for so many things, as has been said, and isn't geared specifically towards games. Hardware needs to be upgraded regularly. A console will always play the games that are released for it.
But not all of them take full advantage of the hardware and the player's experience: I've played games on a GameBoy Advance that made certain PSP titles look pathetic ('Golden Sun' was amazing--compare it to 'Valkyrie Knights 2', perhaps?). The GBA can run things in 3D, though I would liken that to a 386 attempting to run 'Quake II'--I recall trying that and there was a fairly high 'seconds per frames' rate, rather than the other way around--and isometric views can make something seem 3D anyway... %)
As long as game developers make full use of their chosen platform, it doesn't really matter to me.
'Halo' - Despite being an FPS, all of the games work wonderfully with analog sticks and the bulky Xbox controllers.
'Silent Hill: Origins' - Asks you to use your headphones and to play the game in the dark; it's portable, so you can sit in bed or anywhere at night and feel what the developers wanted you to. You concentrate fully upon the game; its macabre graphics, eerie sounds, etc.
'Command & Conquer' - Gave rise to many other, extremely similar RTS games that involve using the mouse. Without the mouse, these sorts of games would be very difficult on a PC platform.
It's 3AM and I can't be bothered to think anymore...
Basic point: each platform/console has its place and games need to be made for those individually with everything possible put into them.
Consoles are good. I like to see them pushed to their limits, not so much used just as a platform to run games, but to also be explored in new ways.
For example, take the Nintendo DS and the 'Brain Training' series of games; educational software is available for the PC, but these deal specifically with that console and its hardware. You use the pen, the two screens; the software is capable of recognising numbers and letters drawn onto the screen. The machine even has a microphone!
The port of 'Resident Evil: 4' from the Gamecube to the Wii is another example: the controls have been enhanced and made more interesting and involving than the developers having simply grafted them from the GC controller to the Wiimote without altering anything. Okay, tennis is obvious.
But what about swords? Nintendo seems to favor the less-violent games, with some ports--such as that 'Star Wars' game--coming onto it. But these get pushed across all systems, including the PC. How about using the Wiimote as we'd all (probably) enjoy? A good, solid 'Soul Calibur' style game would be nice.
If swords are a little too obvious, how about turning it into a paint brush instead? A platform-style game could easily involve the player having to draw doors, holes or other things, with enough leaping about like a fool to make it fun.
The PC has its keyboard and mouse; first person shooters needn't worry so much about their graphics, but realistic physics for projectiles, other weapons, collisions and, of course, management of the input. If the cursor on-screen doesn't respond as it should when the mouse is moved, or worse, bullets appear to collide with targets when your crosshair is a few pixels off, then who's going to be happy with that?
Microsoft and Sony appear to have put the hardware and processing capabilities first with their consoles and that's fine; there are numerous brilliant games available for both using the controller with their analog sticks and buttons. Playing the 'Halo' trilogy isn't all that hard as one simply adapts to the responsiveness and feel of the controller used.
Nintendo thought of something new and 'outside of the box' and that gives their console an edge, however it isn't all that powerful. But it's light, compact and fun. The 'fun' is something important, but with this console, I'd say multi-player games certainly have more of an appeal than single player games and this, too, is important.
If I were developing for the Wii, I'd consider a project that would make full use of the controller with multi-player features and gameplay being most important. However, were I coding something for the 360/PS3, I'd go for something single-player and impressive graphics...
The consoles serve different purposes. A computer is useful for so many things, as has been said, and isn't geared specifically towards games. Hardware needs to be upgraded regularly. A console will always play the games that are released for it.
But not all of them take full advantage of the hardware and the player's experience: I've played games on a GameBoy Advance that made certain PSP titles look pathetic ('Golden Sun' was amazing--compare it to 'Valkyrie Knights 2', perhaps?). The GBA can run things in 3D, though I would liken that to a 386 attempting to run 'Quake II'--I recall trying that and there was a fairly high 'seconds per frames' rate, rather than the other way around--and isometric views can make something seem 3D anyway... %)
As long as game developers make full use of their chosen platform, it doesn't really matter to me.
'Halo' - Despite being an FPS, all of the games work wonderfully with analog sticks and the bulky Xbox controllers.
'Silent Hill: Origins' - Asks you to use your headphones and to play the game in the dark; it's portable, so you can sit in bed or anywhere at night and feel what the developers wanted you to. You concentrate fully upon the game; its macabre graphics, eerie sounds, etc.
'Command & Conquer' - Gave rise to many other, extremely similar RTS games that involve using the mouse. Without the mouse, these sorts of games would be very difficult on a PC platform.
It's 3AM and I can't be bothered to think anymore...
Basic point: each platform/console has its place and games need to be made for those individually with everything possible put into them.
Last edited:
Well, PC games are better and moddable, BUT nothing beats playing the original halo (OR cod4) with a few mates, passing a joint while you play. That experience with a pc is much less sociable/enjoyable lol
Oh yeah forgot to conclude: Consoles are funner to lay with controlers, but PC has a much wider multiplayer network. Im gonna go with console for pure gaming ^_^
Oh yeah forgot to conclude: Consoles are funner to lay with controlers, but PC has a much wider multiplayer network. Im gonna go with console for pure gaming ^_^
The_Idler
Bluelighter
i was considering getting one of those eeePCs they look pretty fucking cool.
i'd put Backtrack on it and be able to hack WiFi anywhere, out my coat pocket!
i'd put Backtrack on it and be able to hack WiFi anywhere, out my coat pocket!
^ Yea, and it's really easy and feasible to set up four computers in the same room to play multiplayer with your friends...
It's not even just a matter of money. It's one of room space and the hassle of moving three extra computers into the room. Not to mention, even if this was performed, you still wouldn't achieve the same level of interactivity (or delightful homo erotica) that comes from four dudes sitting on the same couch looking at the same tv screen, yelling and shouting and spilling beer.
Justify your choice all you want, it's not that hard, admittedly PCs are better in many ways, but there's no need to go as far as ignoring any sort of advantage in the alternative choice.
It's not even just a matter of money. It's one of room space and the hassle of moving three extra computers into the room. Not to mention, even if this was performed, you still wouldn't achieve the same level of interactivity (or delightful homo erotica) that comes from four dudes sitting on the same couch looking at the same tv screen, yelling and shouting and spilling beer.
Justify your choice all you want, it's not that hard, admittedly PCs are better in many ways, but there's no need to go as far as ignoring any sort of advantage in the alternative choice.
DigitalDuality said:
ahh you stole the words ou of my mouth. or the keys from out of my keyboard... or something.
i just wanna say.... red ring of doom. plus, i can play fucking blurays on my computer as well. game, set and match.
postlapsarian
Greenlighter
I love PCs. I suck at console gaming unless it's ice hockey... but I just hate how PCs always encounter some absolutely random error, and no matter how powerful my machine is, the game will never run 100% smoothly.
That's why I'm going to go buy an Xbox tomorrow, because I want to play Fallout 3!
That's why I'm going to go buy an Xbox tomorrow, because I want to play Fallout 3!
Rated E said:
Depends on if the PC gamer can keep up with software and hardware maintenece. If they are always keeping the operating system clean and free of viruses, spyware, and keep it defragged, they should be fine. If they do that then hardware should be the only issue, but a lot of PC gamers try to get the system specs as early as possible so they can upgrade if needed. I know I do.
Kul69
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 2,675
Rated E said:
It's not an issue if you have an extra room for the computers. See above about getting a job.
Believe it or not PC games have local multiplayer as well. You can also plug in these newfangled things called joysticks, including the next gen controllers, and use your PC games with them!
I remember playing Halo 3 with someone and it made the widescreen image turn into a letterbox image with dual widescreen mini images. This resulted in everything being so small (on a large TV) that is was practically unplayable. Sure you could "play" but not at an appropriate level due to lack of vision.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
Kul69 said:It's not an issue if you have an extra room for the computers. See above about getting a job.
Believe it or not PC games have local multiplayer as well. You can also plug in these newfangled things called joysticks, including the next gen controllers, and use your PC games with them!
I remember playing Halo 3 with someone and it made the widescreen image turn into a letterbox image with dual widescreen mini images. This resulted in everything being so small (on a large TV) that is was practically unplayable. Sure you could "play" but not at an appropriate level due to lack of vision.
mate, you're just spoilt.
if people can enjoy goldeneye on 4 player splitscreen on a tiny CRT, then the situation you describe is equally playable (at least).
Kul69 said:It's not an issue if you have an extra room for the computers. See above about getting a job.
Believe it or not PC games have local multiplayer as well. You can also plug in these newfangled things called joysticks, including the next gen controllers, and use your PC games with them!
I remember playing Halo 3 with someone and it made the widescreen image turn into a letterbox image with dual widescreen mini images. This resulted in everything being so small (on a large TV) that is was practically unplayable. Sure you could "play" but not at an appropriate level due to lack of vision.
That's just it though. Not everyone is prepared to spend quite so much on gaming.
I recognise that PC gaming has it's advantages. But as I mentioned, I've opted for consoles, since it suits my playing habits. I play every once in a while, so it doesn't really warrant upgrades... I used to be a more regular gamer, PCs and consoles, I remember I went out and bought a graphics card and it cost as much as a console, which I was happy to do at the time, but now it's just not worth it.
I still don't think that socially interactive console multiplayer can be matched by a PC setup.
