Gaming on PC vs Console?

[BenSkywalker]

Whoa now, you can't on one hand say this, then turn around and say "The typical XBox or GameCube title looks better then the typical PC title by a decent margin." It's one or the other. The typical console has extremely limited resolution because the typical display it's hooked into is 512x512 NTSC.

NTSC isn't 512x512 for starters, and my comments on the typical game were based on software, not hardware. Consoles are not limited to uber low resolutions, that's simply all most people see out of them. Games not exploiting the hardware on PCs is, always has been and will continue to be one of console's strong points. Would anyone really want a PC game market where they had to upgrade every six months or the latest games would not run? That is the only way to close that gap.

No split-screens, and PC games are by far superior in almost every aspect of multiplayer gaming, from number of players to different gaming modes. Not only that, but the PC has much wider multiplayer support for the various types of games. On the PC, almost every game type is multiplayable: MMORPGs (what I was actually classifying as adventure games), RTS, FPS, and so on.

No split screens....? OK, you can't use PCs anymore to defend PCs First off, you seen many two player fighting games using split screen? How about sports titles? Racing games in split screen there is nothing wrong with at all. MMORPGS are on the consoles also, have been for years. The fact is that they only sell in the low 100K range, which is a big hit in the PC space, a little niche title on the consoles. FPSs are playable using multiplayer on consoles even if we exclude split screen. RealTimeStrategy games just suck on consoles, which I have said numerous times. Are you familiar with the console market btw?

I disagree. If you compare any console game's graphics to the Unreal II Engine, the upcoming Doom engine, etc., they look like cheap garbage.

Do you realize that the UnrealII engine already has console games built on it already? Also, Carmack has mentioned DooM3 headed to the XBox. Take a look at the big hits in the PC market- The Sims(SNES caliber visuals), WarcraftIII(which even the PS2 could handle), MOH(on all the consoles already and piss poor visuals owing to its PC roots). Check out the ports going the other way- SplinterCell crushes the highest end PCs, runs quite nicely on the XBox.

The Unreal engine ran on everything from a 4MB PCI Video card on up to the latest and greatest, and continually got better looking. It also spawned a whole load of new game types, and had some of the best mods out.

The Unreal engines, one and two, run on consoles too, and you can download additional content.

I have both Quake III Arena, and possibly the prettiest QIII-engine driven game: Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force.

JKII had much better visuals then STV:EF. Ignoring that though, the Quake3 engine has been running on consoles for years. Carmack has stated that porting DooM3 could result in a ~100% performance improvement over a comparable specd PC because porting to dedicated hardware allows so much tighter code(to paraphrase).

How many console game engines can say they have had the same longevity, or ran well on as much hardware? Would you like to know how many FPS my current 'substandard' and 'average gaming' rig can pull at 800x600?

Try SplinterCell, all details maxed. Take a look at these benches. There's a Radeon 9500Pro paired with an Athlon XP2700 failing to hit 30FPS running 1024x768 without AA or AF. That is far removed from low end or mid tier. Also, that is an Unreal2 engined game(and runs nicely on the XBox using the same settings).

Actually, I have yet to see anyone release a mod for any existing console game. Do you have any links to where these supposed things exist? I'm presuming you don't since you're countering my statement with "It's possible to do it" and not, "These four games do it already."

You have not seen any downloadable additional content for console games...? Take a look at the link, not just the URL. There is already downloadable new content available for consoles. I'm a bit confused, do you follow the console industry at all? This particular topic has been covered extensively by pretty much every console or multi platform gaming site on the net.

Steel Batallion vs Mech 4: Vengeance = No contest, Mech 4 wins hands down on every front -- from graphics to sound to multiplayability.

Have you ever seen Steel Batallion? It is considerably less popularized then downloadable content.

And as for adventure games, when you factor in the various MMORPGs, the consoles lose out. You cannot draw any comparison between something like say, Ultima Online, or Everquest, and Zelda on the Gamecube. The Adventure games lose out all the time IMHO.

So you call MMORPGs adventure games, alright. Then we can compare console MMORPGs- PSO ep I&II, FinalFantasyXI and Everquest(EQ is a Sony product- didn't really surprise anyone that they made a PS2 port and yes, it has been out). When I said adventure games I meant actual adventure games, not MMORPGs(or RPGs at all for that matter, they are a very different genre).

First of all, I said "Better for pick-up gaming", and second of all, you obviously don't have your network configured well for lan parties.

I have this issue with security on my rig, I like having some for instance

Lol, the Xbox does not have GF4 level graphics. It has GF3.15 level graphics.

If you really want to get in to this subject we can Are you familiar with the architectural differences between the NV20 and NV25 and how they relate to the NV2A? I'm not speculating.

I compared an Xbox on an HDTV to a PC with a GeForce 3 Ti200, and they looked the same. There is no improvement in image quality on the console, but my Radeon 64MB VIVO looked better than both in terms of image quality.

If the XBox was hooked up to a HDTV and looked worse then a Radeon 64MB VIVO something was set up wrong with the XBox. Ignoring that completely, there is no difference in the output of the GeForce3 and GeForce4, they are the same core with certain architectural enhancements that mainly relate to vertex processing throughput and memory controller optimizations.

simply because they can go out and spend the $500 to make their system go from good to best without having to replace the whole thing

And for $550 right now I can buy all the consoles and get three games in the deal.

Tsk tsk, you go from typical to rare to typical. The fact is most console owners don't have a TV, and it is a pro that they don't have to buy a monitor.

I was stating that buying a monitor shouldn't be viewed as a negative for PCs as consoles need a proper display to enjoy also. I have stated several things that PCs do better on the gaming front, the monitor issue is a wash IMO as people need to upgrade their TVs to get the most out of the systems.

One thing I didn't mention was inputs. The PC can accept a wide variety of inputs (they make any console gaming hardware, plus gaming hardware specifically for the PC, plus keyboards, mice, etc.. On the console, you're rather limited to whatever gaming hardware the console's games support.

Could you tell me what the consoles are lacking on that end? And before you ask, yes, you can get a mouse/kb setup for consoles

 

[NYHoustonman]

For starters, I run Splinter Cell, all details at max, at 1024x768 (w/o AA and AF) and the game performs well, in the 35-50+ fps range, and it rarely dips, and I'm running an Asus A7V333, 512MB DDR2700 RAM, Athlon XP 2000+, and a GeForce 4 ti4400. I would guess that maybe it is more optimized for NVidia cards, as that is what XBox is based on, but there is no way to be sure for me.

EDIT-also, that benchmark was done with a BETA version, maybe not fully optimized, no way to be sure.

Your argument about THE BEST PC's costing alot is flawed, as you are comparing that to JUST the console, not including the price the better TV's carry (If I'm not mistaken, HDTV is in 1080i, something like 1024x768, not sure though). One could build a PC that could blow away any console for a good $600-$1000, depending on brands and exact specs. My PC right now is more powerful and has better graphics (granted, not in all games, but in the ones that have the better graphics, which is the ONLY way to compare graphical capability). I admit, as a whole, console games probably do have better graphics, as that seems to be more important to console gamers than how good a game is, at least in my experience. For instance, as far as sports games, on PC they are more geared towards the statistical aspects, and on consoles it's more about the action. I'm not saying there aren't good games on consoles, as I loved Splinter Cell, but I'm saying that while, on average, a console game may look better than a PC game, depending on the game, the best looking PC game does, has, and always will look better than the best looking console game (the will part may be optimistic, dunno ).

And, about the GeForce graphics, check out the system reviews section of this exact website. They claim that it is between 3 and 4 in XBox. They go over all the aspects of it, and was a very interesting read.

 

[Boogak]

Do any Xbox games support 1080i yet? Last I checked when I was deciding whether to get one or not (which I ended up deciding not to), all their games were still 480p.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Yea, that's the other thing, most games are meant to run at lower resolutions (again, read the review I mentioned above). At default, the reason these systems get good fps is because they run at very low resolutions by today's standards. I also think that this performance will take a hit when games are made for 1080i, either that or the detail level will be compromised.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I prefer PC gaming because I like strategy games.

 

[touchmyichi]

omg you guys care so much about graphics. Consoles aren't about graphics. If you have only been playing PC games all of your life, you aren't even consider a gamer. Avoiding the console means you are missing some of the richest titles available which the PC cannot match. I bet that half of the people commenting here haven't played any great console games lately or ever. I just bought the new Zelda: The legend of wind waker on gamecube. It has indigenous puzzles, excellent gameplay, great level design, and colorful rich graphics. I can honestly say that no PC game on the market has a single player game as rich as that. In fact the only PC game in recent history I truely consider a killer app was half life. PC games lack good single player, which should be the center and soul of most games. When was the last time you played a PC game with a good story? Exactly. Name some true PC classics right now (10 years or older). In consoles classic games are still remembered and played. Remember the old mario, zelda, final fantasy, sonic, contra, metroid, and castlevania games? Oh I"m sorry no one here has even played any of those since you are to busy counting fps to tell a great game.

 

[BenSkywalker]

For starters, I run Splinter Cell, all details at max, at 1024x768 (w/o AA and AF) and the game performs well, in the 35-50+ fps range, and it rarely dips, and I'm running an Asus A7V333, 512MB DDR2700 RAM, Athlon XP 2000+, and a GeForce 4 ti4400. I would guess that maybe it is more optimized for NVidia cards, as that is what XBox is based on, but there is no way to be sure for me.

Looking at the score Tom posted, I would say it is a fairly safe bet the game runs better on nV hardware. I was pointing to SplinterCell as a good example of a game that doesn't run great on mid tier systems compared to consoles. From the broader market perspective, a R8500 is still considered a fairly high end board, SC struggles on a 9500Pro.

EDIT-also, that benchmark was done with a BETA version, maybe not fully optimized, no way to be sure.

The beta version added the benchmark. It is a newer build then the retail version.

Your argument about THE BEST PC's costing alot is flawed, as you are comparing that to JUST the console, not including the price the better TV's carry (If I'm not mistaken, HDTV is in 1080i, something like 1024x768, not sure though).

1080i is 1920x1080 interlaced. Looking at costs, obviously if you are looking to get a high end large TV you are going to spend ~$1K-$2K for a 35" HDTV. Look up the price of a comparable size monitor I have stated, the monitor issue is a wash IMO. $500 for an overhaul was mentioned, I just overhauled my rig and it ran me quite a bit more then $500, and I didn't get a new monitor.

I admit, as a whole, console games probably do have better graphics, as that seems to be more important to console gamers than how good a game is, at least in my experience.

The PS2 has an installed base of 50Million+ while the XBox and GameCube have installed bases of around 10Million. If graphics were that important to console gamers the PS2 would be dead. Gameplay is always king, when looking at consoles vs PCs the consoles absolutely slaughter PCs on that front comparing all titles for all platforms. But, consoles tend to have far too many good to great games coming out for one person to have enough time to play through, PCs almost never suffer from this. You want a good illustration of the importance of graphics on PCs v consoles simply look at the hype around DooM3 on the respective platforms. On the consoles nobody really cares about D3, Halo2 is far more anticipated despite not being comparable on the visual front because of gameplay. Pretty much, D3 isn't on most console gamers radar at all.

I'm not saying there aren't good games on consoles, as I loved Splinter Cell, but I'm saying that while, on average, a console game may look better than a PC game, depending on the game, the best looking PC game does, has, and always will look better than the best looking console game (the will part may be optimistic, dunno ).

I would strongly disagree with that. When the XBox launched back in November '01 DOA3 looked better then anything on the PC by a long shot.

And, about the GeForce graphics, check out the system reviews section of this exact website. They claim that it is between 3 and 4 in XBox. They go over all the aspects of it, and was a very interesting read.

Anand's console articles have mistakes in them(the article was discussed fairly heavily at Beyond3D back when it was first published). The XBox chip isn't quite a full NV2A chip, but in visual terms it certainly has the most important new feature of the GF4(the dual vertex shaders).

Yea, that's the other thing, most games are meant to run at lower resolutions (again, read the review I mentioned above). At default, the reason these systems get good fps is because they run at very low resolutions by today's standards. I also think that this performance will take a hit when games are made for 1080i, either that or the detail level will be compromised.

There are games that already run at 720p, which isn't far off from the complexity of 1080i in terms of pixel throughput. Also, numerous XBox games run with AA which already offer comparable strain to 1080i.

 

[Soulkeeper]

I like my ps2
being able to run older ps1 games rocks

 

[NYHoustonman]

BenSkyWalker, I can see we will never agree. To me, computer graphics have always been better, including when XBox first came out...Try putting a line out to your TV from your computer or playing console games at the same distance from the TV as you would a computer monitor (this also kind of explains why monitors don't have to be as big as TV's). Maybe if I restated it is, computers have more graphical CAPABILITY. And, PC's being slaughtered gameplay-wise? Wow. There are some great games for consoles, but there are also great games for PC's. And, the primary reason that most console gamers don't look at Doom III is because all they know about is the Dooms they saw on SNES, etc. Doom III will mainly be a graphical showcase, but it will also have some great gameplay and, at least should be, scary, creating wonderful moods. John Carmack has never been about a good story, though.

And touchmyichi, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There have been tons of great games since then. I won't even go over a god damn list, there are too many. Granted, there are probably more for consoles, but there are more than one type of console and games are not compatible between them so you can only count one at a time, really. AND, I prefer gameplay over graphics, but I was just debating...Am I not aloud to? On a side note, I've never played Wind Waker, but I am willing to bet that there are comparable RPG's on the PC, or at least will be very soon (I don't typically play them myself).

EDIT-let me add that any game can be just as good on a computer, you can get game controllers, you know, so that Sports/fighting games argument isn't exactly accurate (although there aren't (m)any fighting games on PC).

 

[BenSkywalker]

Try putting a line out to your TV from your computer or playing console games at the same distance from the TV as you would a computer monitor

I have, on both accounts(at least when using a controller). I have a Thrustmaster wireless controller that works quite nicely in a relaxed position playing on either a TV or a monitor. What's more, I've also played console games on computer monitors. The display properties for each type of display remain the same, some consoles even shipped with VGA out.

Maybe if I restated it is, computers have more graphical CAPABILITY

Right now absolutely. When the XBox shipped, I don't think that was the case. Top tier PC graphics board was a GeForce3 in that time frame.

And, PC's being slaughtered gameplay-wise?

Certainly. Go to GR and take a look at the database and PCs have a total of 30 games that have an average review score of 90% or higher, that's dating back quite some time. The PS2 has 21 such games alone, the XBox has 6, the GameCube has 9, the DC has 12, the N64 has 9, and the PSX has 22. Total score- PCs 30, consoles 79. But that is limiting it to great games(90% or higher), expand it out to include very good(85% or higher) the PC has 142, the PS2 has 55, the XBox has 35, the GameCube has 28, DC has 36, the N64 has 42 and the PSX has 68. PC ends up with 142 with consoles ringing up 264. It's nearly a two to one margin by either standard.

Wow.

It is a bit shocking how badly PCs get smacked around in that regard. Although we must remember that the console market dwarfs the PC gaming market and the PC actually does quite well considering the comparitively small user base of PC gamers.

There are some great games for consoles, but there are also great games for PC's.

That's very true. That is why it is a good idea to own all the platforms, then all you have to worry about is what games you want to play.

And, the primary reason that most console gamers don't look at Doom III is because all they know about is the Dooms they saw on SNES, etc. Doom III will mainly be a graphical showcase, but it will also have some great gameplay and, at least should be, scary, creating wonderful moods. John Carmack has never been about a good story, though.

Great gameplay...? We can all hope, but id hasn't been doing to great on that front in the last decade. Good I would agree with. They haven't had a great single player experience for quite a few years now. There is a very large group of people who game on both platforms, and most of them are interested in seeing DooM3 simply for the graphics engine, the games they actually want to play are GTA4, Halo2 and MetroidPrime2.

On a side note, I've never played Wind Waker, but I am willing to bet that there are comparable RPG's on the PC, or at least will be very soon (I don't typically play them myself).

Comparable to Zelda? There isn't anything on the PC that I can think of that is really comparable simply looking at the gameplay mechanics for the last couple of years, let alone up to the level of quality. Zelda is an adventure game, a dead genre on PCs. There is nothing comparable in the PC space that I've ever seen taken as a whole.

There are certain genres the PC does hands down better then consoles, flight sims, RTSs and FPSs spring quickly to mind along with the PC style RPGs. If you are particularly fond of those particular genres then the PC will better serve you. I just dropped around a grand overhauling my PC which as of this point the only useful aspect of that upgrade was gaming. I like gaming on my PC, there are a good number of very good to great games on it and certain genres are hands down better. That doesn't change the advantages consoles have in many aspects.

 

[daveybrat]

I love my computer, but i still love Devil May Cry for my PS2, awesome game.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
NTSC isn't 512x512 for starters, and my comments on the typical game were based on software, not hardware. Consoles are not limited to uber low resolutions, that's simply all most people see out of them.

So then the average console is limited to low resolutions compared to the average PC. End of story.

Games not exploiting the hardware on PCs is, always has been and will continue to be one of console's strong points. Would anyone really want a PC game market where they had to upgrade every six months or the latest games would not run? That is the only way to close that gap.

That's the beauty of the PC game market, you don't have to and your games are still playable.

No split screens....? OK, you can't use PCs anymore to defend PCs First off, you seen many two player fighting games using split screen?

No

How about sports titles?

No

Racing games in split screen there is nothing wrong with at all.

This is a matter of personal taste. Did you ever play Mario Kart 64 with four people on even a 28" television? Your 'average' console won't be hooked up to anything much larger. And as you say, average is much more important.

MMORPGS are on the consoles also, have been for years.

Really? Do you even know what MMORPGs stand for? In case you missed it, it stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. What part of the Massively Multiplayer bit has the average console been doing for years?

The fact is that they only sell in the low 100K range, which is a big hit in the PC space, a little niche title on the consoles.

Lol, low 100K range is a big hit in the PC space? Now that is very funny. A Little History on the makers of several PC 'Big Hits'.

FPSs are playable using multiplayer on consoles even if we exclude split screen.

Right, does your average console user have broadband, or a network setup whereby they can share their 56K dial-up connection with the rest of their lan?

RealTimeStrategy games just suck on consoles, which I have said numerous times. Are you familiar with the console market btw?

Quite actually, as I've said before, I used to be a big-time console gamer, and IMHO, it is simply better to game on PCs nowadays. Even consoles recognize this and are (feebly IMHO) trying to provide the same gaming experience as the PC had. I personally think they should stick to their traditional guns, but that's another argument.

Do you realize that the UnrealII engine already has console games built on it already?

Yep.

Also, Carmack has mentioned DooM3 headed to the XBox. Take a look at the big hits in the PC market- The Sims(SNES caliber visuals), WarcraftIII(which even the PS2 could handle), MOH(on all the consoles already and piss poor visuals owing to its PC roots). Check out the ports going the other way- SplinterCell crushes the highest end PCs, runs quite nicely on the XBox.

Actually, there's no evidence of that at all. I tried Splinter Cell on an Xbox in the local Blockbuster, and I have the demo on a recent PC Gamer demo CD at home. It runs acceptably at 25FPS, which is why it looks ok on the console. You haven't actually played it on a PC I take it. Splinter Cell runs well at 25FPS for the same reason that Doom 3 will run fine at 30 or so FPS -- it's principally single player, so your opponents won't really have an advantage over you.

The Unreal engines, one and two, run on consoles too, and you can download additional content.

They have been ported yes, and I have to say, I was rather impressed with some of the ports, but again, limited resolution. A waste of graphics power in the system it's in.

JKII had much better visuals then STV:EF.

Possibly, I have only played it on someone else's machine, and they only had a crappy 16 MB TNT2.

Ignoring that though, the Quake3 engine has been running on consoles for years. Carmack has stated that porting DooM3 could result in a ~100% performance improvement over a comparable specd PC because porting to dedicated hardware allows so much tighter code(to paraphrase).

Right, so you're taking super-optimized code and running it on (by today's standards) old hardware, and saying that is better than new fast hardware with not-so-optimized code. You do realize that old games on a PC can be made to look lots better by small updates to the core code, which PC games have had the ability to do since day 1. On a console, do they actually provide the ability to re-burn the CD? Or are updates stored on the drives?

Try SplinterCell, all details maxed. Take a look at these benches. There's a Radeon 9500Pro paired with an Athlon XP2700 failing to hit 30FPS running 1024x768 without AA or AF. That is far removed from low end or mid tier. Also, that is an Unreal2 engined game(and runs nicely on the XBox using the same settings).

And where are the XBOX's FPS scores listed?

You have not seen any downloadable additional content for console games...? Take a look at the link, not just the URL. There is already downloadable new content available for consoles. I'm a bit confused, do you follow the console industry at all? This particular topic has been covered extensively by pretty much every console or multi platform gaming site on the net.

What part of the word mod don't you get? A mod is not new levels, a mod is a different game using an existing game's structure. I would presume that unless you've been living in a cave, you understand how CS works, or Infogrames' Tactical Ops. Where can someone go and write their own game if they want? It doesn't exist now, it may five years from now, but we're not discussing five years from now, we're discussing now now.

Have you ever seen Steel Batallion? It is considerably less popularized then downloadable content.

Yes.

So you call MMORPGs adventure games, alright. Then we can compare console MMORPGs- PSO ep I&II, FinalFantasyXI and Everquest(EQ is a Sony product- didn't really surprise anyone that they made a PS2 port and yes, it has been out).

Yes, and Everquest on the PS2 is considerably lacking when compared to Everquest on the PC (at least, according to my local Everquest authority). I digress on the Everquest point, as I have not played it on a PS2, only a few times on a PC.

When I said adventure games I meant actual adventure games, not MMORPGs(or RPGs at all for that matter, they are a very different genre).

Sure, and for those, you should buy the gamecube, because today, IMO, the best adventure game I've played is Mario Sunshine.

I have this issue with security on my rig, I like having some for instance

You can still have a lan-party capable network and security at the same time. As I implied though, you don't obviously do a lot of lan partying, and yes, indeed, there is the half a minute's configuration changing that it takes to make your machine properly talk on a network.

If you really want to get in to this subject we can Are you familiar with the architectural differences between the NV20 and NV25 and how they relate to the NV2A? I'm not speculating.

I am not actually. However my comments stemmed from what I wrote below.

If the XBox was hooked up to a HDTV and looked worse then a Radeon 64MB VIVO something was set up wrong with the XBox. Ignoring that completely, there is no difference in the output of the GeForce3 and GeForce4, they are the same core with certain architectural enhancements that mainly relate to vertex processing throughput and memory controller optimizations.

Actually, IMO, the overall image quality on the Radeon is superior to the GF3s. That being said, I'd rather be able to nail my target FPS rate of 100+ at 1024 or 1280 than have nice image quality.

And for $550 right now I can buy all the consoles and get three games in the deal.

Good for you. You're buying a limited-time item that you can't just replace one or two parts in, and you're tying yourself into much more expensive games.

I was stating that buying a monitor shouldn't be viewed as a negative for PCs as consoles need a proper display to enjoy also. I have stated several things that PCs do better on the gaming front, the monitor issue is a wash IMO as people need to upgrade their TVs to get the most out of the systems.

Then it's definitely a con for people buying a console, because HDTVs are bloody expensive compared to a computer monitor.

Could you tell me what the consoles are lacking on that end? And before you ask, yes, you can get a mouse/kb setup for consoles

Configurability. They're getting much better, but they are still lacking. I don't necessarily always want to be stuck with six or seven configuration options, and I like being able to mix hardware (something I don't think any console has support for). IE: Switching to a joystick when I hop into a plane, or then hopping in a jeep and using my wheel+pedals in BF1942. It is just downright more fun that way.
The only thing I've ever seen on any console that even comes close to this is the dual-controller config you could have in 007 Goldeneye for the N64 (and possibly perfect dark, though I dunno).

Originally posted by: touchmyichi
omg you guys care so much about graphics. Consoles aren't about graphics. If you have only been playing PC games all of your life, you aren't even consider a gamer.

Whew, I'm glad I fit your definition of a gamer then.

Avoiding the console means you are missing some of the richest titles available which the PC cannot match. I bet that half of the people commenting here haven't played any great console games lately or ever.

You'd probably lose that bet. Speaking for myself, I have played Mario Sunshine, Halo, Splinter Cell, etc.. All on consoles. I never said consoles were bad, just that they don't stack up against the PC, which is why I haven't bought a console since the N64.

I just bought the new Zelda: The legend of wind waker on gamecube. It has indigenous puzzles, excellent gameplay, great level design, and colorful rich graphics.

Cool, I may have to bug my GC buddy about it.

I can honestly say that no PC game on the market has a single player game as rich as that. In fact the only PC game in recent history I truely consider a killer app was half life.

Having not played it, I won't comment. However, if you think that the PC gaming industry has a single 'killer app' and that it is 'half-life' then you've obviously missed the boatload: The Sims, BattleField 1942, Warcraft III, and so on. There are quite a few for the different genres.

PC games lack good single player, which should be the center and soul of most games.

If single player is your preference, then sure, by all means only buy single player-only games. Me personally, I like online gaming against others, and the screaming exploding camraderie of a good FPS-oriented lan party.

When was the last time you played a PC game with a good story?

Last night. Warcraft III specifically. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Icewind Dale II, Neverwinter Nights, Startopia, Black and White, and so on and so forth. Maybe you need to check out more PC titles.

Name some true PC classics right now (10 years or older).

Now that's amusing. The thing is, PCs weren't socially speaking considered anything more than work things until around '95 when gaming started to get REALLY popular. Toys were toys, and work things were work things. You won't find many games for PCs that are classics and 10 years older. That being said, pick some C64/128 games, or consider the origins of so many game types. Id's Wolfenstein is perhaps the grandfather of all first-person shooters. Commander Keen would also make my list of classics, but like I said, I think the point is irrelevant. This discussion is about today, not about 10 years ago.

 

[moogle077]

Good for you. You're buying a limited-time item that you can't just replace one or two parts in, and you're tying yourself into much more expensive games.

How are 19 dollar console games more expensive than PC games?

 

[NYHoustonman]

19 dollars would get you a bargain PC OR console title for the most part.

The only thing I am going to comment on, as this argument is going nowhere (we are both think-headed), is that you can't talk about ALL consoles having more games than PC's. That's what I said before. Compare ONE console to ONE computer and look at the numbers. There are simply too many consoles for the PC to compete with together. Also, a great RPG for me was Escape from Monkey Island, and those that preceded it. There are many other great RPG's out for PC today, you just need to read some reviews, and I'm too lazy to as for the most part I don't play them.

 

[Boogak]

I answered my own question, http://www.hdtvarcade.com/ has a list of console games that support the different HDTV standards (480p, 720p, 1080i). Looks like there's only 1 Xbox game out there that supports 1080i (Dragon's Lair 3D) and a handful that support 720p. But by far the majority of Xbox games only support 480p. The GameCube and PS2 seems to have about half of their titles supporting 480p, none of their games support 720p or up. So it's pretty safe to say that yes, console gaming is pretty low res compared to PC gaming generally.

With that said, I had a PS2 for a few months before I sold it because of the horrible jaggies (this was with the Sony branded component cables on a Toshiba 43" HDTV) and my utter lack of interest in console style games. I guess my tastes as I've gotten older have veered towards PC style gaming (FPS, RTS, etc).

 

[Johnmcl7]

I enjoy playing my consoles and I enjoy playing my PC

Over the years, my main enjoyment from the PC has come from RTS games, I've always adored the C&C games. At the moment, it's generals I'm working on, and right now I'm alt+tabbing out of hostile waters which is still one of my favourite all time games. I can't enjoy any of these on a console. C&C actually looked quite cool on the N64 but it was totally unplayable!

On the console side of things, it's the Xbox which gets the most attention, I've always been a big Nintendo fan but I feel Nintendo have let me down with the GC, I only have two games for it (Melee and Sunshine) as opposed to 11 or something on the Xbox. I like the network capabilities of the Xbox, for a while at work we were bringing an Xbox into each office, and plugging the Xboxes into the network. I realise PCs can network of course, but it's fun having four people on each Xbox working as a team since you can all look at each other's screen and work out a strategy. Project Gotham Racing is also a lot of fun, I do like consoles for just sitting around a nice big TV

Obviously some people prefer PCs, some consoles, some both...as long as people are enjoying the games they are playing, that's what counts!

John

 

[BoomAM]

I've always been a big Nintendo fan but I feel Nintendo have let me down with the GC

Just wait till this years titles/products get released.

The Legend Of Zelda : The Wind Waker
Metroid Prime
1080* Avalanche
F-Zero GC
Soul Caliber 2
Extreme G : Racing Association
Hitman 2
Splinter Cell
Winning Eleven 6
International Superstar Soccer 3
RTX Redrock
Starcraft Ghosts
Pikmin 2
Red Faction 2
The rest of the resident evil "remix`s".
GC Broadband/56k modem adaptor
GB-->GC Player

The Year of the GameCube has come!!!

Note:
The above goes on UK releases only.
I think that both Zelda & Metroid are already available in the US.

 

[touchmyichi]

chsh1ca; battlefield 1942 and warcraft III are not killer apps. Killer apps are games so good that the platform is bought just for that. For instance, I would consider the upcoming doom III a possible killer app. These games need to be instant classics. For me I would only rank a few games in this category: final fantasy 7, Zelda: Ocarina of time, grand theft auto vice city, and super mario bros. A killler app would be doom III, People will be upgrading their system just for it. I like PC games too, don't think I don't. I don't see any console game that can compete w/ something like counterstrike. In fact a game like counterstrike could never be done on console, just like zelda could never be done on PC. Those games that you thought had good story's on PC's...I'm sorry man. I have never seen any game tell a story and have as good of voice acting as metal gear solid and metal gear solid 2. What I also like about consoles is being able to play on a 32 inch TV. Yeah yeah I know you can do that on a PC too, but its not as common as on console.

 

[Johnmcl7]

Originally posted by: BoomAM

I've always been a big Nintendo fan but I feel Nintendo have let me down with the GC

Just wait till this years titles/products get released.

The Legend Of Zelda : The Wind Waker - I don't like Cel Shading and I have to say OoT didn't do much for me - Zelda 3 remains my favourite
Metroid Prime - I've played this and I think it's terrible, you can't use the right control stick to strafe or look around, platform jumping in FPS view is annoying as hell, if this had
third person it would have been great
1080* Avalanche - not a fan of snowboarding games
F-Zero GC - Can't wait for this one
Soul Caliber 2 - I'm not a fan of 3D fighters in general, plus both the GC and Xbox suffer from poor d-pads in my opinion
Extreme G : Racing Association - Liked it on the N64, the GC ones was too short, hopefully this one can do better
Hitman 2 - Already got on PS2
Splinter Cell - already got on Xbox
Winning Eleven 6 - I assume this is a football game, if so definitely not for me
International Superstar Soccer 3 - ditto
RTX Redrock - not seen this one and can't see it on ign
Starcraft Ghosts - not particularly interested in this one, and it's going to be a multi-platform one anyway
Pikmin 2 - played the first one, but too short
Red Faction 2 - played the PS2 version, from what I've seen the GC and Xbox ones are nothing special, and again they're multi-platform
The rest of the resident evil "remix`s". - I've got the first RE on GC but it doesn't do anything for me
GC Broadband/56k modem adaptor - due to Nintendo's reluctance to enter the online gaming arena, this isn't anything great, I already have Xbox live, which is much better than the GC will ever be online sadly
GB-->GC Player- I don't have a GBA/SP, they're fun little machines but I'm not paying 20-30 quid for my old Snes games when I can put it towards an Xbox/GC/PC game

The Year of the GameCube has come!!!
I wish it had, but F-Zero is the only game I'm looking forward to. Melee is a superb game but otherwise I would have probably sold my cube by now

Note:
The above goes on UK releases only.
I think that both Zelda & Metroid are already available in the US.

 

[BenSkywalker]

So then the average console is limited to low resolutions compared to the average PC. End of story.

You want to talk average then the average PC is running an Intel i810e or TNT2M64, and are limited to low resolution with graphics options turned down.

This is a matter of personal taste. Did you ever play Mario Kart 64 with four people on even a 28" television? Your 'average' console won't be hooked up to anything much larger. And as you say, average is much more important.

Yes, and a 25" one too(although it was much nicer on a 50" setup). Game was still lots of fun.

Really? Do you even know what MMORPGs stand for? In case you missed it, it stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. What part of the Massively Multiplayer bit has the average console been doing for years?

If you want to talk about average then the average PC gamer hasn't been playing MMORPGs for years either. PSO has been around for years.

Actually, there's no evidence of that at all. I tried Splinter Cell on an Xbox in the local Blockbuster, and I have the demo on a recent PC Gamer demo CD at home. It runs acceptably at 25FPS, which is why it looks ok on the console. You haven't actually played it on a PC I take it. Splinter Cell runs well at 25FPS for the same reason that Doom 3 will run fine at 30 or so FPS -- it's principally single player, so your opponents won't really have an advantage over you.

I don't consider 25FPS OK, although I know most people do. One of my biggest gripes about Halo was its frequent sub 30FPS performance.

What part of the word mod don't you get?

I stated additional content, not mods.

You can still have a lan-party capable network and security at the same time. As I implied though, you don't obviously do a lot of lan partying, and yes, indeed, there is the half a minute's configuration changing that it takes to make your machine properly talk on a network.

Ever tried to configure a Win2K box running IIS with remote administration and file sharing enabled for your local LAN and convert it over for a LAN party in half a minute?

Good for you. You're buying a limited-time item that you can't just replace one or two parts in, and you're tying yourself into much more expensive games.

Every part in my PC is limited time. For that matter, my SNES from the early 90s still sees gaming time, my 286 sure as hell doesn't. More expensive games? I was in BB the other day and they had Turok for the GC for $9.99. I picked up NASCAR Thunder 2K3 for $19.99 within a couple months of its release. When looking at strictly games, WarCraftIII and NWN both cost over $50 when they launched, which I haven't seen on console optical media games for quite some time.

Then it's definitely a con for people buying a console, because HDTVs are bloody expensive compared to a computer monitor.

Compare like sizes.

On a console, do they actually provide the ability to re-burn the CD? Or are updates stored on the drives?

Updates are stored on the Hard Drives.

Right, does your average console user have broadband, or a network setup whereby they can share their 56K dial-up connection with the rest of their lan?

The XBox has built in LAN and is very easy to set up for LAN based gaming.

IE: Switching to a joystick when I hop into a plane, or then hopping in a jeep and using my wheel+pedals in BF1942. It is just downright more fun that way.

You can hot swap controllers on consoles.

I never said consoles were bad, just that they don't stack up against the PC, which is why I haven't bought a console since the N64.

The N64 shipped at nearly the same time as the Voodoo1(a little before actually). It's akin to someone criticizing PC games whose most powerful rig is a Pentium 133 w/Voodoo1 and 16MB of RAM.

 

[NYHoustonman]

touchmyichi, again, play the games before you make comments like that.

Also, upgrading or replacing a computer costs alot, so of course less people upgrade just for one game, but it does still happen for those games you mentioned. A "killer app" should be a great game, and there have been many of late.

 

[BFG10K]

1920x1080 is really low resolution? Most people make comments about this that have an analog TV hooked up through the standard interface running games in interlaced mode. That isn't a limit of the consoles.

Come on now, how many people have an HDTV capable of such resolutions? And if they did most console games don't even support multiple resolutions anyway, plus an HDTV will break the bank, unlike a standard 19" monitor.

Hell, even a 14" monitor running at 800 x 600 is far better than a standard console -> TV setup, which 99% of console users will have have. Quite simply for all intents and practical purposes, resolutions greater than a standard home TV don't exist in the console world. Unlike PCs that can raise even GLQuake to any resolution their monitor supports.

Games not exploiting the hardware on PCs is, always has been and will continue to be one of console's strong points.

Yet most consoles can't even manage the simple act of raising the resolution like PCs can.

 

[FearoftheNight]

Originally posted by: FearoftheNight
Video? Experience? Opinions? Be heard! Who's the winner? I'm saving my own opinion until I hear urs? So I can jump on the bandwagon. ;D hehehe...j/p.

Lol. When I have time I'm going to read this monster of a post I started. Its a very interesting argument and I admit my leanings are shifting based on the argument. I own a PS2 but I admit one fault I have w/ my PC is that I get caught up in the Radeon/GeForce graphics craze and forget about plain funfactor. Consoles have some awesome games. In my personal experience it has been the multiplayer pc games that have hooked and destroyed my life . I.e. Diablo2/LOD, Counterstrike, Starcraft/Broodwar/ Warcraft/Civilization/Heroes of Might and Magic. =\

 

[BenSkywalker]

Come on now, how many people have an HDTV capable of such resolutions?

Around here(in my physical area, not on these boards)? Quite a few. I'll say this, I know several more people who own HDTVs then who own DX7 or higher level video cards.

And if they did most console games don't even support multiple resolutions anyway, plus an HDTV will break the bank, unlike a standard 19" monitor.

Almost every XBox game supports multiple resolutions, it simply doesn't offer to change resolutions(it will auto select the highest res available for your display that the game supports as long as you have it hooked up porperly). A great deal of GC games also support multiple resolutions(you actually do have to select it also) as do a few PS2 games.

Hell, even a 14" monitor running at 800 x 600 is far better than a standard console -> TV setup, which 99% of console users will have have.

Perhaps where you live, HDTV is far from rare in the US. Hell, Wal-Mart sells HDTVs. It is a rather mainstream consumer product at the moment.

Quite simply for all intents and practical purposes, resolutions greater than a standard home TV don't exist in the console world.

Perhaps where you live, but HDTV is doing quite well in the US-

Arlington, Virginia 1/27/2003

Surpassing projected sales totals by several hundred thousand units and elevating cumulative sales to new heights, factory-to-dealer sales of digital television (DTV) products totaled 2,487,502 units and $4,210,151,531, according to figures released today by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).

That was for '02 alone, 2.5Million units, that's one for roughly 15% of all households in the US(or just under one for every ten people) in a singe year and the sales rate is quickly accelerating. I don't know what the situation looks like where you live, but in the US HDTV is far from a niche product.

Yet most consoles can't even manage the simple act of raising the resolution like PCs can.

Not the same way PCs do. They instead simply adjust to the best resolution you can run and do it. Given that it is a fixed platform the devs already know the performance level.

 

[NYHoustonman]

I answered my own question, http://www.hdtvarcade.com/ has a list of console games that support the different HDTV standards (480p, 720p, 1080i). Looks like there's only 1 Xbox game out there that supports 1080i (Dragon's Lair 3D) and a handful that support 720p. But by far the majority of Xbox games only support 480p. The GameCube and PS2 seems to have about half of their titles supporting 480p, none of their games support 720p or up. So it's pretty safe to say that yes, console gaming is pretty low res compared to PC gaming generally.

I think that's what BFG10K meant, and he is absolutely right.

Hell, even a 14" monitor running at 800 x 600 is far better than a standard console -> TV setup, which 99% of console users will have have. Quite simply for all intents and practical purposes, resolutions greater than a standard home TV don't exist in the console world. Unlike PCs that can raise even GLQuake to any resolution their monitor supports.

And, even if not that, 17" monitors can be had for relatively cheap nowadays, too.

That was for '02 alone, 2.5Million units, that's one for roughly 15% of all households in the US(or just under one for every ten people) in a singe year and the sales rate is quickly accelerating. I don't know what the situation looks like where you live, but in the US HDTV is far from a niche product.

A few things I noticed, 1-That's factory-to-dealer, 2-Not sure about this so don't kill me if I'm wrong, are they including ONLY the actual televisions? And 3-thats close enough to $2,000 per unit to make it not worth it to the vast majority of TV-owners, at least now, but admittedly, soon, I think it was like 2007 or so, TV stations will be required to broadcast in ONLY digital. And, even with these HDTV's, most are not 1080i, and even at that level, computers will beat out consoles, as only one (1) XBox game supports that. More support the lower resolutions, and, again, at that level, computers still look better in my eyes.