[quote name='TiE23']I know this isn't a discussion thread, but I'm still gonna put my opinion here.
I don't understand why the 360 (and PS3 in some cases) releases are considered worse if they're also released on PC. Just because they're also on PC doesn't make it worth less, PC exclusive gamers and Console exclusive gamers are becoming more and more separated and there really isn't an issue with that. It's clear that Cheapy and Wombat are Console gamers almost exclusively, as displayed over their choice in using Macs as their main computers, they just don't care for PC games all that much.
You can't call the Xbox 360 crap just because there are a handful of titles on PC also, this really shouldn't be an issue, you get it for the console or the PC, just because the PC games usually have the potential to be better than their console counterparts does not discount the consoles all together. Now, the problem is that console exclusives are consistently outperforming most computer PC exclusives for the first time in a while. There is no question that last generation (2001-2005) PC games were consistently better looking and better playing than console games, but that has changed. Back way when we played console games at 640x480i and PC games at 1024x728p - always sharper, and with the proper hardware, much better and prettier. Now it's much more even, with the PS3 and 360 often beating out all but the most high-end computers with 1920x1080p versus (insert any random PC res from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050, etc).
You need to admit that the only PC exclusive that can still prove that "PC's can do it better" is Crysis, a game that is too gnarly for the PS3 or 360. Now look how unfair your standards are. If you judge by just "what pure exclusives this platform has determines it worth" way of thinking the PC is far off worse than the two main consoles.
Now, in the "console war" - it's dumb to take these 'On PC also' games and to discount them. BioShock was considered a 360 exclusive, it was merely coincidence that it was also launched on PC at the same time, PC games don't matter in the "console war".
Now, I've tried my best to point out the follies in your reasoning, I'm going to now sympathize with you. I myself used to be a primary PC gamer, and I've been trying my best to keep up with the PC crowd for as long as I can, I'm close enough to be a fan of the latest PC cult hits like The Witcher, STALKER, and Crysis - I very much look forward to these three titles in the next few days (Enhanced Edition update, Clear Sky, and Warhead). But I've switched over to the 360 and Wii as my console outlets, there have been situations where I'll take the 360 version over the PC version, not because my computer is too shitty to run it right, (I updated my PC early this year just to play Crysis at medium-high settings, and everything else at max.) - I got The Orange Box, BioShock, Call of Duty 4, Mercenaries 2, DiRT, all for the 360 because I can trust the online mode, I don't have to deal with hard drive space, or patches, or potential problems, and I want to play with my friends on the 360. It's all relative and a matter of opinion, it's true that it's unfortunate that Wombat and CheapyD don't get their kicks on PC, too. But you shouldn't shun them for that, they can be a little ignorant without knowing the wonder for Half-Life 2 over three and a half years ago and the amazing experiences with the mods such as Garry's Mod and such.
But seriously, you're acting a little too elitist just because you're a PC gamer by heart. You're stance of "if it's on the PC, why even bother with the console version?" is really snobby, you can't trust the average Joe to properly make the right decisions to getting a great gaming rig for the price of a PS3. It's a lot easier to buy a PS3 than all the parts to a PC from NewEgg.com for the average lay-person. Am I really not a hardcore gamer if I prefer to play many of my games on my 360 when I could play them on my PC perfectly fine? Am I not a hardcore gamer if I play an average of 2 or 3 hours a day, yet don't go out of my way for the mouse and keyboard controls? Seriously? Seriously?! You're strange.
Lastly, the statement about the Wii being the best console out there is a gross overstatement in the importance in exclusives, just because it can only really be on the Wii doesn't make it the best. And again, by judging on quantity over quality is misguided and potentially a way to burn yourself with PC games, because it's clear that PC games are by far the least numerous in exclusives that are worth a damn than the Wii, PS3, or 360.
Okay, I'm going to cut it short there, I'm tired of putting so much effort into this.[/quote]
Just wanted to clear a few things up, and then we can take this elsewhere if we wish to continue it, or at least until Cheapy and Wombat chime in.
I in no way meant to imply that I think the 360 (or PS3) are bad in any way shape or form, indeed I think they are both quality pieces of hardware, and would happily take either one. My point was that the 360 and to a lesser extent the PS3 give me little reason to BUY them, and I get tired of hearing people talk as if these are the only gaming choices.
I tried to be fair with the games that I listed, and I know I missed many. The ones I listed as 'better on the PC' have multiple improvements over the console versions not just in graphics (personally I could care less about graphics, and would much rather have quality game play). This is not because they are on the PC, but because the PC versions are made better partially due to the fact PC gamers demand more. The two biggest improvements IMHO are the ability to save anywhere, and mouse and keyboard controls. It drives me nuts to not be able to put the game down whenever I want, and in this day and age where the saves are no longer stored in a limited amount of on cartridge memory it is just ridiculous. For the most part PC gamers do not accept this (titles with checkpoint only save systems have traditionally underperformed), why console gamers don't demand better I don' t know. As to mouse and keyboard controls, a skilled player with a mouse and keyboard will always beat a skilled player with a gamepad in any first person shooter. This used to be more open for debate, but when games such as Halo 2 and Shadowrun came out console gamers consistently got decimated by those with mouse and keyboard. My favorite account of this was a challenge between editors or OXM and PC gamer in Halo 2 shortly after the PC version came out. Despite playing it consistently for nearly three years the OXM guys got it handed to them by some outlandish score. In addition the mouse and keyboard make entire genres possible that are not available in any quality on the consoles. Real time strategy games come to mind.
Back to the games themselves. I certainly would argue that Crysis is not the only game PCs can do better. In fact Crysis is a terrible poster child for the PC since few PCs can play it. As I stated above any good real time strategy game is an example of a game PCs can do better, and so are most shooters. In particular it has been painful to hear Half Life 2, and KOTOR discussed by console gamers. The coverage was along the lines of "what a surprisingly good game!" Those of us who play PC games have been excited about these for ages since HL2 is the sequel to one of the best games of all time, and KOTOR was the 10th game (counting expansions) from Bioware, a company that has yet to make a less than spectacular game. This is not to say there aren't genres the consoles do better with. Platformers and sports games are better on consoles, and so are rhythm games such as Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and DDR. None of those however makes me want to drop $300-$500 on a console. As to the argument of of quantity versus quality it should be clear that I care much more about quality than quantity as my whole argument is that the quality games are often higher quality on the PC. Certainly the PC will never top consoles in the quantity department. That being said it takes more than a couple of quality games before I am willing to spend money on hardware (PC or console), and that is why I have not bought a PS3 or 360, as I can already play superior (or at least equal) version of most of their best titles.
I do not begrudge Cheapy or Wombat their consoles, but I find it tiresome to hear games discussed as though they can only be played on one of the two systems. In particular the argument that 'the 360 has the most best games' grows tiresome because often neither 350 or PS3 has the best versions of the games in question. These days I play more games each on the Wii, DS and PSP than the PC. However what I am looking for on all of these systems is something unique from what I can already get on the PC. The 360, and to a lesser extent the PS3 don't offer me much in this regards.
Hope that clears things up a bit, thanks to everyone else for your patience.
Edit: I missed one thing I wanted to respond to. Consoles have always maintained an ease of use advantage over PCs, and only a fool would dispute that. Buy any console game, stick it in the system, and within a few seconds (longer if installing to the hard drives) the game is guaranteed to be up and running on your system. It's the biggest reason cited for why the PC market has grown much slower than the console market. Personally I find the extra effort worth the reward, especially since there is no cost involved.