Games that are better on the PC than on consoles

StarKnightX

StarKnightX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
234 (100%)
This might seem like kinda a stupid or pointless thread topic , but after reading an article a few days ago from Gearbox about how the PC version of a multiplatform game is "always" the best (in this case referring to Borderlands) I was wondering whether that is really true or not.

I've never been much of a PC gamer in the past , mainly cause the family computer we had was always underpowered , but now I have access to a more capable gaming system , and I was thinking that getting more multiplatform games on the PC would be a better long term move. Considering that if you get a game on the 360 , you can only play it on the 360 , and while most likely the only reason I wouldn't have/keep mine in the future is that it fails (again) on me and I choose not to replace it , if that does happen , than of course those games are useless to me. Whereas if I have the games on the PC , then as long as I have access to a gaming capable rig I can play those games.

Now the main issue of this thread , is of course whether the PC version of games certain/all games are better. I've been sorta confused by this in the past , because while I read posts from people online about how the PC version of (fill in the blank) are good , reviews for the same game tend to be much lower. Is this simply a case of most game reviewers being more biased towards consoles?

Are there any good resources on the matter (other than asking here ;)) , or is it simply something that has to be looked up and handled on a case by case basis?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PC version is definitely always superior.

You have
1)Higher resolutions
2)Way better anti aliasing (no more jaggy edges!) and other video/audio options yo don't get on consoles
3)Free online
4)Almost all DLC is free for PC
5)Mods!
6)Mods!
7)Mods!
8)This is more subjective but mouse and KB is better suited for FPS than controllers. Thoughtyou do still have the option of using a controller if that's what you like best.
 
EVery game ive played this gen has been better on the pc. Its not only better graphics but smooth gameplay (mass effect is one that comes to mind)
 
I agree that most games are superior on the pc. However, I have found myself playing far more console games lately. Playing games on my big tv is often more fun than playing pc games. I could connect my pc to my tv, but then I would not be able to take advantage of the high resolutions my gaming rig can handle.
 
I usually buy the PC version of all FPS's for the better controls, and the PC version for all RTS games. Plus price is almost always cheaper, and tends to drop much faster. It depends game to game though, some PC ports are very poorly done. Action games, platformers, driving, etc. I usually pick up for the consoles
 
[quote name='bmsdaddy']I agree that most games are superior on the pc. However, I have found myself playing far more console games lately. Playing games on my big tv is often more fun than playing pc games. I could connect my pc to my tv, but then I would not be able to take advantage of the high resolutions my gaming rig can handle.[/QUOTE]

I have my pc hooked up to my 37" 1080p HDTV through HDMI and play all my games at 1920x1080.
I also use the thing as a media center watching 1080p movies on it and such. Itt's pretty great. I honestly couldn't imagine going back to using a monitor for my gaming rig.

As someone mentioned before Saints row 2 was very buggy on PC. Every so often you will get a console port that was handled very poorly. But saints row 2 is one of the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.
 
Don't forget that you will never outgrow your old PC games, you never move up a generation and lack backwards compatibility (Aside from some games not transferring well with new OS's) and with digital distribution, you've always got your library there.

I don't have to change discs to play a different game.

I can run windowed and talk to friends easily/go on the internet during load times.

MMOs are a genre nearly exclusive to the PC.

Dedicated servers for most online games.
 
Unless the game has horrible optimization it will ALWAYS be better. It really is astounding to play current games in super high resolution and 60 + fps.
 
I would say generally that PC versions are better provided that the game is optimized for computer hardware and not simply ported over from the console which leads to bugs. It's really frustrating when a good console game gets a crappy PC port with no support (Ubisoft, I'm looking at you). On the other hand, it's great that alot of DLC is free for PC versions while the console version charges for it.

Another important factor is whether or not your computer is up to date to run said game, and building/maintaining a good gaming PC to take advantage of the better hardware gets very expensive very fast.

Generally, I'd say most modern games lend themselves better to the PC platform than console, especially with the more complex controls (back in the day, all you'd need were buttons for jumping and shooting). Even genres that traditionally lend themselves to consoles for their controllers (platformers, third person action and adventure) are being released for PC since many gamers have gamepads, and many games nowadays come with native support for the 360 controller.
 
As others have said PC games are always best. Always have been always will be.

Now I say this with exceptions of course depending on your style. I would have personally bought Borderlands for the PC if it game with those nerd points (yes achievements) the nerd points give me something that makes me feel like I've actually gone as far as the game would let me is all, plus it plays well on the xbox so it didn't bother me. Now Fallout 3 on the other hand I'd never own on console due to it's Games for Windows Live, the crazy cool mods (mods always make a game play longer than normal .. hence PC being better), and plays better.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I have my pc hooked up to my 37" 1080p HDTV through HDMI and play all my games at 1920x1080.
I also use the thing as a media center watching 1080p movies on it and such. Itt's pretty great. I honestly couldn't imagine going back to using a monitor for my gaming rig.

As someone mentioned before Saints row 2 was very buggy on PC. Every so often you will get a console port that was handled very poorly. But saints row 2 is one of the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.[/QUOTE]

I had forgotten that 1080p was 1920x1080, the last time I hooked my PC to a TV the TV was only 720p and I really missed the extra space. My PC setup is 1920x1200 and I doubt I would miss the 120 drop from 1200 to 1080; I will have to give it a try. Running my PC games with a 70" screen would be awesome!
 
After I had posted this thread , I was trying really hard , whether out of vanity or stupidity , to try and find a game (besides Saints Row 2) that I could use to back up my thoughts , alas I could not. I suppose this is a good thing , but it is kinda strange how it seems like there were more times where the console version of a game was better , but maybe it was just the way I interpreted reviews that made me think that way.

One thing that isn't exactly the same as being "better" , which is why I didn't bring it up here , was exclusive content. Examples like Prince of Persia PC not getting the Epilogue content , or Batman : Arkham Asylum PS3 getting the Joker challenges. Things like this would still sway me towards getting the console version , but only until the PC version dropped really cheap , or until the extra content no longer mattered to me. In most cases , a console version of a game would probably be the first version I get out of convenience , but the PC version of a game will probably be the version I get to keep in my collection.
 
Console or PC version of a game can often depend on which comes first. Quake Wars was, I felt, pretty fun on PC, but a basterdized (sp?) mess on 360.
 
Glad that this thread went where it should be going.

Almost 99.99% of games that are built with PC in mind are actually better than their console cousins.

In rare cases that it doesn't work out like that is simply because the console game came first and it was a port from that game.
 
PC rules all the way, but its ever changing technology is hard to keep up with. Most people go the console route, since it's affordable.
 
Of the current-gen games I've played on both PC & console...

preferred on PC:
Fallout 3
Arkham Asylum
Prototype
Mass Effect
Oblivion
Burnout Paradise
Street Fighter 4
Resident Evil 5
Orange Box
Grand Theft Auto 4

preferred on console:
NONE.



It's a shame devs can't get DRM right... I think piracy's the only reason we don't see every game on PC and PC sales eclipse the shitty consoles. This gen's consoles are absolutely terrible. Bunch of overpriced, excessively overclocked (e.g. overheating -> failing) underpowered pieces of shit that can't even maintain jagged 720p without slowdowns. It blows my mind that people whine about spending $150 on a good video card when they're willing to drop $300 on these piece of shit consoles... I have to point a little mini-fan at my entertainment center when using my X360 or PS3 just to help it stay within a healthier operating temp range, that's such terrible design. And don't even get me started on the $250 gamecube...
 
The general consensus seems to be that well-ported or developed games play better on the PC. I agree. I do prefer to have the living room atmosphere for action games, platform games, and JRPGs, though (gamepad-friendly games), and while there's nothing really stopping me from running HDMI to my TV and getting a wireless gamepad for those types, it's more convenient to go for a console in those cases.
 
[quote name='xycury']Glad that this thread went where it should be going.[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity , where exactly did you think the thread was going to go? (I suppose the answer is obvious , but I want to hear your version).

Earlier today , I happened to think of 1 other game , that didn't seemed to "exactly" be optimized for PCs. It wasn't supposed to be bad but I recall hearing that it was slightly gimped compared to the 360 version , Gears of War.
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']Out of curiosity , where exactly did you think the thread was going to go? (I suppose the answer is obvious , but I want to hear your version).

Earlier today , I happened to think of 1 other game , that didn't seemed to "exactly" be optimized for PCs. It wasn't supposed to be bad but I recall hearing that it was slightly gimped compared to the 360 version , Gears of War.[/QUOTE]

I thought this thread would start out fine, but wind up being a flamefest with a bunch of consolers... or maybe just everyone in general shitting on PC gaming.

I think any game that released a co-release on both consoles and PC side would favor to the PC but some games like GoW that developed a port after the console just bites the dust. I think of Halo in that ligth too. I think it could have looked much better than it does not.

I think ports from PC games don't fare too well either... Diablo on Playstation??? and Starcraft on N64?

Anyways, PC will mostly always have RTS and some of the best FPS....

The Nvidia and AMD/ATi need the video game industry to survive, I'm sure if it comes to it, one of them will develop their own gaming division to make games.
 
The Orange Box is a far better on the PC than on the consoles. Come to think of it, you could call it an offense to nature to be playing a Valve game on anything but a PC.

RTS without a mouse and keyboard is just an abomination (though I did like the Halo Wars Demo).
 
All RTS games and generally most FPS games are better on the PC, simply for their controls (among other reasons previously stated). I cannot play RTS games on consoles; the controls are always terrible.

Controls aside, there are some games that just seem....wrong...on consoles. Everything in Orange Box comes to mind. *Above post knows what I'm talkin' about*
 
[quote name='Esoteria']The general consensus seems to be that well-ported or developed games play better on the PC. I agree. I do prefer to have the living room atmosphere for action games, platform games, and JRPGs, though (gamepad-friendly games), and while there's nothing really stopping me from running HDMI to my TV and getting a wireless gamepad for those types, it's more convenient to go for a console in those cases.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, back when I was really into videogames, I had a gaming PC and several consoles. Both had their uses. Consoles, for example, lack the in-depth and incredibly geeky 4X and war games I enjoy so much. Stuff like Civ IV, EU III, Alpha Centauri, GalCiv II, etc.

But you can't play multiplayer Goldeneye and Mario Party on PC, so...

At present, I really only play TF2 and Civ IV (see sig), so I've stopped paying much attention to consoles.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
And don't even get me started on the $250 gamecube...[/QUOTE]

Hey! That Gamecube only costs 200 potatoes now get with the times.

PC does have some downfalls though, can't splitscreen on a PC in almost every game.
 
I tend to buy all FPS on the PC as like others have said the mouse and keyboard and DLC is most the time free. All other games the only things that stop me from getting them on a PC is; I'm not sure how well it will run them, don't have a controller and don't want to use a mouse and keyboard for all of them, Vista, location of the computer, I like xbox live and not all pc games connect to it. However the biggest three are the location of where the computer is, vista, and I really want to build a nice gaming rig.

Once I get the money chances are I will build a pc that is just for games and connect it to a TV. That might be in a generation or 2. The only downsides to PC gaming that I can think of is driver issues and getting the game to run. If it is running fine then this is no issue but in the past I have had some issues getting games to run. I think the biggest part of that is vista. The other is content that is only on some systems. Like someone said the Joker levels in Batman:AA.

I think it really comes down to what is better for you but when it comes to the quality of the game if you have a PC that can run it the PC wins by a long shot.
 
Amazing to not see a single (or did i miss one?) console comment (good). I prefer the PC and log my time maybe 10 to 1 pc to console. I agree with most every comment reguarding the PC and can standly in the PC is better camp. BUT, just to point oout some downsides.

PC negatives- Cost, sure right now with a $100CPU, $50 memory, $100 MB, $50 HD, $20 DVD, $75 video card, then add case, speakers (headphones) keyboard and mouse ($100 more seem fair? dont forget case has to have a PSU).. $500 ish... and those prices are for mid line stuff (low line to most PC gamers). All if not most of it will need to be upgraded at least 1 to 2X during teh 7 year console lifespan (average lifespan).. I know many use PC for other things too.. so it cant be considered a GAME machine ( but a $200 E- machine will do anything work releated (except video). SO simply COST is a huge negative for PC gamers. maybe we make up for it in paying $10-30 less per game?

Console +'s: Sports games, the gamepad is a pretty sweet controler for those. The MS gamepad on a PC does negate this some.. but keep in mind not every sports game is out on the PC, but pretty much all on Console. Action games, again, most play better on gamepads on consoles. (and once again,. some are on PC, but some are PS3, so not). Game selection- Right now consoles are owning PC's game wise. many games wont be released for the PC, plain and simple. Then Ports to PC are Poor many times as mentioned (but the extra Horsepower can make up for it.. Halo when originaly released for the PC was HORRIBLE, hardly get 20FPS on a GOOD machine, plays great nowdays, but when released it was the SUCK) sometimes they leave the gamepad menu's in (Borderlands, I'm looking at you). Right now PC's are the nerdy guyin the corner, game makers know the big money is on consoles, but still want to support those old nerds who dont have one. The original PC gamers built this game culture. Consoles are "fixed" hardware (besides storage) so games can be programed specific, made to run the best they can at a fixed res. Somebody mentione playing old games (pc) later ... you can almost all th time, but sometimes its more work then its worth. Consoles... as long as it works (the hardware) and you own it, and have hte disc's/carts, tis going to work. Consoles are almost always smaller (this is changeing.. man they are big nowdays). Big thing nowdays.. go to any Walmart and try buy a PC game, they have 50 of the $3.99 puzzle games (that you can play for free in a flash website someplace), 10 mainstream PC games (many that are still marked $49.99 while online they are $19.99), but a console game, they have um all. No waiting for it to ship, just buy it.

Again, Im not defending consoles.. I prefer my PC, but just wanted to point out some good.
 
It's leaving mainstream with the addition of online console gaming, but multiplayer sure ain't what it used to be.

Local co-op is the saving grace of consoles, fighters and party games lose a lot of "fun-factor" for me when I can't trash talk the guy next to me. Hell, we spent more than a few nights playing the first Halo on 4-player splitscreen. Computers can't match up on this front, but consoles are quick to leave these options behind.
 
[quote name='clok1966']Amazing to not see a single (or did i miss one?) console comment (good). I prefer the PC and log my time maybe 10 to 1 pc to console. I agree with most every comment reguarding the PC and can standly in the PC is better camp. BUT, just to point oout some downsides.

PC negatives- Cost, sure right now with a $100CPU, $50 memory, $100 MB, $50 HD, $20 DVD, $75 video card, then add case, speakers (headphones) keyboard and mouse ($100 more seem fair? dont forget case has to have a PSU).. $500 ish... and those prices are for mid line stuff (low line to most PC gamers). All if not most of it will need to be upgraded at least 1 to 2X during teh 7 year console lifespan (average lifespan).. I know many use PC for other things too.. so it cant be considered a GAME machine ( but a $200 E- machine will do anything work releated (except video). SO simply COST is a huge negative for PC gamers. maybe we make up for it in paying $10-30 less per game?

Console +'s: Sports games, the gamepad is a pretty sweet controler for those. The MS gamepad on a PC does negate this some.. but keep in mind not every sports game is out on the PC, but pretty much all on Console. Action games, again, most play better on gamepads on consoles. (and once again,. some are on PC, but some are PS3, so not). Game selection- Right now consoles are owning PC's game wise. many games wont be released for the PC, plain and simple. Then Ports to PC are Poor many times as mentioned (but the extra Horsepower can make up for it.. Halo when originaly released for the PC was HORRIBLE, hardly get 20FPS on a GOOD machine, plays great nowdays, but when released it was the SUCK) sometimes they leave the gamepad menu's in (Borderlands, I'm looking at you). Right now PC's are the nerdy guyin the corner, game makers know the big money is on consoles, but still want to support those old nerds who dont have one. The original PC gamers built this game culture. Consoles are "fixed" hardware (besides storage) so games can be programed specific, made to run the best they can at a fixed res. Somebody mentione playing old games (pc) later ... you can almost all th time, but sometimes its more work then its worth. Consoles... as long as it works (the hardware) and you own it, and have hte disc's/carts, tis going to work. Consoles are almost always smaller (this is changeing.. man they are big nowdays). Big thing nowdays.. go to any Walmart and try buy a PC game, they have 50 of the $3.99 puzzle games (that you can play for free in a flash website someplace), 10 mainstream PC games (many that are still marked $49.99 while online they are $19.99), but a console game, they have um all. No waiting for it to ship, just buy it.

Again, Im not defending consoles.. I prefer my PC, but just wanted to point out some good.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't actually jump to the conclusion that PC gaming is more expensive.

Initially you may pay more for your PC than you would a console but:

1)Games are $10-$30 cheaper at launch.
2)DLC is almost always FREE on PC
3)You don't need to pay a yearly subscription fee to play online
3)Wireless adapter is $10 compared to the 360's $100
4)Don't need to buy some special overpriced hard drive or memory storage (although to be fair to the PS3 they at least let you choose any 2.5" sata drive)

I would say the costs are very balanced.
 
Keep in mind this post is coming from someone whose PC game collection outnumbers his console one by about 25 to 1.

[quote name='HowStern']1)Games are $10-$30 cheaper at launch.[/quote]

Unless you hold on to games forever, that initial outlay is balanced by the fact that PC games typically resell for $10-30 less than their console counterparts. You're also limited as to where you can sell PC games; eBay or private selling is about it.

2)DLC is almost always FREE on PC
Click to expand...

Whatever DLC does come out for PC. A lot of content that comes out for consoles never sees the light of day on the PC.

3)You don't need to pay a yearly subscription fee to play online
Click to expand...

Only applicable to the 360.

3)Wireless adapter is $10 compared to the 360's $100
Click to expand...

You can buy a wireless bridge or a router that has a bridge mode often for 1/2 (or many times less) the price.

4)Don't need to buy some special overpriced hard drive or memory storage (although to be fair to the PS3 they at least let you choose any 2.5" sata drive)
Click to expand...

Again, that's a problem really only for the 360.

I would say the costs are very balanced.
Click to expand...

Against the 360 perhaps, but not so much against the PS3, which has Blu-ray, wireless, and is limited in storage only by the size of available notebook hard drives.
 
[quote name='saturnotaku']Keep in mind this post is coming from someone whose PC game collection outnumbers his console one by about 25 to 1.



Unless you hold on to games forever, that initial outlay is balanced by the fact that PC games typically resell for $10-30 less than their console counterparts. You're also limited as to where you can sell PC games; eBay or private selling is about it.



Whatever DLC does come out for PC. A lot of content that comes out for consoles never sees the light of day on the PC.



Only applicable to the 360.



You can buy a wireless bridge or a router that has a bridge mode often for 1/2 (or many times less) the price.



Again, that's a problem really only for the 360.



Against the 360 perhaps, but not so much against the PS3, which has Blu-ray, wireless, and is limited in storage only by the size of available notebook hard drives.[/QUOTE]

Well thought out rebuttal to this PC slanted thread. I agree the PS3 is the best value proposition when it comes to consoles. If you factor in game sharing on PSN the PS3 can even have better deals.

Another issue is a PC is made so it can be upgraded and broken components fixed.This just isn't true with a PS3 or 360. As consoles reliability continues on a downward slope (when you compare each generation) this becomes another way PCs save you money.

The last point I would make is indie companies are not required to get an ESRB rating (PSN) or use a certain suite of tools (not sure this is exactly the correct term) as is required by the XBL indie scene.

I still like my consoles, but I'm not sure if will replace them if/when they break. I'm also not sure I will jump into the next generation of consoles when the time comes.
 
[quote name='52club']Another issue is a PC is made so it can be upgraded and broken components fixed.This just isn't true with a PS3 or 360. As consoles reliability continues on a downward slope (when you compare each generation) this becomes another way PCs save you money.[/quote]

Not necessarily, if you factor in the cost of your time. If, like a lot of folks here (and myself included), you built your PC yourself, if something goes wrong, it's possible to spend hours upon hours troubleshooting. Further, many manufacturers are not the easiest to deal with when it comes to responding to support or RMA requests.

I've had to deal with tech support for every major console manufacturer. Sony was OK, it was more a technical question about the PSN, rather than a hardware problem. It took them a while to pick up the call, but my questions were answered accurately and professionally. Nintendo was amazing to deal with in repairing my DS Lite. One phone call was all it took to get a pre-paid shipping label. The service was completed promptly, and with minimal downtime. Xbox support was very hit and miss (I had to have my 360 replaced four times before giving up on the system entirely). My systems were eventually repaired or replaced, but getting satisfaction was pretty tough at times. I discovered a "back door" tech support number that got me to US-based agents, and those calls were much better than the ones to India you make at the mail Xbox support hotline.

Now on the PC, I've had major headaches dealing with Asus and Sapphire tech support. Those people were either unresponsive and/or unwilling to help with product replacements. Now my system is stocked with parts from companies that I can actually trust (eVGA and Western Digital to name two). Still, my experiences in dealing with PC companies has typically been little short of abysmal.

I still like my consoles, but I'm not sure if will replace them if/when they break. I'm also not sure I will jump into the next generation of consoles when the time comes.
Click to expand...

If my PS3 ever broke, I would replace it in a second and wouldn't feel the least bit guilty about spending another $300 to get a brand-new machine. I would do the same with pretty much any component in my PC as well.

Far as the next generation of systems, well, I'd have to see what they're capable of doing. Fortunately, it'll be quite some time before we need to worry about it. :cool:
 
In my opinion PC is usually superior then their console counterparts...the exception to this in my view is 3rd person games(mainly shooters). Not sure what it is, but I generally prefer to play these games on a console with a controller.

This is based on what I have seen and personal preference ;)
 
I love my pc, and I love playing games on it. I can see why consoles are more popular, it's just an ease of use thing. It's already prebuilt, you put games into it, and off you go. While it's not hard to build a pc, it still takes some time to do, and then having to deal with driver issues and what not can turn some people off.
 
[quote name='saturnotaku']Keep in mind this post is coming from someone whose PC game collection outnumbers his console one by about 25 to 1.



Unless you hold on to games forever, that initial outlay is balanced by the fact that PC games typically resell for $10-30 less than their console counterparts. You're also limited as to where you can sell PC games; eBay or private selling is about it.



Whatever DLC does come out for PC. A lot of content that comes out for consoles never sees the light of day on the PC.



Only applicable to the 360.



You can buy a wireless bridge or a router that has a bridge mode often for 1/2 (or many times less) the price.



Again, that's a problem really only for the 360.



Against the 360 perhaps, but not so much against the PS3, which has Blu-ray, wireless, and is limited in storage only by the size of available notebook hard drives.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the ps3 is the best value for the price in the realm of consoles but , man, I hate going from my PC to the ps3. The anti-aliasing (or lack of) kills me. Jaggy edges everywhere. Frame rate issues you can do nothing about because you're stuck with the GPU it came with and have no advanced video options. Everytime something blows up in fallout 3 it turns into a stuttering slide show. No GPU scaling. You're almost always stuck with 1280x720.

Also, you mentioned DLC not making it to PC. The thing is it goes both ways. Take team fortress 2 for example. The consoles get none of the upgrades. Or user mods for Portal. TONS of user created levels, some done by professional game devs, will never be available the console versions.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Yeah the ps3 is the best value for the price in the realm of consoles but , man, I hate going from my PC to the ps3. The anti-aliasing (or lack of) kills me. Jaggy edges everywhere. Frame rate issues you can do nothing about because you're stuck with the GPU it came with and have no advanced video options. Everytime something blows up in fallout 3 it turns into a stuttering slide show. No GPU scaling. You're almost always stuck with 1280x720.[/quote]

Having been a PC gamer for most of my "career" (for lack of a better word), I totally see where you're coming from. Mirror's Edge was the same thing. The PS3 version was OK, but it suffered from frame rate and collision detection problems that made me hate the game at first. I tried the PC port, which came out a couple months after the consoles, and it completely changed my opinion. A lot of it boils down to how much effort will go in to developing for a given platform. The Orange Box was similar--a pretty bad PS3 game (largely because the port was done by EA since big Gabe Newell hates the PS3), but absolutely amazing on the PC.

On the flipside, PC games, though more frequently on PC ports of console games, you can run in to some pretty significant issues. This goes back to the issue of time spent troubleshooting that I mentioned in a previous post in this thread. Sometimes the time spent diagnosing a PC game problem can take quite a while, and some developers (EA, I'm looking in your direction) might issue one patch and call it quits right after that, pretty much ending support for the PC right then and there.

To be fair, this is a problem that's been cropping up more and more with console games. Thanks to the need to have broadband Internet connections and increased developer pressure to get games released at a certain date, we're seeing a ton of sloppy work. Games can get patched on the console as well, but that sort of defeats one of the consoles' greatest strengths in that it's a closed platform where you only have to deal with one or two (360 and PS3) different hardware configurations, versus tens of thousands of different PCs.
 
Graphics don't matter. A console looks good enough on a decent HDTV.

PC gaming is expensive.

The mouse and keyboard suck.

More hackers.

Only games better on the PC are RTSs. And even that is starting to turn with Halo Wars proving it can be done great on the console.

I can see where you are coming from with mods, but that's about it. I wouldn't be surprised if PC gaming became just MMOs in the next 5 years because of all the pirates aswell.
 
I looked through my Wii and PS3 collection and I don't believe I have one game that comes out for the PC. Notably not a big FPS fan, but I think that alone is reason enough to play the consoles. I have alot of Nintendo/Sony content and those two companies simply don't release things for the PC because they want you to buy their console.

I must admit that I recently purchased a new computer that is a very capable machine. Prior to that I would have been less than satisfied with my PC gaming. However, I was very dissapointed in my first attempt. I picked up Dirt for PC because I had enjoyed it when I had it for the PS3 and assumed that the PC version would be better. However, on a new Dell XPS that should have been able to power Dirt fairly easily, I couldn't get it to work. It was a brand new Dell (nothing from me installed yet) and I couldn't get Dirt to work because the Star Force drivers (DRM) decided my dvd burning software or Blu Ray viewing software or both(that came standard on the computer) were illegal programs and would not play until it was removed. I thought this was rediculous and didn't waste my time trying to "clean" my computer to actually play Dirt. I purchased my computer knowing it had those programs and intending to use them. I am taking the high road and not using Torrents, but is that how most of you are enjoying your PC games or is my experience with Dirt abnormally bad DRM? It really has scared me from purchasing anything that has DRM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Karma Is a Bish']Graphics don't matter. A console looks good enough on a decent HDTV.

PC gaming is expensive.

The mouse and keyboard suck.

More hackers.

Only games better on the PC are RTSs. And even that is starting to turn with Halo Wars proving it can be done great on the console.

I can see where you are coming from with mods, but that's about it. I wouldn't be surprised if PC gaming became just MMOs in the next 5 years because of all the pirates aswell.[/QUOTE]

Graphics look good enough on a console ... but the PC blows it out of the water still.

Mouse and keyboard are far superior than a controller in most games. RTS's and shooters are prime examples. A mouse and keyboard are far far more acurate than a controller. Hell look at Unreal Tournament 3 for the consoles, they had to slow the game down by about 30% just so you could shoot stuff. If all shooters were cross platform compatable so I could play with friends I'd own them all on PC. The only game type I couldn't do on a PC are racing games.
 
Beware of games ported from console, though. They can be botched very badly if the porting developer is incompetent. Wait for some Amazon customer reviews to show up before buying a console to PC port. Bully, Saints Row 2, Resident Evil 4, Devil May Cry 3 come to mind.
 
[quote name='Karma Is a Bish']Graphics don't matter. A console looks good enough on a decent HDTV.[/quote]
You clearly haven't played a pc game on a decent hdtv. Going from even last generations GPUs to a ps3 or 360 makes the ps3/360 look like wii graphics.
PC gaming is expensive.
Click to expand...
See my previous post. No subscription fees for live, cheaper games, free dlc,etc.
The mouse and keyboard suck.
Click to expand...
You should read about aim-assist. Did you know that when you play a shooter on a console you aren't actually playing by yourself? Developers implement aim-assist because trying to aim with a controller is so ridiculous. The game is actually helping you aim. When you get your crosshairs close enough to an enemy the computer puts them onto the enemy. It's cheap. I'd rather play using my own skill.[/quote]
More hackers.
Click to expand...
This one is iffy. Valve has VAC (valve anti cheat) built into their games and a lot of others use punkbuster. I would say this keeps things pretty close to the level of console glitchers.
 
Saying you dont like mouse and keyboard is like saying you dont like playing NES games with the wiimote... plug a fucking gamepad in and stop whining, the majority of games have native support for gamepads, plug n play, plug the controller into your computer and play the fucking game, it's really not that difficult
 
[quote name='Koggit']Saying you dont like mouse and keyboard is like saying you dont like playing NES games with the wiimote... plug a fucking gamepad in and stop whining, the majority of games have native support for gamepads, plug n play, plug the controller into your computer and play the fucking game, it's really not that difficult[/QUOTE]

Especially any recent game. If it has the games for windows logo on the box it is compatibly with the 360 controller. It's a requirement to be able to put the logo on the box
 
I use to be a hard core PC gamer. I bought a dreamcast when it came out not because it was better just because sometimes i didn't want to deal with my computer. Frigging windows 98 (then i got 98 SE). Then i was a PC gamer again for a long time. Now i have a family and although i think PC games are superior to there console cousins, its easier to play single player games for a few minutes hear and there on the console and to get the family involved in multiplayer.

I do sneek back to my computer to play some WOW and Sins of a Solar Empire as offten as i can.
 
[quote name='xcopy'] Most people go the console route, since it's affordable.[/QUOTE]

This is pretty much the main reason I do most of my gaming on consoles these days. I have a couple decent computers but they wouldn't really be able to handle some of the higher-end games well. Consoles are easy like that, I buy them once and that's it. Even PC games being cheaper isn't enough for me to justify the ongoing cost of maintaining a top-end PC.

I still game on my PC, but it's almost always games like Civilization 4 or other 4x games which I can't get on consoles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top