Games that are better on the PC than on consoles

[quote name='Droenixjpn']I like both consoles and PC. They offer a nice variety of different games to play and enjoy.[/QUOTE]

This is the most intelligent post in this thread, and it should be the final word in any debates on PC versus console.
 
[quote name='saturnotaku']This is the most intelligent post in this thread, and it should be the final word in any debates on PC versus console.[/QUOTE]

It's a good sentiment, yes. Except it has nothing to do with the thread. The OP specifically asked if multi-platform games are usually better on pc than their console counterparts and why. Not what everyone preferred to game on.

Unfortunately the topic became polluted with opinions like "mouse and keyboard suck!" and "console graphics are good enough!"
 
[quote name='bvharris']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.[/QUOTE]

If you're spending lots of money maintaining a pc, gaming or not, you're doing something very wrong
 
HowStern brings up a very good point about Auto aim/assistance. I played Call of Duty 4 on my ps3 for a very long time. I later bought the game on Steam when it was on sale, and I have to say there is a huge difference!!!!
the aim assistance in the console version is pretty ridiculous (not as bad as in halo) but aim assistance IMO bridges the gap of skill levels...Someone who is just starting out in Call of Duty 4, can still compete with someone who has been playing for awhile. (as long as they are familiar with FPS)

With the PC version, the gap between beginners and veterans of the game, is pretty big.

Games with auto assistance have made gaming a lot more accessible to people that do not usually play games.
Another way to look at it is that, the auto assistance on consoles like a confidence booster lol, because you feel like you are better than you are.
 
About only truly one genre comes to my mind when asked, "What is better on the PC than on Consoles?" and that is RTS games.

FPS games are mixed feelings from me as well.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Just saw this on kotaku

http://kotaku.com/5397283/dragon-age-origins-+-playstation-3-versus-pc

very relevant.[/QUOTE]

I read GameSpot's review of the game last night , and they also brought up the system differences , although they also factored in the 360. To sum it up , they felt that the PC version is definitely the way to go , but if your going to go with a console version , the PS3 version trumps the 360 version.

This thread did come to mind when I read that review though.:)
 
HowStern, play a console game. You'll like it. Your defense to the PC was not good at all. To start, graphics honestly don't matter. And, even if you cared about them, the graphics on a decent HDTV for a PS3( and I hate PS3s) or a 360 is great and good enough. If you don't think so, you are a selfish and spoiled brat.

It is cheaper to game on consoles. 360. $200 starting fee. $20-30 for a harddrive. $50 for xbox live per year( and, if your not lazy, you can probably look up deals for around $40 per year). Your up to about $500 dollars for FIVE YEARS OF GAMING excluding the games you buy. A good PC after five years will cost a hell of a lot more then $500.

The aim assist excuse is pathetic. I've played games on both. There's not much of a difference. You are just to used to PC gaming to be good with a controller. There is much more of a difference of skill between a good and bad player at Halo for the 360 then there is COD for the PC.

And there are hackers. Those protection things don't stop them.

So for cheaper, just about the same games + more, you can game on the consoles.
 
[quote name='Karma Is a Bish']It is cheaper to game on consoles. 360. $200 starting fee. $20-30 for a harddrive. $50 for xbox live per year( and, if your not lazy, you can probably look up deals for around $40 per year). Your up to about $500 dollars for FIVE YEARS OF GAMING excluding the games you buy. A good PC after five years will cost a hell of a lot more then $500.[/QUOTE]

Couple thoughts here. $200 + $30 + $50 = $500? How or where did you come up with $500 excluding games? Are you factoring in that you'll most likely have to replace/repair your 360 at least once? Cause if not , to expect 1 360 to last 5 years is awfully naive. Also , where did you get a hard drive for $30?

From my personal standpoint , I'd almost agree with those numbers. I paid $400 for my original 360 , which I had to replace once (only an extra $30 out of pocket at Best Buy). Plus about $30 for a year of live. But now my second 360 is dead , I can't get another "free" replacement , so I either pay $100 to get it repaired , $200 for a new Arcade , $300 for a new elite , or (what I'm thinking of doing) $400 for the new MW2 bundle. In any case I'm already way over your $500 for 5 years estimate.

I also spent nearly $500 on hardware alone on the PS1 , over the course of about 3 systems.
 
I'd say I prefer playing games on consoles. However, I love having the choice.

Dragon Age, from all accounts, is MUCH better on PC. I purchased the PC version primarily for the top-down (Baldur's Gate style) perspective. Mouse and keyboard are also far more ideal for an RPG like Dragon Age, IMO.

For a game like Modern Warfare 2, I'll purchase the 360 version. I want the community of my friends, the more pick-up-and-play social feeling I get from Live, etc.
 
[quote name='Karma Is a Bish']HowStern, play a console game. You'll like it. Your defense to the PC was not good at all. To start, graphics honestly don't matter. And, even if you cared about them, the graphics on a decent HDTV for a PS3( and I hate PS3s) or a 360 is great and good enough. If you don't think so, you are a selfish and spoiled brat.

It is cheaper to game on consoles. 360. $200 starting fee. $20-30 for a harddrive. $50 for xbox live per year( and, if your not lazy, you can probably look up deals for around $40 per year). Your up to about $500 dollars for FIVE YEARS OF GAMING excluding the games you buy. A good PC after five years will cost a hell of a lot more then $500.

The aim assist excuse is pathetic. I've played games on both. There's not much of a difference. You are just to used to PC gaming to be good with a controller. There is much more of a difference of skill between a good and bad player at Halo for the 360 then there is COD for the PC.

And there are hackers. Those protection things don't stop them.

So for cheaper, just about the same games + more, you can game on the consoles.[/QUOTE]

Don't forget the cost of a good HDTV, need one of those if you want to see the best a console can give.
 
[quote name='bmsdaddy']Don't forget the cost of a good HDTV, need one of those if you want to see the best a console can give.[/QUOTE]

You also need a good monitor for a PC if you want the best of what it has to offer. Size wise, it's hard to compare, because most folks looking for an HDTV want something that's 40" or more whereas most gaming monitors that do the same 1080p resolution are 22-24".
 
I look at it this way. You are going to buy a PC anyway, even if it's just for basic email, school work, and surfing. You'll probably pay $400 - $500 for that pc. If you want to game, then a Xbox 360 costs $200, $30 for a 20 gig HDD, $40 a year for XBL, $30 for a refurbed extra controller. I'm not counting buying a tv or monitor because you can easily use a HDTV or monitor to do the same thing, (i.e. you can get away buying one for both purposes).

So for $800 you get a PC and game console. Or you can spend that $800 and get a nice mid-range gaming PC that does it all. It's all a matter of what kind of games you enjoy. I personally hate playing third person action games with a KB/M. But I hate playing RTS games with a controller. So I have a gaming PC and a game console. As always, YMMV!
 
[quote name='Karma Is a Bish']HowStern, play a console game. You'll like it. Your defense to the PC was not good at all. To start, graphics honestly don't matter. And, even if you cared about them, the graphics on a decent HDTV for a PS3( and I hate PS3s) or a 360 is great and good enough. If you don't think so, you are a selfish and spoiled brat.

It is cheaper to game on consoles. 360. $200 starting fee. $20-30 for a harddrive. $50 for xbox live per year( and, if your not lazy, you can probably look up deals for around $40 per year). Your up to about $500 dollars for FIVE YEARS OF GAMING excluding the games you buy. A good PC after five years will cost a hell of a lot more then $500.

The aim assist excuse is pathetic. I've played games on both. There's not much of a difference. You are just to used to PC gaming to be good with a controller. There is much more of a difference of skill between a good and bad player at Halo for the 360 then there is COD for the PC.

And there are hackers. Those protection things don't stop them.

So for cheaper, just about the same games + more, you can game on the consoles.[/QUOTE]


LOL, I've had all 3 recent gen consoles. I still have the PS3 and wii. My 360 shit out though like half a year ago and I could see absolutely zero reason to replace it. 360 exclusives almost always hit PC. Not sure how buying these things with money I earn working makes me selfish and spoiled. TBH, you're making yourself sound ridiculous saying things like that.


No, console gaming is not cheaper.
Do you own a console? Do you own a computer seperately? Yeah? OK, lets add those two costs together.

We'll say 250 for the console + we'll say 350 for the computer.

So, you've spent $600 to be able to use a computer and play games.

Want to pc game?

Take yor computer $350 and + this graphics card for $88. You've now spent $450ish to be able to have a computer and play games(with way better graphics)

edit: lol didn't even see mogamers post above who said basically the same thing. =P
 
[quote name='HowStern']Take yor computer $350 and + this graphics card for $88. You've now spent $450ish to be able to have a computer and play games(with way better graphics)[/QUOTE]

You linked to a 2-generation-old video card that uses a standard no machine made in the last 3 years has (AGP). A 512 MB card is not enough to run modern games at high resolutions with a decent frame rate.

You'd have to spend roughly twice that.
 
[quote name='saturnotaku']You linked to a 2-generation-old video card that uses a standard no machine made in the last 3 years has (AGP). A 512 MB card is not enough to run modern games at high resolutions with a decent frame rate.

You'd have to spend roughly twice that.[/QUOTE]


Using an old card was actually my point. That dragon age origins review above was reviewed on a 3850. And even on an old card like that that can be added to an old computer you have it was STILL better than the PS3 version.


Also 512mb is still plenty enough to run modern games. As proven by the dragon age origins review above using the 3850.
The GTX 260s that run crysis on high with no problem only have 800+- MB ram. In fact most benchmarks show that 2gb cards with the same clock speed as 1gb cards don't run the games any better. An the 1gb hardly ever do better than the 512mb. Usually only a few extras FPS.

I actually use a 4870. an XFX one slightly overclocked. I got for $135 after a $15 rebate. So, even by my original math, it would be cost of computer + $140ish. Much cheaper than a console and runs games much better.

That's the other thing. There are ALWAYS rebates on pc parts. Always. I built my $700 system for about $500 using rebates and bing cashback.
 
[quote name='saturnotaku']You linked to a 2-generation-old video card that uses a standard no machine made in the last 3 years has (AGP). A 512 MB card is not enough to run modern games at high resolutions with a decent frame rate.

You'd have to spend roughly twice that.[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily think that's true. I have a 9800gtx+ with 512 mb that runs almost all games at 1680x1050 with great frame rates for most games. Only one I've had a problem with was Saints Row 2. I think that's part of the problem, people think you need to have the best video cards to have a good gaming experience and that's not necessarily true.
 
In my opinion, all FPS genre is better played in PC. High resolution and the most important is mouse. I have difficulty playing FPS on console since I have to use analog stick.
However, I noticed a new mod on Resident Evil 4 for PC. Some fans make the HD version...and I think it will never be released on console...lol...so I think it will be better than the console ver. :cool:
 
My 30 inch monitor has 2560x1600 resolution. That resolution is fantastic.

Consoles are OK. I'd rather play Boom Blox or Singstar or a sidescrolling shooter in the living room with friends and family. But Dragon Age or an MMO or an RTS or a FPS or an adventure game, I'd rather play deep in my man cave on my PC.
 
I was a console player only until about 5 years ago when I bought a new PC, and on a whim, put in a nice graphics card (at the time) to turn it into a gaming PC.

OMG. PC gaming, if you have an up to date machine, is superior in many ways to console gaming, for the reasons that all the previous posters mentioned above. Plus if you're a social gamer who likes MMORPGs, console gaming has nothing on PC gaming. Don't like your controller? There are PC programs that will let you remap your keyboard/game controller to something you like!

Plus there is the cheap ass aspect. PC games are often cheaper than console games...not to mention all the FREE games to play, or games that come with a FREE TRIAL on PC, which means I don't even have to spend gas to go to the video rental store anymore if I want to test out a game before I buy it! And while this won't apply to most gamers, I've gotten many free beta testing invites for many different PC games as well, why I've never gotten to beta test a console game, ever.
 
[quote name='Spacepest']I was a console player only until about 5 years ago when I bought a new PC, and on a whim, put in a nice graphics card (at the time) to turn it into a gaming PC.

OMG. PC gaming, if you have an up to date machine, is superior in many ways to console gaming, for the reasons that all the previous posters mentioned above. Plus if you're a social gamer who likes MMORPGs, console gaming has nothing on PC gaming. Don't like your controller? There are PC programs that will let you remap your keyboard/game controller to something you like!

Plus there is the cheap ass aspect. PC games are often cheaper than console games...not to mention all the FREE games to play, or games that come with a FREE TRIAL on PC, which means I don't even have to spend gas to go to the video rental store anymore if I want to test out a game before I buy it! And while this won't apply to most gamers, I've gotten many free beta testing invites for many different PC games as well, why I've never gotten to beta test a console game, ever.[/QUOTE]

Not only that but you have the choice to either use a 360 or PS3 controller :D
 
[quote name='x2xpenpenx2x']Not only that but you have the choice to either use a 360 or PS3 controller :D[/QUOTE]

Oh yes. OH GOD YES. :D There's nothing better than being able to pick out which controller you want to use as well! (And let's not forget, programmable MACROS).
 
So , with the topic at hand , I've started going through my collection of console games , looking for ones that are also available on the PC , so that I can find out whether they are better to keep on the console (whichever one) on if I should switch to the PC version.

Starting with the PS2 , here is the list of games I can up with. I'm not really looking for critiques of quality , or pointing out redundant games , I'm just looking for conformation of whether the PC versions are better or not. As I've mentioned in prior posts , exclusive content might be a bigger selling point though then better graphics or control though.
--------------------------------------------------
Driver (3 and Parallel Lines)
Grand Theft Auto (3 , Vice City , San Andreas)
Legacy of Kain : Soul Reaver 2
Legacy of Kain : Blood Omen 2
Legacy of Kain Defiance
Manhunt
Matrix : Path of Neo
MDK 2 : Armageddon
Need For Speed Underground
Onimusha 3
Pirates of the Carribean : The Legend of Jack Sparrow
Prince of Persia : The Two Thrones
Rayman 2 Revolution
Red Faction (1 and 2)
Summoner
Tomb Raider (Angel of Darkness , Anniversary)
Tony Hawk Pro Skater (3 , 4 , Underground , American Wasteland)

I was going to include Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 , except reviews mentioned it was a poor port. MDK 2 and Rayman 2 I'm unsure of since they were supposed to be "special editions" for the PS2.

Sorry if I'm coming off as lazy for not wanting to do the legwork on these games myself , but I figured everyone here would be more knowledgeable on the subject anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty much any game available for PC and consoles is better for the PC. In fact, I'd say it's a near universal truth. The problem is that my laptop isn't necessarily capable of running the latest and greatest games as well as my 360 or PS3, so the console version sometimes will become the default version. Then there are situations where the PC version is being an asshole and won't run for some reason (Gears of War) and I have to go with the console version.

Some games, though, are pretty much 100000x better on the PC. KOTOR, Half Life 2, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Left 4 Dead come to mind. There are really the exception, though. The era of big-time awesome games only being out on the PC or multiplatform games being significantly better on the PC is mostly over. While there are exceptions, the console and PC experiences are very much similar in almost all instances.
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']So , with the topic at hand , I've started going through my collection of console games , looking for ones that are also available on the PC , so that I can find out whether they are better to keep on the console (whichever one) on if I should switch to the PC version.

Starting with the PS2 , here is the list of games I can up with. I'm not really looking for critiques of quality , or pointing out redundant games , I'm just looking for conformation of whether the PC versions are better or not. As I've mentioned in prior posts , exclusive content might be a bigger selling point though then better graphics or control though.
--------------------------------------------------
Driver (3 and Parallel Lines)
Grand Theft Auto (3 , Vice City , San Andreas)
Legacy of Kain : Soul Reaver 2
Legacy of Kain : Blood Omen 2
Legacy of Kain Defiance
Manhunt
Matrix : Path of Neo
MDK 2 : Armageddon
Need For Speed Underground
Onimusha 3
Pirates of the Carribean : The Legend of Jack Sparrow
Prince of Persia : The Two Thrones
Rayman 2 Revolution
Red Faction (1 and 2)
Summoner
Tomb Raider (Angel of Darkness , Anniversary)
Tony Hawk Pro Skater (3 , 4 , Underground , American Wasteland)

I was going to include Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 , except reviews mentioned it was a poor port. MDK 2 and Rayman 2 I'm unsure of since they were supposed to be "special editions" for the PS2.

Sorry if I'm coming off as lazy for not wanting to do the legwork on these games myself , but I figured everyone here would be more knowledgeable on the subject anyway.[/QUOTE]

Driver 3 was graphically better on PC. Driver Parallel Lines was actually pretty good on Xbox, it looked great and ran at a good framerate. The key to either of those on PC, to me, is whether or not the 360 pad is compatible. The trigger buttons would be a huge improvement in terms of vehicle control.

GTA III/VC/SA are 1,000,000 times better (it's science) on PC. The games are gorgeous and support true widescreen. And there are tons of knockout car mods (and lighting and environmental mods) for PC. If you need more info on GTA modding I'll be happy to help. :D

Onimusha 3 was a bad PC port. Along with Devil May cry 3 and Resident Evil 4, it was an Ubisoft port of a Capcom game that was a total hack job. No widescreen, choppy framerate, avoid it.

Prince of Persia Two thrones is a visual knockout on PC. I don't know if the gameplay is better or worse than console.

Tomb Raider AoD was utterly horrible on all systems, PC especially. Skip it. TR Anniversary is a must-play on PC, unless you played it on 360 or PS3. It's very, very pretty, and actually one of my favorite PC games of the last 5 or so years (don't laugh). Play it with a gmaepad of course.
 
[quote name='Richard Longfellow']Driver 3 was graphically better on PC. Driver Parallel Lines was actually pretty good on Xbox, it looked great and ran at a good framerate. The key to either of those on PC, to me, is whether or not the 360 pad is compatible. The trigger buttons would be a huge improvement in terms of vehicle control.

GTA III/VC/SA are 1,000,000 times better (it's science) on PC. The games are gorgeous and support true widescreen. And there are tons of knockout car mods (and lighting and environmental mods) for PC. If you need more info on GTA modding I'll be happy to help. :D

Onimusha 3 was a bad PC port. Along with Devil May cry 3 and Resident Evil 4, it was an Ubisoft port of a Capcom game that was a total hack job. No widescreen, choppy framerate, avoid it.

Prince of Persia Two thrones is a visual knockout on PC. I don't know if the gameplay is better or worse than console.

Tomb Raider AoD was utterly horrible on all systems, PC especially. Skip it. TR Anniversary is a must-play on PC, unless you played it on 360 or PS3. It's very, very pretty, and actually one of my favorite PC games of the last 5 or so years (don't laugh). Play it with a gmaepad of course.[/QUOTE]

An extremely helpful post , thank you very much.:D Some thoughts:

I had heard about the driver 3 control issues. Gamespot even mentioned in their review that lack of controller support hurt the port. I don't know whether controller support could be "forced" into it now , but if not I'll probably just keep the PS2 version.

With the GTAs , 4 would also be better on PC I take it? I had originally planned on getting GTA4 on the 360 because of the exclusive DLC , but now that the 2 expansions are available on their own , maybe I'll just get the episodes of liberty city on 360 and GTA4 on PC.

With Tomb Raider , would Legend and Underworld also be good on the PC?
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']An extremely helpful post , thank you very much.:D Some thoughts:

I had heard about the driver 3 control issues. Gamespot even mentioned in their review that lack of controller support hurt the port. I don't know whether controller support could be "forced" into it now , but if not I'll probably just keep the PS2 version.

With the GTAs , 4 would also be better on PC I take it? I had originally planned on getting GTA4 on the 360 because of the exclusive DLC , but now that the 2 expansions are available on their own , maybe I'll just get the episodes of liberty city on 360 and GTA4 on PC.

With Tomb Raider , would Legend and Underworld also be good on the PC?[/QUOTE]

I haven't played GTA 4, but when it released on PC it was a mess. They've patched it up, I hear, but it's still quite a system hog. You may just be better playing the 360 version.

You can always use a keyboard emulator for a PC gamepad, as with Driver 3, but the lack of analog control makes the driving very tough.

TR Anniversary is the best of the Crystal Dynamics series on PC, then Legend (very good but very short), and Underworld is last. Underworld is buggy and the controls and camera are sloppy. But all three are worth the cheap prices you can get them for now.
 
I think we can omit Modern Warfare 2 from the "better on PC" list, since it seems severely gimped to match its console brothers. ;)

Also, Star Wars Force Unleashed Sith Edition got the lame port treatment too: can't navigate menus with the mouse and can't edit graphics settings. gg LucasArts.
 
[quote name='Lone_Prodigy']I think we can omit Modern Warfare 2 from the "better on PC" list, since it seems severely gimped to match its console brothers. ;)

Also, Star Wars Force Unleashed Sith Edition got the lame port treatment too: can't navigate menus with the mouse and can't edit graphics settings. gg LucasArts.[/QUOTE]

Agreed on MW2.
 
My comments. While I can see the graphics being better do the developers also make the effort for the audio to be PCM like with the PS3? I think that can even out the playing field. While I love great graphics I also want the best sound too. I mean can we get both options on said PC games? If so I'm so down for that.
Case in point "Dark Sector" has PCM, the first or second version of "Oblivion" on PS3 has PCM, etc., etc. I wish I didn't have to say it but I have a sneaking suspicion most PC developers totally ignore the option of perfect sound. It seems dumb to me when some people have HTPC's and there are graphic cards with HDMI that developers don't take advantage of that. It's a fucking "option" for crying out loud.
Also am I the only one who finds some of these opinions quite amusing? I remember back in the day wanting the import of "Loom" because I knew it would run for certain on the TG-Duo and not give me any buggy problems. Shit I remember back in the days PC games would just not RUN depending upon you not having JUST the right spec. I mean it was ridiculous. I remember someone telling me he had no problems running his PC games and just wondering how the fuck he pulled that off. I'm speaking of the era of the 386's and 486's and maybe into the early Pentiums. Also good luck trying to play "King's Quest V" through natively unless your PC is emulating a 75 MHz Pentium at the time.
Oh and as to some more humor I find it funny people here are whining about Anti-Aliasing when some PC games back in the day had great resolution but the characters looked blocky as fuck, see the shoulders, fingers and so on. I'm talking ATROCIOUS. See games even up to the Dreamcast. I remember thinking Ryo looked better then anything I'd seen on PC or PC designed product. You see the console developers actually gave a fuck about the entire character looking polished, not just having the game at a high res. or having perfect textures.
Oh and does anyone know of some hack to let me play "Alice" with a joypad as it's PAINFUL trying to play it with a keyboard and mouse. I wonder what the fuck EA was thinking, not having that as an option.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']My comments. While I can see the graphics being better do the developers also make the effort for the audio to be PCM like with the PS3? I think that can even out the playing field. While I love great graphics I also want the best sound too. I mean can we get both options on said PC games? If so I'm so down for that. See games even up to the Dreamcast. I remember thinking Ryo looked better then anything I'd seen on PC or PC designed product. You see the console developers actually gave a fuck about the entire character looking polished, not just having the game at a high res. or having perfect textures.[/QUOTE]


I have to agree about the sound. I since I read somewhere that the vast majority of PC gamers either use cheap-o desktop speakers, or they use headsets. Only a few hardcore folks actually use 5.1 or have speakers on which PCM actually sounds different.

On the other hand, console games (at least 360 and PS3) are played on HDTVs (though from understand by relatively people) and home theater systems, so they're more often hooked up to 5.1 sound, thus being worth the investment.


As for your other comments, I think that there is always going to be a time when console games are better and a time when PC games are better. The difference is that PCs evolve fluently and consoles skip generations. I've been playing games since my Apple II and my Atari 2600. I remember back in my Apple and early PC days with its four colors, the NES and later the Sega Master System looked amazing. Then I got my 386 and Wing Commander II came out. The best out there was the SNES. Then the playstation came and beat the PC for a while, but then the PC started getting Gfx cards. I would argue that FF7 looked way better on my PC than it did on the PS1.
 
Dragon Age sucks on 360. Graphics are poor and you just don't have the same control as you would with a PC I assume. Man, I am dying for a space bar here.
 
[quote name='Lone_Prodigy']I think we can omit Modern Warfare 2 from the "better on PC" list, since it seems severely gimped to match its console brothers. ;)

Also, Star Wars Force Unleashed Sith Edition got the lame port treatment too: can't navigate menus with the mouse and can't edit graphics settings. gg LucasArts.[/QUOTE]

As out the box - Yes

With the mods - No. It's better on the PC with the maps, mods and cracks for MP.
 
[quote name='uricmu']I have to agree about the sound. I since I read somewhere that the vast majority of PC gamers either use cheap-o desktop speakers, or they use headsets. Only a few hardcore folks actually use 5.1 or have speakers on which PCM actually sounds different.

On the other hand, console games (at least 360 and PS3) are played on HDTVs (though from understand by relatively people) and home theater systems, so they're more often hooked up to 5.1 sound, thus being worth the investment.


As for your other comments, I think that there is always going to be a time when console games are better and a time when PC games are better. The difference is that PCs evolve fluently and consoles skip generations. I've been playing games since my Apple II and my Atari 2600. I remember back in my Apple and early PC days with its four colors, the NES and later the Sega Master System looked amazing. Then I got my 386 and Wing Commander II came out. The best out there was the SNES. Then the playstation came and beat the PC for a while, but then the PC started getting Gfx cards. I would argue that FF7 looked way better on my PC than it did on the PS1.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

The main thing that PC will always have over Console is content.

You have games like HL, Starcraft and others that to this day have mods, maps, mutators and total conversions coming out - Free and Legal.

While on the console end you have to pay more for less.

Free Campaign add-on in say L4D for the PC
Console Consumers have to pay for it...etc.

Many of the arcade games people buy on XBL are free and legal on the PC.

After Dreamcast - I did not see the point in consoles anymore. What was an advantage on the console - ease of use is now gone.

RROD, Lag/Dissconnect bugs, Installation errors. Games coming out unpatched and need a patch to work...More work on the console and you have to pay....Nah, I am good on the PC :)
 
Anyone played Lost Planet on PC? it's gotten really bad reviews... dunno why... on IGN the x360 got like mid 8 and the PC version got mid 6
 
[quote name='Koggit']Anyone played Lost Planet on PC? it's gotten really bad reviews... dunno why... on IGN the x360 got like mid 8 and the PC version got mid 6[/QUOTE]

Bought it for a fiver during a Steam weekend deal. I honestly wished I had saved that 5 bucks. I played a few missions and I feel no desire to play again. And it didn't run that well to boot. Well, maybe that's just me.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Anyone played Lost Planet on PC? it's gotten really bad reviews... dunno why... on IGN the x360 got like mid 8 and the PC version got mid 6[/QUOTE]

Even on beefy systems that game runs like diarrhea. There is a community made patch that fixed some of the issues but overall the game has serious memory leaks and was a rushed out port.

It's going freeware soon with the community patch integrated.
 
Thanks for the info on Lost Planet. That was one of my 360 games that I was curious about whether it was better on the PC or not. Saves me the trouble of asking.:)

I'm keeping my eyes on Dirt 2's upcoming PC release. I had planned to buy the 360 version over the PS3 version , mainly because of avatar support (a minor thing , but it's special). But I'm well aware that Codemasters is one of the good PC developers out there , so I'm waiting to hear whether the PC version is as good or better than the already released console versions.
 
I want to revisit this thread again, after reading some of the newer posts.

What game developers still retain the "PC first" mentality, that is, the game is designed for the PC in mind, and is later ported to the console? Valve comes to mind immediately, along with Blizzard. ID can also be classified under this category, but what was the last major game that they had a hand on?

Any other companies come to mind?
 
[quote name='rumarudrathas']I want to revisit this thread again, after reading some of the newer posts.

What game developers still retain the "PC first" mentality, that is, the game is designed for the PC in mind, and is later ported to the console? Valve comes to mind immediately, along with Blizzard. ID can also be classified under this category, but what was the last major game that they had a hand on?

Any other companies come to mind?[/QUOTE]

Blizzard? When was the last console game they made....? Starcraft 64? Lost Vikings?

I would not put them on the same platform as Valve if you're talking about console development or ports. If you're just talking about quality PC developers known for PC games and continue to create quality PC games, I'd include Relic
 
[quote name='rumarudrathas']I want to revisit this thread again, after reading some of the newer posts.

What game developers still retain the "PC first" mentality, that is, the game is designed for the PC in mind, and is later ported to the console? Valve comes to mind immediately, along with Blizzard. ID can also be classified under this category, but what was the last major game that they had a hand on?

Any other companies come to mind?[/QUOTE]

My previously mentioned Codemasters seems like a fair addition , although I could be wrong about that. To a lesser extent perhaps I would also maybe add IO interactive , Crystal Dynamics , Ubisoft Montreal and Red Storm Entertainment.

Perhaps I'm not quite thinking about it in the same way you are.

[quote name='kilm']Blizzard? When was the last console game they made....? Starcraft 64? Lost Vikings?[/QUOTE]

Starcraft Ghost? :lol:
 
Most nitpicks don't matter all that much, but from a controls standpoint all RTS's and FPS's BELONG on PC, without question. Console versions of those genres are noobed down and unplayable. Mods and user made content are also a large plus for PC's.

But for me I'm using Win 2K and most games now are broken through DRM, OS checks, the Steam virus, or other malware. Meaning I kinda got out of PC gaming.
 
[quote name='Megazell']It's going freeware soon with the community patch integrated.[/QUOTE]
More info? I want it

Recently played the Lost Planet 2 demo and it was amazing.. read reviews of Lost Planet and it seems right up my alley (focus on arcade-style gameplay, light on stuff that doesn't matter like story and all)...
 
They are a small time developer but I have enjoyed their Disciples series and their games are under $20 which is as high I will ever go to actually buy a game.

www.Strategyfirst.com

Blizzard, Valve, Relic - There are many small timers and a lot of F2P companies that will only make games for the PC.

I never pay attention to developers I just look for the games that are fun and that can be modded because that's where your money is truly stretched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top