PC to Console Gamer?

[pjbliverpool]

So we're back to spending $2000 every 2 years for playing games? I think I'll pass and use the money on a new recliner.

No, of course not. We're talking an average of maybe $200-300 per year. I said relatively modern, not high end. I would consider a 7600 to be a relatively modern GPU.

Sorry, you're just making up excuses for pc now. The effort of putting the disk in teh drive is minimal for me compared to the effort hunting down and finding patches ad nausium.

No, its not an excuse at all, its a geniune advantage. Of course its an advantage being able to play any game I want at the click of a button as opposed to physically having to change a disc. I'm not trying to make out that changing a disc is hard. I'm merely making the point that despite some claims to the contrary, PC's do not require more effort or more time to start playing a game. They can require less for all but the first time.

And besides, who has to "hunt down" patches? Even in those very rare cases were they are absolutely essential a quick google search will bring them straight up. That takes what? All of 10 seconds?

My whole initial comment was about time. From opening box to playing game on console is much easier and it always will be. You can attempt to downplay the issues on PC as much as you like, but they exist and they always will.

And my whole argument has been that yes, the first time you play its faster on a console. And every time after that its faster on the PC, or at least usually has the potential to be.

And i'm not downplaying any issues, from my perspective you are exagerating them since it seems your claiming regular issues with things I have experienced only very rarely in over 15 years of PC gaming. I can't even remember the last game I was forced to download a patch for. Granted, right now NV seems to be a lot safer bet than ATI in that regard.

Feel free to do some tests and post your results of console vs PC load times if you want to make a case out of it. I don't doubt you're trying to compare shut down console to already running PC. I've already said the load time on console isn't an issue for me, but if I wanted to speed up load times I could just leave it run, right?

I'm talking about in game load times, i.e. load screens. Its well known that PC games often load faster due to all the data being stored on a HDD. Then there are the videos at the start that Nebula mentioned which can more often be skipped on the PC than console. Again, not much time saved but add it up over every time you play.

Regarding start up times of the system itself, yes i'm comparing an already on PC to a cold console for the simple reason that my PC is usually already on for other reasons when I decide to play a game while that same reasoning doesn't apply to a console. However thanks to Vista's new sleep mode, my PC boots up faster from cold than my 360 anyway!

 

[D3v0ur3r]

Ok guys, lets settle down. I never intended for this thread to be a Console vs. PC thread. They each have there good & bad points.

 

[D3v0ur3r]

This is a direct quote from Mark Rein.

Folks,

I checked with Steve Polge and he said that YES we are supporting keyboard and mouse in Unreal Tournament 3 on PS3. He is confident we are doing it in a way that will be balanced without feeling "gimped" for either side. We'll also allow people to choose whether or not they want to allow mixed controller vs. keyboard/mouse games or not.

I think you guys are going to love UT3!

More details to come later.

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=574996
Notice the part about "We'll also allow people to choose whether or not they want to allow mixed controller vs. keyboard/mouse games or not.". I said this in this very thread that is all every console FPS game needs to have & problem solved.

 

[Acert93]

Yeah, a simple filter and ta da ...

 

[Skrying]

It really depends honestly, and I think console gamers have their points. I just simply love PC gaming though and really it comes down to just a few major factors for me.

1.) Mods, console games will simply never have this generation (or next, my guess) in the way PC's do. Sure some games might be a map editor or even one usable on a PC and then brought over to the console, but PC games often get major code changes, full remakes nearly the size of the original game, and even the "unpopular" games might end up with this treatment.

2.) Controls, until every (every!) console game allows me to fully customize my controls in the way I want and use a keyboard/mouse combo they'll have a vastly inferior control scheme.

3.) Freedom. Consoles seem far to crowed with the manufacturer cutting out any freedom. Just not my thing.

These are very personal and major for me. They represent entirely my opinion and frankly that is all I can (and anyone else) give. Make the choice up by yourself, other peoples opinions and suggests will have you doing the "switch" for the wrong reasons.

I would like to add that PC gaming is not costly, I've never spent more than $700 at one time on my computer and it plays all todays games fairly well. On average I'd say $200 max on hardware is more than enough to keep you playing the games you want. Those who bring up large numbers are those who think every PC gamer needs max settings, I don't (though the majority of my games run at that anyway) and therefore I get away spending very little (actually a bit above average probably still) on hardware.

 

[D3v0ur3r]

It really depends honestly, and I think console gamers have their points. I just simply love PC gaming though and really it comes down to just a few major factors for me.

1.) Mods, console games will simply never have this generation (or next, my guess) in the way PC's do. Sure some games might be a map editor or even one usable on a PC and then brought over to the console, but PC games often get major code changes, full remakes nearly the size of the original game, and even the "unpopular" games might end up with this treatment.

I think you are completely incorrect about point 1. If I am right I think UT3 will allow Mods on the PS3 & maybe 360, as well as I think Halo3 is allowing content sharing like maps I think. Not 100% sure about Halo 3, but UT3 I know is going to allow all the things the PC would have will be allowed on the PS3. Its already been stated that the editor allows you to save as either PC, or PS3 file.

 

[Skrying]

I think you are completely incorrect about point 1. If I am right I think UT3 will allow Mods on the PS3 & maybe 360, as well as I think Halo3 is allowing content sharing like maps I think. Not 100% sure about Halo 3, but UT3 I know is going to allow all the things the PC would have will be allowed on the PS3. Its already been stated that the editor allows you to save as either PC, or PS3 file.

If mods = maps I wouldn't have mentioned it. I honestly don't care much at all about user created maps. I mean mods. Mods as in full make overs. New models, new gameplay, new physics, new story line, etc. It's going to take a lot more than access to a level editor to get to that point.

 

[D3v0ur3r]

Maybe you missed this.

"but UT3 I know is going to allow all the things the PC would have, will be allowed on the PS3. Its already been stated that the editor allows you to save as either PC, or PS3 file."

The only thing I think that may not be allowed & this I haven't read about is free total conversions made from UT3.

Edit:

The cross-platform play between PC and PS3 has - luckily, in my opinion - not been incorporated in the final version of Unreal Tournament III, but mods will be interchangeable.

The PC-version will contain a full development kit, the same as used to develop BioShock, Gears of War and UTIII itself. It won't be too difficult to create some easy mods, according to Epic. You'll also get a "Convert to PS3"-button, allowing you to convert your PC-made mods to the PS3 format. That way the PS3-owners will have a whole arsenal of mods available at launch - which is later than the PC launch.

http://www.fragland.net/news.php?page=1&id=17828

Also info over at VE3D at this link. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/34779/UT3-Cross-Platform-Modding-Compatibility

 

[archangelmorph]

I'm a bit of a platform agnostic gamer however I'd just like to say that I object to paying for a PC specifically for gaming.. It just so happens however that a high end PC offers alot more (DirectX 10 development, XNA & other wider uses..) to me and thus it's only these non-gaming-related criteria which persuade me to upgrade/build new PCs as and when I need them..

I much prefer console gaming though for the focused, strong single player gaming experiences, offline multiplayer gaming & just generally MUCH more variety in terms of games on offer..

 

[pjbliverpool]

I think you are completely incorrect about point 1. If I am right I think UT3 will allow Mods on the PS3 & maybe 360, as well as I think Halo3 is allowing content sharing like maps I think. Not 100% sure about Halo 3, but UT3 I know is going to allow all the things the PC would have will be allowed on the PS3. Its already been stated that the editor allows you to save as either PC, or PS3 file.

One game doesn't make the platform equal to the PC in terms of modding. There are absolutely huge modding scenes out there for loads of PC games, often resulting in a vastly better game. Oblivion and Startrek Legacy are two that I have been involved in recently and the console versions of those games simply don't come close to what can be achieved with the mods on PC (e.g. stock legacy on both platforms is a complete joke but my modded version is fricken awsome ).

Even UT3 should be pretty restricted compared to the PC when it comes to mods. Everything has to be vetted before its relased to the PS3 so there's the time delay for one. But there will be plenty of mods that don't get through the vetting process due to IP concerns so you can forget about a star wars mod for example. Plus its likely that anything effecting performance and thus the graphics will be locked out since the PS3 is a fixed platform. So all those graphical enhancements and texture replacers that are part of the Oblivion modding scene would probably never make it to the PS3 even if followed the same model as UT3.

 

[D3v0ur3r]

One game doesn't make the platform equal to the PC in terms of modding. There are absolutely huge modding scenes out there for loads of PC games, often resulting in a vastly better game. Oblivion and Startrek Legacy are two that I have been involved in recently and the console versions of those games simply don't come close to what can be achieved with the mods on PC (e.g. stock legacy on both platforms is a complete joke but my modded version is fricken awsome ).

Even UT3 should be pretty restricted compared to the PC when it comes to mods. Everything has to be vetted before its relased to the PS3 so there's the time delay for one. But there will be plenty of mods that don't get through the vetting process due to IP concerns so you can forget about a star wars mod for example. Plus its likely that anything effecting performance and thus the graphics will be locked out since the PS3 is a fixed platform. So all those graphical enhancements and texture replacers that are part of the Oblivion modding scene would probably never make it to the PS3 even if followed the same model as UT3.

1st, I think we are all aware that one game doesn't equal the mod community in terms of the PC. However its a huge leap forward for consoles imo as well as just the fact someone is finally offering KB/M play. 2nd I think its a bit early to start damning the PS3 mods before the game is even out. The PS3 version will be at the mercy of those having to buy a PC edition to make the PS3 mods, so the only thing I would worry about is those who play PC only making mods & not bothering to save the PC mod as a PS3 mod as well. Some will claim instant PC victory for this even though those with the PC version do not have much need to make a PS3 version other then for the notoriety & possible future job with a game Dev.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Just leave the game installed on your hard drive then.

Because my hard drive isn't big enough to have 100+ games stored on it, plus Matlab, plus Maple, plus Windows, plus Linux, plus Office, plus all my photos, etc. When I quit PC gaming, my hard drive was only big enough to have 5 or 6 games stored on it at time. I had to uninstall something everything I put something new on there. Hard disk space has gone way up since then, but install size is going up to match. Don't say "get a bigger hard drive," because that's not as convenient as already having a bookshelf.

Also, it's simply incorrect that you can have all your old games on one PC. Late DOS games simply do not run well in DOSbox in my experience, sound issues being the number one culprit. So I would actually have to have at least two PCs to cover my generations of PC gaming, because the stuff I was playing on my 286 and P100 simply don't run correctly on my more modern machine. It might run fine on yours, but I don't have your PC, do I?

I really hate these kinds of arguments, because when I say I like something better than it was on PC or it fits my lifestyle, you get people basically coming back with "No, you don't really like it better, and it doesn't really fit your lifestyle," or you relate your experience, and the response is "But my experience isn't like that." For example, some people don't consider buying a new hard drive, backing up the old one, reinstalling your OSes, and putting all your old crap on the new disk to be much of a hassle. But in my perspective, it is. You can't invalidate an experience. Some people never have to screw with drivers and patches. It took me almost a week to get Neverwinter Nights to run, and when it did, the drivers I had to download broke Thief 2 and Doom Legacy. That's a real, actual experience, one you can't somehow erase from my life by your personal lack of that experience. Nor was it the first time this happened to me. I did actually spend a lot of time and money maintaining my PC for gaming, and I never had a high-end machine. I really did shatter about 50% of the CD cases my games came in, at least those that didn't come in those paper envelopes (quite a few of which I lost), and really have found DVD cases and cartridges to be far more convenient. I really don't have and can't afford monthly high-speed Internet access, so I can't even play half the PC games that come out anymore.

Basically, your whole argument comes down to, "If you were me, and you lived in my house, had my PC, had my income, and shared my love of screwing around with my PCs guts and maintaining the file structure and OS, you wouldn't find anything about consoles to be more convenient." Problem...I'm not you.

 

[Neb]

Because my hard drive isn't big enough to have 100+ games stored on it, plus Matlab, plus Maple, plus Windows, plus Linux, plus Office, plus all my photos, etc. When I quit PC gaming, my hard drive was only big enough to have 5 or 6 games stored on it at time. Hard disk space has gone way up since then, but install size is going up to match.

HDD's are cheap nowdays and have large amount of space. Of course if you fill it with large files then it will be less HDD space for games. By the way how big is your HDD and can you run Maple plus, Office, have the same amount of non gaming stuff on consoles?

And what PC games are you playing that don't require the disc in the drive.

X3, Company of Heroes, FSX, HL2, EP1, EP2, TF2, all mp games for HL2 engine to name some I have (maybe I'll should say all steam powered games).

 

[pjbliverpool]

Because my hard drive isn't big enough to have 100+ games stored on it, plus Matlab, plus Maple, plus Windows, plus Linux, plus Office, plus all my photos, etc. When I quit PC gaming, my hard drive was only big enough to have 5 or 6 games stored on it at time. Hard disk space has gone way up since then, but install size is going up to match. And what PC games are you playing that don't require the disc in the drive?

I can only think of a couple off the top of my head: Any steam based game (whether you bought it on CD or not), Halo 2 and Farcry.

I just use no-CD cracks on everything though so I don't really pay that much attention to which games natively allow you to play with no CD. All I know is that as of right now, every game I own is playable without a disc in the drive either via a crack or natively. Cracks tend to be released within a few weeks of the games release.

 

[Neb]

Maybe you missed this.

"but UT3 I know is going to allow all the things the PC would have, will be allowed on the PS3. Its already been stated that the editor allows you to save as either PC, or PS3 file."

You are failling to see the whole picture D3v0ur3r. Creating new assets, new high-res textures, huge maps will not just automagically work on consoles. Increased RAM/VRAM usage, Increased HDD usage, framerate hit etc. For example adding new high-res textures to the game aswell as changing the weapons to cast lights and add more stuff to a map, you think it will work on consoles without problems RAM wise and perfomance wise?

No, and if the UT3 editor allows the same stuff created to be on PC and console no mather what is created in the editor then it is very limited and will also limit sizes for levels and such for PC modders. In short the editor would be bound to the console limits not the PC limits!

 

[D3v0ur3r]

Guess we will have to wait & see then.

 

[Neb]

Also, it's simply incorrect that you can have all your old games on one PC. Late DOS games simply do not run well in DOSbox in my experience, sound issues being the number one culprit. So I would actually have to have at least two PCs to cover my generations of PC gaming, because the stuff I was playing on my 286 and P100 simply don't run correctly on my more modern machine. And unlike some of you, I play games I like for years. I still play Doom and Descent.

Setup a DOS vm then. But assume you need another PC for the oldest DOS games then how does it differ from having to use multiple consoles to play games from different platforms, and really what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[pjbliverpool]

Also, it's simply incorrect that you can have all your old games on one PC. Late DOS games simply do not run well in DOSbox in my experience, sound issues being the number one culprit. So I would actually have to have at least two PCs to cover my generations of PC gaming, because the stuff I was playing on my 286 and P100 simply don't run correctly on my more modern machine. And unlike some of you, I play games I like for years. I still play Doom and Descent.

Apologies for the second post, I had already posted the first when you made your edit.

You can simply have a seperate HDD partition if its really important for you to play older games. Dual boot to either DOS or Vista . Surely thats a better solution than having two PC's set up?

My view is that for someone who likes to play old games (15 years +) then the PC is actually the obvious choice over consoles. There are ways to setup a PC to play literally any old PC game from a single box. And at the same time you can have that same box emulate a large number of older console platforms aswell. I would literally need a 7 console setup to have the selection of games throughout the generations that my one PC gives me at the moment.

That would be: NES, SNES, GENESIS, PS1, N64, PS2, PS3.

My PC plays the first 5 natively and so completely replaces the need for those while it runs games from the same period as the last two. So I could have 7 consoles and still miss out on all the older PC based games.

I really hate these kinds of arguments, because when I say I like something better than it was on PC or it fits my lifestyle, you get people basically coming back with "No, you don't really like it better, and it doesn't really fit your lifestyle."

I think its more a case of people saying "PC doesn't work for me because they can't do *this*" or "I prefer consoles because they do *this* and PC's don't", but then other people pointing out why actually, the PC can do that, you just may not have been aware. A classic example is the "Consoles are better because you can play on the couch with a big screen TV while you can't on the PC". Obviously such an argument is pretty empty to someone like myself who does play PC games on the couch on a big screen TV, or on a montor when that suites better. Its simply a matter of informing whats possible with a PC rather than saying one is better than the other. Connecting you PC to a TV for example may not be practical or desirable for some people but that doesn't mean it can be completely discounted as an option.

 

[fearsomepirate]

HDD's are cheap nowdays and have large amount of space.

Great! So you're volunteering to come to my house, back up my old drive, physically install the new one, partition it, reinstall Ubuntu and XP, reinstall all my games, put the backup stuff in proper folders in the new machine, then take it back to your place to download all the drivers, CD cracks, and patches, and give it back to me?

Because I hate doing that stuff.

You can simply have a seperate HDD partition if its really important for you to play older games. Dual boot to either DOS or Vista .

DOS doesn't recognize my sound card at all. And are you volunteering to back up, repartition and reformat, and reinstall everything? Also, not everyone considers software piracy a valid option.

And there are PS3 emulators out?

 

[Neb]

Great! So you're volunteering to come to my house, back up my old drive, physically install the new one, partition it, reinstall Ubuntu and XP, reinstall all my games, and put the backup stuff in proper folders in the new machine?

Because I hate doing that stuff.

Why take to long road around when you can walk over the bridge my friend?

Install the HDD as a secondary storage HDD, C: --> Main HDD, D: --> Storage HDD or whatever letter you want for it!

Or wait you only want one HDD in your system at anytime or....

And there are PS3 emulators out?

No and I dont expect it either to come since emulating requires huge processing power from the CPU. In the future shure but not now!

I think its more a case of people saying "PC doesn't work for me because they can't do *this*" or "I prefer consoles because they do *this* and PC's don't", but then other people pointing out why actually, the PC can do that, you just may not have been aware. A classic example is the "Consoles are better because you can play on the couch with a big screen TV while you can't on the PC". Obviously such an argument is pretty empty to someone like myself who does play PC games on the couch on a big screen TV, or on a montor when that suites better. Its simply a matter of informing whats possible with a PC rather than saying one is better than the other. Connecting you PC to a TV for example may not be practical or desirable for some people but that doesn't mean it can be completely discounted as an option.

QFT.

I would say some people are stuck in their mind set that a PC has to be a machine for work, weak and has to be in a square room with pale white walls and only works on small monitors... and only if you sit on a chair!