I honestly don't think the PC compares when you are playing platformers or racing games. Even with my brother's force feedback wheel I'd rather play on a console. The controls and setup are just better for that type of a game.
I do have a nice and fast PC, so I can pick and choose which games I want for what platform.
And of course, it's always a matter of opinion when it comes to the value of a console. I still love my PS2. And I can't blame anyone for still using the last-gen consoles, being that there are still games coming out for some, and even still a lot of games most of us haven't got the chance to play. Of course it would be nice if we weren't forced to upgrade, but if you want the newest games on the market, that GameCube just wont work anymore.
And I think power does bring something new as far as gameplay. Power is very important in many games. Racing games need power to accurately calculate speed, acceleration, and impact results. Football games need that power to generate great sounding commentary, and really make you feel like you are in the game. FPSs need that power to run smooth, and generate smart AI and give great response to an action(physical objects responding to bullets, for example). Even playformers can deliver a new sense of discovery for finding an area. And as of yet, I've not see the Wiimote used correctly by developers, although I hear MP2 does a good job. Power is far more important than just graphics, it opens up the system to do more. It reduces limitations developers might face. Sure, some developers assume that they must have the shinyest game, but that doesn't mean that developers can't use the hardware correctly.
And I'm not trying to argue here. I understand that the PS3 and 360 just don't have a value to you. That's perfectly understandable. I don't own a 360 because I don't see enough value in it either.
PCs are just not worth it for me. You have to set them up, they take up a lot of space, they can require a lot of maitence. And then, of course, PC gaming can be a lot more expensive then console gaming gets. Not to mention on a Xbox 360 I don't have to install the game, I just pop it in and play it.
| |
Revenant Jesus wrote:
You have to set them up, they take up a lot of space, they can require a lot of maitence. And then, of course, PC gaming can be a lot more expensive then console gaming gets. Volte wrote: ...and the fact that all of the consoles games will run on the console (where as some times you have to upgrade your computer to play the newest games). Revenant Jesus wrote: Not to mention on a Xbox 360 I don't have to install the game, I just pop it in and play it. Volte wrote: The only thing consoles have going for them is the simplicity of set up Did I not just say everything you just said? I wasn't saying it's not worth it for everyone, I said it's not worth it to me. I don't mind installing games. I don't mind upgrading my computer. I use, upgrade, and maintain my computer regularly anyway (as do a lot of people who use the PC a lot) -- so why not install a game here or there? I'm not trying to make other people stop liking consoles, just stating my opinion on the subject. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
I honestly don't think the PC compares when you are playing platformers or racing games. Even with my brother's force feedback wheel I'd rather play on a console. The controls and setup are just better for that type of a game. Personally I don't play racing (or sports) games, but any game I've tried on both a console and PC has been an equal experience for me. Consoles do have that whole 'sit down with a bunch of friends and chill' thing going for them, though. And I think power does bring something new as far as gameplay. Power is very important in many games. Racing games need power to accurately calculate speed, acceleration, and impact results. Football games need that power to generate great sounding commentary, and really make you feel like you are in the game. FPSs need that power to run smooth, and generate smart AI and give great response to an action(physical objects responding to bullets, for example). Even playformers can deliver a new sense of discovery for finding an area. And as of yet, I've not see the Wiimote used correctly by developers, although I hear MP2 does a good job. Power is far more important than just graphics, it opens up the system to do more. It reduces limitations developers might face. Sure, some developers assume that they must have the shinyest game, but that doesn't mean that developers can't use the hardware correctly. Maybe game play wasn't the right word to use there. I just meant HOW you play the game, not what happens when you do. Comparing the 360 and PS3 (other than the cheap, last minute "motion detecting" controller) to the xbox and the PS2, they're both pretty much the same in how you play the game. You sit down and you work your fingers to the bone on a controller, as we have for the last several years. Sure, waving around the Wii-mote can and certainly will get old at some point, but right now it's new and fun. | |
Isnt the 360 basically just a graphical update to the Xbox as well? At least the ps3 added useful components.
| |
I would like to say that it doesn't matter how powerful a console is, its how much fun you have with it and yes i do own a playstation 3 and i enjoy it. You can't really focus on which console is better which came out first which was better faster but as i've said the fun you will get from it so i guess in the end the Wii & PC win this.
Sorry Fanboys. | |
Yeah except you really sound like a fanboy yourself. The fact is, no one has the right or wrong answer. Get over it.
| |
damn...lots of nerds out there willing to die for their systems :P
*takes PS3 and runs* | |
I think what we're all trying to get at is it's a matter of personal preference here. As I said, all my friends got Xblocks, and they all bring them everywhere with Halo 3, Phantasy Star, and downloaded Bomberman, and we have a blast, while poor John sits alone at his house playing his Wii while his PS3 sits in a corner; it becomes easy to see who the local winner is. Personally, I'm waiting for Megaman on the Wii, or something that will utilize the Wiimote as more than just a slapstick. DS to Wii interface is also something to look forward to, something that no other system has(the PSP fails hard IMHO, and I see no way it could link to a PS3 anyway). To put it simply, each system has pros and cons, and the biggest deciding factor is usually based on what the individual wants. It's useless to argue about who's system is better, because even if a system is crap, there will always be people who enjoy it.
| |
No it isn't easy to see who the local winner is. As you just freaking said it is personal preference. And you don't know if John is having fun or not.
You can't make those sort of statements because you simply don't know it. As for the PSP. Yeah it can link up with the Sony PSP. And you can do quite a few things with it. I am sure there will be more later down the road. | |
or something that will utilize the Wiimote as more than just a slapstick. Metroid Prime 3, Twilight Princess, WarioWare (Although I imagine that's the sort of game you're not interested in, it's quite fun), Super Monkey Ball. | |
COMPLETELY wrong.
The graphical improvements between Halo 1 and Halo 2 were vast. While the graphics in Halo 2 and Halo 3 are somewhat less noticeable until you really analyze it, the improvements in gameplay between Halo 2 and Halo 3 are HUGE. Missions are larger, more spacious, and bigger, enemies' AI is a lot more challenging, the level design is better, and the game plays a lot more smoothly than Halo2 and Halo3. Not to mention the fact that Halo3 is vastly improved on the online aspect than Halo2 was. Oh, and I have a few more reasons why Halo3 is better than Halo2: 1) Mongoose 2) Gravity Hammer 3) Brute shot 4) Brute chopper 5) archer pods But most of all: SPARTAN LASERS | |
There we go, an intelligent post in this thread!
I will say that I haven't mucked about much with the six-axis controller. I'll have to give it a look, so I can't really say anything. I will pick a bone with the second rate racing games bit. The XBox actually took the racing games away from PS2. PS2 was considered the best console if you like racing games until the XBox released Project Gotham, and then got Need for Speed games into the lineup. Now, it's on par with Sony for racing. We still need a game that competes with GT... Though, I wish more RPGs would come out for the XBox, TES4 is the ONLY good RPG for the 360 right now. Two Worlds, Blue Dragon, Eternal Sonata... Just plain blow. | |
OH MY GOD YOU'RE SCREWED!
WHY WOULD YOU EVEN START SOMETHING LIKE THIS ;_; | |
These debates are stupid. Anybody who thinks one system is far superior to another system has their head up their ass. They're all good for different reasons, with each system only being slightly better than the other.
Saying OMG WII HAS TOO MUCH MOTION SENSING is stupid because it's obvious that a lot of people love what the Wii has to offer. And it's the same with the x-box and ps3. | |
Meh, some people are silly.
Xbox 1 Specs: 733mhz Pentium 3/Celeron Hybrid. (It retains the Pentium 3's cache size, but its 4 way associated like the celerons) 64mb of ram Geforce 3/4 Hypbrid GPU. Xbox 360 Specs: IBM Triple Core CPU running at 3.2ghz with multiple FPU and SIMD Vector units in each core, each core is capable of Multi-Threading which can be classed as 6 cores. 512mb of ram GPU - Modified R500 with a Unified Shader Architecture. PS2 Specs: 300mhz Custom CPU 32mb of ram 4MB GPU PS3 specs: Cell - 6 3.2ghz "Basic" Processors, the 7th is for OS and other tasks, and the 8th is disabled to increase yields, also based upon an IBM core like the 360. 512Mb of ram GPU - G70 or Geforce 7 7800 Classes GPU. Wii - well its GPU can do all the Graphical effects of the PS3 though its Fixed Function shaders, it just cant do much of it, the Processor is based upon the Gamecube but doubled in core speed, and has double the memory available. Xbox 360 Debate - More games, better games, funner games. PS3 - Graphical superiority, hard to program for, can have all the same graphical effects as the 360, but can render more of them at once, It also has the advantage when it comes to F@H unless a Client is released to take advantage of the Xbox's GPU. Also, for those who think the "Cell" is the best thing since sliced bread, it isnt. Intel demonstrated an 80 Core CPU for testing purposes. And... The Cell has a draw back, not all the cores can communicate directly, thus information cannot be shared directly, thus the information has to go through the cache then to system memory, then to the next CPU's cache, then to the next CPU, what does this mean? Higher latencies. | |
Consoles are getting too PC like for me. They deliver the same exact gameplay and graphics that a computer can. The only thing consoles have going for them is the simplicity of set up, for those who don't know how to work a computer, and the fact that all of the consoles games will run on the console (where as some times you have to upgrade your computer to play the newest games).
That's why the Wii interests me at the moment. I can play FPS games (a la Halo), racing games, platform games, and everything else on my PC. I don't need to go out and buy a $600 console. The Wii offers a new gameplay experience, not just prettier graphics. Sure, the 360 and PS3 can brag about the awesome processor power or whatever they think they have, but they simply cannot say they brought something new as far as gameplay.