PDA

View Full Version : PC's vs. Consoles.


slashdot
9th January 2005, 05:40 AM
I seriously think Consoles are just pathetic, and when I hear a classmate, cousine, or someone else say that consoles have the best graphics, or especialy the one I hate is when they say "PC graphics are cheap. I've seen them first hand, Warcraft 2, and command & conquer red alert." It just burns me to think that some are too ignorant and close minded to think that consoles are the best, and nothing more, should be shot. K enough rant. :] Heres my beliefe...

PC vs. Console...
-----------------------------------------------
1 graphics:

Consoles...
Consoles graphics accelerators/cards, are usualy dated the month after there initial release. Also games these days (especialy for the PS2) seem to lose frames dramticly, I can give several examples and I'll back them to the death, a couple would be Conflict: Desert Storm, which I swear in 2 player mode fell to about 4fps during almost all the levels. eg. the level were you have to blow up the aircraft's at an iraqi airport. Rainbow Six 3 showed some low fps, but it actual kept pretty stable around 25-40fps. I have to give credit to a few of the newest games which seem to be a lot more optimized then others, like Killzone. I have only played one game on the GameCube and that was MoH:AA or breathrough or whatever, and it seemed to run just fine, though, I just played the beach head part before I remembered I had the game on my computer. XboX seemed to be just great, I actualy had alot of fun (not saying I didn't have any fun with some games on the PS2) with it, since frames held up great, (great as compared to its rivals)I played the RainBow Six 3 and it felt smoother, and the terrain was a bit more detailed then the PS2's version. One obviouse advantage and that is you won't need to go out to buy another graphics card for the newest game.

PC's...
PC's graphics card are always being updated/modified, which in turn usualy means that in order to play the newest HL2, or Doom3, your gonna have to drop a ball to buy a new card to get decent frames in a game. Though, this doens't always happen, as a matter of a fact, its quite uncommon for you to go out and buy a kick ass GPU to play the latest game, getting the 3rd card down in line usualy means you can play any game at more then good frames to play the game, and it most likely would cost less then half of what the top card costs. (100? 150?) And for sure (for.. sure..) you'll be putting graphics out, that will make any hard core console player to go out and actualy take a look at the computer section at Best Buy to see what he/she has been missing out.

PC's win in this section.

2 Usefullness:

Consoles...
PC's have always beeten the hell out of consoles in this area, but in the past couple years consoles have cought up by a little.. especialy with linux ports to all 3 consoles (gamecubes being the last in development) which enables to consoler's to do almost everything they wanted on the computer. (with some exceptions I think, there not coming to my head) write up documents, make graphics, and with the addition to having network addaptors at hand, or at a local best buy for the PS2'ers, surfing the web, iming people, send emails, watch videos (streaming videos, since they could very well watch dvd's before hand, sept poor gamecube) have been made possible.

PC...
PC's were made to run office apps since Lotus 123 on the Apple 1, and so it more then likely can do this now. With a few additions as surfing the web, and etc., but though the consoles can do this as well, the PC's have a hell of a lot more programs to use at there disposal. You pretty much know the rest of this section, so I don't need to go into depth.

PC's win here.

3 Price:

Consoles...
Consoles to me, are for people who don't have the money, or don't want to spend the money for a computer, for a few good reasons, but I will only get into one for this section right now. The price of a console is just cheaper then a computer. Thats it, you can't get a good comptuer to run doom 3, or Halo 2 (is that even out for PC yet?) for under 200 dollars right now. That said the XboX runs Doom3,(E3 reviews) and Halo 2, and from what I hear, at good frames. The PS2, if you have a 200 or so dollars in your pocket, and your willing to spend something like 13 dollars a month to play a game, could go out and buy Final Fantasy 11 and play a game that compared to a computer gamer that spend around 500-1000 some odd dollars for there rig, only payed a little over 200 dollars. GameCube? Eh... I don't know.

PC's...
PC's lost here. Period. Nuff said...

Consoles won. :[

4 Game Library:

Consoles...
Consoles, if you look at it, have a nice variety of games to play, and there would probably be more if those low down games form japan would be released. I usualy hear about a prequil to games several years after they became runaway success's, which knudges at me like Clock Tower 1 for the SNES. (it was the very first one.. im still looking for an english hacked version :[ ) Even then, theres a good variety of games that you could go rent and play right now, or play when it comes out the next week. There are a couple downsides and they are that there are almost no (if any) free games that are for these consoles, unless they came with the console, and if they are... they're not open source, like I and a few other's would like. And there are games that are closed to only one platform, and only stray away once in a while to grab a few buks from others, then run back into their cave. Ex. GTA for PS2, Halo for Xbox, Super Smash Bros. for GameCube. (Nintendo can't afford to stray away)

PC...
PC's have a massive library of games, that seem's endless, even for other OS's like my Linux, there are games galore. Games range from every genre, and a couple genres that console gamers don't get to expierence.(one I don't think they would realy care) Just until recently did consoler's get to expierence MMORPG's, (though wasnt Phantasy Star Online for Dreamcast one?) and they have yet to play games with more then 25 players online at one time. There are MUD games, Arcade games, FPS, Action, Adventure, SCUMM (my fav.), those learning ones like Type Mario, or typing of the dead, etc.

PC wins here.

5 Stability...

Consoles...
Consoles don't realy break down, and when they do, you send it to sony, microsoft, nintendo, or whoever. They send it back, and your on your merry way down to the local block buster. Thats about it for consoles...

PC's...
PC's have a history of problems. Since PC's (and others like Amigas, Alphas, and even MAC's) are most of the time different, its hard for a game company to make a game that is both stable across hardware, and across platform. I should know this, since I use emulators to play my win games... but I won't stray off topic. If you want a realy good idea of how bad a company could make a game run on a single platform, on a single architecture, take a gander at the steam forums. Its horrendus, to see people complain left and right, and see almost not support whatsoever. I won't get into detail with that either. I'll just leave it be as it is...

consoles win.

Realy thats pretty much my opinion on this... and theres a lot more, but I am not good at explaining what I think in a short period of time. Besides I am not a professional reviewer, so whatever...

Thaellin
9th January 2005, 05:06 PM
You forgot an important category: development cost.

When you're developing a game for a PC, you are in Hell. You have mix'n'match library versions that you have to be compatible with, as well as an infinite number of hardware combinations (drivers try to abstract this but they turn into another part of the problem as you try to cope with quirks of particular driver versions on the same hardware). You have different performance bottlenecks for each system configuration, and you have unique timing issues to play with.

When you get a weird bug, there's a chance that it's simply due to a user having an invalid setting somewhere on their system.

With a console, you are in a very controlled environment. It's much easier to cope, and you can have much smaller Q and development teams.


When you develop a console game, you are developing against a stationary target.

When developing for PC, you must develop for the latest and greatest yet-to-be-released system hardware, or else your game gets canned by the reviewers due to 'dated graphics' or whatnot. This means that, when developing for the PC< more of your game tech has to be ditched each game iteration, further driving dev costs up.


PCs are great for top-of-the-line experimentation, and they have a better set of input devices available (RTS on console has all kinds of interface problems). Other than that, though. Consoles are the best place to get the most bang for your development dollar.

-- Jeff

slashdot
9th January 2005, 05:24 PM
Ya, I just thought about that late last night. I would put it in, but im sure people would read your post.

whirlwind
6th August 2005, 12:03 AM
Sadly, some of the semi-cool games are port of the console versions to PC. I like consoles because I can play games with the fairly computer illiterate folks who could care less about how a PC works. All part of the Zero thought process that console games induce. Part of the reason I have an XBox 360 pre-ordered :shock:

I do love PC games as there is always someone who comes up with the idea of MODS. There is one game that I hope keeps its modability and PC roots first - Morrowind:Oblivion. The last one rocked due to the full set of tools that shipped with the game for making your own stuff (less 3D Studio Max lol). I hope those fine folks who are working on Oblivion keep that in mind.

I also hope SWB2 ships on PC and the mod tools are made available. SWB rocked except the ship controls which did something else :roll:. The thought and ability to mod a PC game is the strongest suite PC games have. That and uber high resolutions (high resolution = infinite sniping ability), ability to patch bugs, and my PC can always run faster and is the next version of any console (so to speak).

Gernot
8th August 2005, 05:04 AM
it would be great if we could get a *free* SDK for the consoles to program games for them - maybe licensing a game release could cost, so we can give finished games to big companies for release.

whirlwind
14th August 2005, 07:48 PM
Next you will want hollywood producers to give you film crews and film to make your own movies... :roll: JK, actually most console companies bottle up their SDKs so only the chosen or those who can raise about $250k US for the development suites. For a while, you can still develop pretty much in DirectX and be able to market complete games.