Let's talk about which is better for gaming: PC's or Consoles?

[Rosencrantz]

Here's my issue: I can't afford a high-end PC with graphics that can be turned up to max, nor is it a possible convenience for me. I have to move from room to room every so often, and so if I want to continue my vidya gaemin' habits, I'd have to lug a big desktop around with me. Instead, I have to resort to a laptop which was outfitted for general usage, which means it can play /some/ games, but nothing at the impressive rates that other people have. Hell, just seeing 30fps on this thing playing TF2 is enough to make me incredibly happy (so I never really understood why people complain about not having 200fps and shit like that).

Instead, I'd rather go for the console alternatives for most of my multiplatform games. Black Ops 2? Saints Row 3? Borderlands 2? Dishonored? All on the 360, purely because the 360 can at least run these titles, as opposed to my poor machine

And also because I can't afford/support a higher-end gaming rig.

[Woppet*]

The thing is, with the money it costs to buy an xbox 360, you can buy a pc that is more powerful (ie one that will run dishonoured better than the 360 will) And the games are also way cheaper. So money is not really an issue at all. As for updating. i bought my pc 5 years ago, and since then i have made 1 upgrade. And i can still play everything i have come across at max.

Oh btw, don't know if you guys know but steam are releasing a home console soon, which will be able to be upgraded at will.

[DioShiba]

But some people including myself don't want to pay for Xbox Live for several reasons, and one of them is because not everyone has the money.

So really for those who actually care about the money it's still an issue, maybe if I was rich and had nothing better to blow it on sure but I don't. And chances are there are other things I want besides constantly having to upgrade a PC.

[Woppet*]

What are you talking about Xbox live? Where does Xbox live come into this?

[Sengir]

I agree.
I dislike digital distribution but I'd much rather have my games on steam where I can use them on multiple computers into the future instead of having them locked to a console.

Actually just this holiday sale I repurchased the Age of Wonders trilogy and Civilization IV Complete set, both of which I own physically. As someone who has never lived in a house more than 4 years and plans on moving regularly in the future (the gamedev career path has you changing jobs frequently) I would much rather my games safe on "the cloud" than lost, damaged or packed away.

In fact, I don't plan on buying many more physical games. That's what I love about PC gaming, though I'll admit I bought Sticker Star digitally too

[Kriven]

What are you talking about Xbox live? Where does Xbox live come into this?

I think it's a money-to-play comparison. Not sure, though.

[Helmo]

i have an atari 2600 i think its pretty cool

those atari 800 owners think they're so cool...

[Woppet*]

So in that case it would be even more expensive to play on console?

Because i wasn't taking subscription charges into account before.

[puggsoy]

Of course ignoring that the 360 has had heavy support for indie developers for quite some time now.

Totally forgot about that. The only way I'm even remembering it now is because I know Braid was released on it before it was on the PC. Even so, my point about needing to meet requirements still stands, which themselves are actually a waste of developers' time (Jonathan Blow himself made an entire post explaining how stupid they are), so for both indie developers and gamers the PC is obviously the best choice.

Also I'd like to point out that like Woppet, the PC I'm using right now (a laptop, btw) was bought a couple of years ago and can play TF2 smoothly with - I think - max settings (any lag is due to the internet connection). Most other games work on max settings too, although I admit I don't really indulge in many intensive games (I bought Cthulhu Saves the World in the Winter Sale ), and games like Crysis and Far Cry 2 are on medium settings.
Either way, newest games on the PC don't always stretch it to its limits. Again I'm mostly talking about indie games though (Little Inferno, Vessel), since commercial companies are all like "cool a new graphics card let's make games with the super-duper graphics that it supports", but I mean Dota 2 is still in beta (for ages I admit) and it works great for me.

I certainly agree that a console is, most likely, cheaper than a PC for playing the latest games, since you don't need to upgrade it. But of course, if you can afford to upgrade your PC, it's actually the better option. So really, which is "better" is a matter of your personal situation and opinion, as Koh and Popo said.

[Omegajak]

Here comes a new challenger!

Guys let me take a moment just to say: This is awesome, we love a thing so much that we are given the opportunity to talk about it. Remember discussion births new ideas new ways of thinking and that's never a bad thing, it never will be.

I think it's becoming more a argument of what's more practical as to what was the developers mind set? What did they want you to think and to feel. I think people are making good points that power in terms of hardware is important, but reality isn't so kind money is a factor a big one and we all have to face that. Gaming is NOT a cheap hobby by any standard.

I throw my hat that console games though dated in power and limiting are the foundation of what gaming is suppose to be. I recently heard on Game Grumps there's a feature or programming into Super Mario World camera that snaps to plat forms to make the game more seamless in transition as you progress through a level (haven't confirmed but cannot deny).

The really cool thing I find with games and a reason why i think we need a re-birthing of sprites in the first place is because you are limited. SNES and SEGA cartridges are dated in terms of memory but look at all the memories these people created for this very limited version of Interactive story telling?! Limitations help us understand what we need to do to get the most out of our game. FF6 is heralded as the Zenith of 16 Era RPG gaming, but Chrono Trigger is the better looking more complicated game.

In the online series 'Extra Credits' they talk about the business side of gaming (it is a business you can't run from that fact) a lot of designers and coders always are looking to fine tune and tweak to some numbing levels. The point I'm trying to make is at the end of the day you HAVE to ship your game. It doesn't matter how powerful the machines you play your games on are, yes a powerful machine can do more but then the argument can be made that a designer needs XXXX time to make that game as wonderful and as impressive as we imagine it for our power PC and in this day and age how much time can you honestly give? The limitations of the console help define the parameters and power of the game if a designer doesn't use the resources well that's their fault not your for buying a console instead of a PC.

Some people were lucky enough to have powerful PC's and the best consoles of their time, some could only get what they could get and had to settle (I say that but it's not necessarily a bad thing if you ended up loving what you had). My vote is that PC is proving how much power we can put behind a game, consoles help define a gaming era and the masterful duty of a game designer who tried to do everything in thier power to make the game as good (or bad) as it was/is.

Wall of text.jpg

[DioShiba]

Here comes a new challenger!

Guys let me take a moment just to say: This is awesome, we love a thing so much that we are given the opportunity to talk about it. Remember discussion births new ideas new ways of thinking and that's never a bad thing, it never will be.

I think it's becoming more a argument of what's more practical as to what was the developers mind set? What did they want you to think and to feel. I think people are making good points that power in terms of hardware is important, but reality isn't so kind money is a factor a big one and we all have to face that. Gaming is NOT a cheap hobby by any standard.

I throw my hat that console games though dated in power and limiting are the foundation of what gaming is suppose to be. I recently heard on Game Grumps there's a feature or programming into Super Mario World camera that snaps to plat forms to make the game more seamless in transition as you progress through a level (haven't confirmed but cannot deny).


Not game grumps by any means, but it certainly elaborates on this feature very well.

The really cool thing I find with games and a reason why i think we need a re-birthing of sprites in the first place is because you are limited. SNES and SEGA cartridges are dated in terms of memory but look at all the memories these people created for this very limited version of Interactive story telling?! Limitations help us understand what we need to do to get the most out of our game. FF6 is heralded as the Zenith of 16 Era RPG gaming, but Chrono Trigger is the better looking more complicated game.

In the online series 'Extra Credits' they talk about the business side of gaming (it is a business you can't run from that fact) a lot of designers and coders always are looking to fine tune and tweak to some numbing levels. The point I'm trying to make is at the end of the day you HAVE to ship your game. It doesn't matter how powerful the machines you play your games on are, yes a powerful machine can do more but then the argument can be made that a designer needs XXXX time to make that game as wonderful and as impressive as we imagine it for our power PC and in this day and age how much time can you honestly give? The limitations of the console help define the parameters and power of the game if a designer doesn't use the resources well that's their fault not your for buying a console instead of a PC.

Some people were lucky enough to have powerful PC's and the best consoles of their time, some could only get what they could get and had to settle (I say that but it's not necessarily a bad thing if you ended up loving what you had). My vote is that PC is proving how much power we can put behind a game, consoles help define a gaming era and the masterful duty of a game designer who tried to do everything in thier power to make the game as good (or bad) as it was/is.

Wall of text.jpg

Actually, not going to lie. This post kind of got me thinking.

I also remember Egoraptor mentioning on game grumps that a good game doesn't need to be unnecessarily long but it shouldn't be unnecessarily short ether, so I guess my question to the gamers is what should the length of a single game really be and is the power of your PC or console really killing how potentially great that game could really be?

It's kind of a shift away from the console vs. PC discussion in one perspective but in another point of view it kind of relates to the discussion. I'm kind of going to be honest and admit that I don't like playing games that have a terribly long length (Sans assassin's creed or hell even red dead redemption was pretty long for a game now that I remember.) or have an infinite world to explore like minecraft. These days I've quickly gotten bored of those kind of games and I seem to keep on finding myself to not be able to replay those games, even if they are good.

So I guess now that the way I'm looking at it, perhaps the way limitations are expanding the more and more likely I see games just getting more boring. I mean, look at games like Super Mario World... Or A Link to the Past... I mean both of those had reasonable lengths of game play and to this day they'd probably be considered short. So maybe the key to having a really good game isn't really how long it is, it's a matter of how the game uses it's limitations to create an enjoyable experience.

[Woppet*]

For me Super Mario Galaxy 2 is about the perfect length for a single player game, it's not too short that you feel underwhelmed, and not too long that it gets boring, but if you do find yourself wanting more after the credits roll, the content is there.

I suppose though as long as you keep it fresh a game could be as long as it wants, to me Red Dead only felt so long because it slowed down and the missions got repetative around Mexico. Dark Souls was probably about the same length as RDR but it didn't feel like it because it kept you on your toes the whole time.

On another note, i got Epic Mickey 3DS for xmas and beat it the same day, really fun game but felt ridiculously short, i think the length of a game should be a factor in it's price. It hardly seems fair that a game like epic mickey which lasted a few hours costs the same amount of money as little big planet 2.

[Omegajak]

I agree, but what dictates length? Story? People say there was too much buck for Asura's Wrath which didn't have a lot of bang. Those who played it though immediately knew what they were getting into and the re-playability is there it's just not as deep as say DMC or God Hand which if they do a sequel I think they will address.

I can see now in hind sight why Sonic 3 & Knuckles was broken up they are enough of 2 halves to be a whole you could play Sonic 3 walk away and be satisfied, especially as you can now play as JUST tails and there are vs mode which is a nice little distraction. Sonic & Knuckles though with no 2 player you do experience something different completely as Knuckles which is awesome. You can walk away from any of those singular experiences feeling great about the amount of time you spent and since they are technically speed based games built on momentum you have the option to challenge yourself in getting good times. (Why there was never a time attack mode I'll never know.)

I guess it depends on the game too because Chrono Trigger is slowly becoming my bench mark of any good RPG in terms of story, gameplay, and length. Mostly my point is that you need all those things (story,gameplay,length) to make a good game. It's a hard to define thing in terms of games like Final Fantasy 5-9 where the adventure is pretty long and you stop playing for a while but then when time allows you get back into it again, as opposed to say a Metroidvania game where you could clear the game in under a set amount of time because you already know where everything is and how to beat bosses and enemies in the fastest amount of time without having to get certain items.

I dunno if I made any sense, but I hope someone get's what I'm trying to say.

[Dear President Seinfeld]

The best video games I've ever played (Metroid Prime 1 & 2, Zelda: Wind Waker/Skyward Sword, Red Dead Redemption) are all console games exclusively, so obviously consoles are better than PCs for gaming, because better games are produced for them. But wait!! With the Wii/Gamecube emulator Dolphin, you can play all of these games except RDR in 1080p, which roughly quadruples the visual quality. But this can only be done on a PC! But, without consoles, the games would never have been produced. So, I guess, the answer lies somewhere in the middle, seeing as other amazing games (Assassin's Creed II, Mass Effect 2/3, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Bioshock) are not console or pc exclusive.

[recme]

I would really like to be a PC gamer because of the better stuff and the modding and all that, but my laptop isn't so fast, and I don't plan on buying a new one. Plus, what if I am missing out on some exclusives on consoles? I really like my Wii U, and I really don't think I would be a PC gamer. I really like my PC only meant for personal stuff and such~