Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Slate Magazine - Should the United States ban a Japanese "rape simulator" game?
"Considering the impossibility of policing the Internet, as well as the availability of English RapeLay translations and forums for years before any politician caught wind of the game, it's unrealistic to think that the game could be banished from America. Very few Japanese developers make an effort to sell eroge to the West, and those that do, like Peach Princess and G-Collections, make content modifications to suit foreign norms and laws. (For example, all underage characters' ages get rounded up to 18, no matter how young the character looks.) These Westernized versions are sold in the United States via import sites like J-List and Play-Asia. Neither company sells RapeLay, but they do offer the popular eroge Yume Miru Kusuri. That game, while more edgy than it is violent, does focus on sex-crazed, underage-looking high schoolers with drug problems and suicide fetishes. RapeLay is appalling, but titles like Yume Miru Kusuri—sold in America after being unconvincingly modified so the protagonists are "18," making it tough to peg the games as outright illegal—would make far more constructive targets for political outrage."

Edge Online - Why the -Age of Steam- May Not Last? By Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, operator of Impulse.
"It's far too soon to assume that Steam will continue to dominate five years out. Thus far, it has largely operated without serious competition. With other services such as Impulse, Games for Windows Live, Amazon.com, GamersGate and others upping their own services with unique and compelling features, expanding their catalogs, and focusing on providing good customer experiences, I would be very surprised if Steam continues to have such a large market share (as a percentage) even 18 months from now."

CNET - Is the video game industry losing the PR battle?
"Based on what I've seen so far from the industry, it's willing to take a beating from government, lawyers, authors, and concerned groups and it does little to fight back. Meantime, I receive e-mails from parents on an almost daily basis asking me why video games are so bad for their kids. Whenever that happens, I write them a short but informative e-mail saying, 'They're not as bad as some groups say and here's research to prove it.'"

View
122 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >

122. Re: Op Ed Mar 16, 2009, 03:21 Bhruic
 
You're saying it's the "best" (what does that even mean, is this a contest?) because it's versatile and I agree that it's versatile. It doesn't mean it's be all end all platform for all gaming.

Again, you seem to be arguing about adoption. Look, compare it to the old VHS vs Betamax. While there's no arguing that VHS was what became the market standard, there's also no denying that Betamax was the superior format. Being superior technically doesn't mean that it's going to sell any better, or for gaming, get developed for more. There are other factors that go into it, and convenience, which consoles wins hands down, is a huge one. But despite your list of pros/cons, I believe it's pretty much proven that the PC is a technically superior platform.

You just need to avoid making the connection between technical superiority and market adoption that you seem to be making.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
121. Re: Op Ed Mar 16, 2009, 02:29 StingingVelvet
 
No, they're the best platform for gaming for specific types of games and genres.

Why should genre matter? The PC is fully capable of using control pads or joysticks, fully capable of hooking up to a TV and surround system... there is no arguement for why a fighting game or platformer is inherrently better on a console, whereas mods, graphics and such would mean it would definately be better on PC.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
120. Re: Op Ed Mar 16, 2009, 02:00 Jerykk
 
You're saying it's the "best" (what does that even mean, is this a contest?) because it's versatile and I agree that it's versatile. It doesn't mean it's be all end all platform for all gaming. It means that for specific games it provides a better experience. I challenge that the console does this as well for other types of games and genres.

Sigh. It's really not that complicated. From an objective standpoint, all platforms have their own unique advantages over each other. The PSP and DS are more portable than the 360, PS3 or PC. Consoles in general are more convenient than the PC. The PC has better graphics and performance than any console. Every platform has some advantages over the others. Naturally, different advantages are important to different people. However, that's purely subjective. What's not subjective is which platform has the most advantages. This isn't a matter of preference. It's a matter of numbers. You may love all platforms equally for different reasons but this isn't a debate about personal preference, it's a debate about numbers. If you create a list (as we have done) of all the advantages the PC has over a console, no one console will be able to match it.

Take two cars. One has better mileage, lower maintenance and a cheaper initial price. The other has faster acceleration and top speed, better handling, a BluRay player, a CD player, GPS, proximity sensors, night-vision windshield, non-deflatable tires, bullet-proof shielding, etc. The first car is what most people will use. It's cheap and convenient and gets you where you need to go. The second car is more expensive and higher-maintenance, but it can do a lot more and has better driving performance. From a purely objective standpoint, the second car is better. Why? Because it has more advantages over the first car than the first car has over it. We are not placing any extra value on any given advantage. All advantages are treated equally. That is objective. We are simply counting the advantages and seeing which platform has the most.

This comment was edited on Mar 16, 2009, 02:02.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
119. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 22:29 Z9000
 
The PC is much better at playing old games than any console is

In many cases, yeah. Not in all. In general this is certainly true.

I have been watching this exercise in futility and caught this. PS2 alone has over 1900 titles and I can plug and play any single one of them on my PS3 and get to it. The same mostly for Xbox which has a significantly miniscule library comparing older titles.

If I want to do this on a PC... Yeah... Good luck with getting half of them oldies to work much less all.

Graphics on modern day console look fine. I have been staring at 1900x1200 for 5 years and HDTV with modern console games is just as pretty despite lower resolution in a lot of cases. It still looks great. Now the same can't be said about upscale DVD and Blu-ray. There's just too much of a difference to notice although some of the modern DVDs come real close upscaled.

Ok all done, carry on. Enjoy the debate.

Edit: Over 1900 PS2 titles according to a source on Kotaku but I found another source that listed "8,181 across the world as for September 30, 2006.". I have about 250 and those are all I care about.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 23:00.
 
PS3 resurgance by GOW3 - Check! Mass Effect for PS3 - Check! Diablo 3 for consoles? I say "For sure"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
118. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 20:10 Dades
 
but from an objective point of view you have to admit PCs are the better gaming platform.

No, they're the best platform for gaming for specific types of games and genres. You're saying it's the "best" (what does that even mean, is this a contest?) because it's versatile and I agree that it's versatile. It doesn't mean it's be all end all platform for all gaming. It means that for specific games it provides a better experience. I challenge that the console does this as well for other types of games and genres.

You can't generalize it because it's always going to be on a case by case, game by game basis. That's to say nothing of what types of games appeal to each user. So it's not the "best", nor is any console or any other device for that matter. The PC may be the best platform for your needs but that will always differ from person to person.

The PC is "the best" at playing FPS games in my opinion, that's where I enjoy them the most. That doesn't mean the PC platform is better than any other, it just means that I like playing FPS games on it due to using a mouse.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
117. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 18:51 StingingVelvet
 
That's fine but it doesn't mean you should ignore the facts. Nobody has said you can't enjoy all platforms. We've only stated that from an objective standpoint, the PC is superior. It has more advantages over any console than any console has over it. Whether or not the average joe knows or cares about these advantages is irrelevant. Most people don't fully understand or care about chemistry but that doesn't make it any less important. Similarly, the experience I have when playing games on the PC is not affected by the ignorance or complacency of others.

That's the best way to put it, and Jerykk continues to be very verbose. The key is: you can enjoy what you want, game on what you want, but from an objective point of view you have to admit PCs are the better gaming platform.

Consoles can be "better" for you depending on your priorities, but looking at the entire picture and the capabilities of all gaming platforms, the PC is the most powerful, flexible, moddable and versatile platform, versus consoles which are the most convienent, and perhaps most portable.

That's all I was ever trying to say.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
116. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 18:01 Jerykk
 
Actually I pointed that out earlier when I said not all consoles and PC's are created equal but no one was really interested in discussing it. Others claimed the PC is "better" and "superior" to the "consoles".

The PC is superior to consoles... on an individual basis. We say "consoles" because typing "360, PS3, PS2, Wii, PSP or DS" instead takes too long, not because we are lumping all the consoles together as a united platform.

I am not really interested in having a much longer discussion where we dissect every single PC and console configuration individually and compare them, I doubt I'm alone here either. That would take many hundred pages and wouldn't really accomplish much.

I agree, it wouldn't accomplish much because we've already listed all the PC advantages and no single console will have more.

Not really, you can probably remove portability and the list would be the Xbox360 or PS3 by itself.

Is there any homebrew for 360? You also forgot to mention under console cons that you have to pay a fee to play anything on Xbox Live.

Better or worse doesn't really mean anything as long as you're having fun.

That's fine but it doesn't mean you should ignore the facts. Nobody has said you can't enjoy all platforms. We've only stated that from an objective standpoint, the PC is superior. It has more advantages over any console than any console has over it. Whether or not the average joe knows or cares about these advantages is irrelevant. Most people don't fully understand or care about chemistry but that doesn't make it any less important. Similarly, the experience I have when playing games on the PC is not affected by the ignorance or complacency of others.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
115. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 13:24 Dades
 
So don't? The point I was trying to make about flexibility is that with a PC you can plug in a 15" 5:4 monitor, a 50" 16:9 HDTV or a 30" 16:10 cinema display. Same with controllers - I like the X360 controller for PC myself but I could choose a crappy Thrustmaster product or the OCZ Neural Impulse Actuator (brain interface). It's not like consoles come with 42" HDTVs.

No but I think it's fair to say the average person possesses both a television and a computer. Choice is one of the bigger advantages that the PC has and I noted it in my list under input peripheral support. All of which is neither here nor there, I still believe that some genres are better suited to play on a console. In fact, there are some genres I would not want to see on my PC. I dislike JRPG's making inroads to the PC market for one, they make far too much money and it's too tempting for publishers to get them to churn out shitty clones and sequels. Leave those on the console please, I like my western RPG's Frankly I'd be pissed if the PC's depth and complexity rich genres were invaded by rhythm games, JRPGs and so on.

I thought about this and found it very interesting. Sure a laptop is impractical but you have Windows Mobile devices, which are just more locked down PCs. So again, it's showing the PC to be very flexible. It's stretching the definition of "PC" a bit but still valid, I believe.

This is such a massive stretch, come on dude. Windows Mobile? Really? You could've at least used the iPhone which actually has games and game users. I would've even qualified that as a PC for the purposes of the discussion

The PC can be pretty much whatever the user wants it to be. I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing but arguing different points of the argument. Consoles are designed to be in the front room - that's just as possible for PC but generally they're not designed for that. I think it's much like Apple users comparing the iMac to a beige-box... PCs can be just as stylish but generally they aren't. I just put more weight on the actual gaming experience than other factors. I think we've pretty much exhausted this discussion, though.

Fair enough, I can generally agree with that
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
114. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 13:12 theyarecomingforyou
 
I wouldn't want to play a beat em up on a 24" screen with a gamepad I found at Bestbuy. Do you want to huddle around your monitor with 3 friends and play Rock Band?
So don't? The point I was trying to make about flexibility is that with a PC you can plug in a 15" 5:4 monitor, a 50" 16:9 HDTV or a 30" 16:10 cinema display. Same with controllers - I like the X360 controller for PC myself but I could choose a crappy Thrustmaster product or the OCZ Neural Impulse Actuator (brain interface). It's not like consoles come with 42" HDTVs.

Well I'm happy you don't care about it but seeing as Nintendo has shipped over 100 million DS's then I suspect that others do sir. Do you bring a gamepad with your laptop to play on the train?
I thought about this and found it very interesting. Sure a laptop is impractical but you have Windows Mobile devices, which are just more locked down PCs. So again, it's showing the PC to be very flexible. It's stretching the definition of "PC" a bit but still valid, I believe.

Sure if you get the right tuner, some adapters and find a way to hook it up to your receiver. We're finally get videocards with HDMI when consoles have had it for what, 3 years now?
Well, DVI to HDMI adapters existed in the transition. And PC cards are starting to feature DisplayPort more now. And just because something isn't the majority doesn't mean it doesn't exist - HDMI graphics cards have been around for a while as even DisplayPort was around late-2007 / early-2008. As for finding the right tuner... it may be more difficult than it needs to be - upgrading PCs should be made a lot simpler as well - but they're out there and they work.

The PC can be pretty much whatever the user wants it to be. I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing but arguing different points of the argument. Consoles are designed to be in the front room - that's just as possible for PC but generally they're not designed for that. I think it's much like Apple users comparing the iMac to a beige-box... PCs can be just as stylish but generally they aren't. I just put more weight on the actual gaming experience than other factors. I think we've pretty much exhausted this discussion, though.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
113. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 12:55 Dades
 
But why are you ignoring that possibility? Your "console" list includes every single possible console option without mentioning that no console has all of those features. For example, the PS3/XBox/Wii don't have portability, the DS/PSP don't have "high resolution", etc. If you're going to use pros from every single console, then it's only fair that the PC side get pros from every single PC configuration. Which certainly includes PCs with tuners, adapters and HDMI.

Actually I pointed that out earlier when I said not all consoles and PC's are created equal but no one was really interested in discussing it. Others claimed the PC is "better" and "superior" to the "consoles". I love my PC and would not have even entered the topic had no one started down that road. I also enjoy my consoles and recognize each respective platform's strengths and weaknesses.

I am not really interested in having a much longer discussion where we dissect every single PC and console configuration individually and compare them, I doubt I'm alone here either. That would take many hundred pages and wouldn't really accomplish much.

You need to select from all consoles to draw up a decent pro list for consoles

Not really, you can probably remove portability and the list would be the Xbox360 or PS3 by itself. I tossed in portable capability because the handheld consoles are significantly more popular than the next gen systems and it felt wrong ignoring such a large market segment.

For the win. Pen & paper, PC, console, arcade cabinet, dart board at the bar.

Yeah, that's my main beef with people who proclaim loyalty to a specific platform. I definitely do the same thing, some weeks I don't touch my consoles at all and play PC games. Sometimes theres nothing fun out for the PC so I just play my consoles. Better or worse doesn't really mean anything as long as you're having fun.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 13:01.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
112. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 12:28 Bhruic
 
Sure if you get the right tuner, some adapters and find a way to hook it up to your receiver.

But why are you ignoring that possibility? Your "console" list includes every single possible console option without mentioning that no console has all of those features. For example, the PS3/XBox/Wii don't have portability, the DS/PSP don't have "high resolution", etc. If you're going to use pros from every single console, then it's only fair that the PC side get pros from every single PC configuration. Which certainly includes PCs with tuners, adapters and HDMI.

In fact, I think that's probably the thing that defeats your argument, imo. You need to select from all consoles to draw up a decent pro list for consoles, but you neglect to do the same for PCs. Once you do so, the pro-PC list becomes significantly larger than the console one because of the incredible diversity of options available for the PC.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 12:29.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
111. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 12:24 JohnnyRotten
 
I go where the good gaming is at...

For the win. Pen & paper, PC, console, arcade cabinet, dart board at the bar.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 12:26.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
110. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 12:13 Dades
 
I like that you just flat-out admit here you have no real response for him, so you're going to ignore him instead. He has intelligently dissected all your arguements, which basically means you lose, but you're acting like he's picking on you or something. He's not behaved at all like a bully, but more as an intelligent debater with the stronger arguement. Sorry.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

Your list was nice but was obviously skewed in order to make the consoles look better.

No it really wasn't, it was quite balanced as other posters have pointed out. If you disagree with individual points then fair enough, that's called opinion and everyone has one.

This is not a pro. We are comparing consoles to PCs, and PCs have better graphics, thus this is not a "pro" for consoles in a direct comparison. It's like comparing one woman's breasts to another's in a breat competition and putting "adequate breast size" as a pro, when the other woman has larger breasts. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general idea that a lot people are content with console graphics, but "good enough" is not a pro compared to "best."

Can we please not make silly analogies? Breasts, seriously? It's simply unnecessary and doesn't really bring anything to the discussion. I can make several stupid car analogies involving a Ferrari that you can't drive fast anywhere but that won't make my argument more valid as a result. When I said satisfactory gaming performance, I meant that consoles in general have good support for 720p gaming which the general public views as high resolution. Hence satisfactory, not best or great. Every PC is not capable of having "the best graphics" but I ignored that fact and gave it as an advantage anyways. It was a balanced point on both sides.

The PC has exclusive games as well, so this isn't a pro. Both platforms have power cords, and we don't list that. One thing I will say though is that if console exclusives were on the PC too, like Killzone 2, they would be better games

So you can deal in theory but I cannot? I wouldn't want to play a beat em up on a 24" screen with a gamepad I found at Bestbuy. Do you want to huddle around your monitor with 3 friends and play Rock Band? Some games are better off on the PC and some games are better off on the console. If you can't concede the basic fact that some genres are better suited to their specific platform then I think we're at an impasse.

I guess this one is accurate, though I really wonder what it means. A laptop can play older games... actually a gaming laptop can play Crysis "on the go." A DS is smaller though, and has unique features... I guess it's a draw, depending on your priority, but as I have no desire to play games "on the go" and no interest in genres often seen on a DS, I don't really care about this one way or the other.

Well I'm happy you don't care about it but seeing as Nintendo has shipped over 100 million DS's then I suspect that others do sir. Do you bring a gamepad with your laptop to play on the train? Come on. It was a fair point, I can't believe you seriously went after that one.

The PC is the true home of "homebrew."

Agreed, I never said that it wasn't.

The PC is much better at playing old games than any console is

In many cases, yeah. Not in all. In general this is certainly true.

and can often play them better than they originally played, whereas console games are stuck in one configuration and the same graphics for all time. I was playing Duke Nukem 3D the other day with new 3D models and full WASD controls, in 1920x1200 resolution. Try doing that with Goldeneye 64 on a Wii.

For every game like that, I can name 20 that are not. In any case those posts in response to someone else, I fairly labeled the console as having access to limited capabilities there.

Easier maybe, but this falls under convienence, which was your first bullet-point. A PC can be a media center and work with a TV as well.

Sure if you get the right tuner, some adapters and find a way to hook it up to your receiver. We're finally get videocards with HDMI when consoles have had it for what, 3 years now? I mean technically yes you can drag your PC into your living room and hook everything up but I think it was a fair point and doesn't fall under ease of use. Some games are a lot more fun to play on a big screen.

Theyarecomingforyou, I didn't respond to your post in the interest of brevity but I tried to address some of your points in this post as well. Let me know if I missed anything and I'll get to it.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 12:20.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
109. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 10:20 theyarecomingforyou
 
For every Far Cry 2, there is also a Mercenaries 2, GTA 4, RE4 and well, I could go on and on with the list of horrible/sloppy PC ports. Potential != reality is my point. There is no shortage of whining around these boards about multiplatform titles on the PC.
Indeed, but despite all that they still offer a better experience on PC... at least GTA4 does and I've heard others say the same about RE4 (the main criticism being its control system, which is at least equal to consoles). I agree that GTA4 is a sloppy, poorly coded port but that doesn't mean it isn't better than console. I posted this point earlier but you seem to have overlooked it.

A more accurate statement is that the PC is a better platform for enthusiasts when it is the lead target platform for a multiplatform title. "Better" is subjective and is why this long debate is stupid, something I've been arguing for awhile now. It's also highly dependent on implementation.
Well, it's hard to compare them fairly. A console is designed primarily for gaming whereas that's typically not true of PCs. For those that want the better experience they need the better hardware but, again, the flexibility of the PC is that you don't have to upgrade most of the time and can simply turn down settings (whether that be above, at or below console levels).

There are also some genres that are simply not well suited to the PC period that I would not want to see on the PC regardless of how anyone feels about the PC being superior or not.
Such as? If you plug in a controller then a PC has everything a console has. Economics (number of people with a controller, etc) still plays a part but from a technical standpoint a PC can do everything a console can. Yes, even the Wii-mote has been modded to run on PC and I'm sure there are plenty of similar devices already available.

As for mods, some games get plenty and others don't. Quality varies wildly.
Obviously. For instance, it's very disappointing that an incredible engine like Far Cry 2 has such shocking support for modification (minus map making), which is presumably due to the desire to pedal DLC.

It's nothing I haven't said in the thread already but I suspect it's been lost in 10 pages of back and forth with Jerykk.
People raised other points that you didn't respond to, so it's not simply people overlooking what you said.

I think if you ask any developer they will say that they prefer developing for a specific hardware configuration whenever possible.
I think that's likely true. Sure the PS3 is supposedly hard to code for but it's a fixed platform. The biggest problem with the PS3 is that it makes it more difficult for multiplatform titles.

I didn't list this as a pro as it requires a lot of extra configuration to get titles that old to play. Anything non-win32 is a major hassle and can require tinkering with DosBox and the like. It's doable but for the layman it's gibberish and even some enthusiasts have problems with old games.
That's true but a lot of games get re-released with updated OS support, particularly now with services like Steam and GOG.

The point I'm making is that, at the end of the day, PCs will runs games better when they have the appropriate hardware. They have issues, may of which you mentioned, but when you get down to the actual gaming they have the advantage. I haven't heard anything that persuades me otherwise. However, I accept that consoles have exclusives that are simply not available on PC and therefore, for a more broad gaming experience, it's best to have them for those titles. For instance, I'm glad I've played Wii Sports because there isn't anything in that area on PC - it's technically possible, and the graphics would be light years better, but it hasn't been done.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 11:22.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 09:36 StingingVelvet
 
It's nothing I haven't said in the thread already but I suspect it's been lost in 10 pages of back and forth with Jerykk. I found a script that nin linked awhile ago to put him on ignore though so that won't be a problem going forward.

I like that you just flat-out admit here you have no real response for him, so you're going to ignore him instead. He has intelligently dissected all your arguements, which basically means you lose, but you're acting like he's picking on you or something. He's not behaved at all like a bully, but more as an intelligent debater with the stronger arguement. Sorry.

Your list was nice but was obviously skewed in order to make the consoles look better. Jerykk already went through most of what I would have, but let me comment on each "Console Pro" myself:

- Ease of use

Completely agree, the one major console pro.

- Satisfactory graphical performance

This is not a pro. We are comparing consoles to PCs, and PCs have better graphics, thus this is not a "pro" for consoles in a direct comparison. It's like comparing one woman's breasts to another's in a breat competition and putting "adequate breast size" as a pro, when the other woman has larger breasts. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general idea that a lot people are content with console graphics, but "good enough" is not a pro compared to "best."

- Large share of developers and publishers targeting the market

The vast majority of developers also target the PC. More to the point though, even if a developer "targets" the consoles first, the PC release is still better. One thing you have consistently ignored is that a multiplatform game made for consoles and ported quickly to the PC is still better on the PC. No matter how "consolized" FEAR 2 was, it was still better on the PC, and the same can be said for Assassin's Creed, Rainbow Six Vegas and whatever other game with extremely rare exception.

- Ease of development due to locked hardware specifications

That might be a pro for consoles if I was a console developer, but I am not. I am a gamer, and games are better when played on the PC.

- Exclusive games (library dependant on specific console)

The PC has exclusive games as well, so this isn't a pro. Both platforms have power cords, and we don't list that. One thing I will say though is that if console exclusives were on the PC too, like Killzone 2, they would be better games, and that is something you cannot say about PC exclusives. In effect, I could list "exclusives are compromised" as a console negative and "exclusives are better for it" as a PC positive.

- handheld capabilities (Nintendo DS, Sony PSP)

I guess this one is accurate, though I really wonder what it means. A laptop can play older games... actually a gaming laptop can play Crysis "on the go." A DS is smaller though, and has unique features... I guess it's a draw, depending on your priority, but as I have no desire to play games "on the go" and no interest in genres often seen on a DS, I don't really care about this one way or the other.

- Homebrew capabilities

The PC is the true home of "homebrew."

- Limited backwards compatibility

The PC is much better at playing old games than any console is, and can often play them better than they originally played, whereas console games are stuck in one configuration and the same graphics for all time. I was playing Duke Nukem 3D the other day with new 3D models and full WASD controls, in 1920x1200 resolution. Try doing that with Goldeneye 64 on a Wii. Yes, there are some older titles that are a pain to get working on a modern system, but more than likely someone already figured out a method and posted it on the Internet for all to copy.

- Well polished digital distribution with plentiful free and paid content

The PC has this as well with Steam and other services. Digital distribution is much more popular on PC, so I don't see this as a pro for consoles in a comparison.

- Easy interface with television and computer for "media center" features

Easier maybe, but this falls under convienence, which was your first bullet-point. A PC can be a media center and work with a TV as well.

In conclusion... nice list, but most of it was inaccurate or not related to a real comparison of the platforms. Nothing you wrote refutes the fact that a PC is better for gaming than a console.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
107. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 05:16 Bhruic
 
I think if you ask any developer they will say that they prefer developing for a specific hardware configuration whenever possible.

I still disagree. There are numerous articles/quotes from noted developers mentioning how annoying it is to code for the PS3. Yes, there are multiple configurations to test for PCs, but developers are used to that at this point, so while it takes more effort, I don't think it increases the difficulty.

When available(some console SKUs don't have it), it's pretty seamless and some of the older consoles have massive libraries of titles.

Oh, I think you might have worded that poorly then. I took it to mean that you were suggesting it was the "limited" part that was pro, where I believe you meant the "backwards compatibility" that was the pro.

I didn't list this as a pro as it requires a lot of extra configuration to get titles that old to play.

I won't deny that there are some cases where that's true, but it's certainly not true in every case. And since Win95 is now 14 years old, saying "10+" still gives 4 years of Windows gaming, which works decently with XP/Vista.

Anything non-win32 is a major hassle and can require tinkering with DosBox and the like.

Again, not always the case. But yes, it's certainly not a case of double-clicking on an icon and expecting it to "just work". On the other hand, you might want to consider that GoG has made a business out of modifying older games so that they do "just work" with XP/Vista.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 05:17.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
106. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 05:02 Dades
 
>>> This inane blathering from Jerykk has been hidden. Don’t feed the trolls! <<<

I like this thing already.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 04:59 Jerykk
 
I found a script linked from nin to put him on ignore though so that won't be a problem going forward.

You can ignore me all you want but I'm still going to refute your faulty claims.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 04:55 Dades
 

I also commend you for posting the list, that's exactly what people had been asking you to provide previously.

It's nothing I haven't said in the thread already but I suspect it's been lost in 10 pages of back and forth with Jerykk. I found a script that nin linked awhile ago to put him on ignore though so that won't be a problem going forward.

However, I think that some of the examples you've chosen are somewhat suspect. "Ease of development due to locked hardware specifications", for example - I think that if you did a poll, you'd find that almost all developers would prefer to develop for the PC compared to the PS3.

I think if you ask any developer they will say that they prefer developing for a specific hardware configuration whenever possible. The PS3 has notorious problems due to the Cell architecture but with the PS3 you are still developing for one set of ram, one set of video ram and so on. With the PC you are shooting for a wide range of configurations which is frankly a pain in the ass from a development standpoint. This is to say nothing of the Q/A hassles involved. Go ask some developers on gamasutra, they will tell you the same thing I'm sure. Consoles have their own set of issues to be sure but they are usually dwarfed by the amount of time that goes into optimization, Q/A and support for the PC.

I'm also not sure why you would suggest that "Limited backwards compatibility" is a pro for consoles...?

When available(some console SKUs don't have it), it's pretty seamless and some of the older consoles have massive libraries of titles.

I would consider the backward compatibility for the PC to be a strength, it means I can still play games from 10+ years back.

I didn't list this as a pro as it requires a lot of extra configuration to get titles that old to play. Anything non-win32 is a major hassle and can require tinkering with DosBox and the like. It's doable but for the layman it's gibberish and even some enthusiasts have problems with old games. I did however list the backtitles of PC's as a pro because it's fair to say that they are there and available.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2009, 04:59.
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
103. Re: Op Ed Mar 15, 2009, 04:43 Bhruic
 
I also commend you for posting the list, that's exactly what people had been asking you to provide previously.

However, I think that some of the examples you've chosen are somewhat suspect. "Ease of development due to locked hardware specifications", for example - I think that if you did a poll, you'd find that almost all developers would prefer to develop for the PC compared to the PS3. I'm also not sure why you would suggest that "Limited backwards compatibility" is a pro for consoles...? I would consider the backward compatibility for the PC to be a strength, it means I can still play games from 10+ years back.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
122 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo