Rabid Pc Fanboyism
Smoke_Nova
Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">...why the hate of consoles?</div> Having just had a long discussion in #ns, I want your opinions, why do so many PC gamers hate consoles and treat them as if they were the plague?
I was raised with an SNES and that made me a console gamer first, PC gamer second. After many many years, I've spent probably 1500$ on consoles and games. That said, I've had many more fulfilling games on console then I ever have on PC. For most of my life, I had a 56k or worse. Multiplayer was pretty much worthless, but that is what a majority of games focus on. Broadband just wasn't important enough to bother with, so my family never upgraded.
Now, some people in #ns said that a true gamer would realize you need money for your "hobby", but what if it's a choice between saving for college and saving for games? It's a poor example, I know, but it is similar to what happened to me. For many years it was just simply a choice of what was important to me, and a console game that had hundreds of hours of replayability was better then any PC game (multiplayer).
I was raised with an SNES and that made me a console gamer first, PC gamer second. After many many years, I've spent probably 1500$ on consoles and games. That said, I've had many more fulfilling games on console then I ever have on PC. For most of my life, I had a 56k or worse. Multiplayer was pretty much worthless, but that is what a majority of games focus on. Broadband just wasn't important enough to bother with, so my family never upgraded.
Now, some people in #ns said that a true gamer would realize you need money for your "hobby", but what if it's a choice between saving for college and saving for games? It's a poor example, I know, but it is similar to what happened to me. For many years it was just simply a choice of what was important to me, and a console game that had hundreds of hours of replayability was better then any PC game (multiplayer).
Comments
Frankly I think both PC and console gamers should all join hands and be as one in their hatred of the Ngage. IT woul dbe a kinder, gentler world.
Very sad when people haven't played Metal Gear Solid, or Metroid Prime, or Wind Waker, and other great games, simply because they blindly go "OLO CONSULES SUCK IT". They are really missing out on a terrific gaming experience, and a load of fun.
Here's how I think of it:
I play games, not consoles. If that means that I have to get a console for a really great game I want to play, so be it, consider it the cost of playing an excellent game. Quite similar to the cost of getting a new video card to play a certain game...
When I think like that, all the rest seem worse for wear, no console has captured me the same way.
Now if you'll excuse me, Pacman and Space invaders call...
...but really, I never saw this as a a widespread problem, I thought video gamers and console gamers were one and the same... united against the common foe: JOCKS.
3/4 of the time I have a PS2 game and PC game running at the same time, and switch whenever I hit a loading screen on either... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Whereas with PC gaming, I have multiplayer gaming opportunities, user made mods, expansion packs, patches, and support for the game for what could be years to come.
With the newest generation of console gaming, the playing field has definitely leveled. But because the similarities between the two are so strong, I don't see the point of purchasing it. Plus, there aren't enough games to catch my attention to warrant the price. On top of that, while there can be a few graphical improvements to games as developers get better at coding, there is a limit to what can improve with consoles. They feel almost like Macs in that area - throw them out, and buy a new one, rather than upgrading for a fraction of the cost, as I can do with a PC.
But I don't dislike console gaming. It can be really fun if you have a constant flow of friends to play against. However, for those without friends in the neighborhood, console gaming is a lonely world, and one too expensive to maintain.
*hugs his PS2, GameCube and planned for Xbox*
if you don't ever get that feeling you just <i>get</i>..
that quite honestly <i>sucks</i> for you. hard.
/reminisces heated co-op HALO campaigns in legendary
Consoles are not inferior to PC's. They are equal, though they don't have some of the capabilities that PC's do.
Sounds good. I love my XboX (and loved my N64) and I've always loved PC games. VIVA THE NGage HATERS!
if you don't ever get that feeling you just <i>get</i>..
that quite honestly <i>sucks</i> for you. hard.
/reminisces heated co-op HALO campaigns in legendary <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Word. Consoles are not just the PC's little brother, they're really a lot more social gaming experience. Nothing quite like sitting next to all your friends, passing around controllers and food and drinks.
Man, now I want to have a gaming party.
Damn I'm a hardcore gamer!! Wewt I got no life.
1. Console games just ain't what they used to be. FF:X may have had graphics that I've rated above some sexual encounters, but that's about all it had. After I beat it, I had no real desire to play it again. Compared to FF:VII or FF:IV, which I've beaten at least three times each. Zelda and Nintendo in general has just become to "cartoon kidish." I still think that The Legend of Zelda is the best one. Mario has been driven into the ground like a rented mule. Originality has jumped the console ship like a rat.
2. Cost vs. play time. Most console games are ~$50 U.S. when they first come out. I spent 60 hours of FF:X, and that was taking my sweet time to explore virtually everything. The first time I played FF:VII, I went pretty fast and ignored some of the bigger things (I didn't even get Knights of the Round materia) and that took 65 hours. Console games are becoming easier and easier and consequently are finished quicker. Now I just wait for the "Greatest Hits" releases.
3. Accessories. I have everything I need to play games on my PC. Keyboard, mouse, GFX card, modem. You need to sink even more cash into a console after you've already bought it. Hell, FF:CC requires you to have a GBA and a Gamecube to play. I think that it's pretty stingy to not even include a second controller when one of your main selling points is "you can play with friends."
PC has been my mainstay for a while. Much better replayability, more original content, better graphics, mods and updates make for a better gaming experience all around. If you want a shining example of replay value, just look at CS, NS, TFC or DoD. Those are just the HL mods. There's also games like StarCraft and Civilization that have immense value.
i wouldnt flame someone who loves his console, im sure theyre nice toys, but i dont believe theyre worth the hardware investment, an equal hardware investment on a pc has a decade more lifespam and many more uses.
edit: and please dont flame all of PC gaming due to the hordes of bf1942 clones avaliable these days, there are good and bad applications on every system.
Now I'm gonna have to disagree there. There are way more offbeat and orginal games appearing ont he consoles.
PC is mostly limited to FPS, RTS, and RPG. And most FPS games are either Doom clones or one of those "tactical shooters" and then the RTS scene is mostly dominated by Blizzard <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> In short, a lot of PCs titles that are coming out are more of the same thing.
I think PC's real attraction is the graphics. Look at the new UT2k4. People are gobbling it up. And yet its UT2k3 + BattleField 1942. And even UT2k3 was just UT + A slight variation of Capture the Flag.
a) When a developer decides to make a good game for consoles only that would be excellent on the PC as well. A prime example would be Starcraft Ghost, or even Halo for a number of years.
b) When a developer ports a good game over to the PC but makes absolutly zero effort to change anything. I HATE SAVE POINTS. God FORBID you actually make the missions HARDER instead of artificially raising their difficulty. Or, Hey this control system rocks on a gamepad! That means it will translate to a keyboard PERFECTLY. No need to change any controls boys.
There's just no reason for me to get a console as well. That money could buy me a new video card, or a processor. Yeah, I'd like to play SC:G but I'll live without it. Meanwhile we PC gamers have a veritable plethera of games at our disposal and our machines can do all this other funky stuff like writing documents, surfing the net and downloading "legitimate" artistic material. If I had more res than a marine side with 9 res nodes and no comm chair then yeah, I might grab a console. But as I don't have that much money I see no reason why I should grab a console instead of upgrading my box.
EDIT:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PC is mostly limited to FPS, RTS, and RPG. And most FPS games are either Doom clones or one of those "tactical shooters" and then the RTS scene is mostly dominated by Blizzard<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say that last part like it's a bad thing. Blizzard has produced two of the finest RTS games in history, Starcraft and Warcraft 3. Two games by the way that whilst in the same genra are quite differant. SC is focused on large unit formations whilst War 3 is far more focused on smaller, squad based combat with heros adding a very interesting elemant. But look around the field: you have C&C Generals, again a differant game with diverse factions and varying tactics, including General Points for special abilities or specific Generals with unique powers and units. The RTS field is quite varied and enjoys a massive number of fans.
FPS games vary as well quite considerably. Start with Half Life, which far from delivering bland "find the key and kill the monsters" gameplay like Doom, the player faces a wide variety of puzzles and challanges coated in a storyline that really pulls you in. Who didn't feel a surge of triumph fireing that rocket engine and toasting those tentacles? Move onto Quake 3: straight out deathmatch with other players in a wide variety of environments and with a sweeping array of weaponry. Switch again to Battlefield 1942: FPS with vehicles on a huge scale, placing the player into fairly realistic warfare simulations. Finally turn to NS: a combination of FPS and RTS that blends elemants from both genras into an excellent resulting product.
PC games are not by any stretch of the imagination limited or unoriginal.
Actually theyre still not, but who cares <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Honestly, consoles just dont give much bang for their buck. I have a Gamecube, yet I find myself spending more money on SNES games. Because theyre affordable - a buck or less at a garage sale, 10 dollars or so at Gamestop. And the SNES r0x0rz my b0x0rz.
And as far as consoles being social... dont any of you people ever go to LAN parties?
Consoles have good games for sure, but they dont have near the versatility or cost effectiveness of PC games.
Ya I'm not saying that PC gaming is entirely devoid of any originality, I'm arguing it doesn't have more so than consoles. The range of genres on consoles is way more than the PC has to offer.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cost effectiveness of PC games. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cost effective is not how I'd describe PC gaming. $300 video cards and $100 gamecube is too much for you? That's just the video card. Ya be a little froogle and you might get away with less. But if you want the latest stuff you're gonna have to cough up a pretty penny. Unless you consider the easiness of pirated pc games. D: Then you'd save a bundle on just that, but I might be in trouble for even mentioning pirates so off i go.
I'd argue that each system does differant genras better. Fighting games and platformers are better on consoles, FPS and RTS games work better on PCs. Both have a good deal of variety as well; I can't see how you can classify all FPS games as Doom clones when by the same logic all platformers are Mario clones. I wouldn't say either system has more variety.
Half-Life 2, DOOM 3, Far Cry (Well I'm not really interested with Far Cry) and S.T.A.L.K.E.R
Now the similarities? Well two are sequals for a start but they are all FPS's.
On the X-Box though there are some innotive titles (Full Spectrum Warrior anyone?)
Don't get me wrong I like my PC but the Console developers are the ones coming up with the good ideas at the moment. Largely it would seem the fault of the PC gamers wanting the same stuff. Innovative games usually die on the PC market purely because they can't get the market penetration (Games like Republic, Startopia, FAKK2) only a few are successful and thats usually because the are the same thing just with something extra. (What would Max Payne be without Bullet Time, would it be as successful?) To be honest in the games stakes the X-Box and my Gamecube stand way above the PC.
Oh and Venmoch: FYI, Max Payne was on PC first, k thx.
Furthermore, there are tons of different types of PC games. The difference is with a console you have to play the same god damned game for 3 months until a new title finally comes out.
I mean, let's look at some different types:
FPS games - Computer is undisputed king here. Anyone that's played UT2K3 for the PS2 can agree... my god that game had the worst control setup...
RTS games - Again, computer = win.
Fighting Games - Not my cup of tea (Yawn, the game always ends with some guy just spamming power moves over and over...), but best on a console, because your friends are right there. A fighting game would be great and dandy on a computer, it'd work fine, except the point of it is to duke it out with your friends.
Racing Games - They work just fine on a computer, but for some reason they're popular on consoles. Ah well, not missing anything here...
Sports Games - Ha, consoles lose just because they have them.
Simulator Games - Computer just runs this better: more controls, etc.
Graphically - Computer Wins
Sound - Computer Wins
Multiplayer Connectivity - Computer Wins
Gameplay - Probably a tie, though I'd say computer comes out ahead, just for having more titles to play.
Controls - Debatable. Computer wins for having shitloads of possible configs, and console lose because usually it's a set config you HAVE to use, but consoles can be easier in games, but then again, they do make gamepads for a computer, so computer wins (keyboard, mouse, joystick, pedals, wheels, thingies, and gamepads. Console has the controller... um, I know dreamcast had a keyboard... and you could be stupid enough to buy that $200 hideous piece of plastic for that mech game...)
Cost - Debatable. If you're poor and want a gaming system, and have no computer, yeah, get the console. Now what some people will say is that console win because after three years, they're still making PS2 games, and a computer you have to upgrade. That's just stupid, I went 6 years without upgrading my computer and never had a problem.
Also, getting games for a computer is as cheap as free (<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->) Plus, computers can do my homework for me.
And finally, everything made for computer has something called 'replayability'. All the most boring games or "1-shotters" were originally on console. Prince of Persia: Yay, that was awesomely fun, but I got done and said 'now what?'. Splinter Cell. Games on console usually have little to none customizability. I remember playing Mechwarrior on a console... (not mech assault, but it was somethin...) and all you could do is chose from preset configs.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I am quite aware of that. The point I was talking about is if you took the Bullet Time out of Max Payne how original would the game be?
Not that much....
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I am quite aware of that. The point I was talking about is if you took the Bullet Time out of Max Payne how original would the game be?
Not that much.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you're calling max payne boring but only wins because it had bullet time. Why don't you tell me what made MGS unique? I certainly wasn't impressed by it at all. How about all those fighting games? Every single god damn one is just two guys and button-smashing with different colored effects. What about racing games? Hm it's either the 'goofy cartoony racing' that's all been done before (pickups, and weapons! yay?) or Need for Speed esque racing that's just new tracks and cars. There's nothing 'innovative' in any of those.
So saying that games suck because they're not innovative: You've basically just said that System Shock was repetative, boring, nothingness. Good job!
Grand Theft Auto? Stolen from the PC! But the fact that one game makes up about 2% marketshare of all console games for a given system (as compared to like 0.001% for computers), the console gamers HAVE to love it, no matter what. And that pisses me off.
When a game sucks for the PC, everyone rants about it. When a game sucks for the console, everyone still loves it, for no god damn reason at all. You think a computer game that REQUIRED you to buy little $100 perephrial systems would succeed? No, it wouldn't. In fact, marketing like that gets a certain company called 'Microsoft' a lot of flak. But oh oh, when NINTENDO does it, everyone lines up to give **** while getting [Bleh] by the cash cow. Consoles might be better in some ways, but they rip you off in every way. How many computer games require you to buy extra pieces just play with your friends?