Console or PC?

[Happy Joe]

I would say; "It depends on the game and user interface."

FPS definitely PC, no game controller, that I have tried, can compete with the speed/accuracy of a mouse for targeting.

For character action games; Console as the game controller allows quick programming of moves.

Driving or vehicle simulations, with the appropriate interface (steering wheel/joystick etc.) PC, If only a generic interface/controller & TV is used console.

In all cases that I have so far tried; games that are ported from their native environment to operate on other devices are universally bad (in ported form), even when the parent game was great.

For group play I prefer a LAN made up of PCs.

Enjoy!

[kaneda]

I'd say console. Purely because of the fact that if it says "PS2" on the game you know that it will actually work on a PS2. I've bought numerous games for my computer only for it to not work because my spec isn't up to much.

Saying that though, 2 of the best games I've ever played have been on the PC...

[Fake Vencar]

Originally Posted by Lucien21

And you don't need to upgrade a PC then

Well, yes, but not buy a completely new one! That's a major benefit in itself

[Lenny]

But how much does it cost to upgrade, Ven? With consoles, you spend £300 every five years, say. You can end up spending £300 every six months with a PC - new graphics card and more RAM alone can cost that much. Then you go for a new processor, which means you need to upgrade your mobo at the same time.

I paid about £850 for the components for my computer about a year and a half ago, and they were all old components (about six months old - the technology, not the physical objects). By March '07 (I built the PC in Sept '06), I'd spent another £300 on a new keyboard, mouse and graphics card, and in Sept '07 it was £100 for more RAM. This September I'm looking to build a whole new computer for about £3,000, simply because this one is getting so outdated.

I won't need to fork out a measly £500 for the PS4 (we'll be kidding ourselves if we think it'll be cheaper) until 2016. And until that point, I can buy game after game for the PS3, and they'll all work.

[Connavar]

Consol is better for two reasons IMO.

1. More balanced game wise. Different types of game. PC is perfect if you like FPS,strategy games,WOW types of games. PS1,PS2 gave more types of games that was interesting to me.

2. You dont have upgrade your consol like the pc every few months to play the new games. My pc playing friend has spend more money on his PC,graphic cards than 10 PS3 would cost. As a kid you cant afford that, you go buy PS,sega or whatever and enjoy 1000s of time of gaming.


PC i play only really Football Manager series,Medevil War series.

[Fake Vencar]

Originally Posted by Lenny

But how much does it cost to upgrade, Ven? With consoles, you spend £300 every five years, say. You can end up spending £300 every six months with a PC - new graphics card and more RAM alone can cost that much. Then you go for a new processor, which means you need to upgrade your mobo at the same time.

I paid about £850 for the components for my computer about a year and a half ago, and they were all old components (about six months old - the technology, not the physical objects). By March '07 (I built the PC in Sept '06), I'd spent another £300 on a new keyboard, mouse and graphics card, and in Sept '07 it was £100 for more RAM. This September I'm looking to build a whole new computer for about £3,000, simply because this one is getting so outdated.

I won't need to fork out a measly £500 for the PS4 (we'll be kidding ourselves if we think it'll be cheaper) until 2016. And until that point, I can buy game after game for the PS3, and they'll all work.

I'm well and truly beaten here so I yield! Consoles are better for playing games than the PC...in certain areas. I still find the PC to be the best place for any multiplayer games, certainly in the 1st person shooter genre

[Happy Joe]

If you plan ahead you don't need to upgrade a PC but once every 3 years, or so, and when you upgrade you can usually do it piece meal; memory here, vid card there, processor, sometimes mobo later. Yes; you will not get the ubermostbest performance or graphics (but they will be as good or better than a console). (I just put most of my surplus, newest old pieces (3 years old) into a junk box PC; it will run crysis (not at high frame rates or resolutions, but it is playable) and I expect that it will run Farcry 2 when it comes out, this fall.)

The big down side to PCs is that you get a limited amount of good, new, game titles every year.

The big upside to PCs is that they are good for more than just gaming; word processing, video processing, home theater, music, reading, art, photographic processing, stock trading etc. etc. Trying to justify a PC for just gaming is a bit silly, IMO. (I actually cannot conceive of spending 3,000 pounds on a PC; you can almost certainly build the same identical machine for much less, even if you include phase change (refrigerated processors)).

I think that there is a major disconnect here; If one were to limit the resolutions and frame rates of a gaming PC to those of consoles and to make "hacking the box" the only way to upgrade then there would be little upgrade cost to the PC. If on the other hand we were able to upgrade parts for consoles then people would spend the money (and complain) about the high cost of upgrading their consoles.

Finally; there is something about replacing my PC's innerds that just makes me feel good!

Enjoy!

[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

If you plan ahead you don't need to upgrade a PC but once every 3 years, or so, and when you upgrade you can usually do it piece meal; memory here, vid card there, processor, sometimes mobo later. Yes; you will not get the ubermostbest performance or graphics (but they will be as good or better than a console). (I just put most of my surplus, newest old pieces (3 years old) into a junk box PC; it will run crysis (not at high frame rates or resolutions, but it is playable) and I expect that it will run Farcry 2 when it comes out, this fall.)

This assumes a certain level of proficiency not inherent to the average Joe. And honestly, upgrading once every three years is going to mean a degradation in overall visual quality throughout the time frame in which you own that particular PC, something which contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a PC-gamer. Those may seem like opposing counter-arguments, but they're actually quite harmonious if you consider the point I'm trying to make.

The big down side to PCs is that you get a limited amount of good, new, game titles every year.

Agree with you there.

The big upside to PCs is that they are good for more than just gaming; word processing, video processing, home theater, music, reading, art, photographic processing, stock trading etc. etc. Trying to justify a PC for just gaming is a bit silly, IMO. (I actually cannot conceive of spending 3,000 pounds on a PC; you can almost certainly build the same identical machine for much less, even if you include phase change (refrigerated processors)).

Here's the thing, however, the justification in cost argument is always moot in that the cost is directly related to building a machine capable of playing games, and not doing all those other things -- which could be done on a PC that costs far, far less than what is implied for playing mainstream gaming software. In other words, a PC being able to surf the web and process words is about as relevant as being able to listen to music and watch DVD's on your PS3 - they're both irrelevant, albeit considerably nice, bonuses if the main purpose of the machine is to play games.

(Edit: I thought I should clarify, since the above is in agreement to your post but reads more like a rebuttal; what I mean by this is that in an argument of platforms, as a gaming device the PC requires a certain investment and that the normal argument presented in these situations is one of cost. Being that this argument is based on gaming platforms I both agree with you but need to point out that despite being able to build a PC for less the normal PC gamer is not normally concerned with what other functions his box is capable of but how well it performs doing the one thing he built it for -- gaming.)

I think that there is a major disconnect here; If one were to limit the resolutions and frame rates of a gaming PC to those of consoles and to make "hacking the box" the only way to upgrade then there would be little upgrade cost to the PC. If on the other hand we were able to upgrade parts for consoles then people would spend the money (and complain) about the high cost of upgrading their consoles.

This point is rather moot as it's completely hypothetical. The world doesn't work this way at current, and therefore there is no precedent and we cannot, in good conscience, make assumptions based on it or form points from it.

Finally; there is something about replacing my PC's innerds that just makes me feel good!

Enjoy!

As a very, very longtime hardware enthusiast I completely agree with you. I spent years devoting all my hard-earned money on components; I was a member of XS at its inception and if it weren't for me and a few other members of GameFAQ's (Kunark, Sheo and a handful of others) I'm convinced the PC hardware boards would still believe overclocking a buzzword for time-based interior design choices. However, during most of my days doing P4T mods, 1.6a overclocks and learning how to build cooling systems well before after market solutions had hit the market, I rarely, if ever, played games -- and the same thing went for quite a few hardware buffs. In other words, I still love replacing my PC's innards, but generally speaking the hardware crowd and gaming community can be so vehemently opposed to one another that using this as a basis for loving PC gaming borders on travesty.

...said with all due respect, of course.

[Happy Joe]

I,kind of, agree with most of the above.
It all come down to what you want;

An uber tech (uber expensive) dedicated piece of hardware, with an inbuilt technological obsolescence (If you want the best it will only be the best for a very limited time and to stay current means a large expenditure for peak of the curve hardware). Its very possible; but lets have no complaints about upgrade cost, or frequency!

A closed box that is state of the art for only a few weeks then is surpassed (obsolete) in terms of technology but has a manufacturer that a dedicated to a rather long product life. The penurious choice.

Or a technologically unexceptional PC that has a broad application base, gaming is secondary, but adequate.

This assumes a certain level of proficiency not inherent to the average Joe.

I beg to differ; most people can do it but most people do not want to do it (a case of intellectual lassitude).

(BTW; Joes are exceptional!)

honestly, upgrading once every three years is going to mean a degradation in overall visual quality

Only compared to the state of the PC art. If compared to a console the graphic goodness will improve slightly (better drivers etc.) and the console will remain static.
One needs to ask the question; is gaming the fun part or are the bragging rights for machine benchies/stats more important. Don't get me wrong; there is a definite "Oh Wow" factor to gaming with good visuals but honestly, IMO, in the heat of combat there is no time to appreciate eye candy.

I too went from hardware to gaming however I have never been rabid or obsessed about either. At times overclocking has both allowed better gaming performance at no cost and been a source of hours of amusement, optimizing system parameters to get a slightly better clock or benchmark.
Now I game when a new (good) one comes out and use a PC for other purposes, most of the time. (I admit it; I'm a soft core gamer, (and have never even benchmarked the current machine))

Must be gettin' old I guess...

Enjoy!

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

A closed box that is state of the art for only a few weeks then is surpassed (obsolete) in terms of technology but has a manufacturer that a dedicated to a rather long product life. The penurious choice.

I imagine that's a console you're describing?

Which is why they're built to be sound for years. I'll use the PS3 as an example (though I think this post will turn into another "Why a console is better for games" post. Ah well. ), and I'll specifically make two points: 1. Processor and 2. Blu-ray.

Sony marketed the PS3, and still do to an extent, as futureproof. Said futureproof technology was the reason why it took an extra year for it to come to the market - first there were problems with the Cell processor (bad yields because it was a cutting edge technology), and then the same happened with the Blu-ray diodes (same problems again).

The Cell processor is an eight-core processor that, boviously, can do eight things at once. I haven't seen a single PC, or website that sells PC components, selling a single eight core chip. Sure, there are motherboards that can take two Quad core chips, but it's not the same as one. It's going to be a while before we see eight core chips on the market - a bit more than a few weeks old before its outdated.

Because it's got an eight core chip (although, admittedly, only seven are used, with the eighth idle for backup), developers can spread the code over the cores, meaning one can handle AI, whilst another handles physics, a third on graphics, a fourth for other engines... and so on. Developers don't have that luxury with PCs, and so must cater for the lowest common denominator - single core chips. Which is true of a majority software (there is very little out there which is tailored to work specifically on dual core or even quad core processors).

Then there's the Blu-ray drive. How many PCs come with these as standard? Sure, a few laptops do, but they cost an arm and a leg. The Blu-ray format is set to take over from DVD, eventually, after having come out of the dust thrown up by the format war alone. For games, this is fantastic. A single layer Blu-ray disc holds 25gb of data. A dual layer holds 50gb. Currently, prototypes for 100gb, 200gb, and 400gb discs are in the works. Just imagine a game packed onto a 50gb disc - the sheer quantity of hi-def video, audio and textures. And compare it to a DVD-9, which holds 8.7gb of data. A game on a DVD-9 has to be compressed mad styley, and even then you're not guaranteed to fit a game onto a single disc (look at Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360, for example. Both are about 50 hours long, I believe, and come on 3 discs and 4 discs respectively - a single Blu-ray disc each). As people become more used to hi-def content, a format that can cope with the sheer volume of data (usually in an uncompressed, lossless format) is needed... which Blu-ray is. Blu-ray will last for years, again being one of these technologies that won't be obsolete within three weeks.

---

Don't get me wrong, though. If I had a mysterious benefactor who gave me £10,000 pocket money every six months, I'd be building new PCs left right and centre... but not really for games. More for the hardware, and, to some extent, the bragging rights.

[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

I beg to differ; most people can do it but most people do not want to do it (a case of intellectual lassitude).

(BTW; Joes are exceptional!)

Note that I used the word proficiency, which implies that an individual has already made the necessary steps to become proficient. The average Joe is capable of building a PC, but that doesn't mean they're proficient in doing so. Understanding happens after application, not before, and even when it does happen prior to, based on research or garnering knowledge from others, one has then become proficient and therefore the above does not apply.

(and just so you know, I did just hit myself for the philosophical diatribe at the end)

In short: I stand by my earlier point. And though the average user is certainly capable, we're still assuming that they're ready, willing and able -- which isn't always the case. I often hear this argument on hardware message boards web-wide, and when the offending poster explains that they simply don't have the time, resources or the want to build their own PC they're met with the same original string of responses that put them on the defensive to begin with. Believe it or not, there's simply people in this world that don't want to bother with building and/or upgrading their PC.

Everyone is surely capable of changing their own oil, putting in a new starter and changing their own tires, and beside the dirty cost of admission, none are really too difficult or out of a normal individual's realm of understanding. Yet, mechanics everywhere strive on offering these types of services.

It's safe to say everyone can do anything but we shouldn't require them to (or assume they can) simply because we're already doing it and feel everyone should too.

Only compared to the state of the PC art. If compared to a console the graphic goodness will improve slightly (better drivers etc.) and the console will remain static.

The dichotomy here is that a PC is being utilized to its fullest degree at the point which the software is getting released and a console's resources are generally only being tapped into when a particular piece of software is released for it. In other words, you need to upgrade a PC when a new game is released, while the console developers will tell you with some degree of enthusiasm that their breathtaking game only uses "10% of the systems full capabilities." Point: the experience scales in the latter case and requires the user scale the hardware in the former. You need to upgrade the PC to maintain the fidelity -- the same isn't required in the console realm - and honestly, for that very reason, it almost isn't fair to compare the two.

One needs to ask the question; is gaming the fun part or are the bragging rights for machine benchies/stats more important. Don't get me wrong; there is a definite "Oh Wow" factor to gaming with good visuals but honestly, IMO, in the heat of combat there is no time to appreciate eye candy.

That's really subjective and each individual will feel differently. I know guys I used to play QIII with who turned everything down to achieve the fastest possible FPS and so they could play without any hiccups. To each their own; my opinion is that in the heat of battle, that level of immersion is key and the graphics are a part of that experience -- which is a sum of all its parts.

I too went from hardware to gaming however I have never been rabid or obsessed about either. At times overclocking has both allowed better gaming performance at no cost and been a source of hours of amusement, optimizing system parameters to get a slightly better clock or benchmark.
Now I game when a new (good) one comes out and use a PC for other purposes, most of the time. (I admit it; I'm a soft core gamer, (and have never even benchmarked the current machine))

I'm slowing down myself, though I still tweak and optimize and run a good solid week of benchmarks and burn-ins before I call a new PC ready-to-use. I guess I'm still a bit OCD where the numbers are concerned.

Must be gettin' old I guess...

You and me both

...and of course Joe's are awesome. I don't only play one on TV, but I'm a Joe in RL as well

[Happy Joe]

Lenny;
Given the limitations in high definition TV picture resolution/frame rate; does the cell processor (an admittedly superior number cruncher) make a game more enjoyable than an adequate computer (leaving out the rare and expensive Uber gaming rigs)?

I really can't say as I have only played a few games on the PS3 and haven't had the opportunity to do a head to head comparison;

but we can look at the display;

The last time I looked high def 1080p TV was 1080 x 1920 resolution with 30 frames/sec NTSC (US) and 25 frames PAL (Europe), some blue ray players apparently put out 24 frames/sec.
Personally, I think this is adequate for gaming but some folks maintain that much higher frame counts are highly desirable (I can't argue this one).

Many PC monitors will meet or exceed the high def TV resolution so I would not expect to see much of a difference, picture wise, on a head to head PS3 vs a good (not uber) PC comparison.

However the PS3 seems to use a chip that is similar to the old 7800 nvidia series video card for graphics. This is barely acceptable in todays PC gaming community (many/most would say it is long obsolete).

Overall if we are talking raw computing power the PS3 cell processor would have to come out on top of the PC.

This give me a picture of a great processor tied up by obsolete graphics hardware and a lack of applications (other than games).

It is interesting that Crysis is allegedly being ported to PS3 and this is considered by many the only console platform that has much of a chance to run it. It is also interesting that the CEO of Sony has referred to the PS3 as a computer not a console. People are using them to fold at home, and I would expect future inroads into the PC realm by this technology. (For PC prices ($425-$800+) you should expect more than just games and movies, IMO).

I do kind of like Blueray and when Sony satisfies its greed (when the price becomes reasonable for a combo burner, they are dropping) I will stick one in the PC. (Its an advantage of PCs that you can do this).

The number of cores is not really an issue for me on the PC since the applications to fully utilize multi threading are only slowly being implemented; even in games. This may be one reason why the Cell processor has not dominated the PC market - few applications may be capable of using it.

I have seen references to 6 and 8 core chip packages from both AMD and Intel (don't hold your breath, but maybe next year). 8 core, not single processor package, work stations have been available for at least a year, and I believe that at least one company is said to be making a server based on the (IBM, Toshiba, Sony) Cell processor.

Enjoy!

[Happy Joe]

Note that I used the word proficiency

I think we, largely, agree... most people can become proficient with PC hardware (tuning takes more dedication than assembly) but don't want to, for whatever valid reason (their choice). (The exceptions being people, who want to poke their fingers inside but just can't seem to grasp the principles). (I use the term proficient to show that they are/could be (with interest, practice and study) good with the hardware but not necessarily master builders or master technicians, more of a journeyman level of competence, so to speak).

When I hear people complain about cost I tend to assume that they should be willing to do something about it; becoming self reliant is one way to control cost (but not very popular because it involves effort).

You need to upgrade the PC to maintain the fidelity

True but fidelity maintenance or enhancement is not everyone's goal... some folks just want to play a game and as long as it doesn't look/perform too badly they are largely satisfied.

Different strokes for different folks... I guess!
Enjoy!

[Connavar]

Im not a total newbie to fixing up my pc but i dont want to bother with that.


With new generation consols like PS3 who is becoming more like the strongest gaming pc out there is no need. Specially when most famous PC games makes to consol these days.

Not that i care for pc games. IMO there is no need to bother when you will get games like Oblivion,other pc games to your consol anyway.

Difference beteween consol and PC gaming is like the difference beteween Xbox 2 and PS3 you are the getting same games near the same quality that there isnt as big difference as before.

[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

Different strokes for different folks... I guess!
Enjoy!

Definitely