The PC vs Console Thread

[Fargo]

So who got banned ? and for what ?

and why does such a thread even exist ? people clearly aren't mature enough to have a discussion on the topic and what's to discuss anyway. Two different platforms that offer two different experiences. Some people choice one over the other, some choose both. Get over it.

[andretmzt]

I would say that PCs are better because you can use them for much more than gaming. As to whether they are better for gaming, like you say, there are pros and cons.

To be honest I don't really think that makes me a fool so do you mind sticking to off-topic? cheers

Are you stubbornly stating that one is completely better than the other?

No?

Probably wasn't aimed at you then, was it, narky-knickers.

[Saint of Killers]

So who got banned ? and for what ?

and why does such a thread even exist ? people clearly aren't mature enough to have a discussion on the topic and what's to discuss anyway. Two different platforms that offer two different experiences. Some people choice one over the other, some choose both. Get over it.

- $ilva $hadow 12/09/11 - 1 week ban for continual abuse of members and handicap comments that caused offence

[TheTurnipKing]

Look, it boils down to this;

PCs are an open format, which brings with it it's own set of pros and cons.

Consoles are a closed format, which has it's own set of pros and cons.

Anyone who stubbornly states that one is better than the other is a fool. They can be as offensive or eloquent about is as they like, they are wrong and a fool.

Actually, it's the same set of pros and cons, just flipped.

That said, I do think we're reaching the point of the cycle where the PC is unquestionably the better proposition... And ironically, this has only been aided by the game developers tendency to build for console first, since it provides a nice, stable base-line spec to build for that has left relatively modest gaming PC's able to play the vast majority of games relatively easily compared to the past.

[False]

In regards to PC advantages, apart from visuals, in games like CoD, Battlefield, RAGE and whatever else you'd like to include, are the physics different? For instance in Battlefield 3, will physics be better on PC?

Depends what you mean by physics. The stuff thats generally changed is in the graphical detail of a scene, it (in the main) doesn't effect how the game actually plays, it'll just look better.

Excellent. That's what I wanted to know.

So, essentially, multi-platform games are generally the same save for some additional visual effects that may or may not have physics based properties. Would that be right?

In terms of physics sure.

But in the Battlefield example you mention, in MP the game supports more players on PC and the maps will be bigger (I think).

Thing is, and I'm only referring to this as a comparable in terms of scale, MAG has 256 players, 4 x Battlefield, in a single battle on very large maps i.e. it can be done on consoles.

I don't see the massive advantage on a per game basis PC gamers have. I understand Steam is a brilliant piece of software for DD but over and above prettier visuals on some titles* what is the key difference that's a game-changer?

*I've looked at the screenshot thread numerous times and I can't say the additional outlay in high-end GPU's is an added value to games that generally look the same as their console counterpart. Crysis and Battlefield 3 seem to be the two stand-out PC titles that demonstrate the additional GPU power best and I'd imagine a rig to spec-out Crysis at the time of release would have been very expensive.

Its become apparant you are only interested in views which support your views of 'its basically the same lol', but Ill indulge you still.

MAG 265 players is not handled in the same way a PC title would do 64. High end GPU's serve more purpose than just being pretty in stills. Its all about how smooth you can play it at those settings.

Now I can play Crysis maxxed, full HD, at 60fps no sweat. Thats a bit more than 'prettier visuals on some titles'.

[TheTurnipKing]

In regards to PC advantages, apart from visuals, in games like CoD, Battlefield, RAGE and whatever else you'd like to include, are the physics different? For instance in Battlefield 3, will physics be better on PC?

Depends what you mean by physics. The stuff thats generally changed is in the graphical detail of a scene, it (in the main) doesn't effect how the game actually plays, it'll just look better.

Excellent. That's what I wanted to know.

So, essentially, multi-platform games are generally the same save for some additional visual effects that may or may not have physics based properties. Would that be right?

In terms of physics sure.

But in the Battlefield example you mention, in MP the game supports more players on PC and the maps will be bigger (I think).

Thing is, and I'm only referring to this as a comparable in terms of scale, MAG has 256 players, 4 x Battlefield, in a single battle on very large maps i.e. it can be done on consoles.

I don't see the massive advantage on a per game basis PC gamers have. I understand Steam is a brilliant piece of software for DD but over and above prettier visuals on some titles* what is the key difference that's a game-changer?

*I've looked at the screenshot thread numerous times and I can't say the additional outlay in high-end GPU's is an added value to games that generally look the same as their console counterpart. Crysis and Battlefield 3 seem to be the two stand-out PC titles that demonstrate the additional GPU power best and I'd imagine a rig to spec-out Crysis at the time of release would have been very expensive.

Its become apparant you are only interested in views which support your views of 'its basically the same lol', but Ill indulge you still.

MAG 265 players is not handled in the same way a PC title would do 64. High end GPU's serve more purpose than just being pretty in stills. Its all about how smooth you can play it at those settings.

Now I can play Crysis maxxed, full HD, at 60fps no sweat. Thats a bit more than 'prettier visuals on some titles'.

It should also be noted that Planetside allowed for a truly ridiculous number of players on PC back in 2003.

[HSH28]

Thing is, and I'm only referring to this as a comparable in terms of scale, MAG has 256 players, 4 x Battlefield, in a single battle on very large maps i.e. it can be done on consoles.

I don't see the massive advantage on a per game basis PC gamers have. I understand Steam is a brilliant piece of software for DD but over and above prettier visuals on some titles* what is the key difference that's a game-changer?

*I've looked at the screenshot thread numerous times and I can't say the additional outlay in high-end GPU's is an added value to games that generally look the same as their console counterpart. Crysis and Battlefield 3 seem to be the two stand-out PC titles that demonstrate the additional GPU power best and I'd imagine a rig to spec-out Crysis at the time of release would have been very expensive.

Apparently Battlefield 3 could do 256 players (all in the same map at the same time), but they tried it and its not as fun according to DICE.

I'd also point out that to say that PC games have 'prettier visuals on some titles*' isn't really accurate. Unless the PC version of a game is a massively botched job (and there aren't many of those nowadays) they all look a lot nicer if you have the PC to play them, they don't 'generally look the same' at all. Framerate and resolution issues also go on a suitably decent PC.

[cooldawn]

Its become apparant you are only interested in views which support your views of 'its basically the same lol', but Ill indulge you still.

MAG 265 players is not handled in the same way a PC title would do 64. High end GPU's serve more purpose than just being pretty in stills. Its all about how smooth you can play it at those settings.

Now I can play Crysis maxxed, full HD, at 60fps no sweat. Thats a bit more than 'prettier visuals on some titles'.

But the multi-format games are the same, aren't they? That's why I'm asking and to be fair we could level 'support your own views' at anyone. I'm asking some questions to find out for myself why PC's are deemed to be so much more superior when I can't see it.

I play a well developed game on console. I play the same game on PC. Visuals aside, what am I going to get over and above that I should be concerned about?

MAG's 256 player mode can stutter when hell breaks loose but up to 128 it's as smooth as butter.

Right now there are people speccing up there PC's for Battlefield 3 which, I assume, is over and above the requirement for Crysis at full whack. Is there an appreciable difference worth the investment? Every couple of years, I guess, a new game comes along that requires a new GPU to get the game to run at it's best. Kind of chasing your tail.

I suppose that's why I prefer console gaming. I know in 5 years or so a new one will be along that will be cutting edge. By then PC's may have a little to catch up on but they will surpass the visual representation after a short while.

Out of all that, though, the games are the same, no matter which format has more power. A Battlefield on PC will play the same as a Battlefield on console next gen.

Apparently Battlefield 3 could do 256 players (all in the same map at the same time), but they tried it and its not as fun according to DICE.

I'd also point out that to say that PC games have 'prettier visuals on some titles*' isn't really accurate. Unless the PC version of a game is a massively botched job (and there aren't many of those nowadays) they all look a lot nicer if you have the PC to play them, they don't 'generally look the same' at all. Framerate and resolution issues also go on a suitably decent PC.

I think that's the most positive point of PC gaming...if you have the rig to support consistent high frames at a nice resolution. Again though, it's all about investment.

I'm one for the next console cycle but it's not because I see PC gaming is measurably ahead of console, it's because I can see how greater the potential is over and above both formats. A PC today just couldn't deliver what I want from gaming, Needless to say developers want more too.

There will be a time when we get to a point of diminishing returns but we are so far away from that right now.

[False]

You're a retard mate.

[Garth]

You're a retard mate.

That's not an acceptable response Falsey.

Leave the insults out of this discussion or your warning will be upgraded to a ban.

Edit: tnman says he already warned Falsey earlier today not to post abuse, which has been ignored here. So he's upgrade the warning to a 1 week ban.

[False]

Ive explained reasons and he just comes back with 'derp apart from visuals what else'.

[Garth]

Ive explained reasons and he just comes back with 'derp apart from visuals what else'.

That doesn't give you an excuse to break the forum rules. If you can't reach an agreement, walk away and don't resort to insults.

[Rik]

Right now there are people speccing up there PC's for Battlefield 3 which, I assume, is over and above the requirement for Crysis at full whack. Is there an appreciable difference worth the investment? Every couple of years, I guess, a new game comes along that requires a new GPU to get the game to run at it's best. Kind of chasing your tail.

Well the 360 supports DX9 and as far as I'm aware B3 on the PC needs a minimum of Vista and a DX10 GPU. So basically the minimum PC spec is higher than the 360 is capable of.

I've had my PC for just over 2 years and have a DX10 4870X2 so would need an upgrade to see the full monty on PC which is DX11.

[False]

BF3 doesnt require as much raw horsepower as Crysis, simply driver and sm support.

[Dblock]

Why do people seem to completely ignore how obnoxious and nasty Silva is to people?

He's a horrible forum member, absolutely horrible.

I can't believe I agree with you. Everything I ever believed in just crumbled.

[smurphy]

Your PC would run it looking way, way nicer than on 360. To expect a two year old PC to run a next, next-gen (according to some people) game on absolute max is ridiculous. It took a good while for PCs to come along that could play Crysis flawlessly.

And as for Cooldawn's attempt to understand, put it this way: I wouldn't even consider playing Oblivion the way it was released at this point in time. Whereas with mods I could make it look visually comparable to newly released games, as well as vastly change and improve the gameplay and design of the entire game. That's one advantage of the PC. It's not hard to come up with some more yourself.

[Xeno]

But the multi-format games are the same, aren't they? That's why I'm asking and to be fair we could level 'support your own views' at anyone. I'm asking some questions to find out for myself why PC's are deemed to be so much more superior when I can't see it.

Well cooldawn as well as graphics you have modding which adds a lot to a game and can increase the life of a game to years instead of months on console. I find the flexibility of the system overall is so much better and I also get to play a strawberry float tonne of MMO's, flight sims, space sims and every other type of sim you could shake a stick at.

I am willing to pay a slightly higher initial outlay for cheaper games over the long haul.

[False]

But apart from visuals, what am I actually getting?

[Xeno]

I've had my PC for just over 2 years and have a DX10 4870X2 so would need an upgrade to see the full monty on PC which is DX11.

For a small number of bells and whistles I wouldn't bother.

[TheTurnipKing]

Consoles are increasingly just PC's where they try to make you pay for everything.