Pc Or Console?

[azrach187]

In recent years, console gaming is built to those who worries less about tech specs. and just "insert-and-play." Where, PC gamers are those who eventually learn tech specs. to be "on-top-of-their-game." While console gamers rant and rave about new releases, PC gamers rant and rave on how their system would play the new release. Console gamers are easily wowed by graphics afforded by their machines. PC gamers are very demanding at the graphics they play. Console games becomes successful when the game mechanics is innovative, while in PC, game mechanics is expected to be in-depth.

 

Unfortunately, PC gaming is not console gaming. To be a PC gamer, you must really know what hardware upgrades are out there. PC gamers are a bit more sassy when it comes to graphics and realism. Internet connectivity is almost a must to a PC gamer.

 

Console gamers are a bit on a "take-it-as-it-comes" basis. Great product that comes out of the PC market, gets ported to consoles and usually is well recieved. On the other hand, great games on console that are ported to PC are met with lukewarm enthusiasm. A good example is Halo. It made waves for Xbox owners, but put most PC gamers to sleep.

 

A good culprit is that it wasn't really a great game, it's because Xbox have an FPS friendly controller. PC gamers on the other hand, have enjoyed true independence when it comes to controls provided by the good selections of keyboard, mouse, USB/Serial controllers such as the joystick and the game pad. So when Halo came to PC, it was laughed at by PC gamers.

 

Some port from PC that was very successful in the console departments are, but not limited to:

RTS: Command and Conquer series, Warcraft series, etc.

RPG: Ultima series, Dungeon and Dragon series, Elder Scrols series (Morrowind, Oblivion), etc.

FPS: Far Cry, Rainbow Six series, Red Faction, Half-Life, etc.

Action: Duke Nukem, Deus Ex, etc.

 

Ironically, some games are better left in the PC department, such as Counter-Strike, though it debuted for Xbox, playing it using a controller would be the same as driving a cow in a minefiled.

 

On the other hand, port from consoles tend to be taken as it is, mostly bought by those who have played it in the console. Such as:

RTS: Dune, etc.

RPG: Fable, Final Fantasy series, etc.

FPS: Halo, MDK2, etc.

Action: Metal Gear series, GTA series, Tony Hawk, Tomb raider Series, etc.

 

Like games developed mostly for PC, some games are best left for consoles. A shining example of-course is Halo. Microsoft thought they had a hit on their hand when it became the number one game for Xbox. They bravely invested on the on-line port only to be ridiculed by online gamers. Their mistake points to two things, one is that they forgot PC gamers use mouse, which makes it easier to fine tune the aim. The second mistake is that they heavily advertised it and even provided a free demo. Big mistake, PC gamers got a glimpse of the console phenom only to find it a little less than bland.

 

As a revenge, Halo 2 wasn't ported to PC, just yet. Microsoft instead, would release it for Windows Vista, reportedly, one of the first games only available to WinVis. Some people just don't learn...

 

The topic of-course isn't games ported to console or vise-versa. The topic is why would you stick to console or PC? Is it the games? Or is it because of technical reason? I manage to own both sets (including an Xbox 360) so I might as well come out clean that I do heavily favor the PC because I feel playing inside a box when playing consoles, while PC feels like running outside.

[itaChiMaRu]

Tol, it depends eh..

 

Pag first person shooters, I'd rather play it on the PC..

Mas madaling mag-target pag mouse ang gamit..

 

Pag mga Sports games naman like NBA or Car Sims, I prefer consoles..

It controls better pag console eh, mas accurate ang responses..

 

Bottom line, it all boils down to the game I am playing..

[mikeuwag]

I've got a ps2 and a home computer and frankly, I play more games on my computer than I do on my ps2. I even play Final Fantasy 7 and 8 on the PC... heheheheh

[GM Ruy Lopez]

PC still rules!

[Riot6]

Too expensive to keep upgrading my PC just to keep up with PC gaming hardware requirements.

 

So i bought a PS2 instead.

[joeglens]

before i was a hard core PC gamer but now i spend more time on my PS2 than on my PC.

 

Never felt wierd playing FPS on PS2 since i have my Keyboard/Mouse adapter

 

although what im going to say does not really translate better graphics but im saying that console optimizes its hardware better than PC since its very obvious that PC is a multiplatform that has many usage aside from games and to tweak the PC for maximum gaming performance you need to spend some more

 

PC has standards need to adhere so that other applications aside from games can run on it while console has its own standards just built around gaming. Until now the most expensive of processors for PC has only 64-bit databus and its even rare in consumer market since you need Windows XP x64 to fully optimize the usage of the processor and its very expensive, man 64-bit databus is 5th generation console which started during the release of PS1, N64, and Sega Saturn.

 

Now 6th Gen Console have 128-bit databus (PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, GameCube). 128-bit databus PC only exist as servers and mainframes and uses 2 64-bit processors, so i wouldn't call them PC since the word "Personal" does not apply them in my opinion

 

Processor speed of PS2 doesn't even reached 500Mhz but a 500Mhz PIII with its 32MB graphic card, and 128MB of memory which runs on 32-bit databus can't compre to the processing power PS2 which only has 4MB Graphic Synthesizer and 32MB of memory but runs on 128-bit databus. The best PC graphics out there are base on SLI Technology

 

The 7th gen console are even more powerful with Xbox 360's 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon", PS3 is also 3.2 Ghz PowerPC but has 7 3.2 Ghz SPE and its codename is "Cell" the newest processor to be developed not just for console but other applications as well, especially military computing hardware. Its the architecture is totally different from current processors which either uses Von Neuman or Harvard architecture

 

I'll probably spend more time again on PC if someone can make a successful Emulators for 6th Gen Console. That's how i base my assumption that PC is more powerful than console.

[azrach187]

before i was a hard core PC gamer but now i spend more time on my PS2 than on my PC.

 

Never felt wierd playing FPS on PS2 since i have my Keyboard/Mouse adapter

 

although what im going to say does not really translate better graphics but im saying that console optimizes its hardware better than PC since its very obvious that PC is a multiplatform that has many usage aside from games and to tweak the PC for maximum gaming performance you need to spend some more

 

PC has standards need  to adhere so that other applications aside from games can run on it while console has its own standards just built around gaming. Until now the most expensive of processors for PC has only 64-bit databus and its even rare in consumer market since you need Windows XP x64 to fully optimize the usage of the processor and its very expensive, man 64-bit databus is 5th generation console which started during the release of PS1, N64, and Sega Saturn.

 

Now 6th Gen Console have 128-bit databus (PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, GameCube). 128-bit databus PC only exist as servers and mainframes and uses 2 64-bit processors, so i wouldn't call them PC since the word "Personal" does not apply them in my opinion

 

Processor speed of PS2 doesn't even reached 500Mhz but a 500Mhz PIII with its 32MB graphic card, and 128MB of memory which runs on 32-bit databus can't compre to the processing power PS2 which only has 4MB Graphic Synthesizer and 32MB of memory but runs on 128-bit databus. The best PC graphics out there are base on SLI Technology

 

The 7th gen console are even more powerful with Xbox 360's 3.2Ghz IBM PowerPC tri-core codenamed "Xenon", PS3 is also 3.2 Ghz PowerPC but has 7 3.2 Ghz SPE and its codename is "Cell" the newest processor to be developed not just for console but other applications as well, especially military computing hardware. Its the architecture is totally different from current processors which either uses Von Neuman or Harvard architecture

 

I'll probably spend more time again on PC if someone can make a successful Emulators for 6th Gen Console. That's how i base my assumption that PC is more powerful than console.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought you were confusing the "64 bit" in console to the "64 bit support" of a PC. If you really believe consoles are "more powerful" than PC because they can't run console games, think again. I won't bore anyone with technical mumbo-jumbo for the simple fact that you are totally mistaken with "64 bit" in console to the "64 bit support" of a PC.

 

First and foremost, PC were generally built to run applications. The gaming arm was a byproduct or harnessing the power of the PC. As it stands, PC gamers are still treated as such, using a powerful machines for fun.

 

The problem with emulators basically evolves around copyright infringements. I remember in the late 90's when an enterprising company released a program so that you can play PS1 on a PC, costing a mere $50. Sony came down on the company hard, which was forced to withdrew the product. As PS1 slowly slid into obscurity, the company re-released its product, but by then no one is a bit interested.

 

A lesson learned, is that the game giants could care less if emulators are created on a machine that is impossible to earn profits from or is not worth the lawsuits. That is why it is easier to find PS1, NES (Super Famicom), N64, Sega /Master System/Genesis/Saturn, emulators if you are really creative enough in Google.

 

Hackers have had success in the past running PS2 and Xbox games in PCs, even as we speak, hacker are hard at work finding a way to play Xbox 360 games in PC. Do you really think there's a market once they have found a way? Yeah, right. Try going against a giant like Microsoft.

 

Emulators are basically sharewares/freewares. None or really small profit. I understand that some programmers are gifted enough to share their knowledge for free, but it is all a matter of economics. Are there emulators for PS2 and Xbox? Of-course. Are they in the internet? I don't doubt it. Is it worth the effort? No. For mere pocket change, you can go buy a PS2 and Xbox consoles and dive in the bargain bin to buy $2 games.

 

Especially nowadays, games are "ported" to console and PC (vise-versa) and released at the same time. Do you think game developers aren't aware of emulators? Why would I make a game for a console and PC, only for PCs to emulate the console games? Why not just throw money away?

 

Unfortunately, business/money/politics, is the reason why emulators appear only after the system is gone to console cemetery. Not that PC "aren't powerful" enough.

 

Obviously you have not played the likes of F.E.A.R. and Half-Life 2 in a gaming PC. If so, you wouldn't have any doubt.

[BlackWizard]

Console Gaming pa rin.

 

Natuto akong mag-gaming wala pa akong PC.

(Famicom)

 

Hindi pa rin mawawala yung satisfaction na namamaltos na yung mga daliri mo after hours and hours of gaming.

[jebaooBo]

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT GAMES YOU PLAY AND HOW FREQUENT YOU PLAY. I STARTED OUT AS A CONSOLE PLAYER AND I THOUGHT IT WAS THE BEST.I WAS ENJOYING IT FOR A YEAR OR SO BUT WHEN I TRIED PC GAMING I JUST GOT HOOKED!......FIRST OF ALL, PC GAMING HAS "THE' BEST GAMES IN THE PLANET! 2NDLY,PC GAMEPLAY IS FAST AND VERY RESPONSIVE! AND 3RDLY, CONSOLE GRAPHICS CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PC GAME GRAPHICS! ONCE YOUVE BUILD THE RIGHT MACHINE,ITS YOUR ALL IN ONE MACHINE--FOR WORK AND PLAY!! ENJOY COMPADRES!!!

[azrach187]

Hindi pa rin mawawala yung satisfaction na namamaltos na yung mga daliri mo after hours and hours of gaming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This comment cracked me up! So true. You aren't a gamer until you have proven blisters on your hand!

 

Edited May 22, 2006 by azrach187

[Kurtsky Keigee]

Its more expensive pag pc gaming, just look at the hardware requirements of todays games getting higher, you need to upgrade & upgradfe, as to console gaming, just need the console, sit bakc and relax..

[azrach187]

Its more expensive pag pc gaming, just look at the hardware requirements of todays games getting higher, you need to upgrade & upgradfe, as to console gaming, just need the console, sit bakc and relax..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very true.

 

But here's the catch, PC gamers (not casual gamers, mind you) knows that before they dwelve deeper in PC gaming. PC gamers demands the upgrades. Likewise, console gamers asks for better and better games as time moves on, PC gamers ask to push the technology farther, almost every week.

Edited May 22, 2006 by azrach187

[Phrozhen.Khold]

I'm more of a PC gamer rather than a console gamer... it is true that gaming actually depends on the availability of games and what system they could run at its best...

[joeglens]

i didn't confuse 64-bit console with 64-bit support PC, check my 64-bit link on my previous post to learn more about it. And mostly I'm talking about the databus, its the highway of information between components on the motherboard. No matter how fast the processor is if the databus is too narrow it will be overwhelmed by the slower processor with a wider databus since it takes less time to deliver more data, not process.

 

Just look at the requirements of running a PS1 emulator, if your PC processor is less than 400Mhz it lags very much. why since it takes two cycles to deliver a 64-bit data of a PS1 on a 32-bit databus of a PC.

 

And just to make clarifications as i stated earlier it never meant better graphics. Im talking about the computational power of the whole system.

[azrach187]

i didn't confuse 64-bit console with 64-bit support PC, check my 64-bit link on my previous post to learn more about it. And mostly I'm talking about the databus, its the highway of information between components on the motherboard. No matter how fast the processor is if the databus is too narrow it will be overwhelmed by the slower processor with a wider databus since it takes less time to deliver more data, not process.

 

Just look at the requirements of running a PS1 emulator, if your PC processor is less than 400Mhz it lags very much. why since it takes two cycles to deliver a 64-bit data of a PS1 on a 32-bit databus of a PC.

 

And just to make clarifications as i stated earlier it never meant better graphics. Im talking about the computational power of the whole system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude. It's very obvious you are not a PC gamer. 64-bit support for PC have come and gone. As a matter of fact, hardly any processor (even for laptops) isn't manufactured without 64-bits. The link you gave is outdated even before it was put in the net. As a matter of fact, I've gone through two 64-bit processor before that page was even created.

 

The AMD64 was released September 2003. It's old news not just to PC gamers, but to PC users in general. As a matter of fact, processors now runs DUAL CORES such as AMDs Opteron with 2 64-bit microprocessors and Pentium D which boast basically the same thing.

 

400Mhz? What do you mean? There's two different benchmark for Pent. and AMD processors. Dude, you can find processors that run at 2000Mhz HT operating at 1.8Ghz on AMD cheaper than say, a PS1 game console. At the same price you can get a Pentium at 800MHz operating at 3.0Ghz. Don't get yourself tangled up with procs spec since both CPUs run diffrently than the other.

 

I don't know how you can consider yourself a PC gamer if your PC is under par to the games being released today. It is like saying you are a gamer, but only owns the old famicom to back it up.

 

Since you like to do research before answering. I could have told you that you don't need to go very far looking for SLI video cards. We have been discussing this on the thread just above the video games thread. As a matter of fact, I have my system pictured here.

 

Oh, so just you know, I do own most console games including the newest Xbox 360. That is why I am brave enough to start a thread like this one. Yes, I am also disappointed at the 360 which after all the hype, is crappy. It tries to handle games realeased both to PC and 360, but graphic intensive games such as "Oblivion" becomes very laggy in 360 while PC (gaming ones) never had problems. As a matter of fact some console gamers thought the graphics on "Oblivion" was cutting edge. Yes. For them. PC gamers thought they're okay.

 

I suggest you drop by PC threads to see where "we" sit nowadays.