# PC Gaming: Better or Worse than a console?



## WolfTechnology (Nov 7, 2010)

Well, post your opinion below.

           I enjoy PC gaming because the interface doesn't just include what's on your screen, but also your keyboard. Mice are much more responsive than analog sticks, and you can make your graphics better/worse for optimum performance. Also, you don't need a microphone to communicate online! Instead of plugging in a mic to express your dissatisfaction at a hacker, you can type: 101 H4x0r!

    Oh yeah, you can play music in the backround while playing too... perhaps my favorite part! Hearing the death-scream of my enemy while head-banging to Unearth.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 7, 2010)

you should have made some prior research, son^^



WolfTechnology said:


> I enjoy PC gaming because the interface doesn't just include what's on your screen, but also your keyboard.



that works on consoles, too.



WolfTechnology said:


> Mice are much more responsive than analog sticks



once you get used to sticks it works just as well!



WolfTechnology said:


> and you can make your graphics better/worse for optimum performance.



why would i do that on a console? the game is designed to run at optimal performance on it, anyways.



WolfTechnology said:


> Also, you don't need a microphone to communicate online! Instead of plugging in a mic to express your dissatisfaction at a hacker, you can type: 101 H4x0r!



consoles have virtual and real keyboards, too. you can either bring up a menu or type on a keayboard that snaps on to your pad.
also, why would i want to do such a terrible thing?



WolfTechnology said:


> Oh yeah, you can play music in the backround while playing too... perhaps my favorite part! Hearing the death-scream of my enemy while head-banging to Unearth.


 
consoles can do that since the old xbox was released.

except for the controller and the ability to enjoy your games on a 5 billion inch TV screen there really is no difference between PC gaming and console gaming anymore...


----------



## Taralack (Nov 7, 2010)

Try harder, troll. :V


----------



## PATROL (Nov 7, 2010)

Okay, concoles aren't all that bad. Actually you can do pretty much anything with them when it comes to home entertainment.

Although everything has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Computer's gaming days are counted before it's outdated and needs expensive upgrades. But on the other hand computer can offer you better graphic experience and not to mention piracy (i know consoles can handle pirated games but tell that to the next xbox ban wave).

I preffer PC. Mostly because of mouse sensitivity. I play mostly action games and there are countless times when you need to turn around 180 degrees as fast as possible. Joystick just won't allow you to do it with the same speed. And piracy ofcourse.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Nov 7, 2010)

PC do have more options when playing a game. It a nice thing since some people need to have some things set lower or higher.
For the most part I go console. It has more games I want and like.
Tho some pc exclusives are great.

Tho if you have the pc for it games on it do look better. 
I am not in it for the graphics alone tho.


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 7, 2010)

I'm surprised no one just said PC is superior and left it at that.

Also CaptainCool, you just need a good video card to enable HDMI output to a TV. I use my Wii, PS3, and gaming rig all on that one TV.


----------



## SirRob (Nov 7, 2010)

Depends on what game you're playing.


----------



## Fenrari (Nov 7, 2010)

In my experience, I'd have to say the fact that PCs are more customizable to one's specific needs and functions as well as the wider array of functionality available. Not to mention, it's just not the same playing WoW on a Iphone.


----------



## mitchau (Nov 7, 2010)

It's too situational.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Nov 7, 2010)

Depends of the games.  FPSes and RTSes are better on PCs, but I prefer consoles for RPGs and platformers.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 7, 2010)

Both. They need each other to live, really - PC's rely on consoles for a library of games, while consoles rely on PC's for their continued technological advancements. Without one or the other, the game industry would stagnate and crash.

Personally, I do believe that mice are more accurate and faster than sticks. I can whip around in a fraction of a second, accurately, with a mouse, while it will literally take even the most skilled player much longer to do the same. Mice are more accurate because they are an absolute pointing device, and you aren't fighting the constant motion of the sticks - There's a reason why many console games have aim assist, while PC games don't. If you take two gamers of fairly equal skill, one using sticks and one using the mouse, the mouser will have a distinct advantage because of this. Keep in mind that many Games For Windows Live games support using the X-Box 360 controller for control, but I can't say I know of anyone actually using the controller over the keyboard and mouse. It's a distinct disadvantage. However, that only really applies to first-person shooters; In third person games like GTA4, or in driving games, I much prefer a gamepad. In flight sims, I very much prefer a joystick. It greatly depends on the game which control scheme is more attractive.

@CaptainCool: As for games designed to work at optimal performance, I think you need to look at a few good examples of console games that don't run at a solid 60FPS. Left 4 Dead is an amazing example of a game that's been stripped down graphically, and yet still plays like total ass on the 360. Fable 2 has issues at times, as well, especially in areas with waterfalls - The frame rate slows to a crawl. Not that I think graphics options would help simply _because_ the game is optimized as much as it is on a console, but the point is, on a PC, if this kind of thing happens, you more often than not _can_ adjust settings or otherwise squeeze more performance out of it in various ways. You can also achieve a much, _much_ higher quality in graphics for a similar frame rate than a console with even a budget gaming PC these days.

Also, PC's can output to a 5 billion inch TV screen, too - And with a decent video card, actually take advantage of its resolution, rather than scaling up to it from 720p like the PS3 (rare is the PS3 game that actually runs in 1080p) and 360 do.

The major advantage the consoles have over PC's is the accessibility and the consistency of the experience with services like PSN and X-Box Live. You don't have to deal with updating DirectX or your graphics drivers, you don't have to learn controls beyond the simplicity of the gamepad (which is actually quite complex compared to days of yore), and it's generally just easier to get into. There isn't really a major cost difference between a decent video card and a console, but there's still the illusion that gaming PC's are multi-thousand-dollar behemoths, which makes consoles seem more attractive. Consoles do crash, just as PC's do, and getting them up and running again can cost a lot more than a pizza and an evening with a techie friend, seeing as consoles aren't exactly user-repairable for the most part.

EDIT: @PATROL, you aren't seriously saying that piracy is a good thing, are you? Also, consoles require "upgrades", too - Each generation of console is phased out entirely after several years. Current PC's are entirely capable of outdoing any of the consoles available right now, and could continue to do so for a good while. The X-Box 360 and PS3 represent high-end PC's at around the time of their release, and to replicate their abilities, even just a modest rig (well under $1000 total, MAYBE $200 for a video card for a recent machine) will work just fine. Especially considering the case of Left 4 Dead, even the Low quality settings in most PC games are generally equal to that of the consoles, so realistically speaking, you could still be gaming on hardware released at the time of the 360's launch with about the same success. That said though, ports from consoles are generally quite lazily-optimized - Bad Company 2 is an amazing example of laziness, requiring a quad core CPU to even play smoothly.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 7, 2010)

Definitely depends on the game.

Playing consolized games like COD or newer Battlefield games can be a bit depressing, but I dare you to play games like Killing Floor, Red Orchestra, Arma and various RTS games on the console. Also, mods for games! And we get a fuckload of maps for games like Left 4 Dead!

Best part is, there's so much more shit you can do on a PC than a console. One of the things that make me laugh at consoles is the Live/PSN services. The Steam client is the best you can get.


----------



## NCollieboy (Nov 7, 2010)

I use my xbox to play games that would rape my comp (bfbc2, metro 2033).
I also have a console to play exclusives that are for it, like halo and fable. 
Also when it comes to fps's, Im just more used to playing them with an xbox controller than a keyboard and mouse.


----------



## Furlop (Nov 7, 2010)

I'd like to point out that Microsoft once tried to make cross-platform multiplayer between PC and Xbox with Shadowrun. It never get out of testing phase because


> â€œThe console players got destroyed every time. So much so that it would be embarrassing to the Xbox team in general had Microsoft launched this initiative.â€



FPS games are simply better on the PC. And ditto with any other game, too.


----------



## Otto042 (Nov 7, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> once you get used to sticks it works just as well


 
Nope.  Mouse will always be more precise.  The way joysticks are coded to send signal will forever keep them from being one pixel precise.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 7, 2010)

oh no, we already had our shitstorm about PC vs Consoles for the month already

and again to the PS3 users of UT3 are using a mouse and Keyboard to play that game


----------



## Lapdog (Nov 7, 2010)

Lets hope this doesn't go to a PS3 vs XBOX360 thing... I can't bear another.
However, on topic.
It all depends on: Game, Interface (Both console & PC), Ease of use, Graphics (Capabilities and overall look) and finally the Specs.

I'm not going into depth here.


----------



## RockTheFur (Nov 7, 2010)

PC for the win! Mods, epic PC only games, ports from both PS3 and Xbox-360, torrents, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
I truly prefer PC gaming. It has a lot more features, and building a custom computer is really fun to do.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 7, 2010)

What is nice about consoles? 

The hardware is predetermined. For the most part, you don't have to worry if it meets system requirements, because it was developed specifically for that hardware.
Screen size: TVs are usually bigger than monitors in an average house.
It's more portable than a computer
Controllers: I fucking love them. Buttons are all clustered in the same, easy to get to locations, and are still easy to distinguish from each other. It's not like a keyboard clusterfuck with 50% of the keys doing nothing.
They last longer before needing to upgrade than computers do.

Don't get me wrong though, I like PC's better for somethings.

I just prefer console 4 times out of 5.


----------



## Oovie (Nov 7, 2010)

I've got no reason to play consoles anymore, I frankly wish I could get my money back up to the N64 days. I could do without anything after that.



CaptainCool said:


> once you get used to sticks it works just as well!


 Sticks aren't even near the same level as mice, I can't even imagine console and PC players playing together, it'd be a slaughter.


----------



## Zydala (Nov 7, 2010)

I don't have the scratch to keep up with pc gaming (I always buy lower-end laptops) so I've always just used consoles for most things

also I run linux :I that makes running things harder, lol.

But I also appreciate a lot of aspects of PC gaming and know that one isn't necessarily better than the other. A lot of what Runefox said is what I think of the whole pc vs console thing.


----------



## Riley (Nov 7, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> oh no, we already had our shitstorm about PC vs Consoles for the month already
> 
> and again to the PS3 users of UT3 are using a mouse and Keyboard to play that game


 
UT3 was slowed down drastically compared to its predecessors to play on consoles, though.  Consoles will never have the speed of gameplay present on a computer.  The controller is just too clunky and imprecise to compare to a PC's ability of snap or twitch aiming and single-pixel aim adjustments.



Oovie said:


> I've got no reason to play consoles anymore, I  frankly wish I could get my money back up to the N64 days. I could do  without anything after that.
> 
> 
> Sticks aren't even near the  same level as mice, I can't even imagine console and PC players playing  together, it'd be a slaughter.


 
I think there was a game that had the multiplayer for console and PC merged - it ended with the PC players always winning, and they eventually split the multiplayer to different platforms.


----------



## Ames (Nov 7, 2010)

Try to play quake live with a console controller.  I dare you.


----------



## doublezingo (Nov 8, 2010)

Man I'm totally fine with consoles and all that.
Up until this bloody 360/ps3 hogwash. I mean really, disabling features to keep the pirates? I guess they got the killswitch in their office for every game. Turns out a sony licensed game isn't following the full extent of the license? Watch as sony disables your PS3 from running that title.
It's kinda dumb having a third party deciding what goes on with YOUR hardware you know. I mean sure you could pull hairs apart saying the firmware, you're only using under a license and all that crap... but come on...

Atleast with windows you can turn off updates.
As far as just playing darn games, they're evenly matched but I tend to play computer games.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 8, 2010)

Riley said:


> UT3 was slowed down drastically compared to its predecessors to play on consoles, though.  Consoles will never have the speed of gameplay present on a computer.  The controller is just too clunky and imprecise to compare to a PC's ability of snap or twitch aiming and single-pixel aim adjustments.


but wasnt the PC version fixed back to how they usually do it for PC.




Riley said:


> I think there was a game that had the multiplayer for console and PC merged - it ended with the PC players always winning, and they eventually split the multiplayer to different platforms.


there was, they then tried a match of: pro Consoles players vs casual/medicore PC players, the pc still dominated the console ones


----------



## doublezingo (Nov 8, 2010)

UT3 is kinda doomed anyway since the community is dead. UT3 felt more like an elaborate UE3 techdemo than a game.
Still had some fun botmatches. Especially with that 250 bot mod or w/e.
Too bad 2k4 is kinda really dead. Oh well, time to play more tf2 I guess.

I think I'm gonna be done with multi fps after tf2's done.


----------



## Pine (Nov 8, 2010)

I prefer to play PC because I don't want to pay for Xbox Live, Wii's online gaming sucks, and PS3 is pretty much CoD infested with a bunch of wiggers and 12 year old boys (or any combination of the two).

Also, TF2, CSS, Gmod, and Steam pwn

but that doesn't mean I don't like console games. I love to play the drums on GH or Halo sometimes. Once in a while when I'm REALLY bored I will play Super Smash Bros Brawl.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 8, 2010)

doublezingo said:


> UT3 is kinda doomed anyway since the community is dead. UT3 felt more like an elaborate UE3 techdemo than a game.
> Still had some fun botmatches. Especially with that 250 bot mod or w/e.
> Too bad 2k4 is kinda really dead. Oh well, time to play more tf2 I guess.
> 
> I think I'm gonna be done with multi fps after tf2's done.


2k4 isnt dead, everyone ran back to 2k4 and 99 after seeing UT3

also
I feel so damn sorry about the TF2 group on 360


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 8, 2010)

JamesB said:


> Try to play quake live with a console controller.  I dare you.


 And there ends the thread.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 8, 2010)

I like to Mod...
A lot.


----------



## Coyotez (Nov 9, 2010)

I used to be a console-fag, and had an XBOX. Played online, and stuff. Then I was introduced to the _Glorious PC Master race_ which had no dumb monthly fees, modding abilities on all games, larger community, easier controls, and shit like that.

The analog sticks of a controller will _never_ compare to the reacion speeds of a mouse and keyboard. _*NEVER*_. You might be "good" on it, but you'll never beat someone with a mouse and keyboard.

Updates and free DLCs. Never heard of such a thing on a console, have you now? Look at L4D for the console. You'd have to pay about 300 bucks, JUST to get ALL the DLCs - and then there are the odds only half of the games owners will get it, making the community you play with a _lot_ smaller.

Graphics. God, I can't stand the graphics on Team Fortress 2 or Left 4 Dead on a console. Halo Reach would look so much better on PC.
GTA IV ISN'T a lag-fest on the PC. You actually CAN blow up two cars at the same time without lagging.

And then the community. Ever joined a game on a console, waited 5 seconds, and the heard some 5 year old kid yell "OMG U KILD ME BUTS I WAS TRAYIN TO B NISSEEE!!!!!??". Yeah, nobody likes that. The PC community has it, but in a much, _much_ smaller scale.

So basically:
Controls suck.
Graphics suck.
Community sucks.
Modability non-existent.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 9, 2010)

Coyotez said:


> Graphics suck.


 
Actually, from what I've noticed, graphics tend to be better on console versions for the most part.

Once again, probably because hardware is predetermined, so they can push the limit and not have to deal with people with various hardwares bawwwing because it doesn't work on their set up.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 9, 2010)

Coyotez said:


> GTA IV ISN'T a lag-fest on the PC. You actually CAN blow up two cars at the same time without lagging.


 
Did you perhaps use NASA's supercomputers to get that running without lag? Because GTA IV is probably one of the worst ports I've seen.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 9, 2010)

Ishnuvalok said:


> Did you perhaps use NASA's supercomputers to get that running without lag? Because GTA IV is probably one of the worst ports I've seen.


 
Not as bad as Bad Company 2.


----------



## Riley (Nov 9, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Actually, from what I've noticed, graphics tend to be better on console versions for the most part.
> 
> Once again, probably because hardware is predetermined, so they can push the limit and not have to deal with people with various hardwares bawwwing because it doesn't work on their set up.


 
Not quite.  Games on consoles run at a lower framerate, lower resolution, and are usually set to low or medium of what they could look like on a well-built (not bleeding edge) gaming rig.  Consoles hardly ever have anti-aliasing enabled, so edges of models onscreen tend to be sharp and have jaggies, as well as not having vertical sync enabled, which causes tearing, or the displacement of stuff onscreen when moving the camera quickly in one direction.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2010)

Console all the way. Less is likely to go wrong.


----------



## Riptor (Nov 9, 2010)

Personally, I'd say I'd prefer console gaming, but mostly because the library on consoles tends to have more of the genres I tend to like more, like platformers, fighting games, and arcade games. The PC tends more to games like RTSes and realistic war shooters (although there's plenty of those on the consoles, too), which aren't really my thing. Sure, there's some great stuff on the PC that'd fit reasonably well on a console, like Claw, Jazz Jackrabbit and such, but everything like that on PC these days is just a console port.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 9, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Actually, from what I've noticed, graphics tend to be better on console versions for the most part.
> 
> Once again, probably because hardware is predetermined, so they can push the limit and not have to deal with people with various hardwares bawwwing because it doesn't work on their set up.


 Consoles are always set to medium high graphics, and oh btw, depending on the console too.
Remember that lil bitch fight between 360 and PS3 on graphics on how some games look better on the other.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 9, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Not as bad as Bad Company 2.


 
I could run Bad Company 2 smoothly with an 8800, Core 2 Duo and 2gigs of RAM at 40+ FPS on high settings. 

Never had performance problems. Other than seemingly random crashes that would freeze my comp.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 9, 2010)

PC.

The mods you can get, man! THE MODS. (the good kind)

Also, I can't stand the controller of consoles. They're just not as well-adapted to games as a mouse and keyboard.

Racing games and some other fighting-style games (like Assassin's Creed) are better for the consoles, though.



Ishnuvalok said:


> I could run Bad Company 2 smoothly with an  8800, Core 2 Duo and 2gigs of RAM at 40+ FPS on high settings.
> 
> Never had performance problems. Other than seemingly random crashes that would freeze my comp.


 
That game was so well-optimized, I cried tears of joy when I was clocking in over 100 fps.


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 9, 2010)

Xenke said:


> *Actually, from what I've noticed, graphics tend to be better on console versions for the most part.*
> 
> Once again, probably because hardware is predetermined, so they can push the limit and not have to deal with people with various hardwares bawwwing because it doesn't work on their set up.


 




Ahahahah, that was pretty funny.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 9, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Consoles are always set to medium high graphics, and oh btw, depending on the console too.
> Remember that lil bitch fight between 360 and PS3 on graphics on how some games look better on the other.


 
You mean like Bayonetta!?!?!

Where 360 clearly won.


----------



## Zydala (Nov 10, 2010)

that's because it was ported from 360 to ps3 during development and they just tweaked it. obviously not tweaked enough, I gotta say.

kinda like how final fantasy XIII was better on the ps3... because it was made for it, and then ported to the 360 later in development

I dunno at this point it doesn't really matter, just play your games.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> You mean like Bayonetta!?!?!
> 
> Where 360 clearly won.


 its cause Bayonetta was FOR the 360, 

now dont believe the whole multi crap, usually the game is meant for one of the consoles and just getting ported to the other.
Thats why it looked good on the 360 over ps3


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> its cause Bayonetta was FOR the 360,
> 
> now dont believe the whole multi crap, usually the game is meant for one of the consoles and just getting ported to the other.
> Thats why it looked good on the 360 over ps3


 
True.

Back on the main topic though: consoles achieve good graphics at a much lower cost than upgrading/buying a computer most of the time.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> True.
> 
> Back on the main topic though: consoles achieve good graphics at a much lower cost than upgrading/buying a computer most of the time.


 but I dont need to upgrade my computer for another 5 years, thats the average upgrading time for computers to stay with gaming.


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 10, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> but I dont need to upgrade my computer for another 5 years, thats the average upgrading time for computers to stay with gaming, *and is generally much cheaper.*


 
Fixed for truth.


----------



## Azure (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> What is nice about consoles?
> 
> The hardware is predetermined. For the most part, you don't have to worry if it meets system requirements, because it was developed specifically for that hardware.




So you just play with the same graphics card until they come out with new shit, eh? I can change mine anytime, and it's a lot cheaper than buying a new console, and it looks so much better it's a joke to compare the two. And I have a laptop.


Xenke said:


> [*]Screen size: TVs are usually bigger than monitors in an average house.


Ever heard of an HDMI cable? Clearly not.


Xenke said:


> [*]It's more portable than a computer


Laptops? Niggaplz


Xenke said:


> [*]Controllers: I fucking love them. Buttons are all clustered in the same, easy to get to locations, and are still easy to distinguish from each other. It's not like a keyboard clusterfuck with 50% of the keys doing nothing.


Enjoy your lack of gameplay modability, and always dying to some 8 year old with a MOUSE AND KEYBOARD! Seriously, I don't even have to try to kill people online who play with those retarded analog shits





Xenke said:


> [*]They last longer before needing to upgrade than computers do.


Uh, no. That is all.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 10, 2010)

I agree, PC gaming is a lot cheaper. Games are a lot cheaper than they are on consoles and when you need to step up a notch, it will cost you less than Â£100 (or maybe a bit more) for a new PC part to, say, run Crysis at the absolute maximum.

When something in the console goes wrong, you more often than not need to buy the console all over again. Also, when games advance, everyone buys the new expensive console, splits the console gaming community and so many games for the older platforms are likely to be forgotten forever. (like when Ps3 arrived, Ps2 games were still being chucked out for a bit but hardly anybody bought them because they weren't new).

Also, Steam client!


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2010)

Cost of PC gaming:

You have a PC, right? If not, you need to buy one. Since you're buying a PC, the base cost of the PC is a moot point, since you were going to have a PC for non-gaming purposes, anyway. Fast-forward a little and the only real thing you need to worry about is a video card (unless you went with the cheapest PC available, in which case, well, you're a moron or you shouldn't be looking at gaming anyway if your budget is that low), which most mid-range cards go for around $150-$250. Hey, look, instant gaming PC. If you have an old PC and you're trying to upgrade it, you're basically doing the same thing as trying to stuff a PS3 game into a PS2 - Get a new PC, most of the parts in a PC aren't designed to last past 5 years anyway, and if you've got a cheap brand-name PC, you only had a year's warranty to begin with.

Anyway, say you were gonna buy a new PC, and you wanted to do gaming. Let's break it down:
*New PC*: ~$700-800 for one that won't implode in a year's time. This will usually come with a quad core processor and 6GB of RAM nowadays, which blows my gaming PC out of the water. It may even come with a half-decent video card able to handle Source engine games and older games fairly well, which means you don't need to go any further if that's all you want.
*Video card*: $150-$250 (lasts for about 3-5 years depending on the games, much like consoles themselves)
*Total spent on gaming*: $0-$250 = Upper range is equal to the cost of major consoles in mid to late life cycle, while actually being far more powerful. Driving equivalent graphics quality to consoles with this kind of card can be done _indefinitely_ for as long as equivalent consoles exist. A good example of a card in this range that runs circles around the 360 and PS3 in image quality and speed is the Radeon HD 6850 or the GeForce GTX 460.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Laptops? Niggaplz


 
Laptops? Niggaplz.

Laptops are wrong for gaming.

Unless you're will to shell out wads of cash.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Laptops? Niggaplz.
> 
> Laptops are wrong for gaming.
> 
> Unless you're will to shell out wads of cash.


 
My $600 ASUS laptop runs Crysis 20-60 fps at 1366x768 resolution on High Settings. 

I don't get why some people think you need to fork out $1500 for a good gaming laptop, some gaming laptops come very cheap, like my $600 one, and they can run everything just fine.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 10, 2010)

Darkwing said:


> My $600 ASUS laptop runs Crysis 20-60 fps at 1366x768 resolution on High Settings.
> 
> I don't get why some people think you need to fork out $1500 for a good gaming laptop, some gaming laptops come very cheap, like my $600 one, and they can run everything just fine.


 
It may not be much in the the world of computing, but for the same price I could get a new 250GB Xbox 360 bundled with the Kinect and a new Wii.

Granted, they don't have the same functionality as a computer, but we're just talking about gaming here.


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2010)

I prefer PC because I actually have a say in the experience. I don't like the locked down feel of consoles, the choices are extremely limited; and you pretty much have to put up with what you get. Most people like the simplicity of consoles and are willing to trade certain freedoms for lower costs and accessibility, personally I wouldn't.

I don't like the console industry either, it's full of spin. Some people like to list the low level of advertising on PC as a bad thing, but I find it makes it more legit. PC gamers tend to be more technically minded, because they have to learn this stuff to be able to upgrade and compare parts. Console gamers tend to be more hype oriented, so you get PS3 gamers who still think their console is more powerful than a modern gaming PC; even in 2010 (thanks for the headache Sony...).


----------



## Runefox (Nov 10, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Granted, they don't have the same functionality as a computer, but we're just talking about gaming here.


 
If you are buying a computer solely for gaming and nothing else, then you're buying a console. Computers have other functionality, and the base functionality of a computer can't be counted as the same cost as what you're putting into it for gaming. You're buying a computer anyway to be a computer, the extra cost associated with a gaming rig is the cost to compare with against consoles. See my earlier post.


----------



## Wreth (Nov 11, 2010)

As the owner of a 360, and a PS3, but not a gaming PC.

PC is better.

PC has mods

Anything you can do on a console you can do on a PC, use a controller, a mic, whatever.

Why do I have the consoles I have then?

Exclusives


----------



## Azure (Nov 11, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Laptops? Niggaplz.
> 
> Laptops are wrong for gaming.
> 
> Unless you're will to shell out wads of cash.



I bought it 2 years ago, for 1,000. I do a whole lot more than game on it, and I do all of it better.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 11, 2010)

Wreth said:


> As the owner of a 360, and a PS3, but not a gaming PC.
> 
> PC is better.
> 
> ...


 That later on become normal things released on PC oh wait for free


----------



## Point_Blank (Nov 11, 2010)

PC > Everything

/thread


----------



## Wreth (Nov 11, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> That later on become normal things released on PC oh wait for free


 
Not games. :/

Have fun playing ratchet and clank, uncharted etc on PC


----------



## Takun (Nov 11, 2010)

PCs win.

The end.

Back to playing Earthbound on my laptop.  n_n


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 14, 2010)

Wreth said:


> Not games. :/
> 
> Have fun playing ratchet and clank, uncharted etc on PC


 Well, at least we know that if they were ever on PC, they would be freakin' easy to run on computers.

If they require high specifications, it's the developer's fault for not optimizing it well enough.


----------



## Atona (Nov 14, 2010)

Honestly, I prefer console. No fuss over compatibility with random parts, no waiting on installation, no errors. I may miss out on mods and glitch fixes, but at the same time I don't have the companies grubby little fingers all up in my computer, removing files, forcing updates on me, forcing me to be connected to the internet, etc.

Yes, I am a lazy control freak HOW DID YOU KNOW


----------



## Riley (Nov 15, 2010)

Atona said:


> Honestly, I prefer console. No fuss over compatibility with random parts, no waiting on installation, no errors. I may miss out on mods and glitch fixes, but at the same time I don't have the *companies grubby little fingers all up in my computer, removing files, forcing updates on me, forcing me to be connected to the internet, etc.*
> 
> Yes, I am a lazy control freak HOW DID YOU KNOW


 
Yes you do.  Consoles have that way worse than computers.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 15, 2010)

PC Gaming is BETTER, hands down.  Except for things like portable gaming, of course.



Riley said:


> Yes you do.  Consoles have that way worse than computers.



It's less glaringly obvious/obtrusive a lot of the time, though.


----------



## Riley (Nov 15, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's less glaringly obvious/obtrusive a lot of the time, though.



I'd personally say that makes the situation worse.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 15, 2010)

I like how none of my consoles have ever failed on me, and I've had several computer failures. :I

And yes, I abuse them equally.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 15, 2010)

Xenke said:


> I like how none of my consoles have ever failed on me, and I've had several computer failures. :I
> 
> And yes, I abuse them equally.


 Notice how my consoles fail more than me than my comp of 9 years straight
only one that havent fail on me yet is my Dreamcast


----------



## Xenke (Nov 15, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Notice how my consoles fail more than me than my comp of 9 years straight
> only one that havent fail on me yet is my Dreamcast


 
Sometimes I feel I'm the only one who hasn't had their 360 fail...


----------



## Atona (Nov 15, 2010)

Riley said:


> Yes you do.  Consoles have that way worse than computers.


 
How so? Even if there was something going on behind the scenes, I can say that I've never bought a console game that forced me to format my entire system due to some fucked up error. MAYBE once in a while, a 360 game will make me connect to the internet for an update. But it at least tells me "hey, you won't be able to play until you update." It won't wait until I'm fucking idle to sneak an update in that fucks up my game and forces me to reinstall.http://forums.furaffinity.net/members/9186-Crysix-Fousen

Crysix Fousen proves though, that it's more about someones personal experiences. Some people have bad luck with consoles, while people like me have horrible luck with computers. I'm honestly shocked when I get through an installation with no hiccups or serious errors, and that kills PC gaming for me.


----------



## Riley (Nov 15, 2010)

Atona said:


> How so? Even if there was something going on behind the scenes, I can say that I've never bought a console game that forced me to format my entire system due to some fucked up error. MAYBE once in a while, a 360 game will make me connect to the internet for an update. But it at least tells me "hey, you won't be able to play until you update." It won't wait until I'm fucking idle to sneak an update in that fucks up my game and forces me to reinstall.
> 
> Crysix Fousen proves though, that it's more about someones personal experiences. Some people have bad luck with consoles, while people like me have horrible luck with computers. I'm honestly shocked when I get through an installation with no hiccups or serious errors, and that kills PC gaming for me.


Consoles are locked down so much, only Apple rivals them for "crazy shit they can fuck up while your not looking."

Microsoft/the publisher controls every aspect of online.  Earlier this year EA shut down over a dozen games' multiplayer on sports titles, just because they were the 2007 or 2008 version.  A couple titles from 2009 even got their multiplayer shut off, I think.  That big thing with Halo 2's MP just happened a couple months ago.  Any title with multiplayer has a lifespan that starts ticking away the moment it gets put on shelves.  

Microsoft and Sony can and will ban your console if you're suspected of cheating in games, or doing something they didn't tell you that you weren't allowed to, preventing you from ever going online with it.  

The whole concept of "DLC" evolved out of the little extras game companies thought people would enjoy, back in the last few decades.  The Unreal Tournament 2004 EPIC Bonus Pack was put up on Epic's site a year after the game was released, and added in over a dozen maps and new vehicles.  Now, if that same deal was for a console game?  $15, maybe $20 for all that, please.  The parent companies prevent developers from offering free add-ons (with the very rare exception of tiny, tiny things), and the publishers are all too eager to agree.

Indie games trying to make a name for themselves on the marketplace of a console have to deal with strict guidelines set in place by MS/Sony, or else be refused the ability to sell their product.  Just recently MS removed a bunch of indie titles from the XBL Arcade because they didn't fit in with the new "family image" they're trying to sell with Kinect.  

Microsoft has been accused of using the images captured by Kinect to target the user for more specific advertising.  They denied the accusation, but the capability is still there.  http://kotaku.com/5689714/is-kinect-reporting-what-it-sees-to-advertisers

There's also this:  http://kotaku.com/5683022/two-important-questions-about-playing-kinect-naked

The list goes on, and I'm sure other people would be able to offer better examples than I can right now.  The bottom line, though, is that while consoles might have the illusion of perfect transparency, for all that you don't see, there's a whole mess of stuff going on that leaves your console barely your own.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 15, 2010)

PATROL said:


> I preffer PC. Mostly because of mouse sensitivity. I play mostly action games and there are countless times when you need to turn around 180 degrees as fast as possible. Joystick just won't allow you to do it with the same speed.


 
Holy God yes. I cannot stand the horrid idea of using this little piloting stick to move your guy when you can move him around much more easily with a mouse.

That and the mods.



Crysix Fousen said:


> Notice how my consoles fail more than me than my comp of 9 years straight
> only one that havent fail on me yet is my Dreamcast


 
I've had two RROD's, and my friend had one, and his also ate up every single CoD disk from Modern Warfare onward. Literally every game, once.
My PC crashes every four hundred hours of gaming (every one hundred if it's a Bethesda game), but at least it doesn't rape my disks to hell.


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 15, 2010)

Gah! Personal preferances! As for me, mice(as in the thing used for most computer gaming) are terrified of me, I've broken 5? about because they just piss me off.  Personally I find it easier to use a thumbstick because it doesnt have the limited range of a mouse pad and such.


----------



## Riley (Nov 15, 2010)

Commiecomrade said:


> Holy God yes. I cannot stand the horrid idea of using this little piloting stick to move your guy when you can move him around much more easily with a mouse.
> 
> That and the mods.
> 
> ...



I restarted my computer for the first time in just under a month today, only because I was installing new graphics card drivers.  Although my Bethesda-induced restarts are about every 2 or 3 hours if I attempt to play Fallout 3.



zallens177 said:


> Gah! Personal preferances! As for me, mice(as  in the thing used for most computer gaming) are terrified of me, I've  broken 5? about because they just piss me off.  Personally I find it  easier to use a thumbstick because it doesnt have the limited range of a  mouse pad and such.


 
I love my trackball.  Fast, easily controlled aiming done by 3 fingertips, and the maximum fire rate on weapons in shooters because of the way my thumb is positioned.  The only space I need is the 6 inch by 3 inch little rectangle it takes up.  Which is good, because it's wedged between 2 different monitors, a speaker, and my keyboard.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 15, 2010)

Atona said:


> Honestly, I prefer console. No fuss over compatibility with random parts, no waiting on installation, no errors. I may miss out on mods and glitch fixes, but at the same time I don't have the companies grubby little fingers all up in my computer, removing files, forcing updates on me, forcing me to be connected to the internet, etc.


 
Oh hey, it's Microsoft. I need you to update LIVE again. If you're going to be a dick about it and decline, then I'll just pull your service right here...


----------



## zallens177 (Nov 15, 2010)

I think, if i grew up playing on the computer over growing up with consoles, I would be more used to keyboard and mouse interactions. But until about a year or two ago, I barely if ever relyed on my computer for entertainment.


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 15, 2010)

No such thing as "luck" with "computers". That just means you are inexperienced. Consoles are solely there to make everything easier.

Also, if you're going to complain about "limited range on PC aiming" somehow, raise your sensitivity and get used to it.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Nov 15, 2010)

PC gaming is superior in every point.


----------



## Cacao (Nov 16, 2010)

Goddammit, all of you are praising computer gaming like it's the fucking shit when it takes 600+$ to get anything reasonable working good enough to be enjoyable.  Even then you need a great internet connection which is another monthly payment that can be reduced if you just play console games.  I agree FPS's are superior on PC's (mainly due to the availability of more buttons and macros and a mouse for aiming), but adventure games and fighters are VASTLY superior on consoles, hands down.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2010)

Cacao said:


> Goddammit, all of you are praising computer gaming like it's the fucking shit when it takes 600+$ to get anything reasonable working good enough to be enjoyable.  Even then you need a great internet connection which is another monthly payment that can be reduced if you just play console games.  I agree FPS's are superior on PC's (mainly due to the availability of more buttons and macros and a mouse for aiming), but adventure games and fighters are VASTLY superior on consoles, hands down.


 
YOU ULTIMATELY GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

The PC is a versatile and powerful platform that will ALWAYS set the pace for video gaming no matter how hard the consolefags pull against it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2010)

Cacao said:


> Goddammit, all of you are praising computer gaming like it's the fucking shit when it takes 600+$ to get anything reasonable working good enough to be enjoyable.  Even then you need a great internet connection which is another monthly payment that can be reduced if you just play console games.  I agree FPS's are superior on PC's (mainly due to the availability of more buttons and macros and a mouse for aiming), but adventure games and fighters are VASTLY superior on consoles, hands down.


 WAIT
WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE



Cacao said:


> Goddammit, all of you are praising computer gaming  like it's the fucking shit when it takes 600+$ to get anything  reasonable working good enough to be enjoyable.*  Even then you need a  great internet connection which is another monthly payment that can be  reduced if you just play console games.*  I agree FPS's are superior on  PC's (mainly due to the availability of more buttons and macros and a  mouse for aiming), but adventure games and fighters are VASTLY superior  on consoles, hands down.


Sorry the same thing applies to console too
Now let me enjoy my list of free to play games, mods, and extras we can pull off.
and again my computer of only 300usd and I can enjoy games at high, enjoy your consoles set to medium high as every time you guys do lose against us in graphics you know


and again I feel sorry for the 360 TF2 group


----------



## Riley (Nov 16, 2010)

Consoles don't have Octodad.  This is why they're worse.

Consoles have their place as a stepping stone to a real gaming platform, just like how a Mac is a stepping stone to using a real computer.



Crysix Fousen said:


> and again I feel sorry for the 360 TF2 group


Yeah, they still haven't even gotten a single bug fix.  Though the PS3 crowd (all 10 of them that can run it) are probably worse off.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2010)

Riley said:


> Consoles don't have Octodad.  This is why they're worse.
> 
> Consoles have their place as a stepping stone to a real gaming platform, just like how a Mac is a stepping stone to using a real computer.
> 
> ...


 We are having these awesome custom maps...they dont have jack shiz, and I hear they ALWAYS behind on updates


----------



## Riley (Nov 16, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> We are having these awesome custom maps...they dont have jack shiz, and I hear they ALWAYS behind on updates


 
That's the whole "Microsoft demands Valve charge money for every content update" thing.  Seeing as how TF2 has had almost 200 patches since it was released, that would be asking console players to buy over $1000 worth of DLC to get every single one.  Even if you break it down into individual packages, it still gets out of hand.

General Bugfix Pack - $5
Scout Update - $10
Soldier Update - $10
Pyro Update - $10
Demoman Update - $10
Heavy Update - $10
Engineer Update - $10
Medic Update - $10
Sniper Update - $10
Spy Update - $10
Payload/Payload Race Pack - $15
King of the Hill Pack - $15
Arena Pack - $10
Classless Update - $15
Polycount Update, Scout - $10
Polycount Update, Soldier - $10
Polycount Update, Pyro - $10
Polycount Update, Sniper - $10
Polycount Update, Spy - $10
Polycount Update, Misc - $5

Obviously those numbers and update chunks came from nowhere, but seeing the way extra content is handled on consoles, I don't think it's too far-fetched.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 16, 2010)

Riley said:


> That's the whole "Microsoft demands Valve charge money for every content update" thing.  Seeing as how TF2 has had almost 200 patches since it was released, that would be asking console players to buy over $1000 worth of DLC to get every single one.  Even if you break it down into individual packages, it still gets out of hand.
> 
> *General Bugfix Pack - $5
> Scout Update - $10
> ...


 
Things in bold would probably be free.

My experience with 360 DLC is that things that either increase performance, adjust balancing, update graphics, or fix bugs are always free and download automatically.

Things that actually add something cost money. Like, in TF2's case, weapons, maps, and play types would cost money, and would be released in packs, not individually.

Additionally, I don't know how much of a hand Microsoft has in DLC, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly up to the developers about whether they're going to charge for something.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Things in bold would probably be free.
> 
> My experience with 360 DLC is that things that either increase performance, adjust balancing, update graphics, or fix bugs are always free and download automatically.
> 
> ...


 
Then why Valve give PC the updates for Free, again its been pointed out it be Microsoft on all the stuff for Xbawks360


----------



## Kirbizard (Nov 16, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> and again I feel sorry for the 360 TF2 group


 
I don't know, I mean, they don't have to deal with the massive unbalancing the new weapons have caused. :v

Also TF2 for the XBox will probably never get updated, ever. The game size has effectively doubled since it came out, and with more updates on the way, it would just be easier to release it as a new game with all the updates included on the disc. :v

I actually like both consoles and PC for different reasons. PCs are better overall, but having to load up my computer each time I want to play something is a hassle, it's also uncomfortable sitting at my desk for long periods of time. Sometimes I just want to turn the game right on and play away slouched on my bed, that's where consoles come in and I love them all the more for it. :3


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2010)

Kirbizard said:


> I don't know, I mean, they don't have to deal with the massive unbalancing the new weapons have caused. :v
> 
> Also TF2 for the XBox will probably never get updated, ever. The game size has effectively doubled since it came out, and with more updates on the way, it would just be easier to release it as a new game with all the updates included on the disc. :v
> 
> I actually like both consoles and PC for different reasons. PCs are better overall, but having to load up my computer each time I want to play something is a hassle, it's also uncomfortable sitting at my desk for long periods of time. Sometimes I just want to turn the game right on and play away slouched on my bed, that's where consoles come in and I love them all the more for it. :3


 what unbalance, all the fixes were based on what got more bitching over the other :V


----------



## Kirbizard (Nov 16, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> what unbalance, all the fixes were based on what got more bitching over the other :V


 
Not always, Natasha gets a lot of bitching and that's still not been changed. Also set bonuses are the worst offender. :E


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 16, 2010)

Kirbizard said:


> Not always, Natasha gets a lot of bitching and that's still not been changed. Also set bonuses are the worst offender. :E


 Folks arent bitching enough, BITCH SOME MOAR


----------



## xiath (Nov 17, 2010)

The way I see it is somewhere along the lines of:

     Console gaming is cheaper. 

     PC gaming offers more customization. (ie.easy to access mods [Like I use a mod for TF2 that lowers the graphics level even lower than the game will normally let you, thus squeezing every ounce of performance out while sacrificing {unnecessary IMO} graphics])

     Playing LAN style multiplayer is easier on a console than it is one PC.  (ie.  Just plug four controllers into a console vs. lugging four PC's around and setting up a LAN party)

     Standard controllers are easier than mice to use for some people.

     Mice are easier than controllers to use for some people.

     Mice are generally more precise than analog sticks on controllers.  (It takes me about 23 inches to do a 360 degree turn in TF2 as a scout.  If I were to have the sensitivity set that low on a console controller I would not be able to turn around fast enough and if I were to turn it up too much I would over shoot my target)

    Good gaming mice can be more expensive than controllers.  (You really don't need a gaming mouse unless you either need more buttons or a better sensor [like I couldn't have my sensitivity as low as I have it now with my old generic Dell mouse because if I made any sort of fast movement my pointer would freak out where as I have a VERY hard time making my current mouse bug out by doing fast movements]) {my mouse costs about $60 if anyone was wondering}

That being said, my personal preference is PC.  But it really just boils down to personal preference.


----------



## Superscooter143 (Nov 17, 2010)

Okay, here's some "skill" proof.

[video=youtube;zBc3-1Gbbo4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBc3-1Gbbo4[/video]

We win.


----------



## PoisonUnagi (Nov 17, 2010)

Toraneko said:


> Try harder, troll. :V



Dunno why you say that, he succeeded within  _one _post.

I prefer PC, just because the interface is more natural to me.


----------



## Furlop (Nov 18, 2010)

Superscooter143 said:


> Okay, here's some "skill" proof.
> 
> [video=youtube;zBc3-1Gbbo4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBc3-1Gbbo4[/video]
> 
> We win.



Meanwhile, in Console land, we have a $60 game whose single player is a series of scripted events and cutscenes.

[video=youtube;RULv6HbgEjY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RULv6HbgEjY[/video]

And to think that there's still Aim Assist in Black Ops. What a joke of a game. Thanks consoles!


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 19, 2010)

Do PC gamers really have no other argument besides "You can steal the game by torrenting it", or "You can mod the game and fill it with sub-par user created content and sex mods" or that "aiming is easier"?

You know what? Fuck that last excuse. Yes okay, I play PC shooters as well, I get it; it's way easier to aim with the little mouse than using a controller.

Does the ability to aim like I'm merely dragging my mouse over a man's head as if it's a folder and clicking "open skull" make it better? Personally? No, not at all.

I *like* the difficulty of aiming with a controller, I believe it takes a lot more skill to get good at it, and since I know it's as hard as tits to aim a rifle accurately and consistently in real life, I can appreciate it all the more. PC Multiplayer is retardedly unrealistic, as can be observed in any game of counter strike, and as someone who actually roleplays a sniper when I game (sneaking to a vantage point, usually depending on my sidearm to get there), I'm tired of all these midrange noscoping headshot fraghunting faggots that flood the PC servers. I don't even like the feel of a keyboard, having my hand spread out like a spider, trying to jump and crouch and reload at the same time and only giving myself carpel tunnel. *Fuck* that. I'm still getting Black Ops for my 360, The controller is comfortable, and I'm not so worried about my K/D to whine and bitch that it's hard to aim.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 19, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Do PC gamers really have no other argument besides "You can steal the game by torrenting it", or "You can mod the game and fill it with* sub-par user created content *and sex mods" or that "aiming is easier"?


 
You don't know anything about mods do you?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 19, 2010)

Ishnuvalok said:


> You don't know anything about mods do you?


 
He doesn't know anything about ANYTHING.

The inability to put some of the genuinely GREAT Oblivion mods (that turn it into a DECENT GAME) onto a console utterly cripples the console incarnation of Oblivion.  We're talking about everything from serious gameplay overhauls to fanmade patches that fix nearly everything Bethesda was apparently too LAZY to fix.  Consoles don't get any of that.  They get stuck with things like the Blood Grass/Vampirism glitch.  Forever and EVER.  And Oblivion is only a SINGLE example amongst MANY.

It should also be noted that consoles will never, ever have the diversity of content that PCs possess.  Minecraft on a console? Not gonna happen any time soon.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 19, 2010)

Furlop said:


> *codblops*


 
Anybody seen PC gamer's brutal review for this game?

It's about time a well-known critic gave COD a bash. COD is a horrible stain on PC gaming, run by Bobby Kotick, all the worst parts of capitalism rolled into a single, horrible person.


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 19, 2010)

Tycho said:


> He doesn't know anything about ANYTHING.
> 
> The inability to put some of the genuinely GREAT Oblivion mods (that turn it into a DECENT GAME) onto a console utterly cripples the console incarnation of Oblivion.  We're talking about everything from serious gameplay overhauls to fanmade patches that fix nearly everything Bethesda was apparently too LAZY to fix.  Consoles don't get any of that.  They get stuck with things like the Blood Grass/Vampirism glitch.  Forever and EVER.  And Oblivion is only a SINGLE example amongst MANY.


 
Already have Oblivion on my PC; My mods folder for it is about three times the size of the game. Sure, the mods are nice, they help the game is many areas, but still are never quite as polished or engrossing as the original game.

Besides, Look at TESNexus' top 100. Most of it is nude mods or kinky clothing mods. :/


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 19, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Look at TESNexus' top 100. Most of it is nude mods or kinky clothing mods. :/


 






There are lots and lots and lots of mods being made for games, the best to look at are TOTAL CONVERSIONS.

Also, Garry's Mod and its addons is a very good example. Don't forget full games that you get today that used to be 3rd-party mods, like Team Fortress, Counter Strike and Killing Floor to mention 3...

Take a look at ModDB


----------



## Tycho (Nov 19, 2010)

Is he STILL arguing "IT'S ALL ABOUT PORN ANYWAY"? What a broken record.  Keep believing that, R_O.  Don't let rational thought and peripheral vision confuse you!


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 19, 2010)

That was only *one* argument I presented, Nice display of selective reading.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 19, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> That was only *one* argument I presented, Nice display of selective reading.


 One you kept on going with


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 19, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> One you kept on going with


 
It was the only one addressed by others. :/


----------



## mystery_penguin (Nov 19, 2010)

I feel sorry of how Valve pretty much screwed over console gamers when it came to their games.
However, I'm a PC gamer, so the remorse is short-lived.

Since I have such a heavy bias for PC gaming, there is one and only one point I can think of as to where the console comes out on top:
Parties and various other social interactions (unless you're running a LAN tourney or something in your basement)


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Console gaming, for me, cos it is more affordable. I can go to gamestop and buy a 360 for $200 - $300 and connect it straight to my TV and play every game available for the 360. Computers, not so much, I paid $600 for this computer and it can _barely_ run Fallout New Vegas. And by barely, I mean it'll boot but the lag makes it unplayable even on the minimal level.

I'm not really impressed with PC graphics, I don't see all the rave, I watched my friend play some of his games on his PC with some Nvidia card that had HDMI capabilities, and the games I seen look exactly the same as their 360 console versions. I think most people believe computer graphics are better simply because they sit closer to the screen lol

The older games like Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, yeah, I can clearly see a difference. But newer games, it all looks the same when playing on an HDTV.

But I do like computer gaming for the modding, and if I could mod games for my 360 I would be perfectly happy with console gaming.


----------



## mystery_penguin (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Console gaming, for me, cos it is more affordable. I can go to gamestop and buy a 360 for $200 - $300 and connect it straight to my TV and play every game available for the 360. Computers, not so much, I paid $600 for this computer and it can _barely_ run *Fallout New Vegas.* And by barely, I mean it'll boot but the lag makes it unplayable even on the minimal level.
> 
> I'm not really impressed with PC graphics, I don't see all the rave, I watched my friend play some of his games on his PC with some Nvidia card that had HDMI capabilities, and the games I seen look exactly the same as their 360 console versions. I think most people believe computer graphics are better simply because they sit closer to the screen lol
> 
> ...


 That game runs poorly on just about everything.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 20, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> It was the only one addressed by others. :/


 cause you keep on reinforcing it?


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> I paid $600 for this computer and it can barely run Fallout New Vegas. And by barely, I mean it'll boot but the lag makes it unplayable even on the minimal level.



That game is known in particular to have problems. it doesn't help that it is running on the shitty Gamebryo engine that Bethesda insists everyone use for their games.



> I'm not really impressed with PC graphics, I don't see all the rave, I watched my friend play some of his games on his PC with some Nvidia card that had HDMI capabilities, and the games I seen look exactly the same as their 360 console versions. I think most people believe computer graphics are better simply because they sit closer to the screen lol



HDMI capabilities? HDMI is just a connection, it is of no relevance.

Sure if you take a none-enhanced console port and run it at console settings, you are going to get the console version. If you think it's just sitting closer, sit closer to your TV; and enjoy the low pixel density.

A gaming PC can run the game with more than twice as many pixels on screen, with more jaggie reduction, with more quality filters to clean up the image. So even if a game is just a carbon copy port of the console version, it will still benefit considerably from PCs performance.

To demonstrate this, I have intentionally chosen a low graphic game like Prototype. The reason I chose a low graphics game, is that if you can see differences with this; then you will most definitely see differences in a better looking game.







The art assets are identical, the quality filtering settings are identical, there is no AA either. All that changed is the resolution, providing better image clarity of the games graphics.

This is 720p upscaled to 1080p, the typical console display experience, vs real native  1080p.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Computers, not so much, I paid $600 for this computer and it can _barely_ run Fallout New Vegas. And by barely, I mean it'll boot but the lag makes it unplayable even on the minimal level.


 
So basically, you're saying that PC's aren't affordable and aren't any better-performing than consoles because you spent $600 on a general computer that probably doesn't have any decent hardware in it and expected that because it was a computer, you'd be able to play whatever you want with it. No, $600 gets you a decent computer, yes - But it won't be decent for games. The point behind this is that you were going to buy a computer anyway, and you're paying $600 for the bare machine. You're going to use that computer for whatever you use your computer for, and certainly that's not solely for gaming. So, adding a midrange graphics card to a PC like that will cost you around $250 (give or take), which if you'll notice, is right in where consoles cost. Even at this level, the resolution available, the textures, anti-aliasing, polygon count, shaders and basically everything will look ridiculously better than the 360 or PS3 and run at a much higher frame rate while doing it. You could get away with even less expensive hardware if you wanted to simply match the 360 or PS3's graphics capabilities - They aren't exactly powerful machines, and PC's have smoked them handily for years now. Remember, too, that they owe what power they have to the PC world.

As for HDMI graphics cards, it's been touched on, but even crappy onboard graphics chips nowadays have HDMI ports on them, and so does practically every graphics card on the market from the cheapest and least capable to the monsters, either directly on it or via an included DVI->HDMI converter. It's a standard feature.


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> This is 720p upscaled to 1080p, the *typical console display experience*, vs real native  1080p.


 
For maybe like, the first year of the 360's life. Most all games on the console now support 1080p.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> For maybe like, the first year of the 360's life. Most all games on the console now support 1080p.


 
No, it's a marketing trick. The game is rendering at 720p or lower, but since that 720p image is being displayed at a 1080p resolution (upscaled) they can advertise it as being 1080p.

Don't believe everything you read on the back of a game box, here's some real resolution info.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

We back to talking about graphics?  I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> For maybe like, the first year of the 360's life. Most all games on the console now support 1080p.



As ADF said, most games (yes, PS3 titles, too) run at 720p or lower internal resolution, and that's scaled up by the hardware scaler to 1080p or whatever resolution your TV is set to (for example, my 19" TV's native res is 1440x900, so I have it set to that, since the 360's scaler is much better than my TV's). Halo 3 in particular took a lot of flak when it was released because in order for its HDR effect to work without slowing the game down, it actually ran below 720p - 1152x640 or what people call 640p (there is no such thing but people like using the p-designations for some reason). As for something newer? Splinter Cell: Conviction runs at "576p", barely higher than "SD". MW2 runs at "640p".

Consoles simply aren't capable of running such high resolutions at present unless at a huge loss in either or both frame rate and visual quality, mainly due to memory constraints (both the PS3 and 360 have 512MB of total system memory, with the 360 dynamically allocating video memory and the PS3 splitting it down the middle, which leaves not a whole lot of room to store textures, models, shader info, etc along with driving the framebuffer and everything else. Nowadays, 512MB is the minimum you'd want on a graphics card alone, and you wouldn't dream of running a newer game with less than 512MB of free RAM to work with). It's worth noting in this case that PC games have been running well beyond 720p for over a decade now, and "HD" is basically just playing catch-up with what computer monitors have been capable of since forever. You're deluding yourself if you believe that consoles are matching the PC in terms of graphical horsepower. Especially since, y'know, they're largely based on 2005-era PC hardware.

Display resolution isn't the only thing to take into consideration, either - Texture resolution and filtering is a big thing (since high resolution means nothing if all you're looking at is blurry mud), as are the shaders' quality and anti-aliasing. Compare Left 4 Dead on the 360 to Left 4 Dead on the PC at the same resolution; It doesn't matter that the resolution is the same, it simply looks far better on the PC due to the much higher texture resolution and better quality filtering. Not to mention above all else that L4D runs at a solid 60FPS on most PC's, while the 360 version struggles for 30 (I hazard to guess that based on what I played, it dipped below 15 when it got busy).

Here's a direct comparison with a newer game, Mafia 2:

[yt]qzkIhgp27r8[/yt]

And here's CoD:BLOPS:

[yt]-6z4dFM6Viw[/yt]

And Sniper: Ghost Warrior

[yt]YHbGcdbUy7Q[/yt]

And Splinter Cell: Conviction

[yt]zzdbbsm8QLE[/yt]


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> We back to talking about graphics?  I'll just leave this here.


 
Why is everything so goddamn sharpened. >:I


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Why is everything so goddamn sharpened. >:I


 
It's not sharpened, there's little to no AA enabled in that screenshot, and definitely no adaptive/alpha AA. That equals jaggies, which equals shimmering pixels.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> It's not sharpened, there's little to no AA enabled in that screenshot, and definitely no adaptive/alpha AA. That equals jaggies, which equals shimmering pixels.


 
Grossness, needs AA.

Also, watched the blops comparison. It's kinda difficult to discern detail quality through youtube, but I can say I enjoyed the colors more on the 360. More colorful, less washout.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Crysis looks fine in high vegetation areas without AA, it's just that's a single frame, you don't notice the jaggies during play.

Perhaps a scene without vegetation? Note frame rate is better when I'm not recording a 1080p video WHILE playing the game.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> Crysis looks fine in high vegetation areas without AA, it's just that's a single frame, you don't notice the jaggies during play.
> 
> Perhaps a scene without vegetation? Note frame rate is better when I'm not recording a 1080p video WHILE playing the game.


 
Pretty shine, pretty shine.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Also, watched the blops comparison. It's kinda difficult to discern detail quality through youtube, but I can say I enjoyed the colors more on the 360. More colorful, less washout.



I'm not sure about that, but I know that the PC version's fine details are far more apparent, such as the ground textures, reflection effects (the beginning of the video in Cuba, the water reflection from the ground is muddy and washed out in the 360 version, while it's much crisper in the PC version), and in the scene where the player jumps onto the train, the lettering is visible distinctly from much further off. You can tell all this if you set the Youtube video quality to 720p or 1080p. Also, the 360 version has a red hue to it most of the time (this is something I notice about a lot of 360 games, both recorded on Youtube and on my TV - For some reason, the games' grays and blacks are often tinted red), which probably accounts for the more "colourful" look. Especially if you look at the scene where the player jumps onto the train, you can see what I'm talking about here, and the PC version looks far more colourful in reality. Here:






Note the reddish hue on the 360 on the left (mainly due to the grays of the engine smoke), and note the greater sharpness and clarity overall on the PC version on the right, especially in fine details on the ground and on the train cars themselves and the background.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> It's not sharpened, there's little to no AA enabled in that screenshot, and definitely no adaptive/alpha AA. That equals jaggies, which equals shimmering pixels.


 
That's really just the way Crysis renders foliage, as you can see here.  Like ADF said, it's not very noticeable during gameplay.  Otherwise, I've got it running with 8x AA, which makes the guns and everything else very pretty looking and smooth.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> That's really just the way Crysis renders foliage, as you can see here.  Like ADF said, it's not very noticeable during gameplay.  Otherwise, I've got it running with 8x AA, which makes the guns and everything else very pretty looking and smooth.


 
Adaptive/Alpha AA would fix the jaggedness of the edges around that foliage.  Which would prevent the jaggedness at a distance, most likely. The first shot has NO Adaptive/Alpha AA, which is plainly visible by the blades of grass.


----------



## Hir (Nov 20, 2010)

better because I have a graphics card that can handle most games that come out nowadays (it can't handle Crysis in top spec but it can handle medium) and I like game modding.

plus with gaming on a PC you literally have everything media related in one place.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Decided to throw another video together, this time with vegetation.

Exodus is one of my favourite levels, which I'm playing at a glories 15-20fps thanks to fraps. Graphical settings are DX9 high with a light shaft tweak.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> That game is known in particular to have problems. it doesn't help that it is running on the shitty Gamebryo engine that Bethesda insists everyone use for their games.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



of course there is going to be a difference between Consoles and PC's when you run a console on a standard definition TV. It would be the same as running a PC game on a monitor from the early 90's.

I run my Xbox console on 1080i, and I'll just repeat myself again, I can't tell the difference between PC and console.



Runefox said:


> So basically, you're saying that PC's aren't affordable and aren't any better-performing than consoles because you spent $600 on a general computer that probably doesn't have any decent hardware in it and expected that because it was a computer, you'd be able to play whatever you want with it. No, $600 gets you a decent computer, yes - But it won't be decent for games. The point behind this is that you were going to buy a computer anyway, and you're paying $600 for the bare machine. You're going to use that computer for whatever you use your computer for, and certainly that's not solely for gaming. So, adding a midrange graphics card to a PC like that will cost you around $250 (give or take), which if you'll notice, is right in where consoles cost. Even at this level, the resolution available, the textures, anti-aliasing, polygon count, shaders and basically everything will look ridiculously better than the 360 or PS3 and run at a much higher frame rate while doing it. You could get away with even less expensive hardware if you wanted to simply match the 360 or PS3's graphics capabilities - They aren't exactly powerful machines, and PC's have smoked them handily for years now. Remember, too, that they owe what power they have to the PC world.
> 
> As for HDMI graphics cards, it's been touched on, but even crappy onboard graphics chips nowadays have HDMI ports on them, and so does practically every graphics card on the market from the cheapest and least capable to the monsters, either directly on it or via an included DVI->HDMI converter. It's a standard feature.



$200 Arcade Xbox vs. $600 "general computer"

I'd say, yes, consoles are more affordable for gaming. It really couldn't be more obvious than that.

But yes, my computer actually has decent hardware on it. My processor is good enough to meet the recommended settings for most modern games, I've got 4 gigs of ram which surpasses many recommended settings for modern games. The only thing holding my computer back is a graphics card.

The problem with computer technology, you are paying way more than what it's actually worth. They've got you hook line and sinker, considering you are more likely to go and buy a $300 graphics card for a new game. In contrast to most console gamers like myself, who probably _won't_ go buy a console of the same value for a _single_ game.

My personal opinion, console graphics are on par with PC, I think you just believe your computer "blows away consoles" because you've dropped over $1,000 into it. Kind of shows a bit of bias, I mean, I'd be more inclined to say my PC was epic if I dropped more into it than my own car.

Now, don't go thinking I'm attacking PC gaming out right, as I do want a PC for gaming. But simply for modding. I may not be intelligent when it comes to computer technology, but I don't have to have that knowledge to tell you that what I see on my TV when I'm playing my Xbox 360 and what I've seen on others PC's are the same.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> of course there is going to be a difference between Consoles and PC's when you run a console on a standard definition TV. It would be the same as running a PC game on a monitor from the early 90's.



I'm not sure what you are on about. I clearly specified that I was comparing 720p upscaled to 1080p; to actual 1080p. I don't know where you got "standard definition" from.



Shay Feral said:


> I run my Xbox console on 1080i, and I'll just repeat myself again, I can't tell the difference between PC and console.



The resolution of your screen is irrelevant, what matters is the render resolution of the game, which is 720p or lower in most cases on consoles. By owning a 1080i screen, all you are seeing is precisely what my images showed, 1280x720 being upscaled to 1920x1080.

And how can you say you cannot tell the difference after I just demonstrated it? There is a clear difference in image quality between those Prototype shots.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

I'll tell you why I'm not acknowledging your comparison, because it's inaccurate. The picture you shown on the left are the equivilant of running my 360 on standard def, on a nearly ruined 15 year old TV. Matter of fact, the games still looked better than those comparisons, at least a little.

And then observing the fact that you've got a bias against consoles it would be illogical to believe that the comparison is legitimate. In all honesty, whats to tell me you just didn't take a screen cap, down size it and add a bur effect?

I would do my own comparison, but it's funny that only PC gamers have the necessary equipment and software to do such tasks "accurately". Tis not like I can just grab a digital camera and take a picture of my screen, doesn't exactly work like that.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> I'll tell you why I'm not acknowledging your comparison, because it's inaccurate. The picture you shown on the left are the equivilant of running my 360 on standard def, on a nearly ruined 15 year old TV. Matter of fact, the games still looked better than those comparisons, at least a little.
> 
> And then observing the fact that you've got a bias against consoles it would be illogical to believe that the comparison is legitimate. In all honesty, whats to tell me you just didn't take a screen cap, down size it and add a bur effect?


 
Because only idiots would do that.

If you truly believe this is the case, please find a counter example.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

The ultimatum of the internet realm, I tell ya what. You provide the necessary equipment that I need to record my console gameplay and I'll provide a counter example. But beyond that, I can't, as I'm limited in what I can provide.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> of course there is going to be a difference between Consoles and PC's when you run a console on a standard definition TV. It would be the same as running a PC game on a monitor from the early 90's.
> 
> I run my Xbox console on 1080i, and I'll just repeat myself again, I can't tell the difference between PC and console.
> 
> ...


 
My PC blows away consoles because for $500 USD (buy a graphics card and motherboard that are a generation old, derp) my computer performed better in every single way than my Xbox 360 Elite.  Just Cause 2 lags when I'm driving a car fast enough.  And when I'm in a gunfight.  And any time I look near a city.  Halo Reach lags when more than 5 people are onscreen at once.  And when there's any sort of large particle effect near me.  My computer, on the other hand, runs Crysis at 1680x1050, all settings on high, with 8x AA enabled.  At 60 FPS, dropping to 45-50 during the end boss fight.  My Xbox struggles to keep Reach running at 30 when nothing is happening.

My personal opinion, console graphics are so far below those on PC, console owners talk big like this to justify the fact they own a sub-par gaming machine.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> My PC blows away consoles because for $500 USD (buy a graphics card and motherboard that are a generation old, derp) my computer performed better in every single way than my Xbox 360 Elite.  Just Cause 2 lags when I'm driving a car fast enough.  And when I'm in a gunfight.  And any time I look near a city.  Halo Reach lags when more than 5 people are onscreen at once.  And when there's any sort of large particle effect near me.  My computer, on the other hand, runs Crysis at 1680x1050, all settings on high, with 8x AA enabled.  At 60 FPS, dropping to 45-50 during the end boss fight.  My Xbox struggles to keep Reach running at 30 when nothing is happening.
> 
> My personal opinion, console graphics are so far below those on PC, console owners talk big like this to justify the fact they own a sub-par gaming machine.



Then you've got problems with your console because I have played Just Cause 2, and I've never experienced lag from driving a car too fast.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> I'll tell you why I'm not acknowledging your comparison, because it's inaccurate. The picture you shown on the left are the equivilant of running my 360 on standard def, on a nearly ruined 15 year old TV. Matter of fact, the games still looked better than those comparisons, at least a little.


 
You're talking nonsense in other words; and refuse to recognise something that you have absolutely no legitimate argument against...

Let me explain it again, I'll go into more detail this time.







On the left is the game being rendered at 1280x720 (360/PS3 versions run at 1120x640 for the record) where as on the right is the game being rendered at 1920x1200; the PC equivalent of 1080p (let's just call it 1080p for simplicities sake). These images were acquired by running Prototype on PC, taking a screenshot at 720p; and then 1080p of the same exact scene. These images were then compared, highlighting clarity differences between the two resolutions.

The images on the left were upscaled. This was done because the console experience of the image quality is of a lower resolution being upscalled to 1080p, providing a more accurate comparison to the 720p console experience.

The aim of this is to demonstrate the clarity benefit of PC resolutions over console resolutions, despite the game itself being largely console performance limited. Prototype was used because it is a low graphics game, meaning if differences can be seen here; they will most certainly be noticeable on better looking games.

So again, what is your argument against this image; in terms of it failing to meet its function?


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Well for one, you are providing these images, which could have easily been altered to suit your argument.

Secondly, the images on the left are MUCH below what the 360 is capable of.

Either way, this argument is pointless because people like you aren't willing to listen and it's physically impossible for me to provide an example of what I see on my television.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Well for one, you are providing these images, which could have easily been altered to suit your argument.
> 
> Secondly, the images on the left are MUCH below what the 360 is capable of.



They're much higher than what the 360 is capable of, they are 1280x720; while the 360 version is running at 1120x640.

If you think they have been tampered with, then feel free to inspect the originals.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/264/720p.jpg
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/798/1080p.jpg


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF, wouldn't the methods of scaling on your computer and the 360 differ? Granted, I've never played Prototype on the 360, but I've never seen graphics that bad on the 360.

also, Shay, stop being retarded. He hasn't altered them. If' you've ever played a game on a PC at the wrong resolution you'd know that.

EDIT: now tat i've seen the larger pictures I see where you're coming from.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> They're much higher than what the 360 is capable of, they are 1280x720; while the 360 version is running at 1120x640.
> 
> If you think they have been tampered with, then feel free to inspect the originals.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to repeat myself, _I do not trust you_.

but my games on my 360, on my TV, look better than that. Which is why I don't believe you.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Xenke said:


> ADF, wouldn't the methods of scaling on your computer and the 360 differ? Granted, I've never played Prototype on the 360, but I've never seen graphics that bad on the 360.
> 
> also, Shay, stop being retarded. He hasn't altered them. If' you've ever played a game on a PC at the wrong resolution you'd know that.
> 
> EDIT: now tat i've seen the larger pictures I see where you're coming from.



They were resized using the highest quality settings in the GIMP art program, so the scaling should be higher quality than the real time work 360 has to deal with. Regardless, as you said I posted the unscaled version for you to compare as well.



Shay Feral said:


> I'm not going to repeat myself, _I do not trust you_.
> 
> but my games on my 360, on my TV, look better than that. Which is why I don't believe you.



How about the Prototype Lens of Truth comparison? They have direct feed material of the console versions.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

The Xbox (and PS3) are running 4-5 year old hardware.  The graphics card I had back then was a GeForce 8500GT.  My current card (GTX 260) came out two years ago.  The Xbox is attempting to run games built using modern engines, _on 4 and 5 year old hardware_.  Crysis was released three years ago now - consoles do not have the hardware to run it, even if it was coded properly for a console port.  

Console games DO run at lower graphical settings than their PC counterparts.  This is a comparison of Metro 2033 on PC and 360.  Notice that the 360 version still has that weird reddish tint that was brought up last page, has lower resolution texturing, and has worse lighting effects.  Is the 360 screenshot still acceptable?  Yes.  Is the 360 screenshot on par with the PC screenshot?  No, not at all.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> They were resized using the highest quality settings in the GIMP art program, so the scaling should be higher quality than the real time work 360 has to deal with. Regardless, as you said I posted the unscaled version for you to compare as well.



Resizing an image will produce image degradation even in the highest settings of GIMP. You can notice a difference even in as little as 100 pixels in smaller (usually 800X600 or lower), or in greatly detailed images.



> How about the Prototype Lens of Truth comparison? They have direct feed material of the console versions.


The link provided compares 360 to PS3, some games vary in quality between the PS3 and 360.



Riley said:


> The Xbox (and PS3) are running 4-5 year old  hardware.  The graphics card I had back then was a GeForce 8500GT.  My  current card (GTX 260) came out two years ago.  The Xbox is attempting  to run games built using modern engines, _on 4 and 5 year old  hardware_.  Crysis was released three years ago now - consoles do not  have the hardware to run it, even if it was coded properly for a  console port.
> 
> Console games DO run at lower graphical settings  than their PC counterparts.   This is a  comparison of Metro 2033 on PC and 360.  Notice that the 360  version still has that weird reddish tint that was brought up last page,  has lower resolution texturing, and has worse lighting effects.  Is the  360 screenshot still acceptable?  Yes.  Is the 360 screenshot on par  with the PC screenshot?  No, not at all.



Computers can be upgraded to run newer games, which makes your point moot. A 2005 model computer that hasn't been updated or upgraded will likely be completely unable to run some modern games.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

I think I finally figured out why I don't really notice the difference between console and PC graphics.

Everything moves!

The one thing I usually notice is crappy textures, but I don't see much of that as of late.

I think I'm mostly done with this thread though. The game library overlap between consoles and computers isn't big enough for me to give up on either, so I'll keep up with both.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Resizing an image will produce image degradation even in the highest settings of GIMP. You can notice a difference even in as little as 100 pixels in smaller (usually 800X600 or lower), or in greatly detailed images.



Your criticism is a little behind, given that I posted the none scaled version for comparison already.



Shay Feral said:


> The link provided compares 360 to PS3, some games vary in quality between the PS3 and 360.



You were complaining you didn't trust me in regard to the quality of the 720p version, so I provided a source showing the console versions; independent from me.

So what's wrong now?


----------



## Zygorator (Nov 20, 2010)

It's common knowledge that console graphics are having a hard time keeping up, BUT, graphics aren't everything; i still enjoy a lot of old games even though they look like shit.

Graphics debate aside, i will always find PC gaming to be more enjoyable for these two reasons:
â€¢ The freedom to edit/mod/poke the games to your liking

â€¢ Multitasking! I'm not gonna sit and spectate if i died in the start of a round in some game, I'll just tab out and browse, or toy around in PS. This is probably the biggest reason i play PC games. 

A machine solely dedicated to gaming(console) is just too expensive and uninteresting for me when i can use my computer where i can switch between study, work and gaming in an instant.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Computers can be upgraded to run newer games, which makes your point moot. A 2005 model computer that hasn't been updated or upgraded will likely be completely unable to run some modern games.


 
That was my entire point; thank you for agreeing with me and ending your own argument.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Zygorator said:


> It's common knowledge that console graphics are having a hard time keeping up, BUT, graphics aren't everything; i still enjoy a lot of old games even though they look like shit.
> 
> Graphics debate aside, i will always find PC gaming to be more enjoyable for these two reasons:
> â€¢ The freedom to edit/mod/poke the games to your liking
> ...


 
Being that computers are expensive, if I were to buy or build a computer for gaming it's going to be strictly for that. If I had a gaming PC it will not see the internet except for software updates, and maybe multiplayer (which I don't do often even on my console). I'll use this computer for internet browsing and downloading the mods, and then transfer them onto the other computer. A good gaming computer, even a desktop, will run more than this laptop cost and I don't exactly bathe in cash.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> That was my entire point; thank you for agreeing with me and ending your own argument.



Sorry, but my point favors my argument.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Sorry, but my point favors my argument.


 
No, it doesn't.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

> of course there is going to be a difference between Consoles and PC's when you run a console on a standard definition TV. It would be the same as running a PC game on a monitor from the early 90's.


Do read my post again - Many console games are actually running *below 720p*. It doesn't matter what resolution you have your console set to spit out at your TV, it's just resizing the video to match your TV, which introduces blur, among other things. I've listed several examples as to games that run far below 720p on consoles, yet will run natively at beyond 1080p on a PC.



> But yes, my computer actually has decent hardware on it. My processor is good enough to meet the recommended settings for most modern games, I've got 4 gigs of ram which surpasses many recommended settings for modern games. The only thing holding my computer back is a graphics card.


So wait, why did you buy it then? You were only going to use it for gaming? Because if so, then yes, consoles are cheaper. But seeing as a $600 computer is in the range of a general purpose PC anyway, your only real expense gaming-wise is, surprise! A video card. Which is about the same in terms of cost as a console, if not cheaper. It couldn't be simpler than that, but people get fooled by false economy and actual worth all the time.



> The problem with computer technology, you are paying way more than what it's actually worth. They've got you hook line and sinker, considering you are more likely to go and buy a $300 graphics card for a new game. In contrast to most console gamers like myself, who probably _won't_ go buy a console of the same value for a _single_ game.


Seeing as the PC hardware arena changes only about once every six months, that's not entirely true, and medium-high end hardware (~$1k machine) lasts for a few years for everything you could ever want it to do, from video editing to music recording to web browsing to word processing to high-end gaming. Anyone who goes out and upgrades every time a new game is released is a complete moron. There is a major cost to value comparison that is absolutely being thrown out the window by comparing the total cost of a PC directly against the cost of a console, and what you really need to look at is only the cost for a video card - Chances are, the rest of the components of a new or recent system will be more than powerful enough to back it up. That actually makes it quite a bargain considering that CPU power hasn't been dramatically increasing in the past couple years. Consider, too, that your $600 computer cost as much as a PS3 on launch, and does far, far more than a PS3 could ever hope to do (which in turn also does more general tasks than the 360 does). It's like complaining that your brand new car sucks because you have to buy a trailer to haul stuff in, and next time you're just going to buy an oxcart.



> My personal opinion, console graphics are on par with PC, I think you just believe your computer "blows away consoles" because you've dropped over $1,000 into it. Kind of shows a bit of bias, I mean, I'd be more inclined to say my PC was epic if I dropped more into it than my own car.


Someone's in denial - I've posted several comparisons that distinctively prove that the PC is a much better platform graphics-wise. And hell, for that matter, again, current consoles are based on 2005-era PC hardware. There have literally been over half a dozen distinct generations of hardware since then, and two entire revisions of DirectX (especially including Shader Model updates).


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Sorry, but my point favors my argument.


 
No it doesn't, in any way.  You mentioned that PCs can be upgraded to support better looking games, thus invalidating your previous argument that consoles have the advantage, despite using 4 and 5 year old hardware.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> So wait, why did you buy it then? You were only going to use it for gaming? Because if so, then yes, consoles are cheaper. But seeing as a $600 computer is in the range of a general purpose PC anyway, your only real expense gaming-wise is, surprise! A video card. Which is about the same in terms of cost as a console, if not cheaper. It couldn't be simpler than that, but people get fooled by false economy and actual worth all the time.


You misread my post, I didn't buy this laptop for strict gaming purposes, I did buy it thinking I _could_ play some new games but I was dead wrong. I bought this PC for multi-purpose in which I'm not really complaining about the price of this computer because it is serving 3/4's of it's purpose quite well.

I said if I were going to build a PC for gaming, thats what it's going to be used for. I like modding, I like to add things that developers didn't, or make adjustments that I feel are necessary. But I'm not going to invest in a PC that will only run a game on it's medium settings.

My brother runs medium-low settings for FO: NV and it looks like shit.



> Seeing as the PC hardware arena changes only about once every six months, that's not entirely true, and medium-high end hardware (~$1k machine) lasts for a few years for everything you could ever want it to do, from video editing to music recording to web browsing to word processing to high-end gaming. Anyone who goes out and upgrades every time a new game is released is a complete moron. There is a major cost to value comparison that is absolutely being thrown out the window by comparing the total cost of a PC directly against the cost of a console, and what you really need to look at is only the cost for a video card - Chances are, the rest of the components of a new or recent system will be more than powerful enough to back it up. That actually makes it quite a bargain considering that CPU power hasn't been dramatically increasing in the past couple years. Consider, too, that your $600 computer cost as much as a PS3 on launch, and does far, far more than a PS3 could ever hope to do (which in turn also does more general tasks than the 360 does). It's like complaining that your brand new car sucks because you have to buy a trailer to haul stuff in.


Even if I were to look strictly at the cost of a video card, in some cases a video card will run as much as a complete console. But a video card alone can't run a game, so you will HAVE TO include the rest of the equipment require to boot the thing up.



> Someone's in denial - I've posted several comparisons that distinctively prove that the PC is a much better platform graphics-wise. And hell, for that matter, again, current consoles are based on 2005-era PC hardware. There have literally been over half a dozen distinct generations of hardware since then.


Of course the consoles are based off of 2005 era hardware, the 360 was released in 2005. But how many non-upgraded _computers_ can run games released this year? Very few.

You can post whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that what I see on my TV screen when I'm playing games on my Xbox 360 is as good as their PC versions. It's not denial, it's confidence. By the way you make your statements you make it seem like computer graphics should be mind blowing, but they aren't.

If I'm going to buy/build a computer that'll run say; Left 4 Dead 2 with the same quality and smoothness as a 360 I'm gonna end up investing as much in a computer as I do my car. Which makes consoles more favorable in my eyes...

There is no excuse for any computer to cost much more than $600 with the exception of laptops.

But really, if I could mod games for my 360 I wouldn't be interested in getting another computer at all.

And thats all I have to say about that, enjoy arguing with yourselves.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> You misread my post, I didn't buy this laptop for strict gaming purposes, I did buy it thinking I _could_ play some new games but I was dead wrong. I bought this PC for multi-purpose in which I'm not really complaining about the price of this computer because it is serving 3/4's of it's purpose quite well.
> 
> I said if I were going to build a PC for gaming, thats what it's going to be used for. I like modding, I like to add things that developers didn't, or make adjustments that I feel are necessary. But I'm not going to invest in a PC that will only run a game on it's medium settings.
> 
> ...


 
Here's a card that can run L4D2 (and many other things) at high settings.  It costs less than the price of a console version of the same game.  Shove this into your already-existent desktop computer, and play some games.  What's that, you maybe need a new motherboard?  $80.

These are lower-end pieces of hardware, obviously.  But you know what?  They'll give you a solid machine for less than a 360.  RAM is cheap, you can get away with a dual-core processor clocking at around 2 MHz.  If you already have a home desktop, you already have a mouse, a keyboard, speakers, a monitor, and a hard drive.  Store bought computers are ripoffs, undoubtedly.  But that doesn't make every single PC out there that can max out Crysis worth a _fucking car_.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Perhaps I should be glad Shay Feral chose to ignore my previous response, they have no interest in recognising anything that isn't in their own little world. They just keep making the same claims, no matter how much evidence is presented on the contrary. Even going as far as to say someone faked the evidence; because it is inconvenient for their view on things...


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> You can post whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that what I see on my TV screen when I'm playing games on my Xbox 360 is as good as their PC versions. It's not denial, it's confidence. By the way you make your statements you make it seem like computer graphics should be mind blowing, but they aren't.



It's more or less the difference between SD and HD, actually. That itself was never mind-blowing unless you're easily impressed, but was a breath of fresh air. With current console games running at less than 720p, it truly does become the difference between SD and HD, and while consoles shoot for 30FPS, PC gaming is usually much higher. I don't know what kind of computer your brother has, or what kind of TV you have, but there is a _very_ visible and tangible difference between how PC's and how consoles look and run.



> Of course the consoles are based off of 2005 era hardware, the 360 was released in 2005. But how many non-upgraded computers can run games released this year? Very few.



Hmm...



			
				Metro 2033 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP, Vista, or 7
> Processor: Dual core CPU (any Core 2 Duo or better)
> Memory: 1GB RAM
> Graphics: DirectX 9, Shader Model 3 compliant graphics cards (GeForce 8800, GeForce GT220 and above)
> DirectXÂ®: DirectX 9.0c





			
				Aliens vs Predator system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP/Vista
> Processor: 3.4 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor
> Memory: 1 GB System RAM (XP)/ 2 GB System RAM (Vista)
> Graphics: DirectX 9.0c compliant video card with 128 MB RAM (NVIDIA 7900 or better, ATI X1800 or better)
> ...





			
				Borderlands system requirements (yeah yeah said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP/Vista
> Processor: 2.4 Ghz or equivalent processor with SSE2 support
> Memory: 1GB System RAM (2GB recommended with Vista)
> Graphics: 256mb video ram or better (GeForce 7 series or higher/Radeon HD3000 series or higher)
> ...





			
				Bioshock 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
> Processor: AMD Athlon 64 Processor 3800+ 2.4Ghz or better, Intel Pentium 4 530 3.0Ghz Processor or better
> Memory: 2GB
> Graphics: NVIDIA 7800GT 256MB graphics card or better, ATI Radeon X1900 256MB graphics card or better
> ...





			
				CoD:BLOPS system requirements (Ho-shit!) said:
			
		

> OS: WindowsÂ® Vista / XP / 7
> Processor: IntelÂ® Coreâ„¢2 Duo E6600 or AMD Phenomâ„¢ X3 8750 or better
> Memory: 2GB
> Graphics: Shader 3.0 or better 256MB NVIDIAÂ® GeForceÂ® 8600GT / ATI RadeonÂ® X1950Pro or better
> ...





			
				Mafia 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Microsoft Windows XP (SP2 or later) / Windows Vista / Windows 7
> Processor: Pentium D 3Ghz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ (Dual core) or higher
> RAM: 1.5 GB RAM
> Hard Disk Space: 8GB
> ...





			
				Dead Rising 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows VistaÂ®/XP, Windows 7
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 Ghz or better, AMD Athlon X2 2.2 Ghz or better
> Memory: 2 GB RAM
> Graphics: NVIDIAÂ® GeForceÂ® 8800GTS or better, ATI Radeonâ„¢ HD 3850 or better
> ...





			
				F1 2010 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: XP / VistaÂ® / Windows 7
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.4GHz or Athlon X2
> Memory: 1 GB RAM (2 GB VistaÂ® / Windows 7)
> Hard Disk Space: 12.5 GB free hard drive space
> ...





			
				Civilization V system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: WindowsÂ® XP SP3/ WindowsÂ® Vista SP2/ WindowsÂ® 7
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.0 GHz
> Memory: 2GB RAM
> Graphics:256 MB ATI HD2600 XT or better, 256 MB nVidia 7900 GS or better, or Core i3 or better integrated graphics
> ...





			
				Just Cause 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Microsoft Windows Vista (Windows XP is unsupported)
> Processor: Dual-core CPU with SSE3 (Athlon 64 X2 4200 / Pentium D 3GHz)
> Memory: 2GB System Memory
> Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
> ...





			
				Splinter Cell: Conviction system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Microsoft Windows Vista (Windows XP is unsupported)
> Processor: Dual-core CPU with SSE3 (Athlon 64 X2 4200 / Pentium D 3GHz)
> Memory: 2GB System Memory
> Hard Drive: 10GB of free drive space
> ...





			
				Front Mission Evolved system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
> Processor: Intel Pentium D 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 x2 1.8 GHz
> Memory: 1GB RAM (XP), 2GB RAM (Vista/7)
> Graphics: 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 7800 series graphics card or equivalent
> ...





			
				Fallout: New Vegas system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows 7/Vista/XP
> Processor: Dual Core 2.0GHz
> Memory: 2GB RAM
> Hard Disk Space: 10GB free space
> Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6 series, ATI 1300XT series





			
				Dragon Age: Origins system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP (SP3) or Windows Vista (SP1) or Windows 7
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Single 1.6 Ghz Processor (or equivalent) or AMD 64 2.0 GHz Processor (or equivalent)
> Memory: 1GB (1.5 GB Vista and Windows 7)
> Graphics: ATI Radeon X850 256MB or NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT 128MB or greater (Windows Vista: Radeon X1550 256 MB or NVidia GeForce 7600GT 256MB)
> ...





			
				R.U.S.E. system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: WindowsÂ® XP (with Service Pack 3) or Windows VistaÂ® (with Service Pack 2) or WindowsÂ® 7
> Processor: 2.8 GHz IntelÂ® PentiumÂ® 4 or AMDÂ® Athlonâ„¢ 64 3000+ or higher
> Memory: 1 GB for XP / 2 GB for Vista and Win7
> Graphics: 128 MB DirectXÂ® 9.0c-compliant video card (ATIÂ® Radeon X1000/GeForceÂ® 6 Series or better)
> ...





			
				Lost Planet 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP, Vista
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Athlon X2, or faster
> Memory: 1GB+ (Windows XP); 2GB+ (Vista)
> Graphics: Shader Model 3.0 or higher; NVIDIA GeForce 7800 Series, ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro, or higher
> ...





			
				James Bond: Blood Stone system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: WindowsÂ® Vista / XP / 7
> Processor: IntelÂ® Coreâ„¢2 Duo E4300 1.8 GHz or AMD Athlon 64 x2 4000+ 2.0 GHz or better
> Memory: 1GB RAM for XP / 2GB RAM for Vista/Win7
> Graphics: 3D hardware accelerator card required - 100% DirectX 9.0c-compliant 256MB video card and drivers; NVIDIAÂ® GeForceÂ® 7600 GT and better chipsets, ATI Radeonâ„¢ X1650 and better chipsets
> ...





			
				Tom Clancy's HAWX 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: WindowsÂ® XP (Service Pack 3), Windows VistaÂ® (Service Pack 2), WindowsÂ® 7 (SP1) (only)
> Processor: IntelÂ® PentiumÂ® 4 3.0 GHz or AMD Athlonâ„¢ 64 3000+ or higher (IntelÂ® Coreâ„¢2 Duo E4300 or AMD Athlon X2 3600+ or higher recommended)
> Memory: 1 GB Windows XP (1.5 GB recommended) / 2 GB Windows Vista and Windows 7
> Graphics: 128 MB DirectXÂ®â€“compliant video card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (256 MB DirectX 10.0â€“compliant video card or DirectX 9.0â€“compliant card recommended) (See supported list*)
> ...





			
				The Witcher 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP/Vista/7
> Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.2 GHz or similar AMD
> Memory: 1 GB for Win XP / 2 GB for Win Vista
> Graphics: Nvidia GF 8800 512 VR or similar ATI
> Hard Drive: 8GB for game and 8GB bonus content





			
				Battlefield: Bad Company 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP
> Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz
> Memory: 2GB
> Graphics: 256 MB Video Card (GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900)
> ...





			
				Medal of Honor system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7
> Processor: Pentium D 3.0GHz / Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz / Athlon X2
> Memory: 2GB
> Graphics: GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900
> Graphics Memory: 256MB





			
				Assassin's Creed 2 system requirements said:
			
		

> OS: WindowsÂ® XP (32-64 bits) /Windows VistaÂ®(32-64 bits)/Windows 7Â® (32-64 bits) *
> Processor: Intel CoreÂ® 2 Duo 1.8 GHZ or AMD Athlon X2 64 2.4GHZ
> Memory: 1.5 GB WindowsÂ® XP / 2 GB Windows VistaÂ® - Windows 7Â®
> Graphics: 256 MB DirectXÂ® 9.0â€“compliant card with Shader Model 3.0 or higher (see supported list)
> ...



Hmm... Notice any patterns? Namely, the fact that 2005-2006 hardware is still within the requirements of pretty much all of these games? Could it be that you're basically playing these games with integrated graphics and therefore you're getting a shitty experience out of it because your $600 computer that isn't built for gaming should be more than you needed to pay to get a top-of-the-line PC because the consoles are that price? Hell, I'm sure you could put together a computer with specs from 2005 for what it costs to buy a 360 - Hell, probably better.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> Perhaps I should be glad Shay Feral chose to ignore my previous response, they have no interest in recognising anything that isn't in their own little world. They just keep making the same claims, no matter how much evidence is presented on the contrary. Even going as far as to say someone faked the evidence; because it is inconvenient for their view on things...



Of course I have no interest in recognizing what you have to say, if you provided any thing that was acceptable to support your statements it would be a different story. But the problem is that the pictures you provided weren't even accurate to a console, you can spout "this is what it runs on such setting" or what the hell ever, but the blurry picture is not seen on anything but a worn out TV.

And I didn't out right say you did modify them, I said you could have, but given the pictures on the left are the equivalent of a busted TV, that supports that thought.

It's only reasonable to assume that you aren't going to provide anything that may support a console

Take your condescending post and shove it.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Of course I have no interest in recognizing what you have to say, if you provided any thing that was acceptable to support your statements it would be a different story. But the problem is that the pictures you provided weren't even accurate to a console, you can spout "this is what it runs on such setting" or what the hell ever, but the blurry picture is not seen on anything but a worn out TV.
> 
> Take your condescending post and shove it.


 
So you'll acknowledge that he presents technical specifications, but because you don't care, it's not important?


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> So you'll acknowledge that he presents technical specifications, but because you don't care, it's not important?


 
Do you not read?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

> but the blurry picture is not seen on anything but a worn out TV


Actually, since they're screencaps, they're actually what the console is putting out, not what the TV puts out. It's not a photograph, it's a raw capture. Therefore, perhaps your TV is actually the one that's blurry enough to mask the pixellation and mud-textures.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> It's more or less the difference between SD and HD, actually. That itself was never mind-blowing unless you're easily impressed, but was a breath of fresh air. With current console games running at less than 720p, it truly does become the difference between SD and HD, and while consoles shoot for 30FPS, PC gaming is usually much higher. I don't know what kind of computer your brother has, or what kind of TV you have, but there is a _very_ visible and tangible difference between how PC's and how consoles look and run.



Dude, there is a big difference between playing SD and HD with consoles. I've been playing with an HDTV since summer, I've grown used to it. I can tell you that what I see between those two pictures the other fella provided looks more like the difference between my Xbox on my old busted TV and my new TV.



> Hmm... Notice any patterns? Namely, the fact that 2005-2006 hardware is still within the requirements of pretty much all of these games?


K, you've got me on that.



Runefox said:


> Actually, since they're screencaps, they're  actually what the console is putting out, not what the TV puts out. It's  not a photograph, it's a raw capture. Therefore, perhaps your TV is  actually the one that's blurry enough to mask the pixellation and  mud-textures.



ummm... How about no...


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Do you not read?


 
Yep, read his posts detailing what exactly is going on in those pictures, then I read your posts where you shove your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> Yep, read his posts detailing what exactly is going on in those pictures, then I read your posts where you shove your fingers in your ears and go "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."


 
Well, glad to hear it. I thought that somewhere between me posting my message and it appearing on your screen it was somehow modified. But it's nice to know that you're reading what you want to see.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Well, glad to hear it. I thought that somewhere between me posting my message and it appearing on your screen it was somehow modified. *But it's nice to know that you're reading what you want to see.*





Shay Feral said:


> ummm... How about no...


 


That is nice, isn't it?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> ummm... How about no...


Look, I don't want to be a jerk about this, but seriously... Uh... So basically, this is the semantic equivalent to reacting to "Hot air rises, it's a fact!" with "No it isn't! You're biased! That isn't what I see!"


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes sir/mam, being that you're attempting to troll while everyone else puts me at ease. I can sleep tonight



Runefox said:


> Look, I don't want to be a jerk about this, but  seriously... Uh... So basically, this is the semantic equivalent to  reacting to "Hot air rises, it's a fact!" with "No it isn't! You're  biased! That isn't what I see!"



It's a little bit late for not trying to be a jerk.

If I could produce an image that does justice for the images I see on my screen I would share them, but I can't. I just simply do not have the hardware/software or whatever is necessary to do such a task. About the only thing I can do is share "photos" from Forza Motorsport 3, but between the quality of whats on screen to the .jpg that's download from the website, tis a lil bit of a difference.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay certainly is a spectacle


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

No, see, I just can't wrap my head around what you're saying. A screen capture is exactly that. It's a perfect copy of something that the console spat out. The same goes for screenshots on a PC. You don't take pictures with a camera to take screenshots, so the TV or monitor's quality goes out the window as a consideration. So given that it's a perfect representation of what the video card was processing at the time, you threw your hands up and said "NO IT ISN'T BECAUSE I SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT". Which basically flies in the face of... Well, logic. I guess for the sake of arguing. I mean, really.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> No, see, I just can't wrap my head around what you're saying. A screen capture is exactly that. It's a perfect copy of something that the console spat out. The same goes for screenshots on a PC. You don't take pictures with a camera to take screenshots, so the TV or monitor's quality goes out the window as a consideration. So given that it's a perfect representation of what the video card was processing at the time, you threw your hands up and said "NO IT ISN'T BECAUSE I SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT". Which basically flies in the face of... Well, logic. I guess for the sake of arguing. I mean, really.



Because a console is meant to be connected to a television set, screen capping from a computer is not producing the actual image thats being displayed. I do not understand how a television can possibly improve upon an image beyond what is being sent to it. The only thing I can find reasonable is that your connecting a console to your computer, your computer then has to decode the image thats being sent to it and then recode it for display through the software and may cause image degradation.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Of course I have no interest in recognizing what you have to say, if you provided any thing that was acceptable to support your statements it would be a different story.



How convenient for you that you have elected yourself judge of what's acceptable or not, allowing yourself to disregard everything I offered; with no explanation other than it being "unacceptable". 



Shay Feral said:


> But the problem is that the pictures you provided weren't even accurate to a console, you can spout "this is what it runs on such setting" or what the hell ever, but the blurry picture is not seen on anything but a worn out TV.



I provided a link to a site that used direct feed shots of the console version; and you stopped responding to me when I asked what was wrong with that.

You are like a creationist asking for fossil evidence. Every time you are presented with some, you say it doesn't meet your standards; and to bring back something else. Of course everything isn't up to your standards...



Shay Feral said:


> And I didn't out right say you did modify them, I said you could have, but given the pictures on the left are the equivalent of a busted TV, that supports that thought.



You practically did by rejecting them, even the unscaled image that everyone else but you accepted. 

And keep it up, seeing how the console versions run lower than 720p; calling that crap is saying something about the console versions. Did it ever occur to you that you don't even know what raw images of the game look like; because you are interpreting it from a television?



Shay Feral said:


> It's only reasonable to assume that you aren't going to provide anything that may support a console
> 
> Take your condescending post and shove it.



Speak for yourself...

Why would I provide something to support a console? This has nothing to do with platform bias, how is it possible for me to provide a console shot that looks just as good as a 1080p shot? You are the only person that thinks this is possible.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Because a console is meant to be connected to a television set, screen capping from a computer is not producing the actual image thats being displayed.


 
... Wh... What? There's products out there that take HDMI input for recording, and in case you're wondering, HDMI is digital and therefore lossless, which means yes, the actual image is being sent. Also, modern TV's are little more than computer monitors with tuners and filter software incorporated, so unless you're using component or composite, you're getting what's basically the same kind of output as a PC.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... Wh... What? There's products out there that take HDMI input for recording, and in case you're wondering, HDMI is digital and therefore lossless, which means yes, the actual image is being sent. Also, modern TV's are little more than computer monitors with tuners and filter software incorporated, so unless you're using component or composite, you're getting what's basically the same kind of output as a PC.


 
This just leaves us at an impasse, I use HDMI for my 360, and like I said, my images are great.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> This just leaves us at an impasse, I use HDMI for my 360, and like I said, my images are great.


 
I think since most of your argument is all about "you", we'll just have to assume you're unreliable.

Unfortunately, the eyes are not an perfect mechanism for detecting images.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Xenke said:


> I think since most of your argument is all about "you", we'll just have to assume you're unreliable.
> 
> Unfortunately, the eyes are not an perfect mechanism for detecting images.


 
Yeah...

Shay, maybe get some glasses?  Or if you already have them, get your prescription checked?


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

I really do have to wonder how Shay Feral applies this mentality in real life...

When buying a game, do they avoid all screenshots; because they deem them unreliable? How do they know what a game looks like prior to purchase; if all videos and screenshots are unreliable?


----------



## Zygorator (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> This just leaves us at an impasse, I use HDMI for my 360, and like I said, my images are great.


 I think the point _a lot _of people in this thread are trying to make is that, yes, they are probably great and all; but a PC is able to output a much greater picture


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> This just leaves us at an impasse, I use HDMI for my 360, and like I said, my images are great.


 
... Which probably means that your TV or 360 is scaling the image and smoothing the image in the process. In addition, showing it side by side with a more clear image probably highlights the fact that it's running a lower resolution. I know I can see pixels on my screen pretty readily.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> Yeah...
> 
> Shay, maybe get some glasses?  Or if you already have them, get your prescription checked?


 
Even with glasses, last time I checked the mind would play a couple roles in this:

1) Since the image is changing in quick succession, certain things your eyes see are altered in the brain to how it EXPECTS something to be. For example, broken pixels are often ignored until you're specifically looking for them.
2) Memory distorts what we think we've seen. I know I certainly remember N64 graphics being a LOT nicer than they actually are.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

ADF said:


> How convenient for you that you have elected yourself judge of what's acceptable or not, allowing yourself to disregard everything I offered; with no explanation other than it being "unacceptable".


 Because it was, I don't see how thats hard to understand. You produced a "console" image that clearly was below what a 360 can produce.




> I provided a link to a site that used direct feed shots of the console version; and you stopped responding to me when I asked what was wrong with that.


I did respond



> You are like a creationist asking for fossil evidence. Every time you are presented with some, you say it doesn't meet your standards; and to bring back something else. Of course everything isn't up to your standards...


No, I'm asking for something reasonable. A blurry console screen cap is not acceptable, simply for the fact that unless your running on an old TV, consoles aren't blurry like that.




> You practically did by rejecting them, even the unscaled image that everyone else but you accepted.


Y'know, if popular acceptance were legitimate proof you'd have a point. But it's not, and your contributions are not enough to change my mind.



> And keep it up, seeing how the console versions run lower than 720p; calling that crap is saying something about the console versions. Did it ever occur to you that you don't even know what raw images of the game look like; because you are interpreting it from a television?


 OMFG, are you SERIOUS?

I can't even begin to describe how... laughable... this argument has become.

Consoles are designed to be connected to what? Televisions...

As far as I'm concerned, connecting them to anything else, like a computer, introduces a variable and makes the comparison invalid.



> Why would I provide something to support a console? This has nothing to do with platform bias, how is it possible for me to provide a console shot that looks just as good as a 1080p shot? You are the only person that thinks this is possible.


 If you can't produce something as good as a 1080p shot, then sorry, you're not going to convince me otherwise. Maybe that the whole problem with this conversation... I run my console on 1080i, but I don't know the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Feel free to inform me about that.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Because it was, I don't see how thats hard to understand. You produced a "console" image that clearly was below what a 360 can produce.


 
Shay, show me, show EVERYONE, and image of what the 360 can produce.

FIND ONE on the internet.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Shay, show me, show EVERYONE, and image of what the 360 can produce.
> 
> FIND ONE on the internet.


 
Better yet, buy yourself a 360 and an HDTV

Or borrow them...

But I'm just gonna show myself out the door in this thread, the trolls are beginning to show.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Better yet, buy yourself a 360 and an HDTV
> 
> Or borrow them...
> 
> But I'm just gonna show myself out the door in this thread, the trolls are beginning to show.


 
I have both, twat.

Not only that, but so does every room in my dorm.

They all look the same, ADF is not stretching the truth about the graphics.

You're just being rude, trying to argue a point yet not considering any others.

G'bye.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

> As far as I'm concerned, connecting them to anything else, like a computer, introduces a variable and makes the comparison invalid.


... DIGITAL. DIIIIGIIIITAAAL. HDMI = LOSSLESS. There is NO variable when it comes to digital signals. An HDTV is basically a monitor. That is what it is. There is no special thing that makes a television a television except for the presence of a TV tuner and usually some comb filter and a remote/IR port. An HDMI connection is signal-compatible with a DVI connection, which is exactly what a monitor uses. Many monitors also have HDMI inputs, and... Well... HDMI is equal to... A perfect... You know, I don't even know. This is like talking to a brick wall. If you're fine with it, fine, but the facts remain as they are, regardless as to what you choose to believe.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Because it was, I don't see how thats hard to understand. You produced a "console" image that clearly was below what a 360 can produce.


 
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you; it was above the 360 version. That screenshot was 720p, the 360 version is below 720p, so how was it worse than the 360 version? Because you say so? You have already demonstrated your inability to recognise what a real direct feed image looks like, you reject them outright.



Shay Feral said:


> I did respond


 
No, you didn't. After I asked "So what's wrong now" you stopped responding to me. Unless you are referring to the response before that.

"The link provided compares 360 to PS3, some games vary in quality between the PS3 and 360."

Which is random and has no relation to what was being discussed. You rejected the 720p image I provided, so I directed you to a site with direct feed images; so that you couldn't declare I faked something. So how on Earth is your above response relevant?



Shay Feral said:


> No, I'm asking for something reasonable. A blurry console screen cap is not acceptable, simply for the fact that unless your running on an old TV, consoles aren't blurry like that.


 
As it has been explained to you a variety of times, those images are taken directly from the video output. That is the image on your TV, whether you like to admit it or not.



Shay Feral said:


> Y'know, if popular acceptance were legitimate proof you'd have a point. But it's not, and your contributions are not enough to change my mind.



The only argument you had to counter that image was to accuse me of altering it to look bad. I even posted the raw image; and you still rejected it...

That's the sort of standards you are operating on, so you are in no position to accuse me of using illegitimate tactics to legitimize a image.



Shay Feral said:


> OMFG, are you SERIOUS?
> 
> I can't even begin to describe how... laughable... this argument has become.
> 
> ...



Everyone is laughing at you, you're just too self righteous to notice.



Shay Feral said:


> If you can't produce something as good as a 1080p shot, then sorry, you're not going to convince me otherwise. Maybe that the whole problem with this conversation... I run my console on 1080i, but I don't know the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Feel free to inform me about that.



For the second time, it's impossible for me to offer a 720p console image; that looks just as good as a 1080p PC image. I'm not biased just because I cannot offer an example of the impossible.

And use wiki for the 1080i/p difference, you don't believe anything else I say.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> If you can't produce something as good as a 1080p shot, then sorry, you're not going to convince me otherwise. Maybe that the whole problem with this conversation... I run my console on 1080i, but I don't know the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Feel free to inform me about that.


 Nobody can produce what you're looking for because IT DOES NOT EXIST.  Consoles DO NOT run at that high of a resolution; that's how they are able to actually WORK with 5 year old innards.  ADF explained it earlier in extensive detail - the image is scaled up from a lower resolution to give the illusion of a larger picture.  If I take a screenshot of a game running at 600x800 and expand it to 1280x1024, it is NOT a 1280x1024 image, it's just pretending to be one.


----------



## ADF (Nov 20, 2010)

It's late my end and I don't think I have the energy to handle another long post.

I'll check how this thread progresses in the morning, though I imagine it will just contain the same stuff we have been trying to cram into their head for a while now.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... DIGITAL. DIIIIGIIIITAAAL. HDMI = LOSSLESS. There is NO variable when it comes to digital signals. An HDTV is basically a monitor. That is what it is. There is no special thing that makes a television a television except for the presence of a TV tuner and usually some comb filter and a remote/IR port. An HDMI connection is signal-compatible with a DVI connection, which is exactly what a monitor uses. Many monitors also have HDMI inputs, and... Well... HDMI is equal to... A perfect... You know, I don't even know. This is like talking to a brick wall. If you're fine with it, fine, but the facts remain as they are, regardless as to what you choose to believe.



Obviously there is a difference if you are seeing a major difference between connecting an Xbox to a TV and to a computer.



> No, you didn't. After I asked "So what's wrong now" you stopped responding to me. Unless you are referring to the response before that.
> 
> "The link provided compares 360 to PS3, some games vary in quality between the PS3 and 360."


Yes, that was my response. You sent me a link that was comparing PS3 to Xbox 360...


> As it has been explained to you a variety of times, those images are taken directly from the video output. That is the image on your TV, whether you like to admit it or not.


Wait, what?

I don't know if your trying to tell me what I see on my own TV, or you've got lost somewhere in the conversation. Because my whole side of this discussion was based around what I see on my television.




> The only argument you had to counter that image was to accuse me of altering it to look bad. I even posted the raw image; and you still rejected it...


For the 3rd time (I think) I didn't directly accuse you, I said "for all I know you could have edited" which from any reasonable stand point puts doubt in my mind. And for that I declined your "proof".

It's an actual legal tactic, if you produce a document that is not from an unbiased source or is not notarized it can and will bring up questions of legitimacy. Don't take it personal...



> That's the sort of standards you are operating on, so you are in no position to accuse me of using illegitimate tactics to legitimize a image.


Unfortunately for you, I am in the position. It's the internet after all.




> Everyone is laughing at you, you're just too self righteous to notice.


No, they're trolling and so are you. This went from a debate to an argument the moment you started trolling. You can call me self righteous, laugh at me all you want, but who resorted to such tactics? You did... Whether you believe I'm stupid or mentally challenged is not an acceptable reason to lower yourself to a level to where you have to insult me for not agreeing with you.

In the grand scheme of things, it's not going to make a bit of difference whether or not you make an acceptable point in my eyes or not, and it's not really going to make a bit of difference if I convince you to agree with me either.

You either need to either adjust how you are approaching me with your arguments, try to see it from my side, or just stop replying, trolling should be beneath the both of us. If you can't convince just go on with your day, cos either you failed to make your point or I'm just hard headed. Either way, it's not gonna stop the sun from rising tomorrow morning.



> And use wiki for the 1080i/p difference, you don't believe anything else I say.


The difference between 1080i/p is not relevant to the discussion at hand, meaning I will be willing to listen to what you have to say on that subject and then I'll look it up for confirmation.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

For everyone's reference, 1080i = Interlaced, while 1080p = Progressive.

The difference?

With Progressive, a full picture is drawn on-screen 60 times per second. This is how an LCD is supposed to work, and is generally perfect.

With interlace, every other line on the screen is a different image when the picture is drawn, which means a full picture is only drawn 30 times per second, though because two different pictures are drawn on-screen at once, it appears that the motion is faster because of the optical effect. This is how CRT's used to operate and it worked just fine with those, but on LCD's and modern displays, it can result in interlace artifacts (part of a picture is combined with part of another picture, sort of a ghosting effect - see here for an example of interlaced motion). This also introduces blur, though the impact of that depends on the quality of the TV.

It's actually best to get away from "720p" and "1080p" and choose the *native resolution* of your TV, since that will provide the best picture quality. Any resolution below or beyond what your TV is capable of will be scaled by your TV, which will usually not be as good as the scaling provided by your console, and especially by your computer (since it outputs the native resolution unchanged anyway, unless certain options are specifically set).



> Obviously there is a difference if you are seeing a major difference between connecting an Xbox to a TV and to a computer.


Except there isn't. There really, seriously isn't. How do you suppose they take screenshots and videos for trailers? Do you suppose that they just accept that the video output will be worse when connected to a computer for some bizarre reason that has no basis in reality except that "consoles are designed to be connected to TV's", which is actually not true seeing as the 360 is capable of VGA, DVI and HDMI, and uses computer hardware practically identical to a Radeon X1900 to process its graphics? The only time it's "designed to be connected to a TV" is when it's using component or composite video output, and even then, computer video cards can do that, too.



> The difference between 1080i/p is not relevant to the discussion at hand, meaning I will be willing to listen to what you have to say on that subject and then I'll look it up for confirmation.


Yeah it does.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Obviously there is a difference if you are seeing a major difference between connecting an Xbox to a TV and to a computer.


 


Xenke said:


> I think I finally figured out why I don't really notice the difference between console and PC graphics.
> 
> Everything moves!
> 
> The one thing I usually notice is crappy textures, but I don't see much of that as of late.


 


Xenke said:


> Unfortunately, the eyes are not an perfect mechanism for detecting images.


 


Xenke said:


> Even with glasses, last time I checked the mind would play a couple roles in this:
> 
> 1) Since the image is changing in quick succession, certain things your eyes see are altered in the brain to how it EXPECTS something to be. For example, broken pixels are often ignored until you're specifically looking for them.
> 2) Memory distorts what we think we've seen. I know I certainly remember N64 graphics being a LOT nicer than they actually are.



Futhermore, here's a screenshot from my favorite 360 game, Bayonetta.

Notice, it looks like crap compared to what you see, right?

REASON: Movement. Images changing rapidly, creating movement on the screen. Your brain interprets these images and strings them together. Because of the rapid change of these images, they often blend together, causing an effect that makes thing look smoother than they actually are. Further more, with the small time you brain has to look at the image, it decides to generalize everything into shapes. You don't have the time to notice pixelization, repeating textures, or jagged edges.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> For everyone's reference, 1080i = Interlaced, while 1080p = Progressive.
> 
> The difference?
> 
> ...



I set my Xbox to "auto resolution", and sets to 1360x768. I don't like that setting though, the black level is too high. I tried adjusting it to no avail, so I just keep it on 1080.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

You realize that your TV isn't actually capable of very much more than 720p, and yet you're setting it to 1080i. If the black level is too high with native, why not adjust your TV's settings? Barring that... Well, 720p is probably just as well for you.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Except there isn't. There really, seriously isn't. How do you suppose they take screenshots and videos for trailers? Do you suppose that they just accept that the video output will be worse when connected to a computer for some bizarre reason that has no basis in reality except that "consoles are designed to be connected to TV's", which is actually not true seeing as the 360 is capable of VGA, DVI and HDMI, and uses computer hardware practically identical to a Radeon X1900 to process its graphics? The only time it's "designed to be connected to a TV" is when it's using component or composite video output, and even then, computer video cards can do that, too.



Again, if you experience image degradation by hooking a console into your computer there is obviously something different going on. Regardless of what you're opinion is, when a console is played on a television the graphics are on par with computer games. That's all that matters in this discussion.




> Yeah it does.


No, it doesn't. We were not discussing the difference between I/P, meaning it was not relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Again, if you experience image degradation by hooking a console into your computer there is obviously something different going on. Regardless of what you're opinion is, when a console is played on a television the graphics are on par with computer games. That's all that matters in this discussion.



You're saying the video display device (TV/computer monitor) is what makes the graphics go?  

It's rare to see something so beautifully stupid.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> You realize that your TV isn't actually capable of very much more than 720p, and yet you're setting it to 1080i. If the black level is too high with native, why not adjust your TV's settings? Barring that... Well, 720p is probably just as well for you.


 
I don't understand TV's, at all, old or new. But my TV will display it's resolution on start up, if I adjust the 360 to 1080 my tv will display that resolution on start up. It's a Samsung... Thats really all I know about it


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

I don't even know what to say to that. I show you games that run at sub-720p, I show you the technical details of pretty much everything that goes between the console and a TV and everything else, and you just go "LOLNOPE". Whatever, seriously.

And do yourself a favour and look up native resolution. Though honestly, at this point, you'll probably point at THAT and say THAT isn't real and that because your TV says 1080p, it must be showing 1080p.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> You're saying the video display device (TV/computer monitor) is what makes the graphics go?
> 
> It's rare to see something so beautifully stupid.


 
Can you not read or are you intentionally miss-interpreting what I'm saying?


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I don't even know what to say to that. I show you games that run at sub-720p, I show you the technical details of pretty much everything that goes between the console and a TV and everything else, and you just go "LOLNOPE". Whatever, seriously.


 
Ugh, how hard can it be to understand? When I turn on my television there is a box in the upper left corner that will tell me the time, and resolution of whatever device I have plugged into it. If I start my Xbox and it's set at 1080, that box will read "(####)X1080", if I change my consoles resolution setting my TV will reset and the new resolution will be displayed in that box.


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Can you not read or are you intentionally miss-interpreting what I'm saying?





Shay Feral said:


> when a console  is played on a television the graphics are on par with computer games.


No, that's exactly what you said; the very fact that the game is being displayed on a television magically gives them better draw distance, texture resolution, anti aliasing, framerate, lighting effects, and so on.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> Ugh, how hard can it be to understand? When I turn on my television there is a box in the upper left corner that will tell me the time, and resolution of whatever device I have plugged into it. If I start my Xbox and it's set at 1080, that box will read "(####)X1080", if I change my consoles resolution setting my TV will reset and the new resolution will be displayed in that box.


 
I knew you'd bring this up, and that's why I linked you to the native resolution wiki article, which would have explained this to you. The TV is receiving that resolution and reports it, but there are only 1366x768 physical pixels on that TV (LCD's are static, there is only one resolution that they really support - everything else is scaled). You're setting it to 1920x1080 pixels interlaced, so your TV is shrinking down an interlaced picture that's, in turn, been blown up by your 360 from 720p or below. So... Yeah. That sounds like it'll introduce a bit of blur along the way.

Just so you know, my 19" TV supports 1080p, too, but I know for certain that its native resolution is 1440x900. Because of this, 1080p is super-sharpened and looks bad due to the poor scaler in my TV, but 1440x900 looks smooth and crisp. Moral of the story is, you shouldn't run your monitor/TV at anything but its native resolution unless that resolution isn't available.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 20, 2010)

Riley said:


> No, that's exactly what you said; the very fact that the game is being displayed on a television magically gives them better draw distance, texture resolution, anti aliasing, framerate, lighting effects, and so on.


 
No, your assuming thats what I said. Hell, you've got two quotes right there and neither of them say anything about draw distiance, anti aliasing, frame rate etc... Please just go sit in a corner with a dunce cap


----------



## Riley (Nov 20, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> No, your assuming thats what I said. Hell, you've got two quotes right there and neither of them say anything about draw distiance, anti aliasing, frame rate etc... Please just go sit in a corner with a dunce cap



I'll certainly go fetch a dunce cap for _you_ to wear, since you seem to have the incredible ability to completely forget what you typed 15 minutes ago.



> when a console  is played on a television the graphics are on par with computer games.


This was your original quote.  Notice that the word "graphics" is in there.


> No, that's exactly what you said; the very fact that the game is being  displayed on a television magically gives them better draw distance,  texture resolution, anti aliasing, framerate, lighting effects, and so  on.


This is my quote.  I mention aspects of graphics on console games that are always below the quality that of PC games.  

Would you like to start paying attention, and maybe have a discussion that way, or do you just want to keep being a douche?  'Cause I mean, I can deal with you doing either.  Hatfields are like that, don't expect to come out of an argument in any sort of good shape with one.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 21, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I knew you'd bring this up, and that's why I linked you to the native resolution wiki article, which would have explained this to you. The TV is receiving that resolution and reports it, but there are only 1366x768 physical pixels on that TV (LCD's are static, there is only one resolution that they really support - everything else is scaled). You're setting it to 1920x1080 pixels interlaced, so your TV is shrinking down an interlaced picture that's, in turn, been blown up by your 360 from 720p or below. So... Yeah. That sounds like it'll introduce a bit of blur along the way.
> 
> Just so you know, my 19" TV supports 1080p, too, but I know for certain that its native resolution is 1440x900. Because of this, 1080p is super-sharpened and looks bad due to the poor scaler in my TV, but 1440x900 looks smooth and crisp. Moral of the story is, you shouldn't run your monitor/TV at anything but its native resolution unless that resolution isn't available.



My TV is meant for 720p, so I switched. I booted Forza Motorsport 3 and instantly noticed the background images and textures coming in much, much cleaner. But the focal points (the cars) I can't tell a difference.



Riley said:


> I'll certainly go fetch a dunce cap for _you_ to wear, since you seem to have the incredible ability to completely forget what you typed 15 minutes ago.
> 
> 
> This was your original quote.  Notice that the word "graphics" is in there.
> ...



Whatever makes you sleep at night, honey.


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> My TV is meant for 720p, so I switched. I booted Forza Motorsport 3 and instantly noticed the background images and textures coming in much, much cleaner. But the focal points (the cars) I can't tell a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever makes you sleep at night, honey.


 Ah, attempting to subtly call me a girl.  Clever.  Now would you like to actually bother attempting to defend or explain your completely ludicrous claim that the object a video is displayed on makes any difference to the way the machine actually renders it?


----------



## Xenke (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> Ah, attempting to subtly call me a girl.  Clever.  Now would you like to actually bother attempting to defend or explain your completely ludicrous claim that the object a video is displayed on makes any difference to the way the machine actually renders it?


 
Hey, at least they've dropped the "all screenshots are lies" argument.


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Hey, at least they've dropped the "all screenshots are lies" argument.


 
There is that, yeah.  They just sort of stopped yelling about it though, and not really... accepting that they were wrong.


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 21, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Hey, at least they've dropped the "all screenshots are lies" argument.


 I never said all screenshots are lies, and never made any argument saying all screenshots are lies. You are over generalizing, and putting way too much emphasis on my statement that screenshots from computer gamers are illegitimate. What I'm trying to get at with that statement is that you can be honest with your statements, but being this is the internet, I trust no one.


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> I never said all screenshots are lies, and *never made any argument saying all screenshots are lies.* You are over generalizing, and putting way too much emphasis on my statement that screenshots from computer gamers are illegitimate. What I'm trying to get at with that statement is that you can be honest with your statements, but being this is the internet, I trust no one.





Shay Feral said:


> screen capping from a computer is not producing the  actual image thats being displayed.


Are you ever going to pay attention to the things you say?


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 21, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> I never said all screenshots are lies, and never made any argument saying all screenshots are lies. You are over generalizing, and putting way too much emphasis on my statement that screenshots from computer gamers are illegitimate. What I'm trying to get at with that statement is that you can be honest with your statements, but being this is the internet, I trust no one.


 Shay...stop
stop now as just on your journals on FA you have lost grounds


----------



## Shay Feral (Nov 21, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Shay...stop
> stop now as just on your journals on FA you have lost grounds



I was stopped, and now you started me again. And WTF do my FA journals have to do with anything related to this thread?


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 21, 2010)

Shay Feral said:


> I was stopped, and now you started me again. And WTF do my FA journals have to do with anything related to this thread?


 you always lose ground very fast, mostly due to you always seem to forget what you said earlier, ALWAYS.
Thus I'm saying, "stop Debating, dont ever debate again, cause you always get crushed"


----------



## ADF (Nov 21, 2010)

Hmm. I think at this point we should just leave it.

As tempting as it is to respond to Shay Feral's latest comment to me, this isn't going anywhere.

Oh well, here's a random Crysis shot.


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 21, 2010)

ADF said:


> Hmm. I think at this point we should just leave it.
> 
> As tempting as it is to respond to Shay Feral's latest comment to me, this isn't going anywhere.
> 
> Oh well, here's a random Crysis shot.



Okay, now you are just being petty. Slapping on a picture likely taken from a maxed out PC for the best possible quality really adds nothing. Why don't I be like you and toss in a random Xbox 360 Gears of War pic?

This entire thread is moot. It only comes down to personal preference. I have games on both PC and my 360, sometimes I even have the same game on both platforms, such as Modern warfare 2 and Team fortress 2. I still prefer to play MW2 on my Xbox because the PC multiplayer community is actually quite shit. And even though I play TF2 on my PC, I still plug in my 360 controller to play it. (Funny how scout and sniper are my best classes, too.)


----------



## ADF (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Okay, now you are just being petty. Slapping on a picture likely taken from a maxed out PC for the best possible quality really adds nothing. Why don't I be like you and toss in a random Xbox 360 Gears of War pic?



Nice bullshot. That image came from my PC, which for the record is the following.



> 1GB GTX 460, 3GB DDR2 800, Athlon 2 x4 630 2.8ghz, 1920x1200 Samgung.



What's so petty about me showing a screenshot from my PC in a thread like this? I posted two Crysis videos I recorded on my PC earlier; and no one complained about them. All I'm doing is showing what my PC can do, what my experience is, in a thread posing the question "PC better/worse than consoles?"


----------



## Aeturnus (Nov 21, 2010)

I honestly don't really give a shit, but I'm enjoying the argument that's been going on since the thread began.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 21, 2010)

Aeturnus said:


> I honestly don't really give a shit, but I'm enjoying the argument that's been going on since the thread began.


 
Nice contribution, bro.


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 21, 2010)

Hardly bullshots.

These arguments are so tiresome. Because even though the question posed is about the gaming experience overall, PC gamers eventually just boil it down to Graphics that the human eye doesn't really notice, amateur mods, and the fact that they can steal their games. Or, they compare their state of the art gaming rig to a five year old Console.

PC Gaming can be fun, when the servers aren't clogged with elitist assholes. But just look at what most of the game sales are now, and what platforms they are being sold for. :/


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Because even though the question posed is about the gaming experience overall,
> 
> _*Not really, more like the many, many advantages PCs have over consoles.*_
> 
> ...



Answers in bold.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Hardly bullshots.


 
Yes, it is.

Gears of War xbox does not HAVE the resolution of the pic you're linking, it's too big to be xbox, it came from a PC version.

This is an xbox version.


----------



## ADF (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Hardly bullshots.



They are 1080p, which Gears of War isn't on 360, and have no visual imperfections such as jaggies and texture distortion. They are clearly pre-rendered bullshots.



Random_Observer said:


> These arguments are so tiresome. Because even though the question posed is about the gaming experience overall, PC gamers eventually just boil it down to *Graphics that the human eye doesn't really notice, amateur mods, and the fact that they can steal their games.* Or, they compare their state of the art gaming rig to a five year old Console.



Aren't you just demonstrating that you personally have something against PC? These are subjective arguments with a bit of hateboyism thrown in. 



Random_Observer said:


> PC Gaming can be fun, *when the servers aren't clogged with elitist assholes*. But just look at what most of the game sales are now, and what platforms they are being sold for. :/



Now you're clearly being a hateboy. How in any way does sales impact your experience of the game? Consoles are a broader audience, so of course their games are going to sell more; because there is more people to target. Casuals are a broader audience than the mainstream gamer, which is why the Wii sold more than both PS3 and 360; and both MS and Sony are trying to tap the casual audience. Microsoft spent $500 million just promoting Kinect in the hopes of getting a piece of that pie.

Consoles sell more because they appeal to a broader audience, not because they are better. If you want to go by that argument, the Wii is better than PS3 and 360. It must be, because it sold more units (never mind the audience mostly plays Wii Sports).

As for that latter part, you would have to ignore the sheer number of previously console exclusive developers now selling on PC; to suggest the market is moving more down the console rout. Look at these GameSpot reviews. PC is getting more releases than consoles, it also has a better exclusive to cross platform ratio than consoles.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Hardly bullshots


Hello not an actual screenshot. Gears of War 2 runs at 720p with 2xAA on the 360, not 1080p with AA, which is what that screen is. Methinks it's a render if not a PC shot.



> PC gamers eventually just boil it down to Graphics that the human eye doesn't really notice


Really? Crisper textures and higher resolutions at faster frame rates aren't noticeable to the human eye? Hmm... Methinks it's time to get an eye exam.



> and the fact that they can steal their games.


Yeah, but console gamers steal their games, too. In fact, they do more than piracy alone would - They buy and sell used games, which are available on day zero, where the devs get only a single sale from what could amount to dozens after-market, all while their game is still brand new on the shelf. You can say all you want that it's fine to do that, but the point is, the difference between new and used is zero, and therefore when it makes more sense to buy something that's basically brand new for $5 cheaper to fund the continued existence of companies like Gamestop and EB Games, the games industry suffers more from used games sales than piracy. Why? Because used games are "legitimate" and much, _much_ more rampant than piracy.

A funny thing, actually - There's practically no used game market on the PC because of piracy concerns, and companies like Steam are revitalizing the PC gaming world with features like Steam Friends and the like that the consoles are doing now. Steam alone, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, but I wholly doubt it), accounts for a huge majority of PC games sold, and it's incredibly successful. Games sold on Steam are also less expensive and I believe are less costly to devs/publishers to sell, which makes for less expensive games and more profit for devs. To be honest, I haven't pirated a game in years thanks to Steam, and usually, it's just a lot more convenient than actually pirating something. Not to mention, y'know, the legitimacy. Hell, I believe there's rumours of a "used game" service, where you can "sell" your rights to play certain games for credit in your Steam Wallet. Not totally sure how that's going to work, but it seems to me like it would be set up to put money back in the hands of developers during a resale. That seems a lot more fair than the draconian system seen in the brick and mortars.



> Or, they compare their state of the art gaming rig to a five year old Console.


Well, to be fair, the opposite is what's been happening, and hey, you did that, too, with your GoW screenshots. The point is, consoles right now have nowhere near the power of current PC's, and arguing that it's "good enough" for the human eye when it really isn't and likely never will be is basically arguing that there's never going to be a need for newer technology and you're arguing for complete stagnation.



> And even though I play TF2 on my PC, I still plug in my 360 controller to play it


Really? Wow. I imagine you usually suck then, or you play on servers populated by complete retards. I haven't played in about a year, but I'm sure I could kick your ass all over the place with my keyboard and mouse.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> These arguments are so tiresome. Because even though the question posed is about the gaming experience overall, PC gamers eventually just boil it down to Graphics that the human eye doesn't really notice, amateur mods, and the fact that they can steal their games. Or, they compare their state of the art gaming rig to a five year old Console.



Except that we haven't been using those arguments. From what I've seen, it's the console players that have taken up on the graphics argument and claim PC gamers use the "you can steal your games" argument. You're pointing out arguments we don't make instead of the ones we do make. 

I'm getting tired of every console gamer looking down on mods. They obviously haven't seen what effects they've had on gaming throughout the years. Mods are the reason why we have games such as Battlefield, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Left 4 Dead. Then there are the amazing mods that turn sub-par games into fantastic ones, like Oblivion or STALKER, where the fans made unofficial patches that fixed pretty much EVERYTHING the devs didn't fix. 

Lastly, sales do not reflect which platform and/or game is better.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 21, 2010)

Ishnuvalok said:


> STALKER


 
Yep, STALKER is a great example. STALKER Complete is a great collection of all the best mods out there that turn it into a graphical beauty and overall makes the game more like it was intended to be, with most of the bugs squashed, script typos and grammar fixes, weapon accuracy and damage fixes, free play, tons of extra music performed by live musicians, dynamic weather (thunderstorm at night with this mod = one of the most immersive and scary things I've seen in a game), ambient occlusion, a realistic flashlight, AI fixes, etc.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> There is that, yeah.  They just sort of stopped yelling about it though, and not really... accepting that they were wrong.


 
When was the last time you heard a child admit fault without having their ears twisted/hide tanned by their parents?

I SOOOO took that shot.  Bang bang, fuckers.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 21, 2010)

Tycho said:


> When was the last time you heard a child admit fault without having their ears twisted/hide tanned by their parents?


 
Never.


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

http://kotaku.com/5695538/halo-wars-goes-dark-on-dec-15

I'm going to toss this out here as it's a perfect example of why consoles will never have the same impact of a PC.  Halo Wars is 2 years old, and just because it isn't making MS a tidal wave of money, they're shutting off the servers.  Everyone who wants to play this will not be able to, because the few servers that people were allowed to play on are getting shut down.  The same will happen to any console game.  Meanwhile, over in PC-land, the Quake 1 community is still going on.  Not giving players the ability to run their own communities is what will forever hold back consoles from being any sort of actual power player in the grand scheme of things.  Give it another year or two, and Halo 3's going to go offline.  Then Reach.  Same with CoD4, 5, 6, and 7.  You want a game to survive for more than a decade?  Put it on PC and let the community support it.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> http://kotaku.com/5695538/halo-wars-goes-dark-on-dec-15
> 
> I'm going to toss this out here as it's a perfect example of why consoles will never have the same impact of a PC.  Halo Wars is 2 years old, and just because it isn't making MS a tidal wave of money, they're shutting off the servers.  Everyone who wants to play this will not be able to, because the few servers that people were allowed to play on are getting shut down.  The same will happen to any console game.  Meanwhile, over in PC-land, the Quake 1 community is still going on.  Not giving players the ability to run their own communities is what will forever hold back consoles from being any sort of actual power player in the grand scheme of things.  Give it another year or two, and Halo 3's going to go offline.  Then Reach.  Same with CoD4, 5, 6, and 7.  You want a game to survive for more than a decade?  Put it on PC and let the community support it.


 
From what I understood of the article, online play will still be available, but there will be no more community pages, ranking, or stat tracking.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 21, 2010)

Xenke said:


> From what I understood of the article, online play will still be available, but there will be no more community pages, ranking, or stat tracking.


 For consoles, its a sign that the servers are gonna get axed soon, after all the only folks who are still playing PSO are those on PC on private servers, only difference is that the Dreamcast and Gamecube players can connect to those servers too.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 21, 2010)

But guys, don't you get it? You're not cool if you're still playing Halo 3 and CoD4, you need to get with the program and buy the latest and greatest all the time!


----------



## ADF (Nov 21, 2010)

Runefox said:


> But guys, don't you get it? You're not cool if you're still playing Halo 3 and CoD4, you need to get with the program and buy the latest and greatest all the time!


 
And if you don't it must be because your system sucks; and that's all you have to play.

Only people with crappy systems play old games, because they don't get decent new games.


----------



## Furlop (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> And even though I play TF2 on my PC, I still plug in my 360 controller to play it.


 
Oh dear..


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 21, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> And even though I play TF2 on my PC, I still plug in my 360 controller to play it. (Funny how scout and sniper are my best classes, too.)


 Tell me are you being dommed easilly by everyone specially other scouts and snipers :V


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

Hey controller-using PC players, two things.  First off, you're dumb and that's a horrible thing to do.  Second, come play me at UT2004 with a controller.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> Hey controller-using PC players, two things.  First off, you're dumb and that's a horrible thing to do.  Second, come play me at UT2004 with a controller.



Now now, don't insult all gamepad using PC gamers. 

I'd much rather use my 360 gamepad to play driving and TPS games. 

On another note, is the UT2004 community still alive and kicking? I'm trying to pick which UT game I should get. I like UT3 when I played on a free weekend, but I've heard from some that it's not nearly as good as UT2004. Opinions?


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

Ishnuvalok said:


> Now now, don't insult all gamepad using PC gamers.
> 
> I'd much rather use my 360 gamepad to play driving and TPS games.
> 
> On another note, is the UT2004 community still alive and kicking? I'm trying to pick which UT game I should get. I like UT3 when I played on a free weekend, but I've heard from some that it's not nearly as good as UT2004. Opinions?



Sorry, that controller jab was just reflex.

About UT3:
From an extremely biased point of view?  UT3 is an insult to the UT series and everyone who played it.

More of a reasonable point of view?  UT3 was hyped to be a wonderful successor to the astoundingly good UT2004, which itself was a wonderful successor to the astoundingly good original UT.  In short, it was not.  The gameplay was slower and clunkier than previous installments, with a lower movement speed, the removal of certain dodging moves, and a lower jump height.  The weapons didn't feel nearly as effective or powerful as they had been before, and a few performed vastly differently.  

Over half the game modes from UT2004 were removed, which left UT3 with only 3 flavours of deathmatch (deathmatch, team DM, and a specific 1v1 mode), 2 variations of capture the flag (normal CTF and a vehicle CTF), and largely the same Onslaught mode from UT2004 (at launch; 2 other game modes were added in a patch.)  The game shipped with only 41 maps for those game modes.  UT2004, though, shipped with 10 different game modes (DM, TDM, CTF, Last Man Standing, Assault (objective based scenario, absent from UT2003, added back in for '04, then removed from UT3 again), Invasion (fighting off increasingly difficult waves of monsters), Bombing Run (imagine soccer with guns), Double Domination, Mutant (one guy basically has superpowers, everyone else tries to kill him, and the person that does inherits those powers)).  For all of those game modes, UT2004 shipped with over 100 maps.

So UT3 was generally poorly received by fans of the series for not only a lack in content, but a lack in anything that felt like the previous games.  There are good parts of it, such as vastly improved vehicle physics from UT2004, and the obvious use of a better graphics engine.  However, those graphics ended up looking like this, so that can really be seen as either a positive or a negative.  I personally liked a lot of the new weapon designs, too.  

Overall, UT3 was pretty disappointing to everyone, and most people who were fans of the series moved back to UT99 or UT2004 fairly quickly.  Right now, both games still have strong communities going on, with UT99 still showing around 1,000 populated servers daily, and about the same for UT2004.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> Sorry, that controller jab was just reflex.
> 
> About UT3:
> From an extremely biased point of view?  UT3 is an insult to the UT series and everyone who played it.
> ...



UT2004 it is then, thanks for the insight!


----------



## BlueEevee (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> Hey controller-using PC players, two things.  First off, you're dumb and that's a horrible thing to do.  Second, come play me at UT2004 with a controller.


 
I see no problem in using one, I use one when I have no access to a table or desk


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

Ishnuvalok said:


> UT2004 it is then, thanks for the insight!


 No problem, I hope you end up enjoying it.


BlueEevee said:


> I see no problem in using one, I use one when I have no access to a table or desk


 The thing is, if you're going to bother buying a controller than can be hooked up to a computer, and then use it, why not just play on a console?  You're not going to use the controller for anything else like typing or working in photoshop, right?  The mouse and keyboard are already there, just use those.


----------



## BlueEevee (Nov 21, 2010)

When I use a controller, I use a PS3 one since I have no better use for it and plus consoles don't allow legal moding on games


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

BlueEevee said:


> When I use a controller, I use a PS3 one since I have no better use for it and plus consoles don't allow legal moding on games


 
Ah.  But see, now I've just got this image in my head of you walking around your house and finding a PS3 controller sitting somewhere, and going "Huh.  Well I guess I'll use it, then!"


----------



## BlueEevee (Nov 21, 2010)

Riley said:


> Ah.  But see, now I've just got this image in my head of you walking around your house and finding a PS3 controller sitting somewhere, and going "Huh.  Well I guess I'll use it, then!"


 
When your PS3 dies, you are bound to try and find another use for it


----------



## Riley (Nov 21, 2010)

BlueEevee said:


> When your PS3 dies, you are bound to try and find another use for it


 
Sort of a shame Sony went back to the classic controller design, or you could have had a nice boomerang.  I'm stuck with a really old PS/2 keyboard, myself.  I technically could still use it, but there's not any good reason to.


----------



## BlueEevee (Nov 21, 2010)

That design was horrible, and it would make playing MGS and DMC a little weird


----------



## Saxton Hale (Nov 22, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> That later on become normal things released on PC oh wait for free


 
No one likes a pirate, shiela.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 22, 2010)

Saxton Hale said:


> No one likes a pirate, shiela.


 
Except fellow pirates and their wallets.


----------



## Saxton Hale (Nov 22, 2010)

They're the reason PC gaming is in such a neglect.  I know this because I'm a billionaire.


----------



## Jude (Nov 22, 2010)

I'm only using my 360 controller to play TF2 because its fucking impossible to play it with a laptop mousepad. I have to wait until Christmas to get my mouse.


----------



## Random_Observer (Nov 22, 2010)

> Yes, it is.
> 
> Gears of War xbox does not HAVE the resolution of the pic you're linking, it's too big to be xbox, it came from a PC version.
> 
> This is an xbox version.



Looks like the same shoddy quality that ends up in magazines, Gears doesn't nook near as bad as that on my 56" DLP.



> Now you're clearly being a hateboy. How in any way does sales impact your experience of the game? Consoles are a broader audience, so of course their games are going to sell more; because there is more people to target. Casuals are a broader audience than the mainstream gamer, which is why the Wii sold more than both PS3 and 360; and both MS and Sony are trying to tap the casual audience. Microsoft spent $500 million just promoting Kinect in the hopes of getting a piece of that pie.
> 
> Consoles sell more because they appeal to a broader audience, not because they are better. If you want to go by that argument, the Wii is better than PS3 and 360. It must be, because it sold more units (never mind the audience mostly plays Wii Sports).



How can I be a hateboy when I play PC games myself. And of course Consoles appeal to a broader audience, they offer convenience and services that are too much of a hassle to wring out of a PC to the average consumer. Which is a good thing.



> Really? Wow. I imagine you usually suck then, or you play on servers populated by complete retards. I haven't played in about a year, but I'm sure I could kick your ass all over the place with my keyboard and mouse.





> Tell me are you being dommed easilly by everyone specially other scouts and snipers :V





> Hey controller-using PC players, two things. First off, you're dumb and that's a horrible thing to do. Second, come play me at UT2004 with a controller.



Close minded elitist bullshit. Current record for Sniper on TF2 is 21 kills in one life, 15 of them headshots, total of five dominations, every one of them with a controller in hand, and all on a game of dustbowl in one of the furry pound servers. By the time I was done a third of the opposite team went sniper. But maybe the comment about retards was true but who knows.

Granted, I've watched other snipers play, and my style is different than those who use a mouse, but it can be done, you *can* play well. It's just a different style that takes skill to develop.


----------



## ADF (Nov 22, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Looks like the same shoddy quality that ends up in magazines, Gears doesn't nook near as bad as that on my 56" DLP.



Here we go again.

Go read the arguments against Shay Feral, people won't want to re-explain it all.

The size of your television is also irrelevant to what is being shown on it. It's the same 720p image being stretched across it, whether it is a 20" or 60" television.



Random_Observer said:


> How can I be a hateboy when I play PC games myself. And of course Consoles appeal to a broader audience, they offer convenience and services that are too much of a hassle to the average consumer. Which is a good thing.



Just because you own a platform doesn't mean you're unbiased, I have part ownership of a PS3 for example.

Anyway you was using sales to argue consoles > PC, which is a ridiculous argument; given that sales offer no indication of your experience. It also ignores that these audiences are broader, so higher sales can be attributed to that; rather than saying anything about whether a platform is actually good.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 22, 2010)

ADF said:


> Anyway you was using sales to argue consoles > PC, which is a ridiculous argument; given that sales offer no indication of your experience. It also ignores that these audiences are broader, so higher sales can be attributed to that; rather than saying anything about whether a platform is actually good.


 
If sales truly reflected how good a game/console was, then the Wii would be amazing and Wii play would be the best game of all time. 

This is clearly not the case.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 22, 2010)

Random_Observer said:


> Looks like the same shoddy quality that ends up in magazines, Gears doesn't nook near as bad as that on my 56" DLP.


 
Ok.

Regardless, that's the image being sent from the xbox to the TV or w/e viewing device.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Nov 22, 2010)

I've got a better idea. Why don't we all stop discussing this and just agree that PC gaming and Console gaming are one and the same. You are still playing games just across multiple platforms. Sure one you get a bit more freedom and mods and the other you don't need to have the constant worry of "Can I run this?". Both sides have their pros and cons. Personally I hate playing on the PC because I can't do well with a keyboard and mouse which is why I love my console and I don't need to worry about upgrading it slowly.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 22, 2010)

Adrianfolf said:


> I've got a better idea. Why don't we all stop discussing this and just agree that PC gaming and Console gaming are one and the same.


 
Yeah, no, they're not.

I wouldn't have consoles if they were.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Nov 22, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Yeah, no, they're not.
> 
> I wouldn't have consoles if they were.


 How are they not the same? Just one you are playing on a computer and the other you're not?


----------



## Xenke (Nov 22, 2010)

Adrianfolf said:


> How are they not the same? Just one you are playing on a computer and the other you're not?


 
Hardware differences, input differences, game differences, output differences, interface differences, price differences, availability differences, functionality differences, etc.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Nov 22, 2010)

Xenke said:


> Hardware differences, input differences, game differences, output differences, interface differences, price differences, availability differences, functionality differences, etc.


 You just listed things that are a given that don't even need to be discussed. But the fact remains they both still do gaming. Who cares about controls interfaces and what not. As long as they both play games what does it matter?


----------



## Xenke (Nov 22, 2010)

Adrianfolf said:


> You just listed things that are a given that don't even need to be discussed. But the fact remains they both still do gaming. Who cares about controls interfaces and what not. As long as they both play games what does it matter?


 
*face*

The whole point of this thread is looking at the differences.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Nov 22, 2010)

Xenke said:


> *face*
> 
> The whole point of this thread is looking at the differences.


 Last time I checked it asked if PC gaming was better or worse than Console gaming. Which in my opinion I do not think either are better than other.


----------



## Riley (Nov 22, 2010)

Adrianfolf said:


> Last time I checked it asked if PC gaming was better or worse than Console gaming. Which in my opinion I do not think either are better than other.


 
Which is why you start talking about how they're different.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 22, 2010)

Adrianfolf said:


> Last time I checked it asked if PC gaming was better or worse than Console gaming. Which in my opinion I do not think either are better than other.


 in other words we hijacked this topic to not let the fanboyism occur by judging the differences between em as neither is better than the other, but one does have a one up on the other in various areas.


----------

