PC vs Consoles

Which platform is home to you?

  • Total voters
    62
21dmool.jpg


Also the hardware in a console vs a PC doesn't matter. It's the developer that makes it, compare 2006 Assassin's Creed 1 on the Xbox360 and how bad it looked compared to Assassin's Creed 3 now on the Xbox360.

Same console system, same developer, just more developed graphics. Spending money on an over price PC gaming unit to make a game like Brink look good is near impossible. It's all about the developer.
 
K0rN_b4LL said:
cad-20131204-4c4f1.png
Click to expand...

You do know it takes less than 15 seconds to turn the Kinect off, right? Xbox Snap - Settings - Kinect off... Problem solved.

It's actually pretty useful in BF4 the XboxOne allows you to communicate with your squad with simply your voice. Also contextual lean tracks your real life movements if you want to lean into cover. If not for Kinect being standard issue for XB1 normal Kinect owners would have an unfair advantage over non-Kinect owners.

I personally think it's hilarious how you can get penalties in Fifa for swearing, so of course your friends sitting next to you will start cussing... LOL! But then again, it takes less than 15 seconds to turn the Kinect off, so it's not even an issue whatsoever.
 
Norik said:
Ew, virtual pads are the worst.

Also, you completely missed the joke.
Click to expand...

You do know...

You can play Killer Instinct on XboxOne --- While Skyping chatting --- While in a party chat with 6 friends --- While the game is paused --- While watching Youtube... right?

Oh and if I go back and play 1990's games, I realize they suck, they were just the ground work for BETTER games like we have now. Like old 1920 cars, they're pretty much inferior to cars nowadays in ever single aspect, but they were "good for their time".

Classic games like Conker's Bad Fur Day and F-Zero just get lost in the line of time.... (Of course Nintendo sucks for killing off profitable franchises and force feeding people Mario games.)
 
Ishimaru Jinrai said:
What if I told you...

You could play that exact same Mario game on your iPhone without a controller...
Click to expand...
What if I told you...

that touchscreens suck as the MAIN medium of input for a game ;)

and what if I told you...

that i'd rather just use my PSP instead because they are perfect for that, yet they are portable enough that i can carry one in my pocket everywhere i go <3
 
Slayer_X64 said:
What if I told you...

that touchscreens suck as the MAIN medium of input for a game ;)

and what if I told you...

that i'd rather just use my PSP instead because they are perfect for that, yet they are portable enough that i can carry one in my pocket everywhere i go <3
Click to expand...

I'd say good, because I think Nintendo's greatest asset is it's portable devices, I even own a PSP and a Nintendo 3DS XL myself, mostly for Pokemon!

I'm saying if I'm going to go out and drop $1,200 on a high-end gaming PC (because I only buy the best) then I for sure won't be playing Mario or some 1980's game.... I'll be buying the latest triple AAA grade games and showing 120 frames per second playing Borderlands 2! If I game on PC it's either for MMORPGs or because I'm outperforming my XB1, I won't even bother wasting my time playing old games. =]
 
well actually i figured it was a combination of there arent many or alot of good games out for it because of piracy, and the fact that its locked down enough atm (or at least to my knowledge - i havent checked in a while) that nobody can make any homebrew stuff for it.

it is pretty big, but on the other hand at least its got a second analog stick. shame about the touchscreen though, or even the big screen in general. oh well.

i own a vita but i havent touched it in half a year at least.

EDIT: also i would compare 1990's games to cars that were made in the 1960's and early 70's. still perfectly fine by todays standards, just not the most fuel efficient machines in the world.
 
Last edited:
Ishimaru Jinrai said:
I'd say good, because I think Nintendo's greatest asset is it's portable devices, I even own a PSP and a Nintendo 3DS XL myself, mostly for Pokemon!

I'm saying if I'm going to go out and drop $1,200 on a high-end gaming PC (because I only buy the best) then I for sure won't be playing Mario or some 1980's game.... I'll be buying the latest triple AAA grade games and showing 120 frames per second playing Borderlands 2! If I game on PC it's either for MMORPGs or because I'm outperforming my XB1, I won't even bother wasting my time playing old games. =]
Click to expand...
for me i play every and any game on my gaming PC. new or old. just because a game looks beautiful and runs at 120fps doesnt mean its gonna be at all a good game.

also a PC doesnt have to be used to play games online. the majority of gaming i do is offline simply because i prefer playing games by myself. it heightens my immersion, and makes it so that i dont have to get involved with people who i dont get along with very well.

like i said a good game is timeless. I will always play any and all good games on my PC.

hence the fact that Diablo1 was showcased in my screenshots.
 
Ishimaru Jinrai said:
I'd say good, because I think Nintendo's greatest asset is it's portable devices, I even own a PSP and a Nintendo 3DS XL myself, mostly for Pokemon!

I'm saying if I'm going to go out and drop $1,200 on a high-end gaming PC (because I only buy the best) then I for sure won't be playing Mario or some 1980's game.... I'll be buying the latest triple AAA grade games and showing 120 frames per second playing Borderlands 2! If I game on PC it's either for MMORPGs or because I'm outperforming my XB1, I won't even bother wasting my time playing old games. =]
Click to expand...

The concept of
New>Old does not work for the game industry, sure the games got prettier, but some actually just have this to brag about.
Street Fighter have probably the ugliest graphic art that I ever saw, I found the classic 2D sprites much more appealing.
Final Fantasy XIII is a poorly designed game with the worse mechanics of the series, and a mediocre story line.

I know that you have played, .Hack// series, G.U didn't got the best graphics, yet is one of the best games I ever played, damn it was worth three disks.

Being a good game is not about how new it is, is about the quality of the time you have while playing it.
 
Ishimaru Jinrai said:
Oh and if I go back and play 1990's games, I realize they suck, they were just the ground work for BETTER games like we have now. Like old 1920 cars, they're pretty much inferior to cars nowadays in ever single aspect, but they were "good for their time".
Click to expand...
If we're to follow this logic, Street Fighter 3, Chrono Trigger, Soul Calibur, Half Life, Civilization II, Megaman X, and all the other masterpieces of the 90s would automatically be deemed as shit, even when compared to mediocre games like Killzone or Ryse. Also, your car analogy holds no water because you're comparing apples to oranges. Cars haven't evolved beyond increased luxury and improved performance, but things like Metal Slug and Call of Duty are completely different experiences altogether, barely even sharing a common theme. It is ultimately down to taste, but I'd be just as inclined to say Super Mario 3 is better than Skylanders as I'd be to say Shelley is better than Eminem.

By this logic, the origin trilogy of Star Wars is inherently better than the original trilogy. (LOL)

Not that any of this matters or adds to the discussion of the inherently flawed question of "PC or consoles?" anyway. Not sure why you even brought it up.
 
Norik said:
If we're to follow this logic, Street Fighter 3, Chrono Trigger, Soul Calibur, Half Life, Civilization II, Megaman X, and all the other masterpieces of the 90s would automatically be deemed as shit, even when compared to mediocre games like Killzone or Ryse. Also, your car analogy holds no water because you're comparing apples to oranges. Cars haven't evolved beyond increased luxury and improved performance, but things like Metal Slug and Call of Duty are completely different experiences altogether, barely even sharing a common theme. It is ultimately down to taste, but I'd be just as inclined to say Super Mario 3 is better than Skylanders as I'd be to say Shelley is better than Eminem.

By this logic, the origin trilogy of Star Wars is inherently better than the original trilogy. (LOL)

Not that any of this matters or adds to the discussion of the inherently flawed question of "PC or consoles?" anyway. Not sure why you even brought it up.
Click to expand...

^ This whole statement is irrelevant because if you actually read my post, I said specifically, "Those games were good for their time" no where did I say they were "useless crap games". They're just simply outclassed present day.

I'm saying now, graphics wise, specs wise, gameplay wise, content wise, and online interactions wise, games nowadays are SUPERIOR. Gaming evolved with online interactions, hence how suddenly CoD and Halo rose to such instant dominance over the whole game market, gaming evolved.

Honest question here for you: You see how single player-only games like DMC or Remember Me have such high re-sell percentages? Because they're single player only games. Online modes keep people playing a game and not just beat it, and re-sell it to the store. Back in the 1990's they basically had no online games, you were limited with a linear, single-player gaming experience. Which was fine, "at the time".

Game sales, is what I like to look at, because it shows you what people actually want, now popularity doesn't always = a superior game, plenty of amazing games get poor sales. The thing about when people say a game sucks or is great, it's an opinion. (Like yours), but game sales, are undeniable factual numbers. That's why people hate when you bring up game sales, because they can't refute them.

You can claim Mario is a superior game to Skylanders, but why does each Skylander game outsell every Mario game by a massive 3 to 1 margin? Because more people want it.
 
On topic: PC can outperform a console. Graphics wise, it's not a big difference, BattleField 4 looks amazing, realistic, and beautiful on my Xbox One. If I bought a PC for $1,200 I would probably only notice very minor differences. Skyrim looks amazing on PC, that's saying it didn't look all that great to begin with even on console.

Overall, performance - PC wins.

Exclusives titles wise, and convenience wise. - Console wins.

Either way, be happy!
 
Ramus said:
Final Fantasy XIII is a poorly designed game with the worse mechanics of the series, and a mediocre story line.
Click to expand...

Okay, I was with you on .//Hack being good, I loved that game... but Final Fantasy XIII and XIII-2 are amazing games. You want poor mechanics...? Play a 1990's James Bond game, I guarantee at least 100 nerds will argue tooth and bone claiming that was "the GREATEST shooter game ever!" =PPP

"Old fashioned gaming was the pinnacle of Perfection! Everything else now, is just a regression of the whole gaming industry! It's not just my childhood nostalgia speaking, whereas I cannot comprehend present day children's nostalgia and loyalty to games such as Skylanders and Call of Duty! These games weren't around when I was a child, thus they hold no nostalgic significance to me, thus they are inferior! (That and I've never played them...)"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom