Modern Graphics Cards vs. Game Consoles

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
EVERYONE has a PC, all they need is a video card and maybe a PSU upgrade.

Actually this last point you made is not true, by a long shot. Most people nowdays are far more likely to buy a new laptops/tablets, smartphones and netbooks. These same people hook up a console to their 32-50+ inch LCD/Plasma for a clean setup in their living room. Plus you can enjoy a bunch of games with your friends - this party gaming environment PC can only dream of.

While consoles do have inferior graphics, the ease of use, the party environment of consoles have made them far more dominant that desktop gaming setups. PC gamers never seem to understand how much fun it can be to have some beers with 4-6 friends (and yes some of them sexy female friends) while playing games like Rock Band, Black Ops / Modern Warfare 2, Mario Party, etc. on a console.

Imo, graphics are by far the least important component that makes games fun.

Angry Birds on smartphones is better than 90% of PC games ever made and its graphics are sh8t!!!!!!!! I can list countless console titles that have horrible graphics but are way more fun than Crysis ever will be. Starcraft 1 is still probably one of my favourite titles ever made, and its graphics are a joke as well.

Only PC gamers keep flaunting graphics as a way to make themselves feel better about PC gaming. Face it, the variety of fun PC games is mediocre at best if you discount all the best FPS and strategy games.

People who love a wide variety of videogames tend to own both consoles and PCs. I see little point in continuously trying to argue why one is better than the other. Both have something to offer.
 
Last edited:

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
From the beginning PC gaming for me was about getting a sick gaming rig, loading the latest games/demos playing for about 15-30 minutes each to see how good the graphics are and pretty much putting the computer away. Recently I picked up that new Halo game, and I saw just how crappy and aliased they were. They were far from "immersive" compared to a modern gaming PC, but the game is way more fun than any recent PC games. It's sad that all the good PC games seem to be console ports anyway. The main advantage IMHO is just that you get the same games with decent AA (and real PITA "Game for Windows Live" annoyances). I even use the Xbox 360 controller with those games anyway.
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
False things tend to be amazing.
PC games have the ability to lower resolution and quality at will, allowing you to run games on much weaker machines than a console. PCs scale up AND down.

Exceptions exist, but only due to badly programmed games

But most of these games are horrendously ported console ports. It's just how the market is. It doesn't make financial sense to spend too much time or money optimizing the PC port. They tend to just do it as sloppily as possible.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Recently I picked up that new Halo game, and I saw just how crappy and aliased they were. They were far from "immersive" compared to a modern gaming PC, but the game is way more fun than any recent PC games.

Oh no, you didn't just say gameplay > graphics in a PC gaming forum? :sneaky:

One of the best games ever made imo - Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time: http://wiiconsumer.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/ocarina-of-time.jpg

10/10 on Gamespot, 9.7 / 10 from 25000+ votes
10/10 on IGN
Highest rated game of all time on Gamerankings.com
 
Last edited:

badb0y

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2010
4,015
30
91

NoQuarter

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,006
0
76
Oh no, you didn't just say gameplay > graphics in a PC gaming forum? :sneaky:

I loved Goldeneye, one of my favorite games ever. I go back and try to play it now and I can't. It's just an ugly mess. And I enjoy playing old games or less graphically intense games. Right now I'm playing Recettear and it's not that pretty, but I tried Azure Dreams (an old favorite of mine and similar to Recettear) and I couldn't stand the graphics no matter how much I wanted to play it because the 3d graphics on N64 and PS1 are just that bad now.

But I can still play SNES or NES games and enjoy them as well as many with MAME. Sprite based games age well, 3d games age terribly.

Also, Angry Birds clone was a flash game on PC first so. Yea. And yea it's a great time killer but it's not a great game. I think Zuma or Puzzle Quest are better examples of good games. But I know your point is good games exist on every platform..
 
Last edited:

Aristotelian

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,246
11
76
I loved Goldeneye, one of my favorite games ever. I go back and try to play it now and I can't. It's just an ugly mess. And I enjoy playing old games or less graphically intense games. Right now I'm playing Recettear and it's not that pretty, but I tried Azure Dreams (an old favorite of mine and similar to Recettear) and I couldn't stand the graphics no matter how much I wanted to play it because the 3d graphics on N64 and PS1 are just that bad now.

But I can still play SNES or NES games and enjoy them as well as many with MAME. Sprite based games age well, 3d games age terribly.

Also, Angry Birds clone was a flash game on PC first so. Yea. And yea it's a great time killer but it's not a great game. I think Zuma or Puzzle Quest are better examples of good games. But I know your point is good games exist on every platform..

Right. Mario Kart 64 forever.
 

-Slacker-

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2010
1,563
0
76
Price:
Slacker listed some cheap components to build a PC, adding that 8 items = 392.92 not including tax, OS, keyboard, mouse, wireless card and bluray. How much is a PS3 now? XBox360?

I distinctly remember I said the price was 392.92 WITHOUT rebates and promotion codes, after which it would climb down to $300. I also pointed out the advantage of paying $300 for a pc as opposed to paying $300 for a ps3 or $200 for an xbox 360 - because you're still going to need a pc in the latter case - and taltamir expanded on the argument with the fact that you usually don't even need to buy a new pc, but just to upgrade your video card, and, more rarely your cpu. If you care about your wallet, you can even sell your old hardware.

Adding the keyboard and mouse thing just doesn't make up for a very compelling argument, since you'll probably either find a set lying around in your house anyway, or get a cheap $10 kit. The wireless card argument doesn't stand on it's merit either, since not everybody uses a wireless connection. It's cheaper to just jack in an udp cable from your router to your machine.

It's also kind of annoying how you only mention how much extra money you have to spend for pc software and other stuff, but you forget that console games are more expensive than pc games, which will add up to more money in the long run.

And who pays $150 for a copy of windows?

http://www.windows7sale.net/


[...] but sometimes you probably want to ask yourself a simple question "Does 3D 3x1080p a requirement for a good game?"
Not sure if there's anyone who ever asked themselves that question ... But, yes, technically you don't NEED to play a video game at a higher resolution than what's standard for a console, but then you could argue that you don't need anything over 640*480 either, just like you don't need to live in a comfortable home, and have a hobby, life's ambition, all these means of entertainment, friends etc - you just need air, water and food.

We don't look for higher resolution monitors and better hardware because we need to, we do it because we WANT to. I like my games to look good.

The quality of graphics isn't the most important thing in terms of gaming.
Who said it was, but if there's a convenient way to improve the way a game looks, then why not jump on it.

Consoles and PCs are not mutually exclusive products. Some bought a cheap PC to serve the web,
I know, I just said that in my previous post - I said that not only they are not mutually exclusive, they are pretty much a mandatory combination if you already have a console, which is why it's cheaper to have a gaming pc than having both a htpc pc and a console.

and upgrading it to a high-end level may require a big investment (>1k).
A decent gpu is abput 100 bucks ... Seriously, I know the "you need to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming pc lolz lmfao" argument is popular among console owners and/or fans, but um ... you know ... this is a hardware forum ... people tend to not fall for that logic here.

You don't need 2600k+3x580SLI to play, and it is still fun.
Actually, even on this forum, there's only like 2-3 people who own a similar setup, and they're the rich folk - they can spend whatever they like on whatever they want, that's the point of being rich. I have a athlon II x3 + hd 4770 setup which cost me like less than 150 bucks for the two, and there's no game I can't max out at my resolution (although I haven't played gta4)

I don't invite them to my house to play games unless it is online games, and they need to bring their laptops with them. Why? Yes, I can buy SF PC version easily, but shall we share the same keyboard and start touching hands? Actually, when they come over, they will bring their consoles + games, no problems. Plug and play. I however never ever brought my PC over to their house.
That's strange, I used to have lan parties all the time before I got myself some fast internet.

Game controllers also work on pc's and there are quite a few split screen games that were developed for it.

I assume you are not as "out" as I do because my friends all have PSP and they go out and play together at tea shop. Supreme graphics? I don't think so, but then I never have the chance to play monster hunter which they all were crazy about.
I did have a psp. Got bored of it pretty fast. But we're discussing comparable gaming systems in this thread, and the psp can't hold a candle against even the wii.

Have you played Angry Birds? I haven't, but my friends did. High degree of dynamic tessellation in 3D? Or is it simply a fun game? I read about it, but haven't played it. Can this be a good reason to buy a smartphone or shall I say "My PC is 100x faster, better, sexier than your crappy phone?"
Not sure what you mean with this, or why do you refer to so many games or gadgets that you don't own or have used, all the while trying to convince us how fun they are...

Another thing that I find kind of odd is how you changed your tone to "well, there are these other gaming systems that are fun too, the pc is not the only one", but the purpose of this thread is to compare pc's vs consoles and decide on which is better, not weather or not the other gadgets besides the pc are fun too - I'm honestly sure they are. Basically we're arguing on which one would you chose, if you were to pick only one - it's kind of redundant and done to death, but there it is, the topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
While consoles do have inferior graphics, the ease of use, the party environment of consoles have made them far more dominant that desktop gaming setups. PC gamers never seem to understand how much fun it can be to have some beers with 4-6 friends (and yes some of them sexy female friends) while playing games like Rock Band, Black Ops / Modern Warfare 2, Mario Party, etc. on a console.

I see what you did there, suggesting saying that PC gamers are lonely basement dwellers while consoles are used in a social environment, including parties, including parties with GIRLS! (TM)
Oh you are so clever.

If only it were possible to set up an HTPC with games and controllers... Maybe hook it up to a nice big screen or even a projector (for that 150+ inch display) and a surround system... oh wait, you CAN.:rolleyes:
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Actually this last point you made is not true, by a long shot. Most people nowdays are far more likely to buy a new laptops/tablets, smartphones and netbooks

The first and only legitimate point raised by console fanatics.
While I wouldn't go so far as saying "most", I will agree that IF and only IF you do NOT have a desktop, then a console is cheaper
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
The first and only legitimate point raised by console fanatics.
While I wouldn't go so far as saying "most", I will agree that IF and only IF you do NOT have a desktop, then a console is cheaper

I use my desktop for mostly everything because I already have a laptop at work. So my line of thinking that you can just plug in a new videocard at will agrees with yours.

However, I think you underestimate the "complexity" of building a PC from scratch for the general population. Most people have no idea how to put the RAM in or what videocard to buy or what Sandy Bridge is. :D

Another important point is kids start playing consoles at a young age. If 3-5 of your closest friends owned a PS3 or a Wii when you were 10-13, you woul have probably wanted one as well (plus you could share games). When those kids grows up and PS4 / Xbox 720 / Wii 2 are released, they would be familiar with this gaming environment. The PC gaming environment will seem foreign to them.

Also, some people hate the idea of a desktop PC regardless of how much more powerful it is over a laptop. At least 2 friends I know, who are looking to upgrade, will only get a laptop because it takes up less space and they don't want to buy a separate monitor. Of course, both of them don't play any games at all.
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
However, I think you underestimate the "complexity" of building a PC from scratch for the general population. Most people have no idea how to put the RAM in or what videocard to buy or what Sandy Bridge is.
I myself said that the average person can't build their own. What I actually said is that the average person has a desktop. And if they buy a video card (and maybe PSU) at a brick and mortar store, they will get free installation (typically).

You are thinking about what someone else replied to Seero with a cheap sample build when Seero said that a console is cheaper than BUILDING a new PC. (he said building, not buying).
But my take on the issue is that most can't / don't want to build their own, but that they don't need to since they just need GPU + PSU from BM store. Now, if they have a laptop and no desktop... then yes, a console is cheaper.

Another important point is kids start playing consoles at a young age. If 3-5 of your closest friends owned a PS3 or a Wii when you were 10-13, you woul have probably wanted one as well (plus you could share games). When those kids grows up and PS4 / Xbox 720 / Wii 2 are released, they would be familiar with this gaming environment. The PC gaming environment will seem foreign to them.
They are kids, not 50 year olds... every kid i know moves from one platform to the next like its nothing. And that assumes the kids START with a console instead of a PC.

Also, some people hate the idea of a desktop PC regardless of how much more powerful it is over a laptop. At least 2 friends I know, who are looking to upgrade, will only get a laptop because it takes up less space and they don't want to buy a separate monitor. Of course, both of them don't play any games at all.
Sure, some people do hate desktops on principle and only want laptops. For those people a console is a practical solution. (assuming they aren't playing browser based games)
 
Last edited:

NoQuarter

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,006
0
76
Right. Mario Kart 64 forever.
Ok Super Mario Kart / Mario Kart 64 for sure. Don't know why they haven't been able to replicate the game in the more recent games. Although I probably prefer Super Mario Kart over Mario Kart 64.
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Yes because 150 inch screens make Mario Party possible on a PC

using a projector is not limited to a PC, it can be done on a PC or a console. I just brought it up because its a setup i have used. a 720p projector set at 150 inch hooked to a PC, surround sound (I ran wires), wireless keyboard, mouse, and game controller. it was awesome, especially for movies, but games were cool too. you haven't played starcraft until you play it on a 150 inch screen :)
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Oh no, you didn't just say gameplay > graphics in a PC gaming forum? :sneaky:

One of the best games ever made imo - Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time: http://wiiconsumer.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/ocarina-of-time.jpg

10/10 on Gamespot, 9.7 / 10 from 25000+ votes
10/10 on IGN
Highest rated game of all time on Gamerankings.com


In it's moment that game was unrivaled, and still ranks really high in my all time favorites. I thought TP was better on every front though. Graphics, gameplay, presentation, control, story.

I think playstantion next or xbox720 will be the first time I bunker in with a console for my gaming fix since the SNES. Though when I consider it, the biggest tie I would have to PC gaming is not the added PC Power to run games at higher details and faster framrates, it's Steam for it's great interface and sales.
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
... who pays $150 for a copy of windows?

http://www.windows7sale.net/
Holy Sheep! I honestly don't know that. Is it legit?


Not sure if there's anyone who ever asked themselves that question ... But, yes, technically you don't NEED to play a video game at a higher resolution than what's standard for a console, but then you could argue that you don't need anything over 640*480 either, just like you don't need to live in a comfortable home, and have a hobby, life's ambition, all these means of entertainment, friends etc - you just need air, water and food.
This is interesting in many ways. There are no definite answers what kinds of gears you need to play games. This is why there are markets on different consoles.
We don't look for higher resolution monitors and better hardware because we need to, we do it because we WANT to. I like my games to look good.
In that case, consoles are not your cup of tea.

I said that not only they are not mutually exclusive, they are pretty much a mandatory combination if you already have a console, which is why it's cheaper to have a gaming pc than having both a htpc pc and a console.
I don't see why I can't have a HTPC and consoles. It is like having different input devices like kinect and joypad. They do the something, to get input from user, but do it differently.

A decent gpu is abput 100 bucks ... Seriously, I know the "you need to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming pc lolz lmfao" argument is popular among console owners and/or fans, but um ... you know ... this is a hardware forum ... people tend to not fall for that logic here.
The money required is really depends on the purpose. 6870 is not too much in terms of PC gaming gears. However if your LCD is 15" 1024x768, then it is. Consoles are designed to play on TV and TV are mostly 720p or 1080p. Big TV usually have low response time, and are designed to display around 30FPS. Consoles are designed to run on TVs and therefore tuned to run around those FPS. That is why price of TV varies. In other words, consoles are designed specifically to run at max 1080p at around 30, upgrade to the console is unnecessary. Because upgrade is unnecessary, developers can focus on the game instead of worry about compatibilities.

There are things that is meaningless to a user, but UI of console games are designed to be navigated by the joypad. Developers have to worry about visiability and usability, but user doesn't. If you think this is small, Crysis2's UI are designed to work in 3D.

Actually, even on this forum, there's only like 2-3 people who own a similar setup, and they're the rich folk - they can spend whatever they like on whatever they want, that's the point of being rich. I have a athlon II x3 + hd 4770 setup which cost me like less than 150 bucks for the two, and there's no game I can't max out at my resolution (although I haven't played gta4)
Dx 11 games? 3xLCD? 3D? PC gaming is like this, you can burn your money on gears to play games for 10 minutes.

That's strange, I used to have lan parties all the time before I got myself some fast internet.
I question who doesn't have highspeed internet nowadays. People don't stop visiting others though. Bring PCs alone with them, however, changed. They bring laptops instead. However not everyone have a laptop that is more capable than a console. In fact, the purpose of console is a) portable, and b) you don't need to bring your consoles with you, just the memory card. I believe you don't even need to bring memory cards nowadays.

Game controllers also work on pc's and there are quite a few split screen games that were developed for it.
It really shouldn't be hard to see that PC games are designed for 1 person, 1 PC. Consoles are designed for 1-4 people, 1 console.

I did have a psp. Got bored of it pretty fast. But we're discussing comparable gaming systems in this thread, and the psp can't hold a candle against even the wii.
Did you miss the point where you can simply link up with your friends and starts to play together at a tea shop?

Not sure what you mean with this, or why do you refer to so many games or gadgets that you don't own or have used, all the while trying to convince us how fun they are...
I am not trying to convince others on anything. I don't own consoles, but that doesn't mean it is some unneccessary products. I don't need bottle feed anymore, but that doesn't mean it is an unneccesary product. The real question is, what is the purpose of those products. The context of this thread is clear, the purpose is gaming, but gaming itself is a big topic. Is First person shooting better tham MMO? Is spot game better than strategy games? There are no definite answers. I love PvP games like SF, and they are great on consoles. I also love MMOs, strategy, and FPS games, and they are great on PCs. Conflict?

Another thing that I find kind of odd is how you changed your tone to "well, there are these other gaming systems that are fun too, the pc is not the only one", but the purpose of this thread is to compare pc's vs consoles and decide on which is better, not weather or not the other gadgets besides the pc are fun too - I'm honestly sure they are. Basically we're arguing on which one would you chose, if you were to pick only one - it's kind of redundant and done to death, but there it is, the topic of the thread.
Change of tones? from what to what? You, on one hand, agree that they are not matually exclusive, but on the other hand insist that HTPC makes consoles unnecessary.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Oh no, you didn't just say gameplay > graphics in a PC gaming forum? :sneaky:

I am sick to death of this stupid lie of a stereotype. PC gamers do not prefer graphics to gameplay, PC games do not sacrifice gameplay, it is time you console fanatics dropped that hateful and insulting stereotype.

Gameplay IS greater to graphics.
but guess what? you don't have to CHOOSE between the two, ever.

It is entirely possible to make a game with great graphics and bad gameplay, but it isn't on purpose. its not like having crappy gameplay somehow gives you better graphics via black magic.

PCs have superior graphics to consoles. Gameplay depends entirely on the actual game, and varies greatly, all over the place.
And with your average multi platform game, gameplay is identical and only graphics differ... well graphics and control options.

Assassin creed and arkham assylum had IDENTICAL gameplay on the PC and the console. I played them on the PC, my brother on his consoles (he has an xbox360 and PS3). My graphics were better, and I had a choice on whether I want to use the xbox360 controller or mouse and keyboard. (I started out on controller, then switched to keyboard and mouse. Decided the keyboard and mouse provided better control and stuck with them).
Gameplay is determined by the game designers, not your graphics quality. Gameplay can be constrained by a platform (for example, if it does NOT support a keyboard you can't make gameplay that requires it). But PCs are unconstrained and can use anything you want.
 
Last edited:

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
I am sick ...
See a doctor.

you don't have to CHOOSE between the two, ever.
We can agree on that.

Assassin creed and arkham assylum had IDENTICAL gameplay on the PC and the console. I played them on the PC, my brother on his consoles (he has an xbox360 and PS3). My graphics were better, and I had a choice on whether I want to use the xbox360 controller or mouse and keyboard. (I started out on controller, then switched to keyboard and mouse. Decided the keyboard and mouse provided better control and stuck with them).
There are games that are available on multiple platforms. Usually, the one that is on PC is better due to better hardwares. However, not all games that are suppose to be able to run on PC gets ported. Final Fantasy and GT are good examples.
Gameplay is determined by the game designers, not your graphics quality. Gameplay can be constrained by a platform (for example, if it does NOT support a keyboard you can't make gameplay that requires it). But PCs are unconstrained and can use anything you want.
It isn't the gameplay, but the gaming experience and fun factor. Some games are stupid to play alone, but uber fun when play with friends. Playing street fighter with RL friends taking turns sharing joypads/joysticks is fun, playing online with strangers are ... less fun.
 

-Slacker-

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2010
1,563
0
76
Holy Sheep! I honestly don't know that. Is it legit?

Probably.


I don't see why I can't have a HTPC and consoles. It is like having different input devices like kinect and joypad. They do the something, to get input from user, but do it differently.

Once again:

Own a console > Need to buy a HTPC.

Own a HTPC > Need to buy a video card, which is a lot cheaper and a lot faster.

The money required is really depends on the purpose. 6870 is not too much in terms of PC gaming gears.

And I don't need a 6870 to be too much in terms of gaming in the first place. Even a gtx 460 768 mb can handle itself quite well at 1080p, usually at the highest in-game details.


Because upgrade is unnecessary, developers can focus on the game instead of worry about compatibilities.

I'm not sure what other way there is for me to explain how having stagnant technology is a BAD thing. And someone in the thread already pointed out that console devs have their own problems to worry about.

Dx 11 games? 3xLCD? 3D? PC gaming is like this, you can burn your money on gears to play games for 10 minutes.

I meant maximum settings within the confines of dx10.1, which is 1 and a half tier above what a console can do anyway. 3xLCD is pretty much irrelevant for a overwhelming majority of gamers - I personally can't stand to see the bezels , and I prefer modest display sizes (20-24"), but that's me. 3D is equally irrelevant right now, if not more so. The only desirable feature you pointed out is dx11, my gpu cost me less than $70 almost a year ago. Couldn't expect to have everything on such a cheap card at that time.


It really shouldn't be hard to see that PC games are designed for 1 person, 1 PC. Consoles are designed for 1-4 people, 1 console.

It doesn't matter they're not designed for multiple players - pc's aren't designed for any one thing in particular, they are made for everything. What's important is that a pc has the option to allow for multiple players if you want to.

Did you miss the point where you can simply link up with your friends and starts to play together at a tea shop?

Did you miss the part where we were discussing that:

-slacker- said:
comparable gaming systems in this thread, and the psp can't hold a candle against even the wii.

?


Change of tones? from what to what? You, on one hand, agree that they are not matually exclusive, but on the other hand insist that HTPC makes consoles unnecessary.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive for the console to be unnecessary, just like owning both a truck without a trailer and a commercial van at the same time - it could work, but buying a trailer for the truck and skipping on the van would be cheaper.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
They don't have to be mutually exclusive for the console to be unnecessary, just like owning both a truck without a trailer and a commercial van at the same time - it could work, but buying a trailer for the truck and skipping on the van would be cheaper.

To complete the analogy, cheaper in theory... if the government decided to say some roads are only for trailers and some roads only for vans, and you somehow need to travel both, then you will be forced to buy both anyways. :)
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
Probably.
Probably? Do you have a legit OS then?

Once again:

Own a console > Need to buy a HTPC.

Own a HTPC > Need to buy a video card, which is a lot cheaper and a lot faster.
That depends on the need. You insist that processing power is what makes a game good, that is fine. Not all games are available on all platforms, and games are still being released on wii, ps3, psp, and xbox360. Some of those are also available on PC. If this is enough for you, that is fine. I'm cool with PC ports, but that doesn't mean that consoles are "stagnant technologies."

And I don't need a 6870 to be too much in terms of gaming in the first place. Even a gtx 460 768 mb can handle itself quite well at 1080p, usually at the highest in-game details.
Some will think a single 580 is not enough, some is fine with consoles.

I'm not sure what other way there is for me to explain how having stagnant technology is a BAD thing. And someone in the thread already pointed out that console devs have their own problems to worry about.
Shouldn't we utilize those so called "green technology" to its fullest potential? Trains in japan travels at 300 km/h. Elevator can go up 100s of floors in seconds. Solar powered planes are flying. Have you ditch all your "stagnant technologies" yet? or shall we destroy cars, trains, phanes that still runs on gas?

Based on your theory, your PC, including the LCDs you used are already "stagnant technologies." That are BAD. What you just brought 3x5870 on water block? Sorry, you should really replace it with 6890. What? 6890 is not faster? Doesn't matter, it is newer.
1080p for gaming? You serious? Those are for your grandma to watch TVs or kids to throw wiimode at. If everyone is like you, then it will seriously slow down the gaming development.

Those are jokes, but I will tell you a real story. One of my client brought several multi-core servers upon its release, but were several servers short. The IT guy realize that when the servers arrived, but were too late to buy more because it was already obsoleted. This is how fast technology can go.


I meant maximum settings within the confines of dx10.1, which is 1 and a half tier above what a console can do anyway. 3xLCD is pretty much irrelevant for a overwhelming majority of gamers - I personally can't stand to see the bezels , and I prefer modest display sizes (20-24"), but that's me. 3D is equally irrelevant right now, if not more so. The only desirable feature you pointed out is dx11, my gpu cost me less than $70 almost a year ago. Couldn't expect to have everything on such a cheap card at that time.
See above

It doesn't matter they're not designed for multiple players - pc's aren't designed for any one thing in particular, they are made for everything. What's important is that a pc has the option to allow for multiple players if you want to.
And that is the nail's head. PC is capable of doing everything, but are not specific enough to do anything good. For a serious FPS game setup, you will need a high precision laser mouse + a big mousepad. 120" LCD with less than 2ms response time. A keyboard with a LCD. A NIC with onboard CPU. A serious sound card alone with a 7.1 sound system just to help locating enemies. The PC itself must be fully watered to remove noise. Gaming headset? Mandatory. Video card? Oh come on, skipping FPS cause death dude. They can see things that you thought it is imagenation.

If you think this is imagenation, check out this youtube video. I seriously don't see what he sees, but I can understand why he have problems with games under 50 FPS.

If you are no where near insane as the people in the video, then I will ask why do you need a state of the art PC to play? In fact, what is wrong with a console again?

Did you miss the part where we were discussing that:

comparable gaming systems in this thread, and the psp can't hold a candle against even the wii.
In case you don't know and I have not mistaken, PSP is just another console. Technically, they are called handheld game consoles.




They don't have to be mutually exclusive for the console to be unnecessary, just like owning both a truck without a trailer and a commercial van at the same time - it could work, but buying a trailer for the truck and skipping on the van would be cheaper.
Maybe you don't see the irony behind what you said. If console is smart cars, and a computer is a freaking cargo truck. Say you have both, are you going to drive your cargo truck with its cargo bay to buy a drink and how unnecessary your smart is? People will think that you are Optimus Prime!

Seriously, Optimus Prime is cool, and so is a super cutting edge PC. Using it for gaming is one of the excuse you use for the purchase, while usually it is an overkill to anything you will ever do with it. Think about it, does watching youtube needs 2600k OC? Does posting here requires SLI/CF? Does facebooking requires multi display? The one game that those people will often play is call benchmarking. It is uber fun. You run it, you wait, and if you system doesn't die, then you win. Then you go around having the score tattooed on your avatar's head and so it off.

Hey, there are other games you know? The ones where you pretend the play tennis which your friends in your own house until you have problem cleaning your butt the next day? Seen that before?
 
Last edited:

Ben90

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2009
2,866
3
0
Different people have different views of gaming. These threads are mostly pointless because valid points don't normally change a persons view.

A great example is taltamir's view of possibly using a PC without a mouse in the same fashion that you would a console. This can provide the party atmosphere to bring in all those hot girls like a console, but will never be as easy to setup or able to play exclusive games. Sure us tech nerd will have no problem setting up a "PConsole", but when you go to Henry's hot girl gathering down the street, you are probably going to find a 360 or PS3 there. If anything at all.

Alternatively, some of us love the advancement of hardware that PC gaming brings. I'm normally the last person to care about graphics, but that didn't stop me from checking out how badly Crysis tears my computer apart.

I could go on and on about different things such as compatibility vs utility, competitive vs casual, and price vs something else, but in the end it really doesn't matter as we have all made these decisions for ourselves. Henry doesn't want to play Quake Live in the ESL, and I don't want to pick up a controller.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
A great example is taltamir's view of possibly using a PC without a mouse in the same fashion that you would a console. This can provide the party atmosphere to bring in all those hot girls like a console, but will never be as easy to setup or able to play exclusive games. Sure us tech nerd will have no problem setting up a "PConsole", but when you go to Henry's hot girl gathering down the street, you are probably going to find a 360 or PS3 there. If anything at all.

1. Exclusives are available for all systems, including a PC. The only reason I don't own an xbox360 and PS3 alongside my PC is because my brother already bought those. So I play PS3 exlusives and xbox360 exclusives on his, while PC exclusives remain on my PC (And I used the money I saved to gift him a heft CPU+RAM upgrade... not for gaming, for general computing only PC game he plays is the sims).
If you want to be bring up the exclusives issue, then you need one of EACH consoles AND a PC.

2. I fully agree that your average non tech nerd will not be setting up such a PConsole (love the name :p). But what of it? I repeatedly said that consoles are far easier to setup and use. My grandma could set it up and use it. I argued against things like "consoles are cheaper than building your own PC", "consoles are superior to develop to because of magical optimizations" and other false information, but if someone says "I don't know / don't care to build my own PC, configure games, etc" then its their choice and a legitimate one at that.
I KNOW for a fact that I could save money by changing my own oil in my car but I couldn't be bothered to, its anyone's choice to pay extra for less just so that they don't have to be bothered doing it themselves. If I am not mistaken, thats the entire premise of the restaurant/fast food business.
 
Last edited: