PC, Xbox, or PS2 ?

[WyteWatt]

Which do you think is best for gaming? Are graphics that big of a difference between a PC and a Xbox or a PS2? If a Xbox or a PS2 had resolution, quality detail setting, and sound quality setting what would those settings be compared to pc? Like low, medium, high, very high?

Will doom 3 look as good on the Xbox or PS2 (If doom 3 will even be on the ps2 which I don't think it will but I could be wrong) as it does on the ulimate pc at the highest settings and at least 1024x768 resolution?

 

[nick1985]

PC is the best IMO

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: nick1985
PC is the best IMO

Explain why please? What makes them the ulimate thing for gaming?

 

[viivo]

It depends on what you want. Personally I find long hours of gaming in an office chair to be very uncomfortable compared to on a couch with a console. With consoles you rarely have to worry about bugs or updating, but PC games are very dynamic, with tweaks and changes to things other than bugs in patches. PC games look better of course, but the Xbox isn't bad on a quality HDTV.

What are you looking for in your gaming?

Also, I predict problems with Doom 3 on the Xbox. In addition to the obvious stripping of effects and polys, I imagine a lot of reviews will mention slowdown.

 

[WyteWatt]

Originally posted by: viivo
It depends on what you want. Personally I find long hours of gaming in an office chair to be very uncomfortable compared to on a couch with a console. With consoles you rarely have to worry about bugs or updating, but PC games are very dynamic, with tweaks and changes to things other than bugs in patches. PC games look better of course, but the Xbox isn't bad on a quality HDTV.

What are you looking for in your gaming?

Also, I predict problems with Doom 3 on the Xbox. In addition to the obvious stripping of effects and polys, I imagine a lot of reviews will mention slowdown.

What if they don't what will you think then? Will that be hard to believe or no? I think it will be for me maybe because of the specs of the xbox.

 

[BaumerX]

We have all three at home.

The PC has by far the best graphics and is better with 1st person shooters because the mouse gives you a better feel of the game when looking around

The XBOX is great if you have a widescreen HDTV because it natively supports it. It has most of the newer games we like to play.

The PS2 is great. Graphics are not as good on the HDTV but once you are immersed in a game I don't think it really matters. Also, if it's important to you, there are alot of legacy games available for PS2.

If you don't have an HDTV setup I think its a wash between the XBOX and PS2. But...I do like the XBOX's hard drive....no screwing around with memory cards.

 

[Cogman]

PC takes the cake IMO. Why? Versitility. It is very hard to upgrade a PS2 (new proccessor or new ram) Where as a PC it is something most children can do. And if you miss the game paddles for Xbox and PS2, Well you can simply buy some that very closly mimic the look and feal of the XBox. The only thing that a PC really lacks at is the fact the most PC's are more expencive then there XBox or PS2 counter parts.

 

[Slickone]

PC. Millions of game mods for PC games.

You can easily play a PC game from the couch too.

 

[spazo]

Pc games will look better....they should considering you need $400 video cards to just play them in all their glory. But for a mere $150 you can get an Xbox that plays games at the "highest" setting right out of the box

The good thing about the Xbox is that its quite moddable and you can do a lot of things with it...sure the pc would do more but remember talking cost into consideration...

 

[JackBurton]

PCs are top notch for certain games. You get much more control with a mouse and keyboard instead of a gamepad. Also, the graphics are just unbeatable by any console out now. HOWEVER, this comes at a VERY steep price. You'll need a $400 video card to crank up all setting in Doom 3, not to mention a good CPU. With an XBox, you get some really nice visuals at a fraction of the price. You do give up some control in the FPS games with a gamepad, but sports and fighting games are best played here. I have NO interest on the PS2 as the XBox is the better console IMO.

I have a PC AND an XBox and I love them both. And yes, Doom 3 rocks on my PC.

 

[panoramicendtime]

PC: Top configurability within games, and you can keep upgrading it. You can get a good gamepad pretty easily if you like playing with a pad. Also eventaully you'll be able to emulate console games (don't know of any xbox/gcn/ps2 emulators yet) although if you are going to be legal about it you should probably buy the game as well or something - I'm not condoning anything illegal here.

PS2 - Decent software support but relatively awful graphics. Textures are especially bad.

XBox - Good graphics, and good software support if you like those sorts of games. Been surpassed by the PC by now though.

I'd go with the PC; you get the biggest game library and the best options and graphics. If you are going to go with a console then you might want to wait a year until the new ones come out, either to get a new one or wait until an XBox is only $100.


Of course, you are likely to get a biased opinion on a PC-centric message board.

 

[Arsynic]

Originally posted by: imtim83
Which do you think is best for gaming? Are graphics that big of a difference between a PC and a Xbox or a PS2? If a Xbox or a PS2 had resolution, quality detail setting, and sound quality setting what would those settings be compared to pc? Like low, medium, high, very high?

Xbox and PS2 have better graphics than any $150 PC I can think of. If you want to compare 3-4 year old consoles to PC's, you might as well be fair and balanced about it.

Will doom 3 look as good on the Xbox or PS2 (If doom 3 will even be on the ps2 which I don't think it will but I could be wrong) as it does on the ulimate pc at the highest settings and at least 1024x768 resolution?

First of all Doom 3 is NEVER coming to the PS2 because it can't be done. The PS2 hardware is much too crappy and weak to handle the game. The Xbox version will not look as good as it's PC counterpart. If you want to compare Xbox to a $2000 PC with an Athlon 64 and a 6800 in it, be my guest and I'll just be the first to brag that Xbox 2 is the only machine that will be able to run Unreal Engine 3.0 next year. The PC vs. Xbox/PS2 arguments are commonsense and nonsense to begin with. If you don't know the answer to this issue, you don't belong on these types of discussion boards. I mean, doesn't Dell have a discussion forum?

 

[Slick5150]

I'd actually go with a PC, and a Gamecube.

A lot of the good games that come out on Xbox or PS2 are also on the PC (and generally better on the PC), so you have your bases covered there.

Then you can pick up a Gamecube dirt cheap, and play the many great titles that you can only play on Gamecube.

That's my advice for maximum gaming enjoyment.

 

[So]

Why is the PC better than the console? Depens on what you're into. But if you're into strategy (both turn based and RTS) the PC interface is far superior to the console, and you have classics like C&C:Generals, WCIII, Age of Mythology. The PC can't be matched in FPS's either, from the original wolf3d -> doom3, there are so many classics and the newest PC stuff always looks better (except when a new gen of consoles has come out and everyone predicts the 'death' of PC gaming. Plus you have the biggest library ever, dating back to the mid 80's -- the PC library even dwarfs the Gameboy's massive inventory.

Mods: With the PC most games you get are moddable, so you get three or more games for the price of one. Some PC games I don't play any more than a console game, but every once in a while, a gem comes along where you get YEARS or different games out of it for just your initial $50 investment. BF 1942 -> DC, and the big one: HL -> TF:C, CS, FLF, DOD, etc.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: spazo
Pc games will look better....they should considering you need $400 video cards to just play them in all their glory. But for a mere $150 you can get an Xbox that plays games at the "highest" setting right out of the box

The good thing about the Xbox is that its quite moddable and you can do a lot of things with it...sure the pc would do more but remember talking cost into consideration...

You don't need a $400 video card and $2000 A64 PC to play PC games in all their glory. Just for one (Doom 3), out of thousands.

Also something I see people say that I always thought was crazy is that console graphics "look good on a [lo-res] TV".

 

[Gurck]

PC, because they're so versatile. Want to play games on your big-screen tv with your ass parked on a couch? No problem, hook it right up. Want to watch a movie instead? Same. Not to mention everything else a PC can do.. it's a no-brainer. Console games also generally cost more, at least from what I've seen, so that offsets the lower initial price, even though a pc is a better value considering its other abilities. The cost is a lot lower than most console fanboys like to admit; they tend to claim at least $1500, sometimes as much as $3000, but that's ridiculous, and the same ones who spout it probably think Alienware was the height of computing - till Michael's Computers came along :roll:. You can get a capable setup for $500 or even possibly less if you bargain-hunt. A friend of mine is playing Doom3 on a GeForce 3 and loving it. That card costs slightly less than $400 now You don't have to have the latest & greatest; far from it. I've greatly enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) Far Cry on a ti4600. That one's also just a smidge under $400

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Arsynic

Originally posted by: imtim83
Which do you think is best for gaming? Are graphics that big of a difference between a PC and a Xbox or a PS2? If a Xbox or a PS2 had resolution, quality detail setting, and sound quality setting what would those settings be compared to pc? Like low, medium, high, very high?

Xbox and PS2 have better graphics than any $150 PC I can think of. If you want to compare 3-4 year old consoles to PC's, you might as well be fair and balanced about it.

If you want to be "fair and balanced" about it, you need to consider that most people need computers for other things already and making it gaming enabled really only costs a video card. The ti4200 was just on sale for $50 and the 9800 Pro is now edging below $200. Either will give you access to an immense library of games and mods.

Also, if you're part of a family, you need to take over the living room to play or buy a TV for your room/office.

I agree about the NextBox though. I'm going to upgrade my video card soon and that will probably be the last time. For me, the decisive factor is the games. The trend seems to be developers moving towards the consoles. I think we have a few years of good PC titles ahead of us, but I think the balance of quality is going to tip gradually towards the consoles in the coming years with NextBox and PS3.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Slickone
Also something I see people say that I always thought was crazy is that console graphics "look good on a [lo-res] TV".

Well... they do.

Rather, they're DESIGNED to be played at a single, fixed resolution (generally 640x480 these days, which is about all that a standard TV can display). So they can get the textures and detail levels just right for those settings and don't have to worry about anything else. Plus, you get free "antialiasing" (ie, blur) on a TV because the phosphors don't fade nearly as fast as on a CRT (but they don't 'ghost' with rapid color changes like on an LCD, either) and the dot pitch is pretty high. If you use a TV capture card and display a console game on a razor-sharp CRT at 640x480, it looks like crap, because it loses its free AA and on a low-dot-pitch CRT you can see every little flaw in the graphics. But on a TV from 10 feet away, it looks pretty darn good.

Oh, and I also recommend a PC and a GameCube. Better exclusive games than XBox (Nintendo franchises like SSB, Metroid, Mario Kart, Zelda, etc.), and better graphics than the PS2. It also can do 480P EDTV output like the XBox (but not 720P, although you need a "real" HDTV for that). However, it has a smaller game library than the PS2, and the XBox does (finally) have a few really good games out and upcoming (Halo, PGR2, Ninja Gaiden, SW:KOTOR, Halo2 in November, Fable this fall/winter).

 

[jdogg707]

I personally am using a Powerbook right now, which means my PC is no more, and so no more PC gaming. I actually miss this, not because my Xbox isn't capable, but there is something very enriching about starting up an awesome game on a machine that I built and tweaked, and playing it through to fruition. I like my Xbox much better for sports games, but for FPS and RTS games, I don't think there is a better way to go than the PC. Because of this I will be building a new box here soon, for the sole purpose of playing games on it!

 

[BaumerX]

QUOTE:
===================================================================
I'd actually go with a PC, and a Gamecube.

A lot of the good games that come out on Xbox or PS2 are also on the PC (and generally better on the PC), so you have your bases covered there.

Then you can pick up a Gamecube dirt cheap, and play the many great titles that you can only play on Gamecube.
==================================================================

And besides........the Gamecube makes a great paperweight!!!! :laugh:

 

[Gurck]

Maybe consoles look good to people who don't game on a PC at all. As someone who does, and with a good friend owning a ps2 for comparison, I have to say they look like sh*t. I think the only reason console graphics are even passable is that people tend to sit much farther from a tv than they do a computer monitor. Consoles serve a purpose; they allow people who don't own a computer to play games. Other than that, the only thing they have going for them is that many games, only a few worth playing though, are available on console only and not PC. No great loss; there are PC-only games as well.

 

[neutralizer]

I play XBOX for the console feel and the games available for XBOX and not the PC. Doom 3 will go on PC though, I can't aim for sh!t.

 

[jacktesterson]

i agree I love PC gaming but you simply can't beat sports titles on consoles...just more fun and easy to play with people

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Slickone
Also something I see people say that I always thought was crazy is that console graphics "look good on a [lo-res] TV".

Well... they do.

Rather, they're DESIGNED to be played at a single, fixed resolution (generally 640x480 these days, which is about all that a standard TV can display). So they can get the textures and detail levels just right for those settings and don't have to worry about anything else. Plus, you get free "antialiasing" (ie, blur) on a TV because the phosphors don't fade nearly as fast as on a CRT (but they don't 'ghost' with rapid color changes like on an LCD, either) and the dot pitch is pretty high. If you use a TV capture card and display a console game on a razor-sharp CRT at 640x480, it looks like crap, because it loses its free AA and on a low-dot-pitch CRT you can see every little flaw in the graphics. But on a TV from 10 feet away, it looks pretty darn good.

Sorry I don't agree with that philosophy. Lo-res is lo-res; fake antialiasing-like blur or not.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Slickone

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Slickone
Also something I see people say that I always thought was crazy is that console graphics "look good on a [lo-res] TV".

Well... they do.

Rather, they're DESIGNED to be played at a single, fixed resolution (generally 640x480 these days, which is about all that a standard TV can display). So they can get the textures and detail levels just right for those settings and don't have to worry about anything else. Plus, you get free "antialiasing" (ie, blur) on a TV because the phosphors don't fade nearly as fast as on a CRT (but they don't 'ghost' with rapid color changes like on an LCD, either) and the dot pitch is pretty high. If you use a TV capture card and display a console game on a razor-sharp CRT at 640x480, it looks like crap, because it loses its free AA and on a low-dot-pitch CRT you can see every little flaw in the graphics. But on a TV from 10 feet away, it looks pretty darn good.

Sorry I don't agree with that philosophy. Lo-res is lo-res; fake antialiasing-like blur or not.

I'm not saying it's not low-res, or that PCs don't look considerably better -- I'm just pointing out that modern console graphics are definitely comparable to what you'd get if you ran a PC game at 640x480 (interlaced) on a TV-out with low detail settings. They're hamstrung by the limits of the display device in a lot of ways -- increased texture detail or resolution would just get blurred back out by the TV.

Besides, who the heck cares about the graphics? It's all about the gameplay...