What's With The Hate And Assumptions About People Who Like Halo?

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Ok, ok...if you ARE multitasking between Office products, you MAY need a Q6600. But if you have like 3 instances of Word, 2 instances of Excel, and Outlook running and then you throw in Adobe Reader, well, you'll definitely need to overclock that Q6600 to at LEAST 3.0GHz. And you need an 8800 Ultra SLI configuration to make that text on Word really pop off the screen. Nice and crisp text, that's what I'm after. 😉

I'm glad you finally see my point... font smoothing is serious business!

Yes, the MS Word engine is very demanding. 🙂

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Sraaz

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Um because MOST people don't buy an HDTV mainly for gaming. I'll be buying a NICE 60" HDTV for sports and movies, mainly movies. If I didn't have a 360, I'd be buying it anyway. So no, I'm not going to factor in the cost of the TV as the total cost of gaming on my 360. Just like I wouldn't factor in the basic components of a PC as part of the gaming cost. Anything past a e4400 CPU, 1-2GB of memory and built in graphic, I'd consider "gaming cost." You can even throw in a 24" LCD and I wouldn't even consider that a gaming component. Why, because most (average) people don't need more than that to do their everyday computing. I don't need a Q6600 with 4GB of memory and a 8800GTX\Ultra (or even SLI) to work on Word. Then take into account you'll need to upgrade more often to keep all the eye candy you're used to.

So again, $400-$600 console<PC gaming.

And for the record, I have both.

No, not the point. If you use a $6000 tv for console gaming, then console gaming cost you ~$400 + $6000. End of story. It doesn't matter what else you use the tv for. I use my PC for my animation work, should that mean that I didn't *really* spend $3000 on a gaming PC?

No, it IS the point. I didn't need to purchase anything extra that I normally would to play the 360 on my TV. And no, if you did animation work and had a Q6600 with 8GB of memory I wouldn't count that as gaming components as that was purchased to do your work. HOWEVER, I WOULD count that 8800GTX SLI configuration as "gaming components" because you should be using Quadros for animation work. And you're not going to need to upgrade your Quadros to newer Quadros when Crysis comes out. But let's get back to reality here, MOST people aren't even graphic designers or animation artists. They are just Joe Blow PC users that use their PC to surf the web and use Office. That's it! ANY basic machine can do that. However, you will need to invest a considerable amount of money to convert a basic machine, into a gaming machine. Especially if you have a nice 24" LCD monitor. And THAT is the "gaming cost." Components you normally wouldn't buy if you didn't play games.

Sorry, my C2D 1.8 which OC'd right out the box to 2.7hz, my X1900GT, 2gig of Ram and 160g, case and dvd rom cost me 500 bucks at newegg. That can play any game I want well at 1680x1050 which I can get from a variety of tv's or monitors. Also, that was the cheapest intel rig I could put together without purchasing ECS parts. So... what was your point again? I can't build a gaming rig cheap? I need a 24" monitor? What about the nice inexpensive 22" that are sold at circuit city dirt cheap?

We'll see how that X1900GT holds up in Crysis and the new UT with all the eye candy turned on at that res. Get ready to add more items to your shopping cart at newegg. You aren't done yet.

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
lol. just stop already.

You are quite possibly the worst poster on this site. How about a real rebuttal sometime?

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

That's a matter of opinion.....:roll:

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

That's a matter of opinion.....:roll:

Obviously it isnt since more people are playing Counter-Strike online right now than Halo 3.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

That's a matter of opinion.....:roll:

everything is a matter of opinion my friend. which is why everyone should shutup, think of the special olympics, you are all gold medalists in my opinion.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: hooflung
The thing I find quite amazing is that a lot of console gamers talk about how much bang for their buck. 4 year lifespan of systems. Their games just play. Etc Etc.

However, lets not forget the HDTV's they have to buy to play at the best resolution.
Who uses their HDTV only for gaming?

The 50 dollars for each game that lasts maybe 15 hours.
As if PC games aren't the same? 😕

The controllers they have to buy to replace worn out controllers.
I have only had to replace 1 controller; in contrast, I have bought at least 5 keyboards (which, honestly, is my fault due to a bad habit of drinking by my computer) and a few mice

The AV jacks for their systems because the ones they get with the unit aren't compatible with what their new HDTV takes.
I have no clue what you are talking about 😕 I have all three systems, and have had no problem hooking them up to my HDTV

Lets not forget how Sony PS2's break like every 2 years unless you are lucky.
Mine never broke, and it was a used one. Also, none of my friend's PS2s every broke on their own. However, the same can't be said for Xbox 360s 😀

Let us not forget how many games are scratched by the lasers of the unit.
Again, never experienced what you are talking about with years of having owned the console. Also, the same can't be said again for Xbox 360s 😀

Let us not forget the fiasco's with Xbox 360s that still happen to this day.
Truly valid points. Inexcusable on Microsoft's part, but at least it is monetarily free to get RRODed Xboxs fixed nowadays.

All the complaints a console gamer can put for a PC gamer they can take to bank in a different area. Their are many people who have no problems with gaming on a PC just like there are those who have no problems gaming on a console. Risk and expense is there for both.

Console gamers are just as elitist as PC gamers, sometimes even more so. They need to call a truce and just play their games.
I agree 100% with everything italicized and am an avid gamers on both consoles and my PC; I truly don't get the elitist factor.

 

[michaels]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

That's a matter of opinion.....:roll:

Obviously it isnt since more people are playing Counter-Strike online right now than Halo 3.

Well by that incredible logic, Mcdonald's burgers confirmed better than the nicest of sit-down restaurants, because more people are eating Mcdonlad's

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: ZimZum
Dont forget to throw in the price of your rent too. Gotta have somewhere to play it.

Wrong.

We are comparing a computer to a console. Things both of these require:
- A house
- Electricity
- Network Connection (if you want online play)

Things unique to each solution:
PC:
- Monitor
- Desk
- Chair
- Keyboard / Mouse
- Speakers

Console:
- TV
- Chair
- Controller
- TV Stand

Those are all valid requirements. But while you may be able to get away with using a computer or console on the floor, you won't be able to do anything on a console without a tv or on a pc without a monitor. You can't argue this.

And the argument that you can use a TV for other things in invalid. I can watch movies on my monitor, I can watch TV on my monitor. Infact, my current monitor is 30" and my TV is only 25". So the TV is no longer a benefit to me at that point. So while your house may have a TV before you purchase an Xbox 360, it is only once you purchase a device like that that the requirement for such an expensive TV becomes justifiable (You need it to watch HDDVD, but that also comes with the 360). And if you don't own a TV like that, the quality of your purchase has now gone down.

See, the funny thing about these arguments is nobody has a problem justifying that a monitor is part of the cost of a PC, but the second you mention the cost of a TV everyone gets up in arms. Despite the fact that you can buy a PC with a proper card and hook it up to a TV and never need a monitor either. But HTPCs and the like are never thought about in these discussions, it's almost like they don't exist or it'd be unheard of to have a PC that goes to a TV. Such a ridiculous double standard when trying to justify how you spend your money.

 

[MikeyLSU]

The point is there is a lot of "startup" cost for both. TV/Monitor/Desk...

But that 2 year cost of $1000+ for PC is just ridiculous because once you own a kb/mouse, Monitor, Desk, Case, Harddrive, Powersupply(maybe)...you don't need to upgrade thsoe. Obviously the HDD and Powersupply will need to be upgraded eventualy, but not every time you upgrade the computer. The rest(for me) is maybe $500 every 2 years or so. Which I don't mind since I do so much more than just gaming with my PC.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Skacer


Those are all valid requirements. But while you may be able to get away with using a computer or console on the floor, you won't be able to do anything on a console without a tv or on a pc without a monitor. You can't argue this.

You can use your monitor for both your PC and console, or you can use a HDTV for both as well. I have never accepted the validity of either side of the argument about adding the cost of the display of choice, because it is just that, a choice.

And the argument that you can use a TV for other things in invalid. I can watch movies on my monitor, I can watch TV on my monitor. Infact, my current monitor is 30" and my TV is only 25". So the TV is no longer a benefit to me at that point. So while your house may have a TV before you purchase an Xbox 360, it is only once you purchase a device like that that the requirement for such an expensive TV becomes justifiable (You need it to watch HDDVD, but that also comes with the 360). And if you don't own a TV like that, the quality of your purchase has now gone down.

I don't see how any of that makes using the TV for other things invalid. We have a whole forum here devoted to A/V and Home Theater, perhaps you can convince many of them with far larger displays, that a 30" display is enough for their desired home theater experience. The point being that while your 30" has the functionality, many like to have friends over and watch a DVD or HD movie, in a room we have setup for the purpose, and a 30" display isn't going to do any HD movie justice from the typical viewing distance of our living or theater rooms. The point being that the purchase of a large screen HDTV or projector can, and is made by many, completely independent of any gaming needs, period.

See, the funny thing about these arguments is nobody has a problem justifying that a monitor is part of the cost of a PC, but the second you mention the cost of a TV everyone gets up in arms. Despite the fact that you can buy a PC with a proper card and hook it up to a TV and never need a monitor either. But HTPCs and the like are never thought about in these discussions, it's almost like they don't exist or it'd be unheard of to have a PC that goes to a TV. Such a ridiculous double standard when trying to justify how you spend your money.

I have a problem with people justifying the monitor but not the TV, so "everyone" is a rather overreaching generalization. Again, The purchase of a good PC display, or good HD display for home theater, can and is done by consumers, completely independently of any gaming considerations.

I know you are just responding to that flawed argument, but IMO, you argument is equally flawed, IOW both sides of the argument are moot. It is just another silly propaganda tactic in a utterly silly online war of console v. PC. Halo 3 is blowing up right now, and that has the poor bastages enlisted in the defense of PC gaming on the counter-attack. Crysis will doubtless make some of the die hard consolers foam at the mouth when it hits too.

LOL, I go into the PC gaming forum, and there is (after nuking it, was) Crysis troll thread already,

 

[Xavier434]

The main thing I don't understand about the PC vs Console FPS arguments is that none of them have anything to do with what makes a game truly good. That is, how much fun it is to play and how long that fun lasts. That's it. KB/M...don't care. Controller...don't care. Graphics....don't care. Storyline...don't care.

All of those things can certainly have an impact on what makes a good game, but let's not forget that there are plenty of old school Nintendo games with crap graphics, simple story lines, barely any type of dynamic controller user interface and they are still a hell of a lot better than most of the modern games today. I for one would have more fun playing the original Zelda again over probably about 80% of all the current 360, PS3, and Wii games available right now.

The rest of the crap in this thread and so many other like it are all about egos and e-peans. It doesn't really have anything to do with what makes Halo 3 great or not so great. A lot of people are having a lot more fun playing Halo 3 right now than they normally do playing most games out there. That makes it a great game.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

That's a matter of opinion.....:roll:

everything is a matter of opinion my friend. which is why everyone should shutup, think of the special olympics, you are all gold medalists in my opinion.

Um, yeah opinion is one thing, but that doesn't constitute hate towards console gamers though genius.

I just can't fathom that there is such a dispute between console and pc gamers. I thought most people on this board did BOTH. So as much as one person would like one over the other, I figured there would be an understanding as to why someone would prefer one over the other without any negative....feelings.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: NaOH

Um, yeah opinion is one thing, but that doesn't constitute hate towards console gamers though genius.

I just can't fathom that there is such a dispute between console and pc gamers. I thought most people on this board did BOTH. So as much as one person would like one over the other, I figured there would be an understanding as to why someone would prefer one over the other without any negative....feelings.

Ya no kidding. I play PC when there is a game on the PC that I feel like playing. Likewise, I play a console when there is a game on the console that I want play. When there is a game on both then I will usually choose the console but that is only because I don't have to worry about things like FPS on a console and I get my huge TV 😀. The point is that it is all about the games. The rest doesn't matter much and if you feel it does then you need to chillax and learn to enjoy both. Neither are going anywhere.

 

[PimpJuice]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Yea I don't use my HDTV for watching HD movies, HD TV shows, or any other shows on television ... it's strictly for my video gaming :roll:

And yet let me see someone pick up a console, go into an empty room and play that console without also buying a tv.

yea but you don't need to buy an HDTV. you can go buy a $50 tv from walmart and play the games.

Don't disagree; but that doesn't seem to affect those making dippy arguements about pcs by saying my console looks great on my 60 inch bravia followed up by pcs cost too much.

Touche.

Touche for what, that was a retarded statement.

People dont buy 60" TVs for a console, they ALREADY have the tv so the argument still sticks for those people. Its not like I went and bought a 360 and said "shlt, now I have to buy a 60" TV".

The difference is that people actually go out and have to buy widescreen monitors for their PCs so add in that additional cost for PCs.

 

[PimpJuice]

Originally posted by: Skacer

Originally posted by: ZimZum
Dont forget to throw in the price of your rent too. Gotta have somewhere to play it.

Wrong.

We are comparing a computer to a console. Things both of these require:
- A house
- Electricity
- Network Connection (if you want online play)

Things unique to each solution:
PC:
- Monitor
- Desk
- Chair
- Keyboard / Mouse
- Speakers

Console:
- TV
- Chair
- Controller
- TV Stand

Those are all valid requirements. But while you may be able to get away with using a computer or console on the floor, you won't be able to do anything on a console without a tv or on a pc without a monitor. You can't argue this.

And the argument that you can use a TV for other things in invalid. I can watch movies on my monitor, I can watch TV on my monitor. Infact, my current monitor is 30" and my TV is only 25". So the TV is no longer a benefit to me at that point. So while your house may have a TV before you purchase an Xbox 360, it is only once you purchase a device like that that the requirement for such an expensive TV becomes justifiable (You need it to watch HDDVD, but that also comes with the 360). And if you don't own a TV like that, the quality of your purchase has now gone down.

See, the funny thing about these arguments is nobody has a problem justifying that a monitor is part of the cost of a PC, but the second you mention the cost of a TV everyone gets up in arms. Despite the fact that you can buy a PC with a proper card and hook it up to a TV and never need a monitor either. But HTPCs and the like are never thought about in these discussions, it's almost like they don't exist or it'd be unheard of to have a PC that goes to a TV. Such a ridiculous double standard when trying to justify how you spend your money.

You can keep trying to validate your argument, but it still wont make any sense. Sure you can do all those things on a monitor (or hook your pc to a TV), but the majority of the population does not care to do that. If your monitor is bigger than your TV, you are obviously a bigger geek than most. Like I said before, theres some people who go home to their friends and family to enjoy activities with them, and then theres some people who run home to their computer.

Just read what you wrote, does it not strike you how nerdy your arguments are. All of these "I can watch TV and movies on my monitor" arguments are dumb. Either you have no friends, or you and your friends are all huddling around your 30" monitor at your computer desk which sounds so much better than hanging out on the couch....not. Sure you can hook your PC up to your TV, but most people with busy social lives dont care to do that. For those people, the PC is something you use to work on, send emails, pay bills, browse the web, whereas the consoles are where you game at.

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: PimpJuice
Touche for what, that was a retarded statement.

People dont buy 60" TVs for a console, they ALREADY have the tv so the argument still sticks for those people. Its not like I went and bought a 360 and said "shlt, now I have to buy a 60" TV".

The difference is that people actually go out and have to buy widescreen monitors for their PCs so add in that additional cost for PCs.

Why should it? I could just as easily use my tv as my monitor, thus adding no extra cost to the PC.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: michaels

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: NaOH

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
this is hilarious a quote from an amazon customer who gave halo3 1 star "But Halo 3 is a game that would've been made on PC about 5-10 years ago. "


O RLY??? :roll:

BF1942 or Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat have better multiplayer than Halo 3. Those are all 5+ years old.

That's a matter of opinion.....:roll:

Obviously it isnt since more people are playing Counter-Strike online right now than Halo 3.

Well by that incredible logic, Mcdonald's burgers confirmed better than the nicest of sit-down restaurants, because more people are eating Mcdonlad's

Actually if you compared 1 mcdonalds restaurant to 1 sit down restaurant, you'd find that more people were eating at the sit down restaurant 😕

 

[michaels]

I am talking about McDonald's burger to sitdown burgers

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: michaels
I am talking about McDonald's burger to sitdown burgers

I know, I responded to you :shocked:

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: purbeast0
who also just cannot and will not grasp the concept that controlling an FPS with a controller is not bad at all, it's just not as precise as a mouse.

To me it is... I see using a controller for a FPS as taking a step backward in control schemes. There may as well be a better setup than a KB/M... I don't doubt that at all. But when it comes to controllers, I just don't like them for FPS games (although I still buy the games). Not to mention I get pissed off at how poor I am with a controller when I know I'd be getting "BOOM! HEADSHOT" with a KB/M combo 🙁. It's a bit dissatisfying that the limitation of the console is inhibiting your ability.

Some "Halo Haterade" comes from the fact that Halo doesn't offer anything over current PC games, which is true. The thing is, Halo offered a lot that was missing in the console FPS genre and no matter what, I will always say that I think consoles are seen as more of a gaming center than a PC. If I talk about "firing up a game", I'll think about playing on a console... the PC just doesn't hold that mantra about it. I think that made people more apt to play a game like Halo. I know when I was in college, people would play Halo quite often but there were still the few and true nerds that played UT1999 😛.

Both X360 and PS3 have KB/Ms that you can buy in place of a gamepad, so what's the issue there?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: purbeast0
who also just cannot and will not grasp the concept that controlling an FPS with a controller is not bad at all, it's just not as precise as a mouse.

To me it is... I see using a controller for a FPS as taking a step backward in control schemes. There may as well be a better setup than a KB/M... I don't doubt that at all. But when it comes to controllers, I just don't like them for FPS games (although I still buy the games). Not to mention I get pissed off at how poor I am with a controller when I know I'd be getting "BOOM! HEADSHOT" with a KB/M combo 🙁. It's a bit dissatisfying that the limitation of the console is inhibiting your ability.

Some "Halo Haterade" comes from the fact that Halo doesn't offer anything over current PC games, which is true. The thing is, Halo offered a lot that was missing in the console FPS genre and no matter what, I will always say that I think consoles are seen as more of a gaming center than a PC. If I talk about "firing up a game", I'll think about playing on a console... the PC just doesn't hold that mantra about it. I think that made people more apt to play a game like Halo. I know when I was in college, people would play Halo quite often but there were still the few and true nerds that played UT1999 😛.

Both X360 and PS3 have KB/Ms that you can buy in place of a gamepad, so what's the issue there?

The issue is that theres a very big difference between native m/kb support and a dirty hack to translate mouse movements to gamepad movement.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Both X360 and PS3 have KB/Ms that you can buy in place of a gamepad, so what's the issue there?

The issue is that theres a very big difference between native m/kb support and a dirty hack to translate mouse movements to gamepad movement.

Well at least you'd have your a keyboard with more than the eight buttons of a gamepad. Sheesh, I don't think you guys will ever be happy with consoles, and I don't think you're supposed to actually. Consoles are a lot more group oriented, the reason people love Halo isn't that it's a great FPS (though it may be the best one they've played, which is why so many swear by it), people love it because it's a good excuse to get a bunch of friends together and have a good time laughing at each other. It seems to me that PCs are targeting the opposite end of the spectrum, people that like to play the game for keeps instead of playing just for fun. Heavy gamers as opposed to social gamers, if you will.

 

[Skacer]

Originally posted by: PimpJuice
You can keep trying to validate your argument, but it still wont make any sense. Sure you can do all those things on a monitor (or hook your pc to a TV), but the majority of the population does not care to do that. If your monitor is bigger than your TV, you are obviously a bigger geek than most. Like I said before, theres some people who go home to their friends and family to enjoy activities with them, and then theres some people who run home to their computer.

Just read what you wrote, does it not strike you how nerdy your arguments are. All of these "I can watch TV and movies on my monitor" arguments are dumb. Either you have no friends, or you and your friends are all huddling around your 30" monitor at your computer desk which sounds so much better than hanging out on the couch....not. Sure you can hook your PC up to your TV, but most people with busy social lives dont care to do that. For those people, the PC is something you use to work on, send emails, pay bills, browse the web, whereas the consoles are where you game at.

Let's try and pretend your pitiful attacks on me are thinly veiled. If I was really concerned, I'd wonder why you are trying so hard to justify how many friends you have in a thread about Halo? When you grow up, you and your friends probably won't spend much time in front of the TV. So whether or not you have a 60" TV won't matter that much. The fact that you haven't gotten to this point speaks volumes about where you are in your life. Try not to attack me so much while openly stating that the biggest thing you and your friends have going is a TV set and Halo 3.