Why do you guys bother with PC gaming?

[taltamir]

backward compatibility for the PS3 with PS2 games is as follows on NTSC systems(some have hardware support some emulate via software)

The oldest ones have hardware emulation of PS2. No emulation of PS1 or anything else.
The new ones have software emulation which has compatibility issues. There is nothing wrong with software emulation. Its only that the PS3 implementation has issues with various games (from what I heard)

Xbox 360 Backwards compatbility list (there are 400 xbox games that run on the Xbox 360 it's all software, no hardware)

You are right, but that is all it is compatible with. Which is significantly less than what a PC can run.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The oldest ones have hardware emulation of PS2. No emulation of PS1 or anything else.
The new ones have software emulation which has compatibility issues. There is nothing wrong with software emulation. Its only that the PS3 implementation has issues with various games (from what I heard)


You are right, but that is all it is compatible with. Which is significantly less than what a PC can run.

Honestly backwards compatibility means very, very little. If I wanted to play old PSone or PS2 games I'd buy a PS2 for $50 off craig's list or something.

I may be alone, but when it comes to gaming, I play every game on the system it was intended for. There are not many games I want to "go back and play" because I missed them either.

 

[pw38]

Wait, every PS3 can play PS1 games. I've played PS1 games on my first 60GB, then a 40GB, and finally a 80GB and 250GB unit. They all play fine. The PS2 is the system that has the issues.

As for the rest of the argument, yikes so much bickering going on. I've enjoyed consoles in the past because they're easy to use and don't require too much input from the user. PC's are obviously different and it's just understood that unless you're playing Popcap games or Facebook games you need a little knowledge about how the process for playing a PC game works. Developers and publishers know this. Steam has been somewhat of an exception as is MS with "Games for Windows" but even then you could be expected to know about directories and install folders, etc., something console gamers in general don't or won't understand.

There is a point with the idea that, assuming you own a desktop pc that can accept a videocard you can upgrade it and have a pretty decent gaming pc. Again though the issue with this is A. who outside of gamers really owns a tower pc anymore, and B. just because you can do that doesn't mean you will do that. Most won't hence the perception will always remain that pc gaming is more expensive than console gaming. No big deal though, it is what it is. I enjoy pc games for what they are and I've enjoyed console games for what they are. I just don't expect the unrealistic though. What I do expect is for pc gamers to stop getting the shaft from publishers but that's not likely to happen any time soon (maybe I do expect the unrealistic lol). We're all pirates to them and when the numbers are on the console side of things that's where the attention will be placed. We've been marginalized for the past decade now, why expect that to change? Enjoy the games, enjoy the hobby. The rest isn't worth getting so worked up over because in the end arguing on the internet is like, well, you know.

 

[NTAC]

Wait, every PS3 can play PS1 games. I've played PS1 games on my first 60GB, then a 40GB, and finally a 80GB and 250GB unit. They all play fine. The PS2 is the system that has the issues.

As for the rest of the argument, yikes so much bickering going on. I've enjoyed consoles in the past because they're easy to use and don't require too much input from the user. PC's are obviously different and it's just understood that unless you're playing Popcap games or Facebook games you need a little knowledge about how the process for playing a PC game works. Developers and publishers know this. Steam has been somewhat of an exception as is MS with "Games for Windows" but even then you could be expected to know about directories and install folders, etc., something console gamers in general don't or won't understand.

There is a point with the idea that, assuming you own a desktop pc that can accept a videocard you can upgrade it and have a pretty decent gaming pc. Again though the issue with this is A. who outside of gamers really owns a tower pc anymore, and B. just because you can do that doesn't mean you will do that. Most won't hence the perception will always remain that pc gaming is more expensive than console gaming. No big deal though, it is what it is. I enjoy pc games for what they are and I've enjoyed console games for what they are. I just don't expect the unrealistic though. What I do expect is for pc gamers to stop getting the shaft from publishers but that's not likely to happen any time soon (maybe I do expect the unrealistic lol). We're all pirates to them and when the numbers are on the console side of things that's where the attention will be placed. We've been marginalized for the past decade now, why expect that to change? Enjoy the games, enjoy the hobby. The rest isn't worth getting so worked up over because in the end arguing on the internet is like, well, you know.

I've never found myself with a shortage of PC games to play. So if the attention is shifting to consoles and the PC gaming community is getting shafted, it certainly has not impacted me. I find myself with way too many games to play and not nearly enough time to play them.

 

[AppaTheBison]

Do you see pre-orders for Diablo 3 ps3 or xbox? I think not!

 

[pw38]

I've never found myself with a shortage of PC games to play. So if the attention is shifting to consoles and the PC gaming community is getting shafted, it certainly has not impacted me. I find myself with way too many games to play and not nearly enough time to play them.

Well, what I meant is that the games are being developed for consoles and we're getting the short end of the stick with ports. I'd rather it be the other way because it really does feel like we're not getting the most for our money. Still I guess I should be happy they even release pc games any more.

 

[happy medium]

I meant game capatibility, drivers, patches,operating system stuff.

 

[taltamir]

Honestly backwards compatibility means very, very little. If I wanted to play old PSone or PS2 games I'd buy a PS2 for $50 off craig's list or something.

Yet the argument was that PCs suck for "compatibility problems"... where they have the best compatibility of any platform out there.

If someone don't care about backwards emulation that is their choice... but I take offense at someone spouting false info.

Wait, every PS3 can play PS1 games. I've played PS1 games on my first 60GB, then a 40GB, and finally a 80GB and 250GB unit. They all play fine. The PS2 is the system that has the issues.

Are you saying that the PS2 had problems emulating PS1 or that the PS3 had problems emulating PS2?
Anyways, thanks for the correction. I strive for accuracy. Taking into account that PS1 is emulated, that is a fairly decent compatibility list... still not nearly as good as that of the PC. So the claim "consoles are better because PC has compatibility problems" is still nonsense

I meant game capatibility

uh... what? that did not clarify anything, at all.

And as I said, PC has the best compatibility of any platform.

drivers, patches,operating system stuff.

Required and forced firmware/system software updates, forced installs, and 0-day patches.
Consoles had a great run where they had good QC, but those days are gone.

 

[biostud]

1. PC can do other stuff than just game
2. Compare price of PC + 30 games vs. console + 30 games
3. Mouse + Keyboard
4. It's a hobby building your own PC

 

[lamedude]

Are you saying that the PS2 had problems emulating PS1 or that the PS3 had problems emulating PS2?
Anyways, thanks for the correction. I strive for accuracy. Taking into account that PS1 is emulated, that is a fairly decent compatibility list... still not nearly as good as that of the PC.

PS3 has problems emulating PS2's GPU. Sony only recently got it good enough to release a few PS2 games on PSN. The silver PS2 has problems with some PS1 and 9 PS2 games.
I would say a 60GB PS3 is almost equal to a PC. There's only a small % of PS1/2 games it can't play. Getting some old games to run on XP can be difficult or impossible and they stopped making Win9x drivers years ago so that's not an option for most. Not many have a SoundBlaster compat soundcard for DOS so PC speaker SFX only if that's needed.

 

[taltamir]

Getting some old games to run on XP can be difficult or impossible

WinXP is actually of the WinNT family. WinXP is perfectly capable of running Win9x games. Its win Vista and 7 that have problems with Win9x games.
Win7 plays WinXP+ games perfectly.

and they stopped making Win9x drivers years ago so that's not an option for most.

I never suggested anyone use Win95 or Win98 to play older games. I specifically said those are games lost to time as nothing can play them today (you can't buy the needed OS anymore)

Not many have a SoundBlaster compat soundcard for DOS so PC speaker SFX only if that's needed.

DOSbox emulates that hardware via software on the CPU
http://www.dosbox.com/

I would say a 60GB PS3 is almost equal to a PC. There's only a small % of PS1/2 games it can't play.[/qoute]
That is still inferior playlist to the PC, which plays its own older games (with the 9x hole unless you still have winXP), as well as PS1, PS2 (most), NES, and pretty much any older console.

The only things a Win7 PC can't play are:
1. SOME PS2 games (being worked on)
2. xbox
3. xbox360
4. PS3
5. Win9x games (playable with WinXP, as it has excellent compatibility with Win9x games)
6. Potentially some obscure console nobody ever bothered making an emulator for (just to cover myself for accuracy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_consoles
See that massive list of consoles? While the PS3 has "most PS1 and PS2 games" emulatable the PC has "most games, ever, on every console ever made emulatable"
There isn't an emulator for every console ever made, but there are enough that PC compatibility is the highest, bar none.

 

[SirPauly]

I think the OP said it best:

and turn it on and be done with it.

Is this a PC gamer? Is this more of a console gamer mind-set? The PC offers incredible amounts of flexibility and there may be learning curves involved -- not just turn it on and be done with it. Doesn't desire to be bothered by the advantages the PC may offer -- too much annoyance.

My nephew is the same way -- can't game on the PC -- can turn it on but doesn't desire to learn what the PC can offer --- just desires to turn it on and be done with it -- and why he likes consoles.

 

[Josippy]

i once played fable on a PC...very nice
i then played it on the console....
the console was thrown out the window because it would not load the ground texture right
>.> in other-words consoles are like REALLY low end PC BUT a high end PC will give you satisfaction beyond belief
[NOT TO MENTION: the awsome steam deals when games go from $60 to like 15 >

 

[TantrumusMaximus]

LOL, the OP registered just to start a 7page thread.... probably laughing.

 

[pw38]

Are you saying that the PS2 had problems emulating PS1 or that the PS3 had problems emulating PS2?
Anyways, thanks for the correction. I strive for accuracy. Taking into account that PS1 is emulated, that is a fairly decent compatibility list... still not nearly as good as that of the PC. So the claim "consoles are better because PC has compatibility problems" is still nonsense

Sorry, that did look a bit confusing. The PS3 plays PSX games with no emulation done. Well, at least it did at first. They might have gone to emulation when they did the redesign, I'm not sure anymore. The PS3 cannot play PS2 games now. The original launch 60 and 20GB systems did so because they had the actual chipset included. The subsequent 80GB unit did through emulation and then once the 40GB and later systems hit that functionality was removed entirely.

I'll take the PC approach to backwards compatibility any day. I can still fire up and play pretty much any PC game I've ever owned, a feat not possible with the consoles. In fact I can play the older console games on my PC better than the original consoles could play them lol. No emulator is 100% accurate of course but when the goal is to improve, not replicate, that's not a concern. It's one major reason I like pc gaming more than console gaming.

 

[Rifter]

LOL, the OP registered just to start a 7page thread.... probably laughing.

yeah i think we got trolled hard.

 

[taltamir]

I'll take the PC approach to backwards compatibility any day. I can still fire up and play pretty much any PC game I've ever owned, a feat not possible with the consoles. In fact I can play the older console games on my PC better than the original consoles could play them lol. No emulator is 100% accurate of course but when the goal is to improve, not replicate, that's not a concern. It's one major reason I like pc gaming more than console gaming.

Yes. FF7 looks so much better with HQ2x and AntiAliasing (which, amusingly, makes the PSX version played on a PC the best way to play that game)

 

[TecHNooB]

An awesome PC is nice to have. I do agree that if you upgrade more than once every few years, you're wasting a lot of money. But if you have a lot to spend, go for it

 

[jordanecmusic]

it's pretty insane what PC gamers spend just on video cards. a video card can cost the same or more than an entire PS3/360. all these $1,000+ rigs, all the questions and research on cooling, power consumption, SSD, and so on, when you can just buy a PS3 for $250 and turn it on and be done with it.

not to mention the dearth of games for PCs in the last decade. when i did most of my gaming on a PC back in the 80s/90s, there were new titles left and right.

I will answer this in simplest terms. Compare resistance 3 to half life 2 on pc. Halflife 2 on pc looks so much better and cleaner because of higher than 720p resolution. But its much more than this!

List Why PC Gaming Is Better Than Console Gaming
-Antialiasing (current console games do not have it)
-Antistropic Filtering (current console games do not have it)
-3 or more screens (console games cannot do this)
-The option to play on anything higher than "LOW" settings (console games cannot do not do this) [Want proof? Crysis 2!]
-Option to use Mouse and Keyboard (natively) or Controllers (console's do not have this option)
-Options to play at higher than 720p (consoles cannot do this)
-Custom Towers, Custom Setups, Higher Quality Parts etc.
-DX 10/11 (consoles cannot do this)

There is your answer. If you do not really care much for anything listed above, then do not bother getting a gaming pc. If you do, then by all means go for it. No one is judging you for your actions.

My current pc is a core 2 duo running at 2.53ghz, geforce gt240 512mb ddr5, 2 gigs of ddr2 ram....you get the drill.

My dual core processor is stronger than the 360's triple core and the ps3's 7 spu processor (which is not a 7 core processor).

My geforce gt240 (which was 50$ on sale on tiger direct) is definetly stronger than the ps3's and 360's gpus.

My 2 gigs of ram...must I really say it?

Its as simple as I just said, if you dont care for anything above...then get a console. Otherwise, get a pc. You can get a PC thats like 3x stronger than the ps3 or 360 for 500$ now a days on tigerdirect.com. Mind you my pc runs crysis 2 on "GAMER" setting at 1440x900 at 60fps (2.25x what consoles get). If I want more eye candy I upgrade. If I am satisfied with what I see then I remain put. GAME! SET! MATCH!

 

[toyota]

jordanecmusic, its funny that you listed all those advantages yet the pc you actually have cant even do most of those things and would be no better than a console in most ways. and I really doubt your cpu is any better than what the consoles use at all and is probably worse. a console will certainly run GTA 4, Prototype and some other games better than what your old dual core cpu can do. heck your cpu barley even meets minimum requirements for many newer games.

your gt240 may be slightly better than the consoles gpu but the pc has much more overhead to deal with so the difference are probably fairly small. you will certainly not be running many newer games above medium and good luck running them at high res.

and 2gb of system ram is NOT enough to even play some newer games. heck that was not enough ram 3 years ago for games like Clear Sky and Warhead unless you like some hitching now and again. I honestly would take a console over your pc for a much more consistent experience with similar performance in many cases.

 

[taltamir]

jordanecmusic, its funny that you listed all those advantages yet the pc you actually have cant even do most of those things and would be no better than a console in most ways. and I really doubt your cpu is any better than what the consoles use at all and is probably worse. a console will certainly run GTA 4, Prototype and some other games better than what your old dual core cpu can do. heck your cpu barley even meets minimum requirements for many newer games.

your gt240 may be slightly better than the consoles gpu but the pc has much more overhead to deal with so the difference are probably fairly small. you will certainly not be running many newer games above medium and good luck running them at high res.

and 2gb of system ram is NOT enough to even play some newer games. heck that was not enough ram 3 years ago for games like Clear Sky and Warhead unless you like some hitching now and again. I honestly would take a console over your pc for a much more consistent experience with similar performance in many cases.

You are talking nonsense. His PC cannot max out moderns games, but it can certainly do better than consoles.
2GB is 4x what the xbox360 has, and it is more then enough to play games on higher settings then modern console. 4GB is better, but not necessary.

 

[toyota]

You are talking nonsense. His PC cannot max out moderns games, but it can certainly do better than consoles.
2GB is 4x what the xbox360 has, and it is more then enough to play games on higher settings then modern console. 4GB is better, but not necessary.

sure he can run some games better than on the consoles but probably not much better overall. and again for a few games like GTA 4 and Prototype, they would run slightly worse on his pc because of his cpu. it would be extremely ignorant to compare desktop ram to console ram. and yes its a FACT that some games will most certainly hitch a bit with just 2gb of system ram. I clearly gave 2 examples from even 3 years ago that need more than 2gb.

 

[lamedude]

See that massive list of consoles? While the PS3 has "most PS1 and PS2 games" emulatable the PC has "most games, ever, on every console ever made emulatable"
There isn't an emulator for every console ever made, but there are enough that PC compatibility is the highest, bar none.

If we're talking just compatibility then PC wins but PS3 is only missing GCN/Wii/DS/PSP/Win32 and a few unpopular consoles (3DO/CDi) no one bothered to port emulators to PS3 Linux/jailbroken GameOS. If we're going by backwards compatibility its close. A BC PS3 can almost any game with the words Playstation on the box while a PC can play almost any game with the words 100% IBM PC compatible/Windows on the box.

 

[nsavop]

I play mostly pc games like most of you here, but in this day and age most people don't care about what's got the best graphics, how much aa to use or how many fps there getting on any given game, give them a great game let them put it in a console and just play, the reality is the game console will continue to gain popularity (especially when Xbox 720 and ps3 are released) and video game company's will favor the consoles because of the bigger bottem dollar. For me I will always have my pc which I refresh every two years and one game console (ps3). Right this moment there's no game I'd rather be playing then Dark Souls a console exclusive, the last thing im thinking about when playing that game is jagged lines or how man fps Im getting. A good game is a good game weather it's on Xbox, ps3 or pc. Would Dark Souls be better on PC....Absolutely but it doesn't mean it's not a good game on a console.

 

[RussianSensation]

I will answer this in simplest terms. Compare resistance 3 to half life 2 on pc. Halflife 2 on pc looks so much better and cleaner because of higher than 720p resolution. But its much more than this!

List Why PC Gaming Is Better Than Console Gaming
-Antialiasing (current console games do not have it)
-Antistropic Filtering (current console games do not have it)
-3 or more screens (console games cannot do this)
-The option to play on anything higher than "LOW" settings (console games cannot do not do this) [Want proof? Crysis 2!]
-Option to use Mouse and Keyboard (natively) or Controllers (console's do not have this option)
-Options to play at higher than 720p (consoles cannot do this)
-Custom Towers, Custom Setups, Higher Quality Parts etc.
-DX 10/11 (consoles cannot do this)

Your entire argument omitted the most important aspect of video gaming: Gameplay is more important than graphics.

I would much rather play Limbo, Super Meatboy or Braid on the PC than Alien vs. Predator or I'd much rather play Half Life 2 over Battlefield 3's single-player campaign. Look up the graphics of the 3 PC games I just listed.

The best games ever made (on consoles and PCs) actually do not have the best graphics. I can think of at least 20 videogames that I like more than Doom 3 or Quake 4, and yet they have inferior graphics.

People buy console games despite their inferior graphics, because they are fun to play. And, this is especially true if you enjoy playing specific genres that are better represented on consoles than on the PC. If you like racing games more than MMOs, then you'd much rather buy Forza 4 or Gran Turismo 5 over WOW.

It all comes down to what type of games you like and if you like to play with friends or alone on a tiny screen or on a large screen.

If there is a game that is available on both the PC and console, of course the PC version is almost always more preferable. What about games that you can't buy on the PC? Are they crappy because they don't have 4AA or 16AF or because they can't run at native 1080P?

Games like Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time or original Starcraft are a masterpiece compared to some garbage like Duke Nukem Forever or Kane & Lynch 2. Graphics alone don't make for a good game.

You are talking nonsense. His PC cannot max out moderns games, but it can certainly do better than consoles.
2GB is 4x what the xbox360 has, and it is more then enough to play games on higher settings then modern console. 4GB is better, but not necessary.

I max out 2GB of Ram just browsing the Internet....and I find that amount not enough for every day work.

Secondly, 1440x900 resolution on a 1080P LCD looks horrible unless you have 1:1 TV scaling (i.e., for example, on my Westy when I reduce resolution, it automatically scales the image to take up less pixels, but I am no longer viewing a full 37 inch image). Otherwise, the non-native LCD resolution produces blurring and image quality artefacts.