after i bought my playstation->usb converter me and my friends play the console games on pc
mario kart 64 and goldeneye 64 are the best on pc
the only reason people tend to prefer console is it is easy to start the game up (no installing) and it never crashes or locks up.
also a reason i like console sometime is that the system requirments are always met because the game was designed for a one console type.
i only play starcraft and warcraft 3 now which are only good on pc.
PC vs Console prettiness
I cant relate either, and I think that if you feel like PC games are NOT par with Console games as for graphics go, I would really recomend getting a real video card, and stop buying those crappy all in one motherboards, it really makes a difference.
Author
Nah, I have a ti4200 and nice Shuttle mobo. I think the person who was talking about Japanese vs. American games was right. I think I prefer the Japanese games for the same reason I like anime and manga: very exagerated movements and expressions, larger-than-life ways of expressing emotions, always vibrant, fun graphics.
I just couldn''t get into games like halflife where the NPCs would walk over kind of stiffly, rotate to face you with a blank expression on their face, and then a mediocre dialog .wav would play. Just didn''t like the voice acting, thought the animations were too stiff and unrealistic, textures too smeared *shrug* to each his own.
I just couldn''t get into games like halflife where the NPCs would walk over kind of stiffly, rotate to face you with a blank expression on their face, and then a mediocre dialog .wav would play. Just didn''t like the voice acting, thought the animations were too stiff and unrealistic, textures too smeared *shrug* to each his own.
Which 3d console games came out in 1998 that looked much better than half life? For its time, it had pretty good graphics. Remeber, nvidia was just making the Riva TNT at the end of 1998, so its not like graphics cards were very powerfull back then.
i think the best comparison between pc and console abilities is shown in the game grand theft auto 3.
just LOOK at the two versions side by side, in the pc one you can see about 100 times farther, it isnt fogged to the point where you can see only one block down, and everything is crisp. X-Play did a segment i remember where they actually played the same portion of GTA 3 on a pc and console, and did a split view on the tv of both, it made the console versions look horrible. (like comparing doom to quake3)
i would say current day console games are about on par with those on a 700mhz computer with a gf3 (graphically speeking). Not bad, but not even close to the best. If you''ve never been drawn into a pc game you havnt played half-life or elite-force
just LOOK at the two versions side by side, in the pc one you can see about 100 times farther, it isnt fogged to the point where you can see only one block down, and everything is crisp. X-Play did a segment i remember where they actually played the same portion of GTA 3 on a pc and console, and did a split view on the tv of both, it made the console versions look horrible. (like comparing doom to quake3)
i would say current day console games are about on par with those on a 700mhz computer with a gf3 (graphically speeking). Not bad, but not even close to the best. If you''ve never been drawn into a pc game you havnt played half-life or elite-force
A lot of it has to do with what kind of artwork you like also. While these are generalizations, a lot of PCs games tend to go for a more photorealistic look while a lot of console games have a more stylized look. Some of this has to do with the strong anime influence that Japanese titles have. I find that the people that feel the same way you do tend to be big anime\manga fans.
Some of it also has to do with the amount of platformers on the console, a genre that you just don''t see on the PC that much. These games (both american and japanese) have more stylized characters with more exageratted, disney like animations. Fighting games have a lot more attention paid toward the characters and their animations, and this is another genre that you don''t really see on the PC.
Basically, I think console games tend to focus more on the characters and are more stylized, while PC games tend to have more detailed environments and focus more on realism. So, if you don''t like photorealism (or the attempt of photorealism) and you tend to focus more on the characters when judging graphical quality I can see why you feel the way you do.
In my opinion, a lot of console games are technically inferior but have cooler or more interesting artwork (btw, I like anime). I also agree that characters in a lot of PC games are not as well animated, but I think it''s because stylized characters lend themselves to animation more than realistic characters (where a few flaws in the animation can look really bad.) In my opinion, the best looking games are PC games (Doom III, Unreal Tournament 2003\4, HL2), but there are a lot more good looking console games than there are good looking PC games.
Gameplay wise, PC games tend to be more complex (even action games) than console games. Some people equate this with PC games being slow and boring, but this has always been what''s attracted me to PC games over console games (not that I don''t like a lot of console games, but I don''t own a console).
You mention you liked Blizzard, and while I think they are extremely overrated (then again, I don''t like RTS games) they have kind of a console sensiblity when it comes to development. They have more streamlined interfaces than a lot of PC Games and their artwork is for the most part more cartoony and stylized (especially in Warcraft.) Blizzard started out as a console developer, so that could have something to do with it.
Nowadays there are so many ports and designers are influenced by so many different things, it''s hard to say exactly what a PC game or a console game is anyway.
Some of it also has to do with the amount of platformers on the console, a genre that you just don''t see on the PC that much. These games (both american and japanese) have more stylized characters with more exageratted, disney like animations. Fighting games have a lot more attention paid toward the characters and their animations, and this is another genre that you don''t really see on the PC.
Basically, I think console games tend to focus more on the characters and are more stylized, while PC games tend to have more detailed environments and focus more on realism. So, if you don''t like photorealism (or the attempt of photorealism) and you tend to focus more on the characters when judging graphical quality I can see why you feel the way you do.
In my opinion, a lot of console games are technically inferior but have cooler or more interesting artwork (btw, I like anime). I also agree that characters in a lot of PC games are not as well animated, but I think it''s because stylized characters lend themselves to animation more than realistic characters (where a few flaws in the animation can look really bad.) In my opinion, the best looking games are PC games (Doom III, Unreal Tournament 2003\4, HL2), but there are a lot more good looking console games than there are good looking PC games.
Gameplay wise, PC games tend to be more complex (even action games) than console games. Some people equate this with PC games being slow and boring, but this has always been what''s attracted me to PC games over console games (not that I don''t like a lot of console games, but I don''t own a console).
You mention you liked Blizzard, and while I think they are extremely overrated (then again, I don''t like RTS games) they have kind of a console sensiblity when it comes to development. They have more streamlined interfaces than a lot of PC Games and their artwork is for the most part more cartoony and stylized (especially in Warcraft.) Blizzard started out as a console developer, so that could have something to do with it.
Nowadays there are so many ports and designers are influenced by so many different things, it''s hard to say exactly what a PC game or a console game is anyway.
First Consoles look better because they are on a TV. I have a TV-Tuner in my comp and the 100% zoom is 320 X 200. That''s lower than ANY operating system nowadays. I don''t even know if games still play with such a low res. TV''s can get away with it cause it does a lot of antialiasing. Have you looked closely at a TV and Monitor? I mean like an inch away. It hurts my eyes to try and see the blocks on a monitor where a TV is almost unwatchable cause all I see is Red, Green and Blue bars. Almost any game wtih 320 X 200 res on almost any vid card will run extremely well. The graphics would look great if it was shown on a TV.
Another related factor is the distance you sit from the tv/monitor. TV you usually sit farther away from than the monitor. Personnally I sit about 5-10 feet away from the TV when playing games. About 0.5 - 2 feet when playing a PC game. The farther you are away from the screen the better the game appears to look. You don''t see the details that you would normally see up close.
Secondly, which was pointed out before was that programmers have the hassle of different video cards to work with on PC''s. You only have a few different consoles to worry about... assuming you want a game on Xbox and PS2 and Game Cube. With that said... they can spend more time into programming the actual game than spending time trying to figure out what each change looks like on every computer configuration. With that said... I think it takes much more time making a PC game. Sadly to hear but many companies try to rush the game out which brings up many of the problems you have seen. BUt I think that many of the PC programmers know that they can always release a patch if a problem is found... not so with console games so there''s NO room for error.
I have a few games that will never come out for console... at least not until they get a keyboard for them. First one i can think of is Descent Freespace. The whole keyboard is used 3 times. (Every key, Every key with CTRL, Every Key with SHIFT)... then a joystick is also needed. Very complicated controls.
My last point is what is your computer like? You have to take into account the performance of the computer too. Jack up the settings to full for the game. Does the game seem jerky? Well it''s probably your ocmputer. Upgrade your comp until it''s smooth. Then you will see the game the way it''s meant to be played.
P.S. don''t feel like people are shooting you down. At least I''m not. I''m just trying to clear things up and show you that PC games can be fun and possibly be at par or better than console games. But yes... there are many games that suck but there are many games that rock!
Another related factor is the distance you sit from the tv/monitor. TV you usually sit farther away from than the monitor. Personnally I sit about 5-10 feet away from the TV when playing games. About 0.5 - 2 feet when playing a PC game. The farther you are away from the screen the better the game appears to look. You don''t see the details that you would normally see up close.
Secondly, which was pointed out before was that programmers have the hassle of different video cards to work with on PC''s. You only have a few different consoles to worry about... assuming you want a game on Xbox and PS2 and Game Cube. With that said... they can spend more time into programming the actual game than spending time trying to figure out what each change looks like on every computer configuration. With that said... I think it takes much more time making a PC game. Sadly to hear but many companies try to rush the game out which brings up many of the problems you have seen. BUt I think that many of the PC programmers know that they can always release a patch if a problem is found... not so with console games so there''s NO room for error.
I have a few games that will never come out for console... at least not until they get a keyboard for them. First one i can think of is Descent Freespace. The whole keyboard is used 3 times. (Every key, Every key with CTRL, Every Key with SHIFT)... then a joystick is also needed. Very complicated controls.
My last point is what is your computer like? You have to take into account the performance of the computer too. Jack up the settings to full for the game. Does the game seem jerky? Well it''s probably your ocmputer. Upgrade your comp until it''s smooth. Then you will see the game the way it''s meant to be played.
P.S. don''t feel like people are shooting you down. At least I''m not. I''m just trying to clear things up and show you that PC games can be fun and possibly be at par or better than console games. But yes... there are many games that suck but there are many games that rock!
PC Games: developers and publishers realize they can just patch it later to fix problems, so they''ll release a half-finished game then make the patch.
Consoles: the game can''t be patched so they have to put in all their effort right away.
That''s how I see it.
Consoles: the game can''t be patched so they have to put in all their effort right away.
That''s how I see it.
you also have to realize that when making a pc game what works on one hardware set will not work on another, unlike console where the hardware is exactly the same between. I have played console games before that if they could have been patched like a pc game it would have probably saved them. I wouldnt quite say they can release the game half finished. When that is tried the game dies within a month, the initial release is the most important, and patching problems greatly increases the longevity. I like the idea of if there''s a bug in a game i can contact the company and it will be fixed in the next patch.
give the OP a break. he has the right to his opinion. and personally i agree with him. no, i don''t have the highest end PC in the world, but....
Gigabyte GA-8PE667 Ultra2
Intel P4/533MHz 2.4GHz
256 DDR 333MHz, could use more RAM. but too expensive right now.
ATI Radeon 7500 AiW
Seagate ATA5 40GB HDD
not that shabby. but it''s not really the graphical quality about PC games that turns me off, but rather i just don''t find them as fun.
i do prefer RPG, adventure and sports (hockey, football) games personally tho. anyhow, everyone is free to there own opinions.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
Gigabyte GA-8PE667 Ultra2
Intel P4/533MHz 2.4GHz
256 DDR 333MHz, could use more RAM. but too expensive right now.
ATI Radeon 7500 AiW
Seagate ATA5 40GB HDD
not that shabby. but it''s not really the graphical quality about PC games that turns me off, but rather i just don''t find them as fun.
i do prefer RPG, adventure and sports (hockey, football) games personally tho. anyhow, everyone is free to there own opinions.
To the vast majority of mankind, nothing is more agreeable than to escape the need for mental exertion... To most people, nothing is more troublesome than the effort of thinking.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
