I have never bought a console, and I will probably never buy one until the notation of a PC and a console has become blurred enough to consider both a unified entertaiment system with other capabilities. "Where others see problems I see oppertunities" (lame quote from Discovery Channel). Sure, it sucks to have outdated hardware but it also sucks to have an entire outdated console...
To me PCs are about maximizing the number of options of their usage. I guess the most of the "common" market does not appreciate that however. If I never had become interesting in programming etc. I could surely see myself a bit annoyed with certain OS/hardware issues. From time to time I solve some of them in a rather quick fashion that I never would have managed without knowledge of the internal workings of a computer. Therefore the console users have a very strong point when it comes to user friendliness.
(/start pointless sidetrack rant) On the other hand, I find myself increasingly annoyed in modern PC software where the urge to make it more user friendly goes at the expense of functionality of the software. I hate certain new functions in M$ Word for example that each and every time make my life more difficult, and it's not always that clear how to turn those off (if possible at all). A common issue I encounter in several programs nowadays is when the designers have tried to hide parts of the interface in order to make it appear less complicated. All in all this means more work for me even since functionality I use on a frequent basis is hidden every time I start up the damn program. (/end rant)
I don't know what will "win". However, I will continue to purchase PCs because they are more adaptable and I merely find it silly certain companies introduce their own standards to make more money selling accesories that already exist in other systems. This also works against games developers, and I'm not the one to embrace the increasing similarity of the game industry to the movie industry.
The PC Console barrier
all of my fingers on my left hand are used on the keyboard.
all of my fingers on my right hand are used on the mouse (far more accurate than any analogue stick).
joystick plugged in sitting to the left of my keyboard.
console controls better? you must be mad!
all of my fingers on my right hand are used on the mouse (far more accurate than any analogue stick).
joystick plugged in sitting to the left of my keyboard.
console controls better? you must be mad!
Quote:Original post by Riviera Kid
pc games will always be around.
There will always be developers who want the absolute maximum experience possible and that requires a pc. Consoles just dont cut it. Just try and port battlefield to a console, youll loose all the gameplay due to low resolution and the controllers.
a radeon 8500 will run all of todays games and it will look just as good as a console and run good enough. If you are an online fan all you need is ut2004 and battlefield, your set for the rest of time because of new mods/maps.
For me, the pc is cheaper over a long period of time.
Surround sound is an absolute must. A hard core experience.
Updating your hardware is bloody fun.
Well actually battlefield IS coming to console..
Check..:
http://xbox.ign.com
And look for battlefield: modern combat
So I guess your arguement isn't really justified..
EDIT:
The problem with some PC games is that they can sometimes suffer from a swell of control variation in gaming, this happens in many RTS games on the platform where the player is practically forced to sit and learn what all the 23 buttons assigned to control functions do in order to play the game.. Console games tend to be very accessible in the way that they are easy to pick up and get into quickly which is very beneficial for those impulse gamers who want to start enjoying the game as soon as they switch it on..
Personally I love both PC and console games as I think they both have alot to offer but for different gaming audiences.. Console games tend to cater for the pure and casual gamer ranging over a multitude of genres.. PC games lean more towards the gamer who seeks the fully gaming experience, filled wid enough gameplay features and more importantly "customisability" to keep them playing forever.. Although sometimes this is used as an excuse to justify stupidly-long development times (e.g. HL2) which also can be very annoying for the PC gaming hardcore as they have to wait anything up to 3 yrs for a game to be released (and by then they have to get all new hardware to run it..)
So I guess it just depends what you prefer.. I can see how the PC market is slowly dying but I doubt it ever will completely.. But personally I would rather buy and play my AAA console titles while waiting for the next big PC experience to grace the market..
[Edited by - ArchangelMorph on April 13, 2005 6:39:23 AM]
Quote:Original post by Riviera Kid
all of my fingers on my left hand are used on the keyboard.
all of my fingers on my right hand are used on the mouse (far more accurate than any analogue stick).
joystick plugged in sitting to the left of my keyboard.
console controls better? you must be mad!
Many people don't have a joystick for thier computer, and only a subset of those have a decent one. You also can't really on a joystick having the same buttons and functionality as any other on a PC.
You can still only use 5 keys on the keyboard at the same time with the keyboard (10 with both hands), but this is quite an effective input device. Note that on a gamepad type control there's a far reduced chance of hitting a) the wrong key, or b) a key that does nothing. If you don't move your hand on the keyboard you shouldn't have a problem with this either, but then you aren't really taking full advantage of the keyboards capabilities. In addition, the keys on a keyboard must be assumed to be digital - you only get on and off values for each, unlike the analogue controls becoming more popular on console controllers.
Your mouse is quite accurate. A typical mouse these days will be optical, have 2 buttons, and a scroll wheel - this makes it quite a useful input device. It no longer suffers from the old inaccuracy problems of a ball mouse. Most people will still have a cord, which can sometimes cause them problems, but isn't really a big deal. It's probably a good idea to let users adjust mouse sensitivity somewhere, or alternately to ensure you match the sensitivity used by Windows. As for being more accurate than an analogue thumbstick/joystick, either requires quite a bit of practice to be able to move precisely and at the desired speed, but either have the potential to be perfectly accurate. They probably are each better suited to some particular tasks however, but I wouldn't say either is intrinsically more accurate that the other.
So, to summarise, I would say that the controls on a computer are very good, and with practice you can be very very good with them (although the same applies to everything with the practice thing). However, they aren't designed specifically for games, they're designed for word processing, and so aren't really the optimal solution. Gamepad type controllers such as those typically used with consoles could still use some improvement, but they are actually designed for the job, and with a little practice are very well suited to it.
(just venting a little bit)
my impression is that "excellent" console games can hardly be compared with "good" pc games.
the big publishers (evil EA, etc) are only in it for the money, so they'll want to go for consoles with every single title. so the games have to be easy/accessible enough, so even the last idiot can play it, while still providing others with a challenge. and preferrably accomodate every age group.
the result are mediocre games, which are advertised and hyped until it comes out of your ears (ok, can happen to pc games too). additionally, they only go with safe/proven concepts that always sell (thanks to the stupidity of "the masses") like all those yearly EA Sports games or Tomb Raider.
and since the big publishers continue to eat software companies, pc games are going down the drain as well (or are continued as console games, which is kinda the same (for me at least)). good examples are Deus Ex 1 (pc) and Deus Ex 2 (console & pc)
bottom line: blame the money (you can blame everything on money)
(i know i'm generalizing a lot and maybe exaggerating a bit)
my suggestion: continue as it is now, but instead of pocketing the shitloads of money form console games, put it into the development of better/"riskier" games
as for controls: different games will never be ideal with the same controls, on a console or on a pc. IMO fighting games are best on consoles, while shooters and real-time strategy is best left to the PC.
seconded
my impression is that "excellent" console games can hardly be compared with "good" pc games.
the big publishers (evil EA, etc) are only in it for the money, so they'll want to go for consoles with every single title. so the games have to be easy/accessible enough, so even the last idiot can play it, while still providing others with a challenge. and preferrably accomodate every age group.
the result are mediocre games, which are advertised and hyped until it comes out of your ears (ok, can happen to pc games too). additionally, they only go with safe/proven concepts that always sell (thanks to the stupidity of "the masses") like all those yearly EA Sports games or Tomb Raider.
and since the big publishers continue to eat software companies, pc games are going down the drain as well (or are continued as console games, which is kinda the same (for me at least)). good examples are Deus Ex 1 (pc) and Deus Ex 2 (console & pc)
bottom line: blame the money (you can blame everything on money)
(i know i'm generalizing a lot and maybe exaggerating a bit)
my suggestion: continue as it is now, but instead of pocketing the shitloads of money form console games, put it into the development of better/"riskier" games
as for controls: different games will never be ideal with the same controls, on a console or on a pc. IMO fighting games are best on consoles, while shooters and real-time strategy is best left to the PC.
Quote:Original post by Unwise owl
(/start pointless sidetrack rant) On the other hand, I find myself increasingly annoyed in modern PC software where the urge to make it more user friendly goes at the expense of functionality of the software. I hate certain new functions in M$ Word for example that each and every time make my life more difficult, and it's not always that clear how to turn those off (if possible at all). A common issue I encounter in several programs nowadays is when the designers have tried to hide parts of the interface in order to make it appear less complicated. All in all this means more work for me even since functionality I use on a frequent basis is hidden every time I start up the damn program. (/end rant)
seconded
Deja vu.
I've read this thread before.
I've read it dozens of times before over the years.
I read an article in a gaming magazine exactly like this thread some dozen years ago now.
Yet here I am, still enjoying games on my PC. Still finding myself spending the majority of my gaming on my PC, while my PS2 collects dust.
The arguments have been made, been hashed, rehashed, and pulverized.
Dead Horse, plain and simple.
Bottom line, consoles will NOT replace PCs until they can do everything a PC can do, at which point they've become PCs themselves.
I've read this thread before.
I've read it dozens of times before over the years.
I read an article in a gaming magazine exactly like this thread some dozen years ago now.
Yet here I am, still enjoying games on my PC. Still finding myself spending the majority of my gaming on my PC, while my PS2 collects dust.
The arguments have been made, been hashed, rehashed, and pulverized.
Dead Horse, plain and simple.
Bottom line, consoles will NOT replace PCs until they can do everything a PC can do, at which point they've become PCs themselves.
Author
What do you mean by replace PC's?
Do you mean as the primary gaming platform? Since they already have. In fact within 2 years the portable game market will be bigger then the PC game market.
Do you mean in mean in terms of an entrainment system? Since the xbox has already been adopted by many as an entire entertainment system not just a game console.
Or do you mean in terms of other aspects such as word processing? Because that is not console are designed for and never will be.
The fact is the PC is designed to due many different things and no one specific task. While a console is dedicated entertainment machine, designed for to deliver music, movies, and games to a user. A dedicated machine will always outperform no dedicated machine. It’s as simple as that. PC games will never disappear completely but they are destined to become primarily a niche market. It is more then likely that your children by the time they are your age, will find it funny that you use to use a PC to play most of your games on.
Do you mean as the primary gaming platform? Since they already have. In fact within 2 years the portable game market will be bigger then the PC game market.
Do you mean in mean in terms of an entrainment system? Since the xbox has already been adopted by many as an entire entertainment system not just a game console.
Or do you mean in terms of other aspects such as word processing? Because that is not console are designed for and never will be.
The fact is the PC is designed to due many different things and no one specific task. While a console is dedicated entertainment machine, designed for to deliver music, movies, and games to a user. A dedicated machine will always outperform no dedicated machine. It’s as simple as that. PC games will never disappear completely but they are destined to become primarily a niche market. It is more then likely that your children by the time they are your age, will find it funny that you use to use a PC to play most of your games on.
Quote:Original post by TechnoGothFirst, ergonomics. Consoles are naturally den inhabitants; the logical place for a console is in your entertainment center, under the TV, in front of the couch. This makes playing console games inherently more social, and the fact that they almost all (get on the bus, Nintendo) support online play cancels the advantage the PC used to have with that. That the Xbox has a messaging (IM-type) application available for it now, and that messaging will be built into the next Xbox and Xbox Live begins to encroach on other previously PC-exclusive online benefits.
So what do people see as the main barriers between PC and Console games?
The advantage of sitting back, relaxed, with a bunch of friends on a couch, jostling each other, hitting at each others' controllers to gain a sneaky advantage, having others sitting around the television versus sitting at a workstation, essentially alone (unless you have a wide workbench-style desk, it's uncomfortable for others to observe your screen for a prolonged period of time) can not be summarily dismissed. For most people, consoles are simply more comfortable to use.
The genres that are strong on the PC are single-player, with online multiplayer as a supporting option. No surprise that it appeals to isolationist, technical types.
Second, cost. At launch, a console costs less than a budget PC, yet can play the latest games. It also has a five-year lifespan, during which you have to content with zero upgrades (other than relatively rare firmware or manufacturer recalls - typically at zero cost to you). The consistency of the platform also means that older games continue to run in perpetuity, such that the PS2, with its backward-compatibility, and the PS3 with its rumored capacity for the same will be able to play PSX games dating back to 1995! Try running a PC game from '95 on your machine today.
Third, portability. PC gamers enjoy LAN parties. Now, console gamers do, too, and there's much less to lug around (if there's a spare TV at your buddy's house, just bring your console and controllers - and games, of course). For kids still having sleepovers, traveling with the family, or the occasional congregation of normally busy adults for a large gaming session (think HaloCon, or whatever the hell they call it), this is a boon as well.
Fourth, aesthetics. I realize that some people may like beige boxes, or their customized case mods may appeal to them, but, generally speaking, PCs range from drab to ugly. Rare is the vendor-supplied machine that looks at home alongside the hi-fi and widescreen TV. The Xbox is the ugliest of the consoles, but if you place it into a component stack such that only its face is visible (which, of course, is only possible because the console is small enough to fit in a component stack), it doesn't upset your visual ambience.
As an occasional software developer and a college student (under 5 weeks left, hallelujah!), I already spend way too much time in front of my computer, alone. I don't want to play "40 hours of gameplay" there, too. But that's just me: YMMV.
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Third, portability. PC gamers enjoy LAN parties. Now, console gamers do, too, and there's much less to lug around (if there's a spare TV at your buddy's house, just bring your console and controllers - and games, of course).
I just had to laugh at this recalling a console fanatic friend (owns them all, even Dreamcast) who insisted on bringing along Xbox AND 29 inch TV in a 2-door coupe. Let me tell you, it was ugly. [grin]
One interesting console issue I've noted, and I'm not sure if it's design or specs of the box, but multiplayer games seem to drop a huge number of features, especially in co-op play. For instance, Smugglers Run drops environmental entities (like other cars) in co-op; so does Midtown Madness; Crimson Skies won't let you play with more than 4 players, and seems to shrink maps and drop details when you do. In constrast, PC games seem to keep the environments and the huge worlds, even in co-op. This probably goes away with services like Xbox live, but then you're more into the physically isolated PC gamer's territory and he's running a faster, more easily configurable machine.
I didn't see mention of one of the most frustrated design principles popular in console gaming as a point of comparison: Unlocking. This is one core reason why I'll never adopt console games except in passing. Many console games seem to fear open-ended or freeform gameplay, forcing you to solve puzzles or perform certain stunts just to get access to basic features or options (like special cars in Midnight Club). In the Sims, for instance, IIRC you had to do missions just to start the more freeform mode.
I think this reward mentality is hugely popular with younger gamers, but an old foggey like me often wants to play what he's paid for right out of the box.
Quote:Original post by WavinatorI'm with you on that one, so I cheat. I head over to GameSpot or GameFAQs and find the codes to unlock all the typically unrewarding swag the game is holding from me (though some games are easy enough that unlocking features/content isn't too much of a chore, such as Star Wars Republic Commando).
I think this reward mentality is hugely popular with younger gamers, but an old foggey like me often wants to play what he's paid for right out of the box.
There's no way I'm completing enough "Tasks" to amass all the NBA Store Points necessary to unlock all the rather boring shoes and throwback jerseys in NBA Live 2005. Thank you, GameFAQs!
Nevertheless, I'm a console gamer through and through. I'll probably start setting up homebrew production procedures next year so I can become a console developer, too.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
