This late into the lifespan of current gen consoles I'd go for Xbox, seeing as the upfront console price is cheaper and you'll probably only have it for a year or so until next gen.
The ps3 and xbox aren't that different. There are 4 major points to look at though: 1. The ps3 has bluray
2. The ps3 has free online, although Xbox's online is disputably better (early DLCs, party chat, larger community)
3. Exclusives. Xbox has kinect, halo, gears of war, and a tone of cool arcade games
4. What console your friends have. Probably the most important aspect, games are way more fun to play with friends, so if all your friends have a ps3 get that and live without halo etc.

There's nothing stopping you using a controller on a PC. A lot of games actually come with pretty decent x360 controller support out of the box.

I have found in general a lot of games don't have proper gamepad support on PC. They tend to just map gamepad controls into KB/M controls rather than dealing with it on it's own, and games tend to suffer. A lot of multi-platform games don't have that issue, but there are a lot of games that still don't handle it properly. It's a viable option for some people though.

My general reason is that I don't want to hook my PC to my TV (convenience/placement more than difficulty), and I prefer to game on the couch. Certainly not the case for everyone, but that's why I don't do that.

As for your swimming analogy, it's more accurate than you realise. Except using a controller in a fps is like swimming on a track. Equally, using a mouse/kb for a fighting game is like trying to run in the pool.

I find aiming with a controller frustrating, like trying to type with mittens on. If you enjoy that fine, but one is clearly more optimal than the other.
[/quote]

I think the problem is that you are equating FPS's as equal. In your analogy all FPS's are running and all fighting games are swimming. I disagree with that. Plenty of FPS's stress very different things. You shouldn't view the genre as it's own sport, but rather each game as it's own sport. You may as well generalize american footballs as the best ball for "sports with balls" because you can throw it further than other balls, but using an american football in soccer or baseball would just be silly.

Really the only thing you're missing out on is kinnect/move and I've yet to see wither offer a compelling gaming experience.

And about 99% of console games.

If your budget is that tight, then yes, a console will be cheaper in the short term. Right now, though the current gen in nearing end of life, so buying an xbox/ps3 now means you won't be able to play new releases in 2 or 3 years without buying a whole new console. With a PC you could upgrade for much less than that, plus you're getting a lot more computer for your money. Factor in cheaper games (steam sales etc) and the difference really isn't that big.

A console will always be cheaper. Buying a console now gives you a catalog of games to play. I still play PS2 games. PC games are cheaper, but the whole quality experience will be best on a console, if its a port. If I want to play current gen games on PC, right now. How much will it be? How much for a PC(the whole thing) that can play Battlefield 3, Diablo 3, (insert big name company game here) in 720p running at 60 FPS minimum or 1080p running at 30 FPS minimum? Or how much for a laptop that can?

Considering MaximumPC's "Baseline/Cheapest" Build from the December Issue, which they claim its built for 1080p gaming...an approximate price of $1,200 and that's without a Display(!), keyboard, mouse. (or gamepad)

Sorry, that's just not true. Certainly not of major releases anyway. As I said, there will always be platform exclusives (halo on xbox, god of war on ps3, blizzard games on pc), but it's nowhere near "99% of console games".

Okay, okay...95% of console games. Games from "major companies" are mostly made on the consoles. Other than MMO's and RTS games. And those "ports" get horrible reviews most of the time.

If you want to play the latest and greatest maxed out at high res you're always going to pay lots. But if you're prepared to be reasonable (i.e. tone down the the settings from 16x AA with everything on ultra) you can build a pretty reasonable pc for a lot less. I built mine for about US$800 two years ago and I can still get a good framerate in almost every game I play. It's certainly better than any console.

PS3 and 360 play 720p and 1080p games. Some at 30FPS some at 60FPS. The rig I mentioned above was built for 1080p gaming, and a baseline budget build price of $1,200. I'm simply asking for a PC or Laptop that can give me "Current Console Resolutions" and "Frames per Second" at console prices or not much higher. Not possible.

And saying that's without a display is a red herring. How many consoles do you know that come with a display?

TV's are more common than Monitors and Computers, I think.

I'm not against consoles, but now is a terrible time to buy one. In a year or two the next gen will be out and you will not be able to play new games on your old machine. End of story. So you're going to have to shell out another $4-500 for a ps4/x720 at that point.

Pay $250-$350(console prices) now, and get to choose from 7-9 years of games developed for them, I really doubt games will stop as soon as the new ones show up, they might get a year or so still. Pay $300-$600 "next gen" for 7-9 more years of gaming. $350+600 = $950. There's your budget, can you build a PC that will give me 10 years of "hardcore" gaming for less than $1,000?

Don't take it the wrong way. I can't do it. I'm actually trying, but all I get on my head is "Wait for Haswell, Kaveri and Kavini..."
I do think that things might change in the future. I wish there was more external things happening on the Laptop side of things like having an external GPU or coprocessor would have been awesome...I'm not fond of desktops, I need something good enough, portable enough and functional enough. And right now, without a DX11.1 class igpu on a laptop I'd feel like I just shot myself on the foot, so I'll just wait.

Another thing is that I'd have to build my own desktop, since the places I have tried to "customize" mine have failed me by making certain things an obligation that I don't want or need at all...rawr! Or worse, won't ship to my country!(Puerto Rico, which is part of the USA! I can't even get a custom HP brand, and there's HP datacenters and stuff on the island...) =/

So, at this moment in time. Getting anything custom made, has been impossible. I'll build one someday...

Since you didn't provide a link, I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that the "1080p rig" is designed for playing at high quality.

I have the magazine...the important parts: Intel Core i5-3570k, GTX 660 Power Ed., 8GB DDR3/1600 RAM.

So use a tv with your pc then.

Not the point. Getting a PC to work on your TV, preHDMI was not always nice.

Most console games run in 720p -- many recent ones (e.g. Halo's etc) internally render at an even smaller resolution and upscale to 720p.
Not very many internally render at 1080p.

I'd like to read that information, sources?

Also, almost every modern console game makes use of mixed resolution rendering, where large parts of the processing occur in resolutions such as 640*360.

Dropping down to that resolution would be very noticeable...But, are you saying that this is not done on the ports to PC of such games?

Another is the 360 can only render into 10MiB of EDRAM

Isn't eDRAM an advantage?