PC -vs- Game Console

Status
Not open for further replies.
With respect to Money-to-performance ratio, I think, consoles are a better deal. A latest console these days can get you a powerful graphics chip and sound system, a cpu, an optical drive, a mainboard to connect everything to, all for around $200. With PCs, $200 can get you the latest graphics card alone. You will have to spend more for the other components and will probably end up troubleshooting due to software/hardware incompatibilities.

Consoles are a great deal for anyone who's into gaming and doesn't have a lot of money to spend on a PC. Games will ship-out to store shelves with little to no bugs in them due to game optimization for a single system.

If you already own a Gigahertz-caliber PC with a Radeon 8500, then buying a console may be a waste of money.
 
Originally posted by erwin1978
PC with a Radeon 8500, then buying a console may be a waste of money.
Click to expand...
i have to disagree with you on that. IMO, as i have mentioned a hundred times, it's not the hardware that matters, it's the games. what good in buying phantasm's ASCI White if you can't play games on it (say your primary purchase is gaming)?
and according to an article i read, the console is more popular as a gaming machine than the PC in japan is because it takes up less space (which is an issue in japan)... cheaper..
 
pvp20021012.gif

From PVPOnline
 
The PC is an all-in-one gaming machine. One word: emulators :D

Love to see the PS2, XBox, GC or whatever have a PC emulator :stickout:
 
I believe I addressed that in my post just before this one Veh - you won't be seeing a working/fully functional emu for any of those systems anytime soon. If you say, "Hey! I can emulate the PS1 at full speed!" then great - why not go out and spend $49.99 on a PS1 instead? It's a lot cheaper than $2K+ on a PC.

LNCPapa
 
The idea of "Which is more powerful" is very relative, and not very fair. If you set the hardware down side by side, and compare a mid/high end PC, with say, a 1.5ghz CPU and a GeForce 4 Ti4200, (neither of which will set you back very much), and compare it to a console, the PC hardware would eat the console harware alive. Theres one big difference though. When a company like sony releases a console, the developer sets it down and goes, "Ok, this is what we have to work with. It has this CPU, this GPU, this memory, these features, and uses this media format." It's called closed hardware. They design the game to run on that hardware, and that hardware only, then they release the game. That's why 99.9% of the time, you will never find a game that is released with some fatal bug that crashes the game on some PS2's, but not all. Look at a game like Final Fantasy for PS1 for example. Final Fantasy 7 came out, and dazzled people with its graphics, which at the time, were astounding. Then Final Fantasy 8 came out, and pushed things even further. Then Final Fantasy 9. Things changed quite a lot from old hoof-hands Cloud to the swinging tail of Zidane. Did the hardware? No. It was all just programmers making better and better use of what was availible to them. PC game designers dont have that luxury. When they code a game.. it's necessary that the game runs on any number of CPUs, Video cards, sound cards, internet connections.. they dont have the option to optimize the game to an extreme and make it run beautifully on all systems. Just for an example, go look at the demo's on ATi and nVidias websites that show off the power of their video cards. GeForce 4's and Radeon 8500/7500's can do amazing things at high resolutions with high framerates, but only when programmers sit down and write the code that allows them to do so.

Just my $.02. :)
 
This has been debated for years, bottom line:

Consoles are the "AOL" friendly version of gaming. Exists for people who do not seek a gaming experience beyond the limitations set forth by Software Developers or kids 8-14 years of age. Does not have the complexity or expandability that PC games bring to market THUS making gaming as easy as AOL. Screen resolution is set to 800 x 600 - 1024 x 768. Games typically beaten in 1-5 days.

Personal Computers are the "NASA" version of gaming. Infinate expandibility, unlimited modifications, unlimited levels, unlimited multiplayer, unlimited customization, and while they do cost more are capable of astronomical full screen extremely high resolution (2048 x 1800) gaming worth thousands of hours of fun in easily accessable online multiplayer environments.
 
They are the same, people!

Okay this thread has a lot of good points, it seems to me that you are all missing out on the fact that a console is a computer is a pc.

They just have different demographic targets and different ways of making profits for the manufactures.

Think of the typical PC as a wildly successful, expensive console, first designed to assist business and then on to gaming. The typical console as a gaming specific, stripped-down PC.

Can't we all just get along? :blush:
 
I see PC differently from consoles. It's true that I'll choose games on which console according to their genre, but I find the console less troublesome.

Console
- Just Pop' n' Play!
- You don't have to look at "System Requirements" when you are buying games.
- ALOT of titles to choose from (Although FFX is really the only reason why I'm working like a robot all day just to get a PS2)
- The controller. Sometimes it just beats the keyboard.

Talking about Life-Span. I've seen PS1 games running at 5fps! (Around that. It's my estimation) I don't know what's the title, but it's about a 3rd person shooting game (You view the scene, not through the character). I've seen FFX lagging the PS2. (When fighting your aeons before Yu Yevon) and I can't do anything about it!

My PC used to be suck at running games, but not that much ever since I upgraded my GF2 MX200 to GF4 Ti4200. Scalability, is the advantage of a PC. Another factor is the ability to change the amount of detail for many pc games which are converted from their console counterparts.

I would be a bit bias towards the console as my preferred gaming platform, because I treasure ease of use and time-saving.
 
Apples and oranges...

Games lagging on a console is pathetic; if you're not playing multiplayer. The game was designed for that system and that system alone. What the hell is it doing lagging?!?!?!
 
I would like to merge the ideas of LNCPapa and SuperCheetah, as well as Moto_psycho to point out a little thing I've noticed over the years. Emulation aside, which is illegal and can be hard to find at times, what is the real availability for PC games that are over 5-10 years old? You just don't see them in electronics or gaming stores. Maybe if you scour ebay, but that's ify. Atari, nintendo, and sega are still being sold in babbage's and a number of other stores.
This can be shown for a number of reasons. Some of the older games for pc are totally incompatible with today's pc. I am pissed that I can't play tie fighter because of compatibility issues.(side note: anyone know how to fix this, tell me.) The older systems however are cheaper than underware at walmart, and the games are almost given away. You want the old power glove, pad, dohicky, or whatever, you got it cheap. Staying power is with the console. Dreamcast took a dive, but that is just a reason to pick up a perfectly good system darn cheap. (poor sega, a good rival, now degraded to working for the old archenemy.)
The here and now may show the PC to be leading in a number of categories, but consoles are the only ones that can put out systems that make people want to actually HAVE NOSTALGIA!!! Aside from a few categories which I am just bitter with (ie. Tie Fighter) I'll stick with console.
 
I still play MarioKart on SNES at least 5 days a week, usually have a friend over and we play a few rounds while drinking a few beers.
 
Yeh - when ever I go to my friends house we play it on 64, when we are at my house we play SNES. Usually beer involved both times thought :)
 
Oh how I miss Mario Kart. I don't have any hard core console buddies here - Deus plays once in a while - so I haven't had those types of gaming experiences for some time. I miss playing my Mario Kart, Bomberman, Guardian Heroes, all the street fighter based games, and pretty much everything else with my buddies. I'm pretty lit right now (my american buddies know what that means) so I may not make to much sense but I went through a lot of effort to make sure everything is spelled correctly. I know it all is.

LNCPapa
 
Alright Papa - You mentioned sometime in May (?) you were going to be passing through Rolla. Let me and Poertner_1274 know - we will both still be here and I have my own house, you and me will fire up some MarioKart64 and destroy Poertner_1274 in battle! (And I'll destroy you both in match race :))
 
LOL! I just read my last post - that was pretty funny. I'm sober now, but yes I do miss playing all those games I mentioned. I have more games than I will ever have a chance to play (unless I get snowed in for a few years) included all the old classics like Mariokart and Mariokart 64. I also have a Z64 and every N64 game I've ever seen - and some that I haven't. That being said I don't need emulation. I'm sure there is a decent N64 emu out there though - I used to play with them.

P.S. - I may have to take you up on that SN - but the outcome will be slightly different than you imagine! Mwahahahaha!

LNCPapa
 
Ok lets try and settle this argument....
PCs are better than Concoles because -
*Better image quality - even a £700 cant compare to a nice £150 moniter
*Better graphics all round - look at NWN, Doom 3, Unreal 2...the list goes on - even Splinter Cell - compaired to XBox the PC is AMAZINGLY better!
*Better and more precise control - i played a friend at Q3 - PC to dreamcast over the net - he used to beat me on PC but on concole the controls are so inpreicise, so slow that i could run rings round him *LONG LIVE THE MOUSE!*
*Better games - as it has been said before PC gamers demand more quality, longer, generally better made games
*Better connectivity - and massive online community, mods, patchs, servers - the list is endless
*Usefulness - wot cant be done with a PC that can be done with a concole?
*Infinate upgradeabilty (good word that)

right now -
Concoles are better than PCs because -
*Works straight out of the box - no tweaking, modding or otherwise to make them run at top speed
*Gaming is totally bug free - no probs to worry about
*ALOT cheaper to buy the system

Ok i cant think of anything else -
so this shows that the PC is for the much more hardcore gamer while for the little kiddy gamers a concole toy is a much better option.
Basiclly PCs rock and concoles just wont get anywhere near them...ever!

Steg
 
Its all subjective, for me consoles like SNES and NES are more fun. I don't have the necessary hardware to play today's PC games, generally I don't even like them. (yes I have played on systems that can handle them).
 
-Xbox live
-PS2 Online
-PS2 Red Faction 2 has mouse support built in (more fps games to be getting this I hope)

Just to point out small flaws in a few of Stegs points.
 
Now that you mention it - Quake 3 on the Dreamcast has mouse + keyboard support as well.

LNCPapa
 
There was meant to be mouse support in UT for PS2 but they didn't bother including it in the end. :(
 
screw consoles...

PCs are more powerful, they have better graphics, hundreds of kinds of controllers, and online multiplayer support its older (less buggy) than the consoles. Consoles have 768x576 unchangable resolution while PC games can go to 2048x1536+, text has to take up ALOT more of the TV screen to be readable than the PC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TechSpot
Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 Laptop vs. Desktop GPU
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
Jonathan A
J
TechSpot
4K QD-OLED vs. 4K WOLED: What You Need to Know
2
Replies
28
Views
234
Disiw
D
TechSpot
CPU Cache vs. Cores: AMD Ryzen Edition
2 3
Replies
50
Views
736
Strawman
S

Latest posts

Back