My personal view is that a PC for games is a totally shitty value for your money. I have a Mac, which has a half-dozen games (mostly gifts). I use the Mac for my work. I have a Playstation 2, which I use for games.
Now, considering that a PS2 will work 100% of the time (no patches/bugs/drivers/cruft), has a bigger screen, and pretty much the same number of games as the Windows platform (insofar as both platforms have way more excellent games than I'll ever buy).... and considering that the high-end video card you need to buy (for the PC you've already bought) costs nearly as much by itselfas a whole PS2/GC/XB.... why do you guys do it?
It's not a troll, I really want to know. Is it certain games? Keyboard-based games? The supa-bleeding-edge graphics and sound?
It's just a variant of the original poster's question, really, but I find my Mac/PS2 combination works really well. I don't want for many games.
It's all about the warez. All of the games I own for PC are pirated and all of the games I have for Nintendo 64, PS1 and PS2 are legit. If I had to actually buy the games for my PC, I wouldn't do it because your right, if you don't already have the hardware, it would be a waste. Some games are PC only or better on the PC but the price difference is way too much of a hurdle to make it a wise choice. If you already have the hardware, and can pirate the games, why the hell not?
Well, patching is great. There's no way to update a PS2 game, AFAIK.
Controls: I heavily prefer a mouse for aiming. Anyone who's played "Bomb Da Base" for GTA3 or "Guardian Angels" for GTA:Vice City will appreciate the mouse.
Screen: I like my screen. It's 17", good enough when you sit up close. Most of my games are at 800*600 or 1024*768, which is really smooth.
There's also the issue of upgrading hardware. Just like on any Mac other than the PowerMac won't let you upgrade a video card, a PS2 won't let you upgrade any component, other than the add-ons.
Oh, I agree, if I could finally convince my mom to let me sell my PC, I'd get a Mac/PS2 combo.
FYI, my PC is worth about $1500 CDN, and it plays most current games fine.
About patches, I'm sure you could look at any game, and see something that could be improved. Doesn't have to be a glitch, could be the AI or something.
It certainly is certain games. If you have the chance, compare sometime Unreal Tournament on a high-end PC as compared to the PS2 version. The PC version is fast, attractive, a breeze to play, and very fun. UT on a PS2 controller is a complete nightmare. And the resolution stinks.
It's also hard to imagine games like Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Civilization, most RTSes, etc. working on the console. I'm not saying they don't exist on the console, but that it's hard to imagine them working.
Consoles are great for fighting, racing, and social games. They are not so great for quiet strategy games or RPGs, in my humble opinion. That may work for some people, but I just don't want to be in front of a console for hours. My thumbs get calluses and my hands (which are too big for most controllers) start aching terribly after too long. Not the case with a PC.
It's a variety of factors, but for me it mostly comes down to the kind of games. And it cuts both ways, too: I own a PS2 and a Dreamcast and I love Soul Calibur and DOA2. But I'd never imagine playing either on a PC.
What about Final Fantasy series or Chrono Cross? IMHO they are some of the best RPGs currently released. The PC versions of the Final Fantasy series apparently had poor game control. I think it's true that console games are poor for mouse oriented gaming (RTS, adventure, strategy), but they seem to be a perfectly fine medium for RPGs.
They are not so great for quiet strategy games or RPGs, in my humble opinion.
Ahem. The SNES was the console that brought forth quite some RPG classics such as Final Fantasy 6, Secret of Mana, Tales of Phantasia, etc. The Playstation series also have quite a few nice RPGs on them, all of them running quite decently. Same story for the Dreamcast. What about the PC? We only got the Baldur's Gate series and some RPGs for retards that only involve massive clicking and paying 1000+ USD on ebay for a game item. (Hello Diablo2 and mearly any MMORPG) Though I have to admit, the BG series easily rank up to the best RPGs. The lack of PC RPGs (Specifically Manga/Anime like RPGs) is making me look into buying a pretty little PS2 some time... Sadly.
But to stay on subject; I still use windows because of the fact that games simply run without much of a hassle on windows. In fact, IMHO, most things on windows are less of a hassle. If I want to change my resolution, I can do it with easy. In Linux, I'd have to shut down x, edit my config file with emacs which makes as much sense to me as ancient runes (at least I know how to save a file and quite emacs, unlike in vi) and then restart x. Besides, windows inherent insecurities aren't such a big problem when everything is neatly hidden behind a Linux firewall/NAT router...:)
Completly agreed. Consoles just don't hold a candle to the PC when it comes to games with a more intellectually challening level of gameplay. Colsoles have tried for decades to reproduce RPGs from PCs (or other general purpose computers), and have come up with what? Final Fantasy? What a joke. FF doesn't hold a candle to the story depth and complexity of gameplay of the true PC RPGs. Starting back 20+ years, you have Bard's Tale, Wizardry, Ultima (Ultima 4 is simply the best CRPG ever produced), Ultima Underworld, Might and Magic, Elder Scrolls, Magic Candle, Eye of the Beholder, Dungeon Master, and now NWN, all contributing new and interesting things to the state of CRPG art (there are of course many many more, but for me - these are the core of good CRPGs). Some of these have been poorly translated to various platforms, and without fail, they are always a pale reflection of the PC version.
Why is this? IMHO 2 reasons: 1) The more complex controls on a PC allow for a greater variety of ideas to flourish, and for more complex games to be born.
2) Consoles almost invariably dumb down games for mass market appeal (or to make them playable by kids). PC games have almost always been a smaller market - but one that tends to have more people who are willing to face greater complexity, and who demand more intelligence in their games then Zelda or Final Fantasy.
You've never played Persona, Carnage Heart, or Final Fantasy Tactics, have you? I think that PC gamers who say console games are for kiddys simply have not played enough console games to know any better. Which Final Fantasy games have you played, exactly?
My first console RPG was a port of Might and Magic: Secret of the Inner Sanctum, and there were NES ports of the Bards Tale, Wizardry, and three of the Ultima's. There was also a SNES port of Eye of the Beholder with mouse support no less.
As for console games being dumbed down, there sure seem to be a lot of T and M rated console games out there. Games that have very obviously been designed with older players in mind.
A PC is a machine that that not only game, but also word-process, compose music, burn CDs, sort data in databases, process video (with input from that self-same expensive video card, most likely), balance my checkbook, send email, browse the web...... AND I can change the background picture on my desktop.
And a PC costs less than a Mac. That isn't stopping me from considering a switch though.
Also, games on a PC can run at higher resolution and generally seem to just look nicer. To me, anyway.
I tend to prefer god games, sims, and modded FPSs. I also like to play online over broadband on occasion.
I don't want to pay anything to play online, unless the game is free.
Platforms have historically been limited in their depth of gameplay when it comes to sims and god games, but I'm getting more and more tempted.. Still, how do you build your own levels on a console, share them with friends, put your own skins on your own characters, etc?
See, the average gamer doesn't make mods. Gamers who post here on/. are more into that sort of thing. So really the lack of mods on the consoles is a non-issue because the mainstream of gaming simply doesn't care.
I play online with my console (Ps2) and I don't have to pay anything.
Bigger does not mean better, and quite simply, TV resolution and refresh rate blows. That's the big thing that keeps me from getting into console gaming.
I was beginning to question that opinion recently, but then a couple weeks ago I played Halo at a friends house. It's a really good game, design wise, but the res/refresh kept on the edge of playable for me.
I'm not really an eye-candy junky, mind you. I generally play at 1024x768 at 16 bits. That gives me the detail level I want, and puts me in the 100+fps range for most first person shooters, which is my prefered genre. And yes, I can tell the difference with refresh rates up to around 90fps. Basically, that's the point where the default machinegun in Quake3 actually becomes a useful weapon.
Of course, you shouldn't buy a PC just for the games. But it has a lot of other uses - most people (and probably about 99.99% of the/. readers) couldn't live without a PC anyway, so why not use it for games as well?
There tend to be a lot of differences between typical console games and typical PC games. You can create games that works great on the PC because of the mouse (quake, unreal, warcraft, diablo, the sims, etc.) and the keyboard (most RTS games, RPGs), but not so on a console. The PC is also better suited for multiplayer games with 4+ people... well, until Xbox Live arrived anyway;)
Also, it is not true you need to shell out as much for your graphics card as for a console. Most games will work fine with Geforce 2 - which is rather cheap these days. Even UT2003 will run fine on it.
That said, if your favorite pc games are available for the mac as well - just keep the mac.
You can create great games that work well with a gamepad. I wouldn't want to play any 3D platformer with a keyboard. Besides if the keyboard+mouse are so great why does every PC magazine have ads for Pc gamepads that look suspiciously like Dual Shocks. I'll tell you why: Keyboards suck for gaming, they were designed for data entry, not for fast action. Your games are designed to use the mouse and keyboard, whoop de do, so it might be difficult to port the control to the gamepad. My games are designed to use the gamepad and you simply could would not want to play them with a keyboard, again whoop de do. You can buy gamepads, I can buy keyboards and mice (I have a mouse and keyboard hooked up to my PS2), so control is a non issue.
As for online gaming, don't forget the PS2, been playing online since this summer, first THPS3, and now SOCOM.
if the keyboard+mouse are so great why does every PC magazine have ads for Pc gamepads that look suspiciously like Dual Shocks.
Or it could be that there have been these ads in PC magazines since the dark ages and I have yet to actually meet someone who owns one of these damn gamepads... And just how many of the top CS/Q3A/UT2K3 players use a gamepad?
There's more to gaming than first person shooters. But wouldn't it be more intuitive to control movement with a joypad and use mouselook for aiming? That's one of the control schemes for the PSone version of Quake II. The real reason you use a keyboard for input is that the first personal computers did not have joysticks available, so the keyboards had to be used, even for action games. That's also the reason for all the sims, strategy games and RPG's on the early personal computers. Those sorts of games without fast action can be keyboard controlled.
What first personal computers didn't have joysticks? The Altair? My Spectravideo SVI-328 had two joysticks, and the SVI-318 had a built-in joystick in the keyboard, these machines are from the early 80's...
And as far as I'm concerned it's a lot more efficient to use mouselook + keyboard for FPS games, and a hell of a lot more intuitive than joypads. You move the mouse to rotate yourself, walk in different directions with ASWD, the mouse buttons are for shooting/changing weapons and the keys on the keyboard next to ASWD are used for other actions...
The most common home pc's at the time were the apple, commoodore and Radio Shack machines. Don't think the early versions had joysticks. Comoodore PET's and CBM's didn't. But the early adopters of those machines tended to prefer "grognard" games, since so many of them were already tabletop wargamers and rpg players.
I don't understand how asdw can be intuitive for movement? They aren't in cross pattern. Why not use the arrow keys or the numerical keypad. Here's how I play one of my favorit fps's the PSone version of Quake II: in the left hand a controller using cross-key pad for movement. L1 and L2 are used for weapon switching. In the right hand, the PSone mouse used for aiming/mouselook. The left mouse button is Fire and the right mouse button is jump. It's got the best of both worlds, intuitive joypad for movement and accurate mouselook for aiming. Try it out sometime.
There have been joysticks available since the dark ages. And most of the games I remember from those days were of the "shake joystick violently and press the trigger over and over again"-type...
I have a PS2, I also have a Xbox, my roomates have a Jaguar, Sega, Nintendo. etc.
But I also have a PC running Windows for games.
Why?
There are many types of games that do not translate well to a console, you just can't enjoy them as well as with a keyboard, mouse and higher than 400 lines resolution (TV).
Just try to play NWN, Lineage, Q3, UT2k3, EQ, Diablo2, CS, etc. on a console. (yes some of them have console versions, but they are not nearly as good as on the PC)
For that matter, try to get an expansion pack or mod for any console game. (CS, DOD, CTF/H/B, RA FvF etc. etc.)
Or how about making your own mod for a game? (did that for Q1, havn't had time sence)
Yes consoles have their place, but they are a very small part of the gaming world.
You see, unlike PC gamers who have long waits for games, console gamers can actually buy new games for their systems on a regular basis, therefore there is no need for mods and expansion packs to keep the gameplay going. Console developer simply have much higher ouput.
There's more to gaming than FPS's and mods.
Besides consoles and their games simply sell more, always have, always will. IT is the PC games that are the "small part of the gaming world", though I would consider it more of a "niche" market.
At work, both Windows and Linux get used. Our customers have both Windows and unices, so that's what we write programs for.
At home, I use Linux whenever I want to program stuff. The sheer availability of tools, the joy of all the different languages available... therein lies nerdvana. And most distributions provide so many wonderful toys, hundreds of apps that you've probably never heard of.
Windows gets used primarily for games at home. Why not use a dedicated console for games? The kinds of games on the console tend not to be the same type as released for the PC, and the PC games can be modified. How many consoles was "Fallout 2" ported to? How about using your own models in your FPS? Downloading someone else's level? Heck, using a Neverwinter Nights module that someone wrote?
It doesn't help that the controllers necessarily influence the games themselves. With the PC, I can choose between various kinds of joysticks, mice, and driving wheels, and still get the benefit of having a keyboard. FPS's and RTS's suck on gamepad style controllers. My personal preference is a mouse/keyboard combo.
Sure, your TV is bigger than your monitor. Still, I sit closer to the monitor, and the picture is many times clearer.
....
Hmm, guilty pleasure #4322. Using your own songs and StepMania on your PC. Screw the DDR Imports, they don't have PWEI's Def Con One.
....
There's a lot more diversity in console controllers now. Mice, keyboards, wheels, big joysticks are available. I would like to know which FPS's and RTS's you have played on a console with a controller. Every one of them I have played has controlled fine, thank you very much. Maybe you are just too picky. You can, of course, use mice with many console FPS's and RTS's.
Console players don't obsess over new levels or anything because lots of new games come out on a regular basis for them. You PC gamers have such long waits that you need those mods to keep playing. I am of the personal opinion that players should not do the developers work for them. Maybe if there weren't so many mods PD developers might get off their rear ends and actually start making games at a decent clip.
There are console games that do let you create your own levels, like Timesplitters. There's also the RPG Maker series. And if you have a PLaystation 2 Linux kit, you can make your own games.
Now I know that I place myseelf in the "geeky minority" when I say this but the gta3 on the ps2 really sucks as. Why? because the frame rate was really bad. Sorry but the machine is no more up to running gta3 than a spectum 48k is up to running sim city (yes there was a speccy 48k version, let's ztry and forget that!)
now i must go, writing is too much effort beczause i hzave spilt beer on my keyboazrd zand the zz key no longer functions, or azt lezast functions t razndom even when i azm not pressing it. i loose more keyboards that way;-) ahh well maybe it will work in the morning after drying out, it is after all a real keyboard! not one of thoses wussy crap things they try to pass off nowadazys.
oops, sory about the babble.
azs i wazs saying, developers on the ps2 mazke for to azbbitious gazmes thazt the hzardwazre caznnot cope with. (aznd now you see the writing without editing;-) )
I believe the answer to your question, in my case, is multiplayer games. Online multiplayer games, to be exact. Even though they may have idiots and 'elite hax0rs' on them, they consistently offer unusual experiences. Playing against a set pool of friends has a tendancy to stagnate. Try playing your latest Street Fighter remake against a few friends, over and over. same basic gameplay occurs after awile. Play against someone else, and you might see something new that would assist you improving your game.
bleeding edge graphics and the right to say 'my 1324fps is greater than you! eat it' might be a close second:)
Games on PC are much better than the same games on PS2. Theory and hype aside, in practice the PS2 is equivalent to something like a 3 year old computer speed-wise.
On top of this, TVs have horrible resolution, refresh rate, and image quality.
I'm the exact opposite of you -- I got a PS2 and never play it except when people are over and want to play sega tennis or fighting game or two (in which case I'm actually likely to bust out Dreamcast for Soul Caliber instead), whereas I probably average good 15hours a week of Quake and UT on PC.
I guess the PC multiplayer online games with unbelievable graphics where you are competing against freakin' elite ninjas who are so damn good they make you sad because you will never be 1/100th as good no matter how much you practice somehow seem more significant than console games. For me, Quake is like tennis or something while Starcraft is like chess maybe -- they take immense practice and skill (to be really good) and have intellectual depth.
There are a few console games I love too but none of them have remained fascinating the way lots of PC games do -- console games just seem to be comparatively superficial and/or kiddy.
You can play quake and starcraft on the consoles you know. And where do you come off with that kiddy nonsense. SOCOM? Metal Gear Solid? Grand Theft Auto?, Carnage Heart? Final Fantasy Tactics? Fear Effect? Resident Evil? Silent Hill?
maybe you should try playing more than sports or fighting games on your console.
Well, okay, maybe not. Basically, for a *lot* of games, the mouse is a much better and more natural controller than the keyboard or joystick, which is really all the PS2 controller is.
When they come out with a mouse for the playstation 2, I'll be right there. Until then, it's the best controller yet and only available for the PC.
The following consoles have had mice available for them: SNES, Genesis, Saturn, Playstation 1, Dreamcast, Playstation 2 (via it's USB ports). Where do you get that "only available for the PC" bit
Plenty, PC ports mostly. This is off the top of my head here and shouldn't be considered a complete list. SNES: SimCity 2000, Eye of the Beholder, Might and Magic III, Mario Paint.
PSone: C&C, C&C Red Alert, C&C Retaliation, Dune 2000, Warzone 2100, Myst, Riven, Broken Sword, Broken Sword II, X-Com, Simcity 2000, Quake II, Alien Resurrection, Doom II, Monopoly, RPG Maker
PS2: Half-life, Unreal Tournament, Deus Ex. amd the Linux kit, of course.:-) Myst III probably supports it and I'm thinking a couple other games do too.
And now I will use my mouse connected to my PS2 to click "submit".
Not really a lot of games. Besides, there are still a lot of games that would benefit from mouse support that don't have it, that's what annoys me. Whenever I played Goldeneye on the N64 I would think to myself, "why is there not a mouse + keyboard option for this fucking game?"...
I own a copy of Goldneye, one of the few N64 games I own. I think it's a well designed game but the N64 controller is no Dual Shock and the N 64 has no mouse. All the time I played it I think, I wish I could play this with a dual shock. Or better yet the Dual Shock + mouse combo that some PSone games used.I found the best compromise was movement on the digital pad and use the analog stick for aiming.
let me know when you can play ANY console game with more than 4 people
and when i can use my trackball and mouse to play *anything* i will consider it, however there are a huge number of bad ass PC games that never come out for console.. the reverse is also true but not nearly to the same degree..
I beleive the Xbox has multiplayer internet option.
Xbox Live costs $300 per year: $50/year for the Xbox Live subscription, and $250/year for the upgrade from dial-up Internet access to cable or DSL Internet access, provided that you even have a good cable or DSL provider in your area. If not, you'll have to fork over even more for a fractional T1.
SOCOM, up to 16 players in two 8 player teams. Where have you been for the last two months not to have heard about this. There's also Tribes and Twisted Metal Black Online. The PS2 MMORPGS Everquest and Final Fantasy XI come out next year.
Some consoles are just now getting into the TCP/IP market, and some have been there for a while with modems, etc. But for the most part, people don't have their consoles attached to the internet, and there are only so many games/services that will work this way.
On the contrary, the vast majority of games on a PC have some networking built into them. Look at the success that Doom, Quake, EQ, etc. have had, and it all came from having the networking ability. Add that to the console, and perhaps we'll see things change.
I have a slew of game consoles, though the GC is the only "next-gen" system I own, and my PC. However, I only have a few games for each console and a _lot_ of games on my PC. It's really pretty simple why I have more games for my PC. Up until _very_ recently, decent online-play is only available on a computer. I can get fairly-new PC games for $20 used, as opposed to the $35 I'd have to spent on a "new" used GC game. Sure, the initial investment is a little (lot) steeper, but it makes me _feel_ like I'm saving, dammit.;) Other than that, I just like the games available on the PC better, and as is the case for all ports, the games ported from the PC to consoles are almost invariably better executed on the original system. And yeah, I like using the keyboard/mouse combo better than a controller, usually.
considering that a PS2 will work 100% of the time (no patches/bugs/drivers/cruft)
Oh, so you haven't played Vice City then? I and 3 of my friends have encountered 8 hard crashes (no chance to save/recover) on 4 different PS2s over about 80 hours of gameplay.
Still, I agree with you. I would rather play games on a dedicated-system than a PC, even if they are shipped with bugs these days.
I'm assuming you weren't asking rhetorically, so I'll give you my points of view on gaming--PC vs console, in no particular order.
IMAGE CLARITY: point blank, playing a game at 1024x768 looks so much better than anything you see on a TV (arguably INCLUDING HDTV and progressive-scan DVD playback) that there's just no contest.
REFRESH RATE: 85Hz is easy on the eyes. I can see TV flickering on most standard CRTs and it drives me nuts, plus gives me a headache after a few hours (LoTR?).
LOAD SPEED: I click my PC game's icon and in a few seconds *blam* it's ready to rock. Console games require me to swap disks/cartridges/whatever and wait forever while those stupid advertisements and copyleft images and crap like that runs. I don't have all day to play. Every minute means more enjoyment and less hassle.
COST: PC gaming business is very competitive, and most games can be had for $20-$40 (even if you have to wait a month or two for the price to drop). Console games are almost always $60 or close to it. Oh, and you can purchase a graphics card that looks better and runs faster than consoles for about $120. That's about 2 games for a PS2.
CONTROLS: Consider the average console controller. Mostly non-proportional, and those teeny sticks that ARE proportional are so small that my twitchy muscles cause me no end of grief...and they aren't adjustable. Gimme a 3-inch extension to those sticks and I might be happy about it--for racing games. With PC, I get a mouse/keyboard combo, which gives me almost unlimited proportionality (mouse) and buttons I can click without moving my fingers much, if at all depending on the game. My keyboard puts a truckload of keys very easily reachable with the main 5 keys not even requiring me to move my fingers around. Finally, neither the mouse nor the keyboard require me to "hold" the controller in my hand, thereby reducing my dexterity. I can use extremely light-touch to accomplish my movements which, as any musical instrument player can tell you, results in faster muscle response than mashing buttons/keys hard.
TOOLS: You can't check email, surf the web, download patches or IM with a console (reports of linux running on them in a hacked setup notwithstanding). So, I'd have to have a computer anyway. Being able to play games on it just as easily as posting here is a bonus that saves me $300 for the console.
MINIMUM VIEWING DISTANCE: TVs have a minimum viewing distance, except on HDTVs and some other _really expensive_ setups. To get the same relative screen size on a TV I'd have to get one with an 8-foot screen, and that'd cost me $20k+ easy, if I could even get one that looked as good as my desktop's 21" Trinitron CRT.
REPLAYABILITY: How many console games can you go download mods for to extend your investment? How many console games have upgrades/expansions that cost half or less of what the original game cost?
MULTIPLAYER: This one needs no explanation.
AVAILABILITY: I can eventually get almost any console game that'll play on my PC...they're almost always ported over. On the other hand, if I wanted to be able to play some of my favorite PC games on a console, I'd have to buy an XBox, PS2, Gamecube and probably 2 others because the games aren't interchangeable and the PC-to-console ports usually only go to ONE platform.
Hopefully this will give you a few reasons why some people choose PC games over consoles. I have yet to meet anyone who has played good PC games that has gone back to a console afterward.
I can read email, browse the web, IM, using my Playstation 2 Linux kit which is an OFFICIAL Sony product by the way.
I will argue with you on the controls. I simply can't understand how PC gamers can actually control an action game with a keyboard. I've tried it and it's very non-intuitive. IMHO keyboards are for data entry, not gaming. Mice, I like. I prefer using mouse look for PS1 FPS's, but that is a lot harder on the wrist than using the analog sticks. All PS2's have USB ports so you can hook up a keyboard and mouse if you want, and some games support it, almost all of them FPS's.
As for replayability, console players have enough new games available that they can actually go buy new ones rather than keep modding old ones. It doesn't take a console developer forever to do a sequel to a game, probably because console developers actually have lots of people working on games. Unlike PC developers who still have a sort of garage band mentality.
As for availability, most of the better PC games get ported to the consoles, the reverse is also true, though you PC gamers are not going to be able to play many SquareSoft games.
Yes, yes, yes and yes. It's the game. The specific games. The older games. The online games. The cutting, bleeding edge 3D games. To some PC gamers, saying "So use a PS2!" would be an insult and not just because they scoff at consoles but because they like using their PCs for playing games.
Heck, maybe part of my using a PC for playing games ties in with the games I love the most. Is there a parallell between upgrading my "Frontier" Cobra Mark III with a Military Drive Class III and me upgrading my Athlon XP1800+ with a GeForce 3? Maybe.
And that again, the question you asked - why do we do it - it's incorrectly put. We've already done it. What do you want us to do? Revoke the purchase on the hardware? Sell our games, get used to not having the old ones around, get used to watching the 50-60Hz TV screen instead of the super-sharp apeture grille monitor? Learn how to aim a crosshairs with a little tiny analogue stick instead of a dedicated hand-eye-coordinated pointing device? Hell no.
You don't want for many games. That's you. That's the answer to the question you were asking. Some people do.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write.
Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:4, Interesting)
My personal view is that a PC for games is a totally shitty value for your money. I have a Mac, which has a half-dozen games (mostly gifts). I use the Mac for my work. I have a Playstation 2, which I use for games.
Now, considering that a PS2 will work 100% of the time (no patches/bugs/drivers/cruft), has a bigger screen, and pretty much the same number of games as the Windows platform (insofar as both platforms have way more excellent games than I'll ever buy).... and considering that the high-end video card you need to buy (for the PC you've already bought) costs nearly as much by itselfas a whole PS2/GC/XB.... why do you guys do it?
It's not a troll, I really want to know. Is it certain games? Keyboard-based games? The supa-bleeding-edge graphics and sound?
It's just a variant of the original poster's question, really, but I find my Mac/PS2 combination works really well. I don't want for many games.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Controls: I heavily prefer a mouse for aiming. Anyone who's played "Bomb Da Base" for GTA3 or "Guardian Angels" for GTA:Vice City will appreciate the mouse.
Screen: I like my screen. It's 17", good enough when you sit up close. Most of my games are at 800*600 or 1024*768, which is really smooth.
There's also the issue of upgrading hardware. Just like on any Mac other than the PowerMac won't let you upgrade a video card, a PS2 won't let you upgrade any component, other than the add-ons.
Oh, I agree, if I could finally convince my mom to let me sell my PC, I'd get a Mac/PS2 combo.
FYI, my PC is worth about $1500 CDN, and it plays most current games fine.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
About patches, I'm sure you could look at any game, and see something that could be improved. Doesn't have to be a glitch, could be the AI or something.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also hard to imagine games like Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate, Civilization, most RTSes, etc. working on the console. I'm not saying they don't exist on the console, but that it's hard to imagine them working.
Consoles are great for fighting, racing, and social games. They are not so great for quiet strategy games or RPGs, in my humble opinion. That may work for some people, but I just don't want to be in front of a console for hours. My thumbs get calluses and my hands (which are too big for most controllers) start aching terribly after too long. Not the case with a PC.
It's a variety of factors, but for me it mostly comes down to the kind of games. And it cuts both ways, too: I own a PS2 and a Dreamcast and I love Soul Calibur and DOA2. But I'd never imagine playing either on a PC.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Ahem. The SNES was the console that brought forth quite some RPG classics such as Final Fantasy 6, Secret of Mana, Tales of Phantasia, etc. The Playstation series also have quite a few nice RPGs on them, all of them running quite decently. Same story for the Dreamcast. What about the PC? We only got the Baldur's Gate series and some RPGs for retards that only involve massive clicking and paying 1000+ USD on ebay for a game item. (Hello Diablo2 and mearly any MMORPG) Though I have to admit, the BG series easily rank up to the best RPGs. The lack of PC RPGs (Specifically Manga/Anime like RPGs) is making me look into buying a pretty little PS2 some time... Sadly.
But to stay on subject; I still use windows because of the fact that games simply run without much of a hassle on windows. In fact, IMHO, most things on windows are less of a hassle. If I want to change my resolution, I can do it with easy. In Linux, I'd have to shut down x, edit my config file with emacs which makes as much sense to me as ancient runes (at least I know how to save a file and quite emacs, unlike in vi) and then restart x. Besides, windows inherent insecurities aren't such a big problem when everything is neatly hidden behind a Linux firewall/NAT router... :)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:2)
Why is this? IMHO 2 reasons:
1) The more complex controls on a PC allow for a greater variety of ideas to flourish, and for more complex games to be born.
2) Consoles almost invariably dumb down games for mass market appeal (or to make them playable by kids). PC games have almost always been a smaller market - but one that tends to have more people who are willing to face greater complexity, and who demand more intelligence in their games then Zelda or Final Fantasy.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:2)
A PC is a machine that that not only game, but also word-process, compose music, burn CDs, sort data in databases, process video (with input from that self-same expensive video card, most likely), balance my checkbook, send email, browse the web...
And a PC costs less than a Mac. That isn't stopping me from considering a switch though.
Also, games on a PC can run at higher resolution and generally seem to just look nicer. To me, anyway.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
I don't want to pay anything to play online, unless the game is free.
Platforms have historically been limited in their depth of gameplay when it comes to sims and god games, but I'm getting more and more tempted.. Still, how do you build your own levels on a console, share them with friends, put your own skins on your own characters, etc?
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:2)
Bigger does not mean better, and quite simply, TV resolution and refresh rate blows. That's the big thing that keeps me from getting into console gaming.
I was beginning to question that opinion recently, but then a couple weeks ago I played Halo at a friends house. It's a really good game, design wise, but the res/refresh kept on the edge of playable for me.
I'm not really an eye-candy junky, mind you. I generally play at 1024x768 at 16 bits. That gives me the detail level I want, and puts me in the 100+fps range for most first person shooters, which is my prefered genre. And yes, I can tell the difference with refresh rates up to around 90fps. Basically, that's the point where the default machinegun in Quake3 actually becomes a useful weapon.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
There tend to be a lot of differences between typical console games and typical PC games. You can create games that works great on the PC because of the mouse (quake, unreal, warcraft, diablo, the sims, etc.) and the keyboard (most RTS games, RPGs), but not so on a console. The PC is also better suited for multiplayer games with 4+ people ... well, until Xbox Live arrived anyway ;)
Also, it is not true you need to shell out as much for your graphics card as for a console. Most games will work fine with Geforce 2 - which is rather cheap these days. Even UT2003 will run fine on it.
That said, if your favorite pc games are available for the mac as well - just keep the mac.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Or it could be that there have been these ads in PC magazines since the dark ages and I have yet to actually meet someone who owns one of these damn gamepads... And just how many of the top CS/Q3A/UT2K3 players use a gamepad?
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
And as far as I'm concerned it's a lot more efficient to use mouselook + keyboard for FPS games, and a hell of a lot more intuitive than joypads. You move the mouse to rotate yourself, walk in different directions with ASWD, the mouse buttons are for shooting/changing weapons and the keys on the keyboard next to ASWD are used for other actions...
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
But I also have a PC running Windows for games.
Why?
There are many types of games that do not translate well to a console, you just can't enjoy them as well as with a keyboard, mouse and higher than 400 lines resolution (TV).
Just try to play NWN, Lineage, Q3, UT2k3, EQ, Diablo2, CS, etc. on a console. (yes some of them have console versions, but they are not nearly as good as on the PC)
For that matter, try to get an expansion pack or mod for any console game. (CS, DOD, CTF/H/B, RA FvF etc. etc.)
Or how about making your own mod for a game? (did that for Q1, havn't had time sence)
Yes consoles have their place, but they are a very small part of the gaming world.
==>Lazn
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
At work, both Windows and Linux get used. Our customers have both Windows and unices, so that's what we write programs for.
At home, I use Linux whenever I want to program stuff. The sheer availability of tools, the joy of all the different languages available... therein lies nerdvana. And most distributions provide so many wonderful toys, hundreds of apps that you've probably never heard of.
Windows gets used primarily for games at home. Why not use a dedicated console for games? The kinds of games on the console tend not to be the same type as released for the PC, and the PC games can be modified. How many consoles was "Fallout 2" ported to? How about using your own models in your FPS? Downloading someone else's level? Heck, using a Neverwinter Nights module that someone wrote?
It doesn't help that the controllers necessarily influence the games themselves. With the PC, I can choose between various kinds of joysticks, mice, and driving wheels, and still get the benefit of having a keyboard. FPS's and RTS's suck on gamepad style controllers. My personal preference is a mouse/keyboard combo.
Sure, your TV is bigger than your monitor. Still, I sit closer to the monitor, and the picture is many times clearer.
Hmm, guilty pleasure #4322. Using your own songs and StepMania on your PC. Screw the DDR Imports, they don't have PWEI's Def Con One.
....
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
DID any of you play GTA3 on a ps2?
Gah talk about not up to the job!
Now I know that I place myseelf in the "geeky minority" when I say this but the gta3 on the ps2 really sucks as. Why? because the frame rate was really bad. Sorry but the machine is no more up to running gta3 than a spectum 48k is up to running sim city (yes there was a speccy 48k version, let's ztry and forget that!)
now i must go, writing is too much effort beczause i hzave spilt beer on my keyboazrd zand the zz key no longer functions, or azt lezast functions t razndom even when i azm not pressing it. i loose more keyboards that way
oops, sory about the babble.
azs i wazs saying, developers on the ps2 mazke for to azbbitious gazmes thazt the hzardwazre caznnot cope with. (aznd now you see the writing without editing
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
bleeding edge graphics and the right to say 'my 1324fps is greater than you! eat it' might be a close second
consoles are fine for people w/o PCs (Score:1)
On top of this, TVs have horrible resolution, refresh rate, and image quality.
I'm the exact opposite of you -- I got a PS2 and never play it except when people are over and want to play sega tennis or fighting game or two (in which case I'm actually likely to bust out Dreamcast for Soul Caliber instead), whereas I probably average good 15hours a week of Quake and UT on PC.
I guess the PC multiplayer online games with unbelievable graphics where you are competing against freakin' elite ninjas who are so damn good they make you sad because you will never be 1/100th as good no matter how much you practice somehow seem more significant than console games. For me, Quake is like tennis or something while Starcraft is like chess maybe -- they take immense practice and skill (to be really good) and have intellectual depth.
There are a few console games I love too but none of them have remained fascinating the way lots of PC games do -- console games just seem to be comparatively superficial and/or kiddy.
Re:consoles are fine for people w/o PCs (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
A mouse. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, okay, maybe not. Basically, for a *lot* of games, the mouse is a much better and more natural controller than the keyboard or joystick, which is really all the PS2 controller is.
When they come out with a mouse for the playstation 2, I'll be right there. Until then, it's the best controller yet and only available for the PC.
Re:A mouse. (Score:1)
Complain to the game makers.
Re:A mouse. (Score:1)
Re:A mouse. (Score:1)
Re:A mouse. (Score:1)
Re:A mouse. (Score:1)
Re:A mouse. (Score:1)
ONE WORD: MULTIPLAYER (Score:2)
and when i can use my trackball and mouse to play *anything* i will consider it, however there are a huge number of bad ass PC games that never come out for console.. the reverse is also true but not nearly to the same degree..
Re:ONE WORD: MULTIPLAYER (Score:2)
nearly every PC game on the market comes with MP for free
Xbox Live costs $300 per year (Score:2)
I beleive the Xbox has multiplayer internet option.
Xbox Live costs $300 per year: $50/year for the Xbox Live subscription, and $250/year for the upgrade from dial-up Internet access to cable or DSL Internet access, provided that you even have a good cable or DSL provider in your area. If not, you'll have to fork over even more for a fractional T1.
Re:ONE WORD: MULTIPLAYER (Score:1)
Because the consoles don't talk TCP/IP (Score:1)
On the contrary, the vast majority of games on a PC have some networking built into them. Look at the success that Doom, Quake, EQ, etc. have had, and it all came from having the networking ability. Add that to the console, and perhaps we'll see things change.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Up until _very_ recently, decent online-play is only available on a computer. I can get fairly-new PC games for $20 used, as opposed to the $35 I'd have to spent on a "new" used GC game. Sure, the initial investment is a little (lot) steeper, but it makes me _feel_ like I'm saving, dammit.
Other than that, I just like the games available on the PC better, and as is the case for all ports, the games ported from the PC to consoles are almost invariably better executed on the original system. And yeah, I like using the keyboard/mouse combo better than a controller, usually.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:2)
Not that I run windows though... My copy of HalfLife works great in winex.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:2)
Oh, so you haven't played Vice City then? I and 3 of my friends have encountered 8 hard crashes (no chance to save/recover) on 4 different PS2s over about 80 hours of gameplay.
Still, I agree with you. I would rather play games on a dedicated-system than a PC, even if they are shipped with bugs these days.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Hopefully this will give you a few reasons why some people choose PC games over consoles. I have yet to meet anyone who has played good PC games that has gone back to a console afterward.
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Re:To all of you who say 'Games'. (Score:1)
Heck, maybe part of my using a PC for playing games ties in with the games I love the most. Is there a parallell between upgrading my "Frontier" Cobra Mark III with a Military Drive Class III and me upgrading my Athlon XP1800+ with a GeForce 3? Maybe.
And that again, the question you asked - why do we do it - it's incorrectly put. We've already done it. What do you want us to do? Revoke the purchase on the hardware? Sell our games, get used to not having the old ones around, get used to watching the 50-60Hz TV screen instead of the super-sharp apeture grille monitor? Learn how to aim a crosshairs with a little tiny analogue stick instead of a dedicated hand-eye-coordinated pointing device? Hell no.
You don't want for many games. That's you. That's the answer to the question you were asking. Some people do.