PC and console should stay away from each other

With the exception of GTA3, almost every console game I've seen on pc has been superior in many ways. Even games that are developed on many platforms from the get go.

Look at Hitman. This was a PC only game, and was raw and could be pretty gruesome at times (accurate bullet holes in bodies). This was one of the best things about the game in my opinion, being able to shoot an npc from far away, walk up and see exactly where you struck them. Very underated game btw.

Then comes Hitman2. This time around it was made for PC, P2, and not sure what other console if any. Tho I still have much fun playing the sequal, it can't hold a candle to
the first. Even before I knew it was developed for multiple platforms, I noticed that it felt a bit waterd down. I flew through these missions with ease. I went back and played part1 for the first time in probably a year and got my butt whooped on an early mission. There are also no bullet holes in bodies at all. Now tho it doesn't sound like a big deal, if you've played both these games you know how little details effect overall realism and fun.

Deus Ex for pc..One of the best games I've played to this day. I told my cousin how awesome this game was a few times. He has a P2. We rented it for p2 and it was one of the ugliest pieces of crap I ever played.
"Man, you need to play the PC version, it's much better"
"Suuure."
"No really!"
*Delphium cries himself to sleep and dreams of bad graphics*

I'm not anti console. I have a P2 myself (tho its mainly a dvd player to me), but this trend of pc/p2/gamecube/xbox developed games is going to leave us with console games that we play on our pc.

I guess my point in all this rambling is pc games are in trouble if they keep being developed with consoles in mind. They'll be shorter, more simple, with less balls.

 

PC is so cool and yes i think they are in danger and i myself also have a PS2 and it is cool, But recently i have been playing PC. The only thing i have a promblem i have with PC is you need system requirements and alot of people don't have the stuff, But Ps2 on the otherhand does not need any requirements which is great! I love PC and I Love PS2.PS2 is the best console and PC is just the best!

 

Forget PS2: Xbox is becoming an alternative to play good games with near PC graphics. The consoles are also muscling their way into something that until recently was exclusively the PC's providence: online multiplayer gaming. Granted, both the Xbox and PS2 require broadband and not everyone has that. All I can say is this: switch to broadband now. It makes a world of difference over 56K. I don't know about Sony's service, but believe that Xbox Live! is doing pretty good and will become even more popular with new releases later this year like Rainbow Six: Raven Shield and Halo 2. And think about it: it's far cheaper to buy a dedicated game console and a yearly subscription to the gaming service than to upgrade a PC to play newer games (especially when a newer video card costs twice as much as a console!).

 

Xbox is becoming an alternative to play good games with near PC graphics.

And therein lies some of the problem. PC users don't want "near PC graphics". We want "near REAL LIFE graphics" And we're getting closer every generation of graphics card.

All I can say is this: switch to broadband now. It makes a world of difference over 56K.

This is easy to say, but still very difficult to do for some people. Some people still don't have access to DSL or cable, so 56k is really the only way to go.

And think about it: it's far cheaper to buy a dedicated game console and a yearly subscription to the gaming service than to upgrade a PC to play newer games (especially when a newer video card costs twice as much as a console!).

Assuming you upgrade to the newest video card right away and don't just wait 6-12 months for the prices to come down. All but the most die hard gamers usually do this and it ends up costing less than a console. Heck, even some of the consumer end line of the latest graphics card can be very affordable (under $200).

 

Heck, even some of the consumer end line of the latest graphics card can be very affordable

Yes, but by the time they are, these cards are already outdated. And there's still the matter that PC games have system requirements (not merely video, like obscene amounts of hard-drive space, system memory and CPU Speed) that often require you to have an up-to-date, very high-end PC. And how much would upgrading to a PC like that set you back? $1.5k-$3K? Perhaps less if you happen to build it yourself, true, but still more than ten times the cost of a next-gen console. And yes. perhaps these consoles are already obsolete in regards to an ATI Radeon 9700 or GFX card, but so what? Their replacements will come out in a couple of years or so and they'll still be far cheaper than a whole new computer.

 

Hmmm.....


Consoles sell better for reasons.


Upgrading for PC's sounds easy. But the mainstream gamer isn't going to know how to install it all the time. A PC is 5 times the cost of a console in the first place.

Consoles are becoming PC's. The developers are making them with all sorts of things.


That's where I think Nintendo is right, keep these seperate (although all systems should be able to go online and have a hard drive)

Anyway, keep them seperate til they're all easily meshed.


PC and console games differ greatly in gameplay, but they're coming together.

I have a fast computer and everything, but I love consoles.

 

Indy & the Emperor's Tomb is coming out for x-box, PS2 and PC.

I don't have a problem with games coming out on multi platforms (Galaxies, KOTOR, Outcast).

What I dislike more is when games only come out on ONE console (Rogue Leader, Bounty Hunter).

No-one's forcing you to buy console ports. If you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em.

 

Well I don't mind games being on mutiple platforms, nor do I mind consoles having internet (increases the fun).

But I don't want consoles to have an OS like Windows, that would be terrible.
Imagine playing a game and suddenly you get the famous blue screen

 

"What I dislike more is when games only come out on ONE console (Rogue Leader, Bounty Hunter)."

Bounty Hunter is out on PS2 and Gamecube.

It's more cost effective for game makers if they put their games out on multiple platforms as they can reach more users.
I personally will rather pay an extra $20 to get a game on my PS2 even if it is on PC as I don't have a super duper computer with awesome graphic card so my computer slows down a little in places when I play games.
That is the good thing about consoles there is no upgrading or worrying about grapic cards as if it is a PS2 game it will play how it is meant to.

 

To put it simply, the PC and console platforms will always be seperate issues for developers. They both bring different qualities (i.e. console has a wider user base, PC uses increasingly more powerful technology), and although there will be multiplatform games (some far from quality, mind you), there will still be a large amount of PC titles that will only be on PC, and those that venture to the console market will be (at most) vastly different to the PC version (whether that's improvements or lack there of).

Certain titles only work on console (Adventure titles such as Mario & Zelda, certain sports incl. Tony Hawk, Kelly Slater, etc., and more incresingly, FPS, such as Metroid Prime, Timesplitters, even Halo [though it may still make it to the PC, it won't be the same])

Certain titles only work on PC [Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Championship Manager (granted, there is an Xbox version, but again it just isn't the same), Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Master of Orion, etc, etc, etc.)

One of the main reasons why many PC titles are converting to console is thanks to the Xbox hard drive. Here we finally have the technology to include elements that previously couldn't fit on a standard Ps2 or Gamecube disk, such as the ability to create maps (anyone who has played Timesplitters 2 will know that advantage of having the hard drive over a memory card in terms of space), reduce load times without having to revert to trickery, and many elements you could previously only find on the PC version.

That's one of the reasons why the likes of KOTOR, Galaxies, Doom III and Dues Ex 2 are Xbox bound, because the ability to create identical graphics, sound and full use of the hard drive makes it so much easier to convert them.

As I always say, we all have our likes and dislikes. But don't knock developers for creating multiplatform titles for money, how else are they going to make money, thanks to the increasingly high development costs.

 

Consoles are becoming PC's. The developers are making them with all sorts of things.

Right now the Xbox -- with its built in hard-drive, built-in network adapter, a not too shabby CPU and a rather decent GPU is the one true gaming PC out there. However, a PC...is still a PC. And believe it or not, most manufacturers don't think of them as gaming machines first and work/study/'net surfing machines later. It's usually the other way around. As such, today's 3D-graphic intensive games require so many system resources out of machines that are not primarily gaming consoles. That's what a PS2 or Xbox or even a GameCube is: a dedicated gaming machine, with all of its resources meant to be used for a particular gaming application, not for web-browsing, word processing, spreadsheets and any of the non-gaming tasks commonly asociated with a PC. True, there's manufacturers like Alienware that build game-intensive PC's. But look at the cost of those rigs. Still over ten times the cost of your ordinarily console. Now how many kids or even ordinary working stiffs can squander dough like that to play games?

 

Valid points. But of course many here are starting to say the PS2 is obsolete.

You may need to upgrade your PC to keep up with the latest games, but you also need to do the same with consoles, right?

 

I love PC games, don't get me wrong, but I sometimes prefer the console, solely for the upgrade purpose. The PC can get aggrivating or frustrating with new coming out with different specs, higher requirements, etc., while on the console, you never have to worry about it. Every game will work on it, regardless. The only time you have to worry about that sort of thing is when the next generation console comes out. Then it get's fun.

 

See, those Alienware comps and nice and all, but if you research just a little and figure out how to build your own comp, you can cut those prices in half or even more. PCs do too many things to be compared to a console system. The last console I bought was a Nintendo 64, almost purely for Smash Brothers. Consoles slow down too in higher resolution and detailed games just as a PC does. I'll admit, after I got my PC, I have basically left consoles in the dust. I can't keep up with them and their increasing prices. The games are all $40 to $50. I can pick up good PC games for $20 to $30 and some classic ones for as little as $10. It all evens out eventually I would have to conclude. I'll take my PC though and keep my nintendo 64 for some classic Smash Bros action ^_^.

 

How about the best of both worlds ? A PC that plays console games.........

oh, no, wait, thats been done

[image=http://home.swipnet.se/~w-33411/megapc2.gif] [image=http://www.homecomputer.de/images/machines/Amstrad_Mega_PC.jpg]

for those of you who are wondering, yes, thats a PC that was compatible with SEGA Genesis carts!

malkie

 

That's insane!

Judging from the fact I have never heard of it, I'm assuming it didn't turn out too well?

 

And there's still the matter that PC games have system requirements (not merely video, like obscene amounts of hard-drive space, system memory and CPU Speed) that often require you to have an up-to-date, very high-end PC. And how much would upgrading to a PC like that set you back? $1.5k-$3K?

I don't know where you buy PC parts, but it's very easy to get a midrange PC (midrange being 2 GHz today) for under $900. They usually come with 128 MB RAM and 60 GB HDD too. And almost all, if not all, come with either an ATI or nVidia video card, so they'll be able to play most games right away. And a 2 GHz machine will not have to be upgraded for a long while. I'm still going fine with my 1.5 GHz, the only thing I need is a new video card.

Upgrading for PC's sounds easy. But the mainstream gamer isn't going to know how to install it all the time. A PC is 5 times the cost of a console in the first place.

Every gamer I know knows how to upgrade his own machine. I would say more gamers know how to upgrade their machines than most people at home browsing the internet and writing emails. And again, 5 times might sound like a lot, but it's $200 vs $800 (which is actually only 4 times) and it'll last you a lot longer.

Certain titles only work on console (Adventure titles such as Mario & Zelda, certain sports incl. Tony Hawk, Kelly Slater, etc., and more incresingly, FPS, such as Metroid Prime, Timesplitters,

This is bunk. I have yet to see a title that wouldn't work just fine, if not better, on a PC. With the ability to customize controls and use a mouse, I am 1000% better on a PC than I am on my PS2. I can use the controller just fine, I'm just A LOT more comfortable with a keyboard and mouse.

even Halo [though it may still make it to the PC, it won't be the same])

You're right. It'll be better The reason it's taken so long is because the networking code was written with LANs in mind, not the Internet. Once they have the networking code finished and the engine updated for the newer video cards (GeForce 4's), it'll be even better then it was before.

Certain titles only work on PC [Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Championship Manager (granted, there is an Xbox version, but again it just isn't the same), Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Master of Orion, etc, etc, etc.)

See above.

Here we finally have the technology to include elements that previously couldn't fit on a standard Ps2 or Gamecube disk

I think you were referring to the memory card, but the PS2 "disc" is just a DVD. I have yet to see a PC game come on DVD, so this is one aspect where the consoles are ahead of the curve.

And believe it or not, most manufacturers don't think of them as gaming machines first and work/study/'net surfing machines later. It's usually the other way around.

Depends on the manufacturer. Most now sell the "Internet enabled computer", the "student computer", and the "gamer machine".

As such, today's 3D-graphic intensive games require so many system resources out of machines that are not primarily gaming consoles.

Actually, most of todays systems can play 3D intensive games just fine. With 2 GHz+ machines running 64 MB+ 3D video cards, they have no problems at all.

That's what a PS2 or Xbox or even a GameCube is

It's funny that you mention an Xbox in that list since it uses a general purpose CPU that you would've found in a mid range PC 2 or 3 years ago.

Now how many kids or even ordinary working stiffs can squander dough like that to play games?

Ordinary working stiffs? You might be amazed. Kids, no, that's what the $100-200 video card in their parents PCs is for


Phew, that was a long post. That's what I get for being busy at work, not being able to read the forums all day

 

I don't know where you buy PC parts, but it's very easy to get a midrange PC (midrange being 2 GHz today) for under $900.

I'm building in the process of building a new PC with a 1.73ghz CPU, very high end mobo, 512 meg, spiffy lookin case and transfering over my old comp's HD, graphics card, CD and CDRW for under 300. In a bit I'll be buying a new HD, maybe further down a DVD burner as prices go down, but I bought my Xbox for the price I'm paying for my new PC, though I am doing it myself.

I love my Xbox. I love it for it's simplicity, the standardization, the fact that I walk over, push it on, and start gaming instantly, while knocking back a couple of cold ones on my couch. I even like Halo on a console better than most FPS's on the PC but I'll never say one's superior to the other.

Actually, most of todays systems can play 3D intensive games just fine. With 2 GHz+ machines running 64 MB+ 3D video cards, they have no problems at all.

I don't think he was saying that a PC couldn't match a console, but that a console like the Xbox can get away with running a P3 with what a PC would need a p4 or AXP to do.

This is bunk. I have yet to see a title that wouldn't work just fine, if not better, on a PC. With the ability to customize controls and use a mouse, I am 1000% better on a PC than I am on my PS2. I can use the controller just fine, I'm just A LOT more comfortable with a keyboard and mouse.

That's the key. It's what you're comfortable with. Though I still say to analog sticks like on the Xbox controller beats keyboard and mouse for sensitivity and control. Sure you can look around really quick with the mouse but today's keyboards still don't know how hard you're pushing down. Not to say a PC can't have analog controllers though. Just saying with some games like Halo, the ability to go from walk to mid walk to run and different speeds quickly gives much better control.

It's funny that you mention an Xbox in that list since it uses a general purpose CPU that you would've found in a mid range PC 2 or 3 years ago.

see above

I think PC's and consoles are starting to mirror each other, but MS and Sony are trying to push consoles in a totally new and different direction now. They want them to be living room multimedia centers. Wether consumers utilize them for this remains to be seen. I know I wouldn't mind my next console also doubling as a TIVO, but for me gaming comes first, and if they throw in the extra's, well that's just fine by me. I think the next generation of consoles might just answer the question of PC, console validity. Just a guess on my part but in a year or two as the final plans for the next consoles come out, we'll see.

 

I don't think he was saying that a PC couldn't match a console, but that a console like the Xbox can get away with running a P3 with what a PC would need a p4 or AXP to do.

Yup, that's exactly what I was trying to say. Look at PC's Splinter Cell system requirements in regards to the Xbox overall system specs. SC looks awesome on the Xbox and I'm quite happy with that, yet you need an up-to-date PC CPU/GPU combo to get the same -- or rather, better -- effect.

I wouldn't mind my next console also doubling as a TIVO, but for me gaming comes first, and if they throw in the extra's, well that's just fine by me.

I kinda remember reading that the mythical PS3 would also double as a TiVo, thanks to the new technologies they would cram into it. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

- This is bunk. I have yet to see a title that wouldn't work just fine, if not better, on a PC. With the ability to customize controls and use a mouse, I am 1000% better on a PC than I am on my PS2. I can use the controller just fine, I'm just A LOT more comfortable with a keyboard and mouse.

A fair comment, but I was not speaking about controls, more the style and substance of the game itself. Of course, they can be converted to PC, I don't doubt that, but they were built with the console in mind.


- You're right. It'll be better The reason it's taken so long is because the networking code was written with LANs in mind, not the Internet. Once they have the networking code finished and the engine updated for the newer video cards (GeForce 4's), it'll be even better then it was before.

Of course, but there's just one small problem: By the time it is released, Halo 2 will be out, so any and all technology from Halo is dated by nearly 2 years. Sure, it will be better, just outdated. A pitty they didn't think to release Halo 2 a few months after the Xbox (as is the norm these days) instead of the original. Would have saved them a lot of time

- Certain titles only work on PC [Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Championship Manager (granted, there is an Xbox version, but again it just isn't the same), Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Master of Orion, etc, etc, etc.)

I stick to the above comment, much the same as I do about the subject above: They were built with the PC in mind. For those of you who remember, both Starcraft and C&C were released on N64 and PSOne. And if you also remember correctly: They weren't any good at all. Not because of poor graphics or sound, but the controls. You lose a lot of control taking out the keyboard and replacing with a control pad. Sure, the pad is easier to handle, but with Orion, Homeworld and Warcraft requiring so many commands, a keyboard & mouse is the best way to go.

- I think you were referring to the memory card, but the PS2 "disc" is just a DVD. I have yet to see a PC game come on DVD, so this is one aspect where the consoles are ahead of the curve.

As I mentioned before, Timesplitters 2 gamers would have noticed the difference between the Ps2 and Xbox versions in terms of creating your own maps. A PS2 memory card can only hold so much info in 8mb. The Xbox has an 8gb hard drive. Enough said. With the use of the Xbox hard drive, developers can include options such as map making programs, game editors, etc, regardless of the "disc" the game comes on, but on the amount the user can create through the consoles memory.

Oh, and just so you know, there have been a hand full of PC games released on the DVD format, way back in the early days of the technology. Since a majority of PC users do not have a DVD player on their PC (because they have a console/DVD unit, or simply due to their lack of interest in the medium), developers still us the CD as that is a standard on PC systems. DVD will get there soon (in most cases it already has), but until DVD writers reduce in price, and people notice that DVD's can do more then just play movies, then developers won't produce PC titles on DVD.

 

I wasn't disagreeing about the hard drive on a console, just stating that they are ahead of the game by using DVD technology for their games.

so any and all technology from Halo is dated by nearly 2 years.

And what technology would that be? Like I said, they're updating the graphics to take advantage of the GeForce 4, which is at least half a generation ahead of the Xbox.

but until DVD writers reduce in price

I don't think that is necessarily the problem. I can get a DVD-R/RW for less than $200. The problem is that there are still 2 competing standards for DVD writing. Anyone who doesn't want to be left with outdated hardware if 1 format becomes obsolete has to purchase a multiformat drive. I only know of 1 drive in existence, the Sony DVD+-R/RW drive, and it costs $350. Unfortunately, instead of working together, the different companies have decided to push their own standards and just try to flood the market with their products, in the hopes that Joe Blow computer user will just use the drive he gets with his system. This is exactly what HP and Dell are doing right now, shipping DVD+ drives with their systems. I could see more people picking up the Sony drive, or whoever else ends up making them, just to make sure they don't have to worry about obsolete technology.

Of course, with Blue-ray DVD on the horizon, all those companies seem to have worked together to create a single standard. Unfortunately, we won't be seeing those drives for a LONG time.

 

kinda remember reading that the mythical PS3 would also double as a TiVo, thanks to the new technologies they would cram into it. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I've noticed that every console has their thing. Nintendo goes back on their word (says one thing does another), MS, well it's too early to tell but there'll be some trait that they'll pick up that gamers could ID with them, and Sony; they like to oversell their consoles, ummmm just slightly. You know, that whole 100x faster than a P4 thing. Or the PS2 with emotions. Well I guess it does if it's goal was to emulate Ben Stein.