Are PCs still really less reliable than consoles?

Recommended Videos

Graustein

New member
Jun 15, 2008
1,756
0
0
cainx10a said:
Consoles are future proof; the game that's going to be released 2 or 3 years from today, will run on a console. But there is no guarantee that it will run at it's full potential on your PC 2-3 years from now.
So why is my gamecube not running Brawl?
am i doin it rong?
 

Dr Spaceman

New member
Sep 22, 2008
546
0
0
Graustein said:
cainx10a said:
Consoles are future proof; the game that's going to be released 2 or 3 years from today, will run on a console. But there is no guarantee that it will run at it's full potential on your PC 2-3 years from now.
So why is my gamecube not running Brawl?
am i doin it rong?
Check your gamecube for lolcats. Unplug, plug back in, and try again. It should work. Really.
 

savagechris

New member
Dec 9, 2008
4
0
0
To me consoles are less reliable because:
1) Games will eventually stop being released for Wii/PS3/360/etc
2) Some controls are dodgy ex: Wii mote sucks
3) They cost $hitload$ and will wear out pretty quickly
Comps solve this by being easier to use, if a bit slower. Also, even though they cost a lot, you can use them for up to 10 years before they officially die, though I believe if they don't make your computer model anymore then get a new one.
 

ElArabDeMagnifico

New member
Dec 20, 2007
3,775
0
0
Eggo said:
Joeshie said:
Eggo said:
The thing with GTA IV is that it's massively CPU and GPU-VRAM limited. I bet all you suckers who bought a dual core instead of a similarly priced quadcore aren't laughing now, eh?
No, I think that we are all face-palming that Rockstar can't optimize for PC worth a shit anymore. I mean, it's not like the graphics in GTA4 are even that impressive.
I think they're quite good looking :\
Yeah but for some reason it doesn't support SLI and other things that are a bit odd for a game so modern. It uses 100% of 3 of the 4 cores of a quad (from what I hear) and that an 8800 GTS 320 won't be able to run it because of the VRAM (320 DDR3 can't do it? Really?!)
 

ElArabDeMagnifico

New member
Dec 20, 2007
3,775
0
0
Eggo said:
But if you play the game and realize the scope of what's going on in terms of processing, it's completely understandable to observe 3 out of 4 cores being maxed and so much VRAM being used.

It really is a game which is ahead of its time...It's this generation's Crysis.
What the hell is Crysis then?
 

DirkGently

New member
Oct 22, 2008
966
0
0
Aardvark said:
Your PC is only as reliable as you are.
/Thread

Consoles are somewhat more reliable, but again, unless it's an out of the box explode in your face failure, it's typically user error. Of course some games are just crash happy. See Rainbow Six Vegas. If you did not think ahead of time to be playing in the antartic, or having your machine encased in a tank full of liquid nitrogen, you'd crash just about everytime you suddenly took damage.
 

Aardvark

New member
Sep 9, 2008
1,721
0
0
If you're a serious gamer and not one of these cop-out, cry-poor fanboys, then you have an awesome PC, a laptop, an oversized TV and at least one console from each of the last four generations.
 

Jaythulhu

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,745
0
0
Consoles have never been more reliable than a PC. What bizarre alternate reality sparked that idea?
 

AuntyEthel

New member
Sep 19, 2008
664
0
0
On the issue of crashes, I've had my PC for around 2 years, and its crashed around 3 times. And it was mostly my fault. Some people have a weird idea that PCs just crash for the sake of it.
 

sicDaniel

New member
Mar 30, 2008
128
0
0
Agreed, PC´s are only unreliable if you meddle with anything not knowing what you do.

Also, now that every console has an internet connection and they can just release unfinished games and patch them later on, there really is no reason not to use the PC in the first place.
Also, the availability of mods and additional content. It´s much easier to get and install those with a PC, if it´s even possible on a console.
The elder scrolls series is the best example, I can´t imagine playing them without mods.
 

cuddly_tomato

New member
Nov 12, 2008
3,404
0
0
Dr Spaceman said:
The question really is: We all take for granted in a generic PC vs. console debate that PCs are less reliable and more difficult to get up and play a game. Can PC enthusiasts really simply concede this point anymore?
Agreed.

 

Lemony

New member
May 2, 2008
112
0
0
The thing is that if you don't know atleast that a stick of butter IS NOT a video card (poor Penny-Arcade had to learn the hard way) then stay the **** away from computers. They will be too difficult to be used by your small, mal-used brain. Consoles provide this simplity meaning that you only need half a brain to use a console. Also PC games are much more accurate due to the mouse control and meaning that some games (Like Left4Dead) will be much harder in difficulty. Consoles have to deal with the shooting by pressing the thumb-sticks, up,down, a,b, square and praise the hindu god in German. So choose, the PC with more customization options and higher game accuracy or the Console with its dumbed down controls and simple steps.