can pc even come close to being considered part of the console race?

[Doomwaffle]

Umm, it doesn't need to be considered part of some petty console race because it is already far superior to the consoles. Not that I don't enjoy my console games, but god damn we've had so many threads like this and at this point I just flat out say it without doing some stupid pros and cons list.

Agreed.

 

[runtheplacered]

However the big debate is whether or not the cost is worth it. And while I say "yes", others may say "no". I don't even think there's much of a cost difference really. Whatever you paid for your console, you could go ahead and invest that into upgrading the PC you already have to gaming specs. But, that's just my opinion on the matter.

And whatever you pay for a PC you could go ahead and invest it in a pretty much future-proof console.

Future proof console? I didn't know there was such a thing. Which one is that?

Ahh.. you edited your post. So I will add... laziness isn't really part of this dilemma, though. Just because some people are lazy and pay over-priced for a beefed up Alienware, doesn't really add to the conversation. Yes, some people are too lazy to realize they could install a 160 gig harddrive in their PS3. But, I'm not holding that against the console.

 

[Jumplion]

However the big debate is whether or not the cost is worth it. And while I say "yes", others may say "no". I don't even think there's much of a cost difference really. Whatever you paid for your console, you could go ahead and invest that into upgrading the PC you already have to gaming specs. But, that's just my opinion on the matter.

And whatever you pay for a PC you could go ahead and invest it in a pretty much future-proof console.

Future proof console? I didn't know there was such a thing. Which one is that?

Ahh.. you edited your post. So I will add... laziness isn't really part of this dilemma, though. Just because some people are lazy and pay over-priced for a beefed up Alienware, doesn't really add to the conversation. Yes, some people are too lazy to realize they could install a 160 gig harddrive in their PS3. But, I'm not holding that against the console.

Most likely, the PS2

But your overall point is the same, they do cost about the same, but it entirely depends on how stupid and/or resourceful the person is with a computer.

 

[Link Kadeshi]

PC's are infinatly more useful, while console fanboys are whining and complaining, and bragging about features (Oh, your Wii and PS3 have browsers?! WIN!) Most of those things have been all thanks to the good old PC. I personally get annoyed when people try to add PC's into the console war. I think we've had enough RTS' to know that we're in a good position (Ignoring pirates who cause more fear than damage), and if we truly wanted to be in your war, we'll wait till you kill each other off, and then move in and steal your flags. I can play the original Prince of Persia on my machine, can any of you play the original Mario Bros.? Oh, you can.... How much more did it cost you? I just use my original copy (Of PoP)... Yeah. Heck, Emulators help you play old DOS games which have trouble with XP. You got XBLA/PSN? I have Steam. I even had to play my FF7 on my laptop because my PS1 decided to stop spinning discs, which I find hard to replace, at least harder then a PC. RRoD? Not here. $100 wi-fi kit for my system? Nah, I'll get the $50 one, thanks though. Oh no, my game library is too big my my HDD, better get a cheaper priced drive of much larger size. WHEEE!

Price is a bit more out the gate, but I have built a darn good gaming rig for people at just over $500, so really, it's not that harsh a deal compared to a 360 or PS3. Oh sure, I'll admit, they aren't as good as my rig, but really, they're well built, and handle quite a bit of the games out there (Crysis isn't as pretty, sure).

Oh, and if you still question the usefulness of a PC as a gaming system, I'll render a few examples:
-Starcraft
-Pretty much any MMO
-Thief series (I like Homeworld as well, personally)
-Good RTS', not those poorly controlled things
-We've had a browser for how long? We also have e-mail, IM's and a heck of a back catalogue of games
-And something I think a lot of people need to use, a spellchecker

Not to mention we get most of the same games consoles get. Though I assume it helps to have a nerd (Like me) as a friend, to build and rebuild a comp. Mice/Keyboards are better than controllers, but you can normally still use controllers too. Oh, sweet, now the Wii can use a keyboard, wow, what will they think of next? Maybe they'll put some form of large storage device, or Digital Video Disc-like object that would let you watch movies!

 

[mark_n_b]

Umm, it doesn't need to be considered part of some petty console race because it is already far superior to the consoles.

I will start by saying a PC is not a console. It's multi-functionality is a good argument for arguing that it is a superior piece of media equipment when put against a console. But in considering the PC a purely gaming machine, it has it's benefits over console gaming but it also has many many flaws.

There is also the additional problem that online and browser and installation disc gaming are all almost considered independent of one another, yet they all happen on the PC.

When someone asks "what is your favorite console?" they are not usually concerned with the PC.

The PC is a gaming platform though, and as worthy of consideration in that capacity as any console, but it is not an infallible system.

It is not a member of the console wars in that none of the top 3 feel or consider their systems in competition with PC's, it is generally accepted that PC tech is here to stay, and because of the wide variation in PC abilities and how easily it is modified, it is not something that can compete on the same stage as the console.

Example, let's say Crysis is an awesome game, well, it wouldn't even work on my last PC, so, does it suck as a game on PC is it fiction? Well... No, my friend's computer handles it well and it is all it can be. So which PC represents gaming on the platform? Defaulting to the best and the baddest is problematic because it out-prices consoles by thousands. While the lower end is more in line with console prices it can't handle all the things that make the PC so great.

It's like comparing apples and risotto. Both are delicious and do their jobs as food beautifully well. But you can't really compare them outside of saying that you enjoy one or the other.

 

[Mr0llivand3r]

a PC isn't a console.
so it can't be in the console race lol

 

[runtheplacered]

Most likely, the PS2

Touché

 

[jamesworkshop]

I would say no the PC isn't part of the console race about the only thing close is wether to buy a nvidia card or Ati bar that PC games all work on the same system some unfortunatly better than others but they are still PC's.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

There's a console war?

 

[jamesworkshop]

The few games which might "look fairly the same" are the ones which are rendered at half to 1/4 to even almost 1/6 times the resolution compared to PC games.

Trust me, you can get a ghetto ass hooptie PC to play Crysis at very high at 1024*600.

This always makes me laugh, usually console gamers going about how awesome HD (usually 720p) is.

"Yep, sure is. I've have been playing in better than 720p since 2000 you know!"

On the money saving debate, a PC for me just doesn't perform the one function. The difference between a high powered PC, versus a gaming one isn't really that much more. Ok, sure i probably wouldn't have a Velociraptor, or quite as much RAM... but the difference is a matter of a few hundred quid on graphics cards.

The price difference in games, and better experience for many games i play most (FPS and RTS) don't make a gaming PC significantly more expensive than a console, and if you do anything else, or even own another PC, probably make it better value.

I found that a 9800gtx can handle Enthusiast (very high) in crysis WARHEAD at about 1280x1024
out the box with no custom tweaks but it isnt really playable as it drops below 25fps when any action happens but for a £130 graphics card that isn't bad.
Resolution isn't really that big a factor the original Quake and even monoliths BLOOD both supported 1600x1200 resolution and they are ancient.

 

[NekoAnastasia]

Why would it want to?

That seems like comparing a calculator to a mobile phone or PDA which has a calculator application. One plays games, the other can play games but also does other things. Also, whereas you have games released exclusively for one console or another, PC games can run on any PC (that has decent specs) irrespective of what brand it is. Unless you're crazy enough to buy a Mac, but I guess then that's your own fault.

 

[veloper]

If you can play games on it, it's competition.
/thread

This. Consoles and PCs have largely overlapping markets.

Also consider that if someone buys a budget PC nowadays they get a core2duo rig. If the buyer decides to do more than web browsing and typing letters in word, all he really needs to add is videocard from the upper midrange, to have a decent gaming rig.

 

[Jumplion]

There's a console war?

Yeah, didn't you get the memo?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

There's a console war?

Yeah, didn't you get the memo?

The memo was done on a PC

 

[BigbadaBEEF]

To my limited understanding the PC was originaly developed for ease of access to data and work, and then started to be used for games and all round entertainment, consoles were originaly concieved and still are for the sole purpose of playing video games, you cant compare the two

 

[bkd69]

I believe the word you're looking for is platform.

A platform is any bit of gaming hardware, be it console, phone/handheld, pc, what have you.

Consoles are very specifically closed platforms with limited end user expansion/modification, and tightly controlled development, pretty much always relying o external display.