"Console gaming is better because it just works"... still a valid argument?

[Bob the Average]

once you get to the game there usually little difference. Personally i prefer the controller to the keyboard because of the simplified button layout(i usually have to look down to find any thing besides wsad). That said computers require more money and know how if you want to run the latest games where a console you plug and play.

 

[Snotnarok]

PS3 has to update about once a month to two months and it takes 5 min - 10 min depending on the system (internet connection?). Some games need a short (5 minute) install the first time you put it into the system.

Fixed that for you.

Very funny, that's not how it works on my PS3 on a wired connection even, it takes 7 minutes to download, 5 to install. This is followed by having to update the game I want to play. It took me an hour to update stardust HD, a freaking hour.

I don't hate PS3 but the updates are absurd, 360 and PC takes 5 seconds to update, PS3 takes a while and that's one of the problems I have with it. If it's for some reason faster for you then I'm glad for you, I have it wired on fios so that tells me a lot. That being said, the PS3 is a fantastic system that like other systems that have things to work out

Yeah, I don't have that problem (and haven't met anyone who has). Could it be your internet connection? A system update will take 2-3 minutes to download and about 2-3 minutes to install for me. Enough time for me to have a smoke... (which makes me think of the only game which I felt had a long install time -- MGS4)

Super Stardust HD... I dl'd the full game and extra content (my wife loves it) and it didn't take too long (nothing of note anyway - been a little while since I dl'd it). If I dl in the background it takes much longer, but then I'm not worried because I'm doing something else at the same time, so it becomes moot.

BTW, I'm on the built in wireless. The main household computer and my wife's laptop uses the same router. I'm in the middle of Canada's 4th biggest city (also its capital), so maybe that helps? I dunno.

I have verizion fios, which is very fast. Look I'm not beating on the PS3, and I dunno why the aggressive replys, this is personal experience that I'm talking about which is a problem I have with the unit. Do I hate the PS3? No, why would I hate a system with Ratchet and Clank on it? But it's given me these problems, maybe the PSN is just slow here.

 

[Ace of Spades]

In my experience, yes. I spend 2 parts playing to one part troubleshooting with PC gaming, and it's annoying.

 

[manbearpig91]

Installing the game, installing patches, etc. on a console is no easier than it is on a PC. Buy a PC if you want something a bit more personal and useful.

Since when do consoles have to install games?

Most Playstation 3 games require install, most aren't as long as PC installs, except for maybe Metal Gear Solid 4.

Oh, sorry ive never owned a ps3 before so I wouldnt know. Sorry about that

 

[Pendragon9]

My problem with PC players is when they don't follow this:

Who gives a shit? Play whatever you have and like whatever you want. Why care what others are doing?

They apparently feel the need to condemn everyone who doesn't agree with them. I'd consider them like a certain greedy military power in 1944, but it's obvious already.

 

[brodie21]

console gaming is better because you just have to buy the console and game, not the console, game, graphics card, ram, new processor, new monitor....etc.

Ummm you do know you can just buy a computer, right?

OP: Never was a valid argument, you could just buy a stock PC and install and play a game, no fuss no muss, unless of course you tried to do something akin to playing a PS2 game on a PS1

i should have clarified. i meant that if you buy the console all the games are made to run on that hardware and not so on the pc, you have to spend an insane amount of money to run a game and you will need to spend the same amount again in a year or so when the system requirements go up

 

[Sud0_x]

console gaming is better because you just have to buy the console and game, not the console, game, graphics card, ram, new processor, new monitor....etc.

Ummm you do know you can just buy a computer, right?

OP: Never was a valid argument, you could just buy a stock PC and install and play a game, no fuss no muss, unless of course you tried to do something akin to playing a PS2 game on a PS1

i should have clarified. i meant that if you buy the console all the games are made to run on that hardware and not so on the pc, you have to spend an insane amount of money to run a game and you will need to spend the same amount again in a year or so when the system requirements go up

Okay this is the point I've decided to take issue with for the day.
I couldn't be bothered quoting everyone who stated this view, you were just the most recent, so I'm sorry if you feel i'm targeting you.
Have you ever actually read the system requirements on the cover of a PC game?
Guarantee the minimum hardware dates back YEARS. The games are desgined that way; not just for the tools who spend obscene amounts of money buying a new i7 only to overclock it right out of the box, fry it and buy another. They are also desgined for the average and below average of the current time. My buddy was still running a Nvidia 6800 last year and you know what the minimum card required to play most of last year's titles (including Fallout 3) was? A 6800. The 6 series dates back to 2004. Hell he still plays ArmA 2 on a sempron.

It just irked me that this was considered a valid point.

EDIT: (Fallout) My bad, 2008? Wow did I lose a year?

 

[CmdrGoob]

console gaming is better because you just have to buy the console and game, not the console, game, graphics card, ram, new processor, new monitor....etc.

Ummm you do know you can just buy a computer, right?

OP: Never was a valid argument, you could just buy a stock PC and install and play a game, no fuss no muss, unless of course you tried to do something akin to playing a PS2 game on a PS1

i should have clarified. i meant that if you buy the console all the games are made to run on that hardware and not so on the pc, you have to spend an insane amount of money to run a game and you will need to spend the same amount again in a year or so when the system requirements go up

Okay this is the point I've decided to take issue with for the day.
I couldn't be bothered quoting everyone who stated this view, you were just the most recent, so I'm sorry if you feel i'm targeting you.
Have you ever actually read the system requirements on the cover of a PC game?
Guarantee the minimum hardware dates back YEARS. The games are desgined that way; not just for the tools who spend obscene amounts of money buying a new i7 only to overclock it right out of the box, fry it and buy another. They are also desgined for the average and below average of the current time. My buddy was still running a Nvidia 6800 last year and you know what the minimum card required to play most of last year's titles (including Fallout 3) was? A 6800. The 6 series dates back to 2004. Hell he still plays ArmA 2 on a sempron.

It just irked me that this was considered a valid point.

EDIT: (Fallout) My bad, 2008? Wow did I lose a year?

Quoted for truth. My full PC upgrade cycle averages about 4-5 years between full upgrades, which is pretty much the same as the average console generation...

Anyone who says you need upgrade every year to keep playing PC games is most likely a console fanboy troll who has never had a gaming PC in his life, because otherwise he would know better.

 

[brodie21]

console gaming is better because you just have to buy the console and game, not the console, game, graphics card, ram, new processor, new monitor....etc.

Ummm you do know you can just buy a computer, right?

OP: Never was a valid argument, you could just buy a stock PC and install and play a game, no fuss no muss, unless of course you tried to do something akin to playing a PS2 game on a PS1

i should have clarified. i meant that if you buy the console all the games are made to run on that hardware and not so on the pc, you have to spend an insane amount of money to run a game and you will need to spend the same amount again in a year or so when the system requirements go up

Okay this is the point I've decided to take issue with for the day.
I couldn't be bothered quoting everyone who stated this view, you were just the most recent, so I'm sorry if you feel i'm targeting you.
Have you ever actually read the system requirements on the cover of a PC game?
Guarantee the minimum hardware dates back YEARS. The games are desgined that way; not just for the tools who spend obscene amounts of money buying a new i7 only to overclock it right out of the box, fry it and buy another. They are also desgined for the average and below average of the current time. My buddy was still running a Nvidia 6800 last year and you know what the minimum card required to play most of last year's titles (including Fallout 3) was? A 6800. The 6 series dates back to 2004. Hell he still plays ArmA 2 on a sempron.

It just irked me that this was considered a valid point.

EDIT: (Fallout) My bad, 2008? Wow did I lose a year?

it is, i prefer just having a set system that i know everything coming out for it will work on it.

 

[Sud0_x]

console gaming is better because you just have to buy the console and game, not the console, game, graphics card, ram, new processor, new monitor....etc.

Ummm you do know you can just buy a computer, right?

OP: Never was a valid argument, you could just buy a stock PC and install and play a game, no fuss no muss, unless of course you tried to do something akin to playing a PS2 game on a PS1

i should have clarified. i meant that if you buy the console all the games are made to run on that hardware and not so on the pc, you have to spend an insane amount of money to run a game and you will need to spend the same amount again in a year or so when the system requirements go up

Okay this is the point I've decided to take issue with for the day.
I couldn't be bothered quoting everyone who stated this view, you were just the most recent, so I'm sorry if you feel i'm targeting you.
Have you ever actually read the system requirements on the cover of a PC game?
Guarantee the minimum hardware dates back YEARS. The games are desgined that way; not just for the tools who spend obscene amounts of money buying a new i7 only to overclock it right out of the box, fry it and buy another. They are also desgined for the average and below average of the current time. My buddy was still running a Nvidia 6800 last year and you know what the minimum card required to play most of last year's titles (including Fallout 3) was? A 6800. The 6 series dates back to 2004. Hell he still plays ArmA 2 on a sempron.

It just irked me that this was considered a valid point.

EDIT: (Fallout) My bad, 2008? Wow did I lose a year?

it is, i prefer just having a set system that i know everything coming out for it will work on it.

Don't you think that's a little silly?
"Everything coming out for it will work on it?"
Consoles have hardware, just like a PC does, only it's completely obsolete at the time of purchase and there's no way to upgrade it. Once the hardware has reached its limit a new console has to be produced.
If you compare a PC upgrade to going from one console generation to the next; odds are it'd cost you more for the new console be pretty close.

Edited for making an unsound statement.

 

[iPatrick]

 

[MrJohnson]

Uhm, what? I think you're a troll, judging by the fact that apparently console gamers are constantly acting elitist in your eyes. Sure, they might overreact and think PC gamers are being elitist when they're not, but admittedly, when someone has to be defensive over which way they prefer to do their hobby its a bit ridiculous.

 

[WickedSkin]

PC gaming = better turning, devealoper consoles

Console gaming = faster loading times, rarely lags, no game installation

Pick your poison, or both!
There are probably other factors but I haven't learned of them yet.

Well actually I find console lags quite often. Gears of War 1/2 laggs, Fable 2 lags... I wonder if not most games lag. Mostly its related to framerates. Online lags often to so it's not in any way lag free. Well you didn't say it was lag free but it's not even rare.

Oh and faster load times? Please.

 

[Eventidal]

Really, a 360 is just a mediocre gaming computer packaged in a console box with its own restrictive operating system.

I'm seeing a lot of the popular console games hitting the PC now, and if you have a good enough PC, I think you could pass up the 360 and PS3 without missing out on too much.

Edit: Lol, just saw the pic a few posts above. So true.

But... really, the Wii is plenty enough multiplayer living room fun for any set of people that come along. I have tons of great multiplayer games, myself, and I've had many a good time with a great variety of gamers playing those together. Many PC/360 games can be enjoyed online about as well as they can be enjoyed in a living room together. And the real issue is in how most of those games seem to restrict playing offline so much. On Wii, you're often restricted to play together on the same console, but I prefer that to the 360 forcing you to play online to get more than 2 people playing in the same game.

 

[Tjebbe]

My problem with PC players is when they don't follow this:

Who gives a shit? Play whatever you have and like whatever you want. Why care what others are doing?

They apparently feel the need to condemn everyone who doesn't agree with them. I'd consider them like a certain greedy military power in 1944, but it's obvious already.

...and you just invoked Godwin's Law.

Too bad, I did agree with you (although i would add that console fanboys do the same. Disclaimer: I vastly prefer my consoles over my PC, but if someone has more fun with their PC, good for them).

 

[brodie21]

console gaming is better because you just have to buy the console and game, not the console, game, graphics card, ram, new processor, new monitor....etc.

Ummm you do know you can just buy a computer, right?

OP: Never was a valid argument, you could just buy a stock PC and install and play a game, no fuss no muss, unless of course you tried to do something akin to playing a PS2 game on a PS1

i should have clarified. i meant that if you buy the console all the games are made to run on that hardware and not so on the pc, you have to spend an insane amount of money to run a game and you will need to spend the same amount again in a year or so when the system requirements go up

Okay this is the point I've decided to take issue with for the day.
I couldn't be bothered quoting everyone who stated this view, you were just the most recent, so I'm sorry if you feel i'm targeting you.
Have you ever actually read the system requirements on the cover of a PC game?
Guarantee the minimum hardware dates back YEARS. The games are desgined that way; not just for the tools who spend obscene amounts of money buying a new i7 only to overclock it right out of the box, fry it and buy another. They are also desgined for the average and below average of the current time. My buddy was still running a Nvidia 6800 last year and you know what the minimum card required to play most of last year's titles (including Fallout 3) was? A 6800. The 6 series dates back to 2004. Hell he still plays ArmA 2 on a sempron.

It just irked me that this was considered a valid point.

EDIT: (Fallout) My bad, 2008? Wow did I lose a year?

it is, i prefer just having a set system that i know everything coming out for it will work on it.

Don't you think that's a little silly?
"Everything coming out for it will work on it?"
Consoles have hardware, just like a PC does, only it's completely obsolete at the time of purchase and there's no way to upgrade it. Once the hardware has reached its limit a new console has to be produced.
If you compare a PC upgrade to going from one console generation to the next; odds are it'd cost you more for the new console.

dont you think it's a little silly to be arguing with someone's personal preference?

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

oh jeez

Where did you get that picture? I'd like to have it on hand.

OT, I've played both PC and Consoles equally and found the simplicity of their activation a fully valid argument, only recently diluted by the current generation of consoles' downloadable content and various online glitches. Let's hope it's not the start of a trend. PC excels in FPS, Flight Simulator and Strategy departments, but the control style seems unweildly when working any real-time game besides FPS, as though you were using a controller with over 50 buttons, all of them small and close together except for 2.

Furthermore, in 16 years I've had to change consoles several times due to wanting games on the new ones. I've had to change PCs (monitor AND processor AND mouse) at least as often not due to increased hardware specs, but the Operating System suddenly crashing into an unrecoverable heap of refuse that even my resident computer-genius friend could not repair. No, I don't overclock. By contrast, my decades old SNES has yet to break once.