Its nice to see someone on this thread not spitting bile.Xanadu84 said:However, there is a fallacy in your argument about not being able to afford a gaming rig. The thing is that these days, even if you own an X-Box, you still probably need a new computer every now and again, unless your living under a rock. If you were to tack on the price of an X Box, controllers, and Live on top of the price of a computer you need for everyday use anyways, then you have a pretty decent gaming rig. I dare say that in the long run, you end up paying less for games on the PC (Bioshock for $5, Orange Box for $10, and lots of other special deals come to mind). This isn't an argument for PC being better, its an argument that it all comes down to your own personal choice of play style.
Yeah well I'd have to buy a new one (or at least parts for it) every 3 days. No, I made the right decision.Irishhoodlum said:Well for a gaming PC you'd need at least $600 give or take a few. Though games are almost always much cheaper on the PC. Not that either of those matter because the quality of games isn't determined by price. So what if overall RTS games cost more on the PC? Does that make them worse? No, in fact it probably makes them better since you're paying for more you're also getting more.williebaz said:But the thing is I couldn't get gamefly on a P.C. Not to mention I need a laptop to take notes in school. I can't get too expensive of a computer then because I would run at risk of losing it. I currently have a 500$ dell laptop I bought 4 years ago. It's in no condition for gaming. If I bought an 800$ laptop instead, my gaming options would still be limited, as would my choices in games. Furthermore, in case you weren't paying attention I prefer the console controls, especially when it comes to RTS gameplay.Mercanary57 said:You did make somewhat of a poor decision.williebaz said:I don't think I made a poor decision. I spent 300 dollars on an xbox, and I get gamefly for 8$ a month. This means I can have whatever game I want. If I spent 300 dollars on a pc, I wouldn't be able to play any games and even if I could I would have to buy each for 60 dollars.
You could have spent the 300 dollars to update your PC that you are currently using.
And the games are actually cheaper for the PC. You can even pirate the majority of them if you want to be like that. In which case, you might as well say that PC gaming is free.
And with Gamefly, you don't own the game though.
Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.obisean said:I fix't that for you.
However when it comes to RTS it is a undisputed fact that you cant do alot of things on a console with the controls a pad gives you, while it can come down to preference, console rts is a stripped down game at best, there for regardless of preference, it doesnt work as well because of the massive lack of controls.Machines Are Us said:Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.obisean said:I fix't that for you.
Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.
are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?williebaz said:but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PCGamesB2 said:It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.
Don't get me wrong, I think the same thing personally. I have played a few console RTS's including demo's and cannot stand the controls. It feels far too slow and awkward without a mouse and keyboard for hotkeys. I just meant that some people may prefer the feel of console RTS's in the same way some people prefer FPS's (whereas most believe that the PC is better for that too).elvor0 said:However when it comes to RTS it is a undisputed fact that you cant do alot of things on a console with the controls a pad gives you, while it can come down to preference, console rts is a stripped down game at best, there for regardless of preference, it doesnt work as well because of the massive lack of controls.Machines Are Us said:Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.obisean said:I fix't that for you.
Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.
Mm, I guess if you're a console gamer and you'd like to dabble in RTS it's a nice way for you to try it without having to worry about the micro management stuff, sort of like a stepping stone.Machines Are Us said:Don't get me wrong, I think the same thing personally. I have played a few console RTS's including demo's and cannot stand the controls. It feels far too slow and awkward without a mouse and keyboard for hotkeys. I just meant that some people may prefer the feel of console RTS's in the same way some people prefer FPS's (whereas most believe that the PC is better for that too).elvor0 said:However when it comes to RTS it is a undisputed fact that you cant do alot of things on a console with the controls a pad gives you, while it can come down to preference, console rts is a stripped down game at best, there for regardless of preference, it doesnt work as well because of the massive lack of controls.Machines Are Us said:Not really. Control preference is a matter of opinion, just look at Resident Evil 5; some people likes the controls, others such as myself, hated them.obisean said:I fix't that for you.
Graphics is based upon pixels and the strength of the graphics card, it is indisputable about whether or not something has better graphics because it can be measures statistically. Obviously a low spec PC would have worse graphics than an Xbox 360, but in general and potential the PC always has and almost certainly always will be graphically superior to consoles.
Graphics are always only a minor factor, the main reason I preferred red alert 3 on my xbox was because it was less laggy. I've already stated my justificaton for having a "Failure of a PC" on other quotes so I don't feel like saying it again. Not to mention there is no securom on the xbox version.Ashtovo said:are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?williebaz said:but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PCGamesB2 said:It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.
also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.
wasn't realy saying that your pc was a failure, just meant that the game has good enough graphics so long as it isn't used on a terrible pc. but looking back i can se how it sounded like i was saying you had a bad pcwilliebaz said:Graphics are always only a minor factor, the main reason I preferred red alert 3 on my xbox was because it was less laggy. I've already stated my justificaton for having a "Failure of a PC" on other quotes so I don't feel like saying it again. Not to mention there is no securom on the xbox version.Ashtovo said:are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?williebaz said:but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PCGamesB2 said:It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.
also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.
There you go again. You keep calling out faults of PC RTS games like "lag", and "bad graphics" when these are all just the faults of your computer. If I bought a RROD xbox and Halo Wars and called it complete shite just because it didn't load do you think anyone would take me seriously? Hopefully not.williebaz said:Graphics are always only a minor factor, the main reason I preferred red alert 3 on my xbox was because it was less laggy. I've already stated my justificaton for having a "Failure of a PC" on other quotes so I don't feel like saying it again. Not to mention there is no securom on the xbox version.Ashtovo said:are you that shallow type who will disregard a good game just because its graphics were crap? or will say a shit game was awesome just because it looked like live actors or whatever?williebaz said:but those great graphics wouldn't have been possible on the PCGamesB2 said:It just feels better and everything moves faster with a pc rts. I really liked halo wars, but i wouldve enjoyed it more on pc.
also red alert 3 has good graphics on the pc, you just need to not have a failure of a computer.