Poll: First Person Shooters: Console or Pc?

[Laughing Man]

PCs generally own when it comes to FPS but that's usually because the guys that design console FPS games try to match the PC rather than design something designed for consoles. A good console FPS will do the job just as well as a good PC FPS.

 

[RobotJesus]

I do believe there are much more advantages to playing on a pc but the fact of the matter is that all those cool new games they come out with need some expensive hardware to play them and i don't know if you have money growing on a tree in your backyard but if your not willing to spend 700 to 1000 dollars on a computer a console is a pretty good substitute and you learn to live with the limitations. ( on a side note i do love the command prompt in games for computers)

Ive never understood this argument. I assume that since you are accessing the internet and typing (and arent using a $300 "cellphone" which would also prove my point) im willing to bet that you spent somewhere in the $400-600 range to get a pc that could run most mid end games at mid level graphics, or the rare case of a $300 machine thats just a glorified typewriter. Lets say you went with the 360, which originally set you back about $400, now more like 300. Then if you actually want to make use of the system, your looking at dropping about $60-200+ on controllers and charge packs and methods. That plus a single game and online subscription and your talking One game, 2 controllers with 1 plug and charge kit, console and the ability to play online running you about $500 (60+50+20+300+60)if you skimp. Now consider if you dont skimp, or if you instead choose ps3. Youre right in that $700-1000 range and your still just buying a console, and IMO thats a poor substitute if thats what your looking for.

And your trying to call me a rich kid for throwing $800-1000 down for a solid machine that both plays the games that i want it to, and on top of that to run the programs that i use all the time a lot better, and i have access to nearly unlimited free games (xbox arcade style games) and mods for games i already have.

I find most gamers who try to use that argument either cant add, or are 13 year olds who find it easier to convince mom to buy a console and games instead of trying to explain to her that you need a better pc to run the games you want to play.

You want to play games and save money, buy a GameCube, otherwise, your just tryin to use numbers to rationalize something that cant be rationalized with numbers.

 

[johnman]

We had this discussion before Keyboard and Mouse > controller

 

[RobotJesus]

I mean - PC was the first gaming system with FPS games. Both 2D and 3D. Consoles had to wait till N64 and Golden Eye.

LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Faceball was the SH******T!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Crash486]

I do believe there are much more advantages to playing on a pc but the fact of the matter is that all those cool new games they come out with need some expensive hardware to play them and i don't know if you have money growing on a tree in your backyard but if your not willing to spend 700 to 1000 dollars on a computer a console is a pretty good substitute and you learn to live with the limitations. ( on a side note i do love the command prompt in games for computers)

Ive never understood this argument. I assume that since you are accessing the internet and typing (and arent using a $300 "cellphone" which would also prove my point) im willing to bet that you spent somewhere in the $400-600 range to get a pc that could run most mid end games at mid level graphics, or the rare case of a $300 machine thats just a glorified typewriter. Lets say you went with the 360, which originally set you back about $400, now more like 300. Then if you actually want to make use of the system, your looking at dropping about $60-200+ on controllers and charge packs and methods. That plus a single game and online subscription and your talking One game, 2 controllers with 1 plug and charge kit, console and the ability to play online running you about $500 (60+50+20+300+60)if you skimp. Now consider if you dont skimp, or if you instead choose ps3. Youre right in that $700-1000 range and your still just buying a console, and IMO thats a poor substitute if thats what your looking for.

And your trying to call me a rich kid for throwing $800-1000 down for a solid machine that both plays the games that i want it to, and on top of that to run the programs that i use all the time a lot better, and i have access to nearly unlimited free games (xbox arcade style games) and mods for games i already have.

I find most gamers who try to use that argument either cant add, or are 13 year olds who find it easier to convince mom to buy a console and games instead of trying to explain to her that you need a better pc to run the games you want to play.

You want to play games and save money, buy a GameCube, otherwise, your just tryin to use numbers to rationalize something that cant be rationalized with numbers.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but they seem a tad off to me. PC gaming is much more expensive than console gaming. First off, consoles now are down to 200-300$ 200 being for the 360, 300 being for the playstation. That generally includes a controller, a means to charge said controller (they're all wireless now for the most part) and occasionally a game. A bare minimum gaming rig is going to cost you 600$ after you factor in your operating system, and that's not really even counting accessories like monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. That's really just hardware and an operating system to run it.

That's not even taking into account that the graphical processing power of the 200-300$ console is much greater than that of your 600$ mid-range gaming rig. If you want a pc where the games look just as solid, you're looking at tacking on another 200-300$ easy for a faster processor, and a better graphics card.

Personally I always shoot for the 600$ mark on my gaming rigs, and I always end up spending between 800$ to 900$ once again, that's not including a monitor.

Also the shelf life of a console tends to be between 7 to 10 years. That's double the life expectancy of a gaming computer. So not only is it initially more expensive, but the constant upgrades and repairs make it even more so.

Sure, a computer has alot more functionality, there's no question there. It's not a question anyone is asking. Is a computer more practical than a console? yes of course hands down, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think they're more expensive.

 

[jamesworkshop]

stick a £112 HD 4850 into a machine with a dual core and 2GB of ram and it will still beat every console without then potentionaly having to by a HD Tv whereas PC monitors have been doing higher resolutions for years upgrading computer hardware does not require a new operating system people have been using XP for like 7 years or so.

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_tod_art_2ptnfno.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_tod_art_339kdpl.jpg

nuff said

 

[RAWKSTAR]

Oh any choice is fine for me

 

[Ghost]

pc for fps i guess, but i enjoy tf2 on pc and cod4 on xbox 360 so i'm not 'AMAGAWD MA SYSTEM IS SOOO MUCH BETTAR THAN YOURS N00B'. pc also for rts, having said that i've never given a console fps a real go...

but consoles are the ONLY option for some games, imagine playing a metal gear solid, or final fantasy on a pc with a keyboard and mouse *shudders because i have played mgs2 and FF8 on pc*

 

[jamesworkshop]

pc for fps i guess, but i enjoy tf2 on pc and cod4 on xbox 360 so i'm not 'AMAGAWD MA SYSTEM IS SOOO MUCH BETTAR THAN YOURS N00B'. pc also for rts, having said that i've never given a console fps a real go...

but consoles are the ONLY option for some games, imagine playing a metal gear solid, or final fantasy on a pc with a keyboard and mouse *shudders because i have played mgs2 and FF8 on pc*

Try xpadder and map keyboard to console controls

 

[Crash486]

stick a £112 HD 4850 into a machine with a dual core and 2GB of ram and it will still beat every console without then potentionaly having to by a HD Tv whereas PC monitors have been doing higher resolutions for years upgrading computer hardware does not require a new operating system people have been using XP for like 7 years or so.

http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_tod_art_2ptnfno.jpg
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_tod_art_339kdpl.jpg

nuff said

XP is soon to be unsupported by microsoft when they release microsoft 7. You're technically supposed to buy a liscence for every computer you install xp on, installing it on multiple machines is a liscence violation and should not be advocated publicly.

So thats 150$ for your video card, 100$ for a bottom of the line motherboard, 150$ for a dual core processor capable of playing games, and 100$ for 2 gigs of ram. 80$ for a hard drive puts you at 580$. Now you're going to need a case with a power supply and some fans, that's roughly another 100$. Now we're at 680$, and just because you have a decent video card doesn't mean your cpu is going to perform up to par with that of a gaming console. Most games these days rely more heavily on your cpu than they do for you gpu for performance.

We also never added in your operating system.

You don't need an HDTV to game on a console, and I don't know anyone that doesn't own a TV of some kind regardless of owning a console or not. A TV is a whole separate appliance from a gaming console. Most people these days have HDTVs anyway. But that's beyond the point, I didn't factor in monitor cost, so you can't factor in television cost.

That 300$ playstation 3 is looking pretty good right about now.

 

[Jumplion]

[HEADING=1]What do you fucking think?[/HEADING]

Use the search function please, this question has been asked time and time again, and what do you think was always the top answer?

But personally I prefer console controls. I like feeling the weight of the controler and the analog sticks feel more fluid to me.

 

[thiosk]

i hate using WASD to move

I hate WASD as well, so hard to move fluently

I find it as easy as a gamepad.

I find controlling a console joystix difficult. Give me wasd anyday

 

[kawligia]

i hate using WASD to move

I hate WASD as well, so hard to move fluently

I find it as easy as a gamepad.

The directional pad on a controller may be SLIGHTLY better for movement than WASD, but the PC mouse is so far beyond any controller for accuracy and speed its not even funny.

The only way a joystick can match the speed of a mouse is if it increases the movement scale the faster or farther you move the joystick. But when you do that, you decrease the accuracy since its hard (or impossible) to tell exactly how much movement is required to get where you want to go.

With my mouse, moving X milimeters will always move my cursor the exact same distance no matter how fast or slow I move the mouse. And X is just low enough so that the maximum movement of my wrist from center will move the cursor to the edge of the screen OR do a 180 degree turn depending on the game. <3

 

[jamesworkshop]

haahah no pc game bar GTA4 and microsoft flight simulator are CPU not GPU bound.
Upgrading a machine with new graphic cards or ram is not now a multipul machine so does not break any licencing laws
$100 for 2 gig of ram try about £20 hell £35 can buy you 4GB
£75 will buy a 1TB HDD
PC are more expensive but if you're going to start from nothing then how about we consider your couch, console and HD tv not excatly pocket money this console stuff and maybe even a seperate sound system since TV speakers are just rubbish.
I bet your house has a computer and i bet more people have a pc in their house than wii,360,ps3 and HD tvs combined I bet you are even typing this on a PC right now.
Sure they may not be gaming standard but still they could just have easily been for the same price since you can easily spead 800+ on a computer unable to play games as a 800+ capable of playing games.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

PC. I can never shoot someone with a sniper rifle on the console.

 

[meglathon]

I'm both since on PC you cant aim easyer, but I have a bit of trouble with mouvement, wiout an anologe stick.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

If you could use a mouse and keyboard on a console then: Who cares?
WADSER+Mouse=Win. Unless you try to play splinter cell, then it's a lose. The one bad thing about wads is that there is no variable in how much force is applied, it's either on or off.

 

[ingsoc]

Oh boy, the consoletards are now trying to talk math. Uh oh. Put down the bong man. The fact of the matter is PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming. There is no denying it. I don't know where they people are getting their hardware specs and prices from (maybe Australia) but one can build a very fast machine capable of playing Crysis (which is the most demanding game on the market) for very little money. Want proof.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16856101034
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814187030
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136074
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106281

$520.00 for a machine capable of running Crysis on high settings at a very playable frame-rate. And you can get XP for less than $75 through legit channels. And no, you can technically put it on as many systems as you want. Check with the copyright office. How do I know, because I just put one together for my nephew. The consoletards are getting dumber by the day.

 

[Weerez]

The PC has CSS which is the most fun game I own so that one wins.

I agree. I mean I play both (console and PC) and I don't support either. I'm a neutral party.

I think WASD is good for me, personally.

 

[RobotJesus]

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but they seem a tad off to me. PC gaming is much more expensive than console gaming. First off, consoles now are down to 200-300$ 200 being for the 360, 300 being for the playstation. That generally includes a controller, a means to charge said controller (they're all wireless now for the most part) and occasionally a game. A bare minimum gaming rig is going to cost you 600$ after you factor in your operating system, and that's not really even counting accessories like monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. That's really just hardware and an operating system to run it.

That's not even taking into account that the graphical processing power of the 200-300$ console is much greater than that of your 600$ mid-range gaming rig. If you want a pc where the games look just as solid, you're looking at tacking on another 200-300$ easy for a faster processor, and a better graphics card.

Personally I always shoot for the 600$ mark on my gaming rigs, and I always end up spending between 800$ to 900$ once again, that's not including a monitor.

Also the shelf life of a console tends to be between 7 to 10 years. That's double the life expectancy of a gaming computer. So not only is it initially more expensive, but the constant upgrades and repairs make it even more so.

Sure, a computer has alot more functionality, there's no question there. It's not a question anyone is asking. Is a computer more practical than a console? yes of course hands down, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think they're more expensive.

OMG intelligent reply!!!!!!! +1

I used to agree with you(as far as costs go), really, back in the ps2/xbox days even. But the console shelf life argument needs to be adjusted, as the price you are stating is the new price, which is about 4 years after the system came out, so if your considering shelf life, you need to go with original $400 price tag. Also, while your correct about the systems, i wouldnt be caught dead with a bargain stripped down system (and it seems you wouldnt from your gaming pc habits) so you would probably be looking at the $300 system with a decent harddrive, not the $200 one.

Games are also $10+ more, as content release usually costs more money, tagging many full games at closer to $75. If i was to go buy a 360 right now, as i personally would want it, it would include 2 controllers, 1 quick charge (the one that stands upright) and xbox live. That would run me $300 for the system, $50 for the controller, $30 for the charge kit, and $60 for the live subscription. thats just about $450. Even if you skimp, your looking at $400. And if your talking ps3, its $500+ guarenteed.

The crossroads we come to is whether or not a person would rather spend $400+ on a console, and $600 on a PC, or whether someone would rather spend $1000 on a PC.

The console will definatly last longer competetivley, but only to an extent. The system will never become better. Sure, developers will make better use of it, but the graph for console power is steps. Sharp increases with long plateus. With a PC, upgrading is at least possible, your system will always be able to play the games it can play, like the console, but you do have the ability to upgrade without starting over, if you choose to. Also, PCs CAN run games for the next-gen, i used to run COD4 at 600x400 with everything turned down on my old pentium 3 with 1gb ram and onboard graphics card. Yeah i know.....BUT IT RAN!! i could PLAY IT!! Consoles these days are even straying from BACKWARDS compatability, let alone someone trying to come up with forward compatability. I will ALWAYS be able to run Math Blasters on my PC (not that id want to, it got a little easier over the years), no matter how many generations we go through.

So it actually seems we agree here lol, your right it is more expensive, but only if you try to stay on par with the market, which is pretty much what consoles are designed to do. So i cant say too much more than you are right, and i am right, for different reasons. I really appreciate your intelligent input.