So what is the advantage of a console?

[Dyan]

I keep seeing splitscreen as an advantage over the PC and I just don't get it. Now this is all just my own opinion, but I myself hate splitscreen. Mainly because it makes my eyes hurt. So I'd really like to know what's so good about splitscreen?

 

[Towowo]

Primarily because it allows more than one person to use the same screen for multiplayer.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Consoles have a standardized set of hardware, something that PCs do not. If you think that isn't something important, go tell it to a programmer at a major game studio, I'm sure they'd love to hear your opinion.

The downside to this, of course, is that the standardized hardware goes out of date right away and stays there.

And with talk of "moduling" or console upgrades to get around this also-rather-important issue, it looks like proper standardization is going to be history as well.

Well luckily, console games tend to be far more optimized so they don't limb behind too bad and, quiet frankly, look pretty good anyways. It's not like PS2 compared to early PS1, its far more subtle for the difference most of the time. Also, even if console could be adjusted, we'd now be discussing maybe 10, 20 variants at the max for a console as opposed to at least thousands of variants for PCs. It has its downsides, but it is one advantage that PCs can never have and thus a something that consoles have that PCs don't.

 

[Joccaren]

lol, troll thread...

I'm going to assume your being sarcastic with this all, but I'm going to answer them anyway as if you're not being serious with them, I get the feeling some people will be...

OT: No Gaming PC exists that can play new AAA games for less than $300.

/thread FOR THE PAST 8 FUCKING YEARS!

I've already used that False meme, so I'm not going to put it here again.
My PC runs AAA games and it cost me $300 to upgrade. Of course that upgrade was overkill, and it ran AAA games before that, but it was starting to get 30 FPS on Maximum settings for newer games, so I upgraded.
And yes, Upgraded. You upgrade your console every time you buy a new one too. There are some things that you'll just have that you won't need to buy again - like the TV you play it on.

Or do you want to talk about current prices?????

You fail if you think you can buy a gaming PC for $150 that can play current AAA games.

Duh.

Easily. As I said, my $300 upgrade was overkill. Could have just gone for a new GPU for $150 and been done with it. I went for more though. Could it have run everything max settings? No, but even minimum settings on a PC looks and plays better than a Console game.

EDIT: For added fun facts, what developers name PC as the medium of choice for developing games on? CUZ IT ISN'T BETHESDA!!!

Lets see...
Blizzard
The developers of the Total War games
The Developers of the Civilization Series
Ironclad
Want me to go on?
'cause these are just a few PC exclusive developers, and I'm not including people like DICE and Crytek who I CBF looking for the articles with them praising the PC as a platform.
Or how about John Carmak?

"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack added. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.

http://www.gamefront.com/carmack-we-do-not-see-the-pc-as-the-leading-platform-for-games/
I'll take this as half marks as it does say consoles are the lead platform for games, but he says this because they have more gamers. He stated that with "the same amount of resources" they could create an unquestioningly better experience on the PC.

As said, I'm hoping you were being sarcastic with that, but the rules that govern the Internet require me to assume that either you, or someone else who reads this, will take your post seriously as an argument, and there's just too much wrong in it for me to let that pass.

 

[Yopaz]

Well speaking as a PC gamer here.

No difference in hardware meaning it's easier for developers to avoid bugs due to driver issues.
It's easier to operate, no virus, no need to adjust settings, no need to download secondary software to increase performance. For those who aren't good with computers this is pretty good.
Better suited for running on TV, a PC often has some issues with resolution since it's usually adjusted for sitting right in front of the screen.

 

[RevRaptor]

Here's a little story for you.
Today I tried to run a browser game on my pc, not install it just run it. It crashed so bad google search doesn't work for me any more. Gotta do a complete reinstall of my os and firefox to fix it. So now I'm copying all my files off my pc so I can get round to fixing it sometime tomorrow.

I've never had that happen on a console. I want to play a game, I get to play a game right now no messing around.

As far as I'm concerned that's a flawless victory for the console side.

 

[Joccaren]

Then tell the "master race" to quit ballyhoo'ing the graphics if it's not that big a deal.

Ahh, now I remember which thread I saw that post foretelling the return of these threads! Thanks for that.
And you'll find that most of the 'Master Race' don't care that much for graphics. Generally we'll play Indie games, or games from 10 years ago on our machines that look even worse than present day games. When bought up why the PC version of a game is better than the console version however, graphics are a legitimate standpoint as they are better in that regard.

Also, 300 dollars?

Show me a build with a total startup cost of 300 dollars that will run Sleeping Dogs on max settings with the extra HD patch at at least 50fps, and I swear to God, I will burn every console I own on Youtube.

1. Tell me one console that can. You seem to be going for High settings on PC, which is not even close to an even ground to compare them to consoles with.
2. Tell me what you have already, and I'll tell you what to buy. I won't even use the cheapskate resolution exploit you leave yourself open for there, where it'll run at 640*400 resolution with the HD patch at likely 80+ FPS. When I give you prices, I'm not telling you to go out and buy a whole new computer. As I've said above, that's like buying another TV for your console. You upgrade what needs upgrading, so tell me your parts, and I'll tell you what I'd get, and the Australian prices of said items.

 

[Xerxesrogue]

There is one thing I never see used as an argument, although in my opinion is a huge deal within gaming.
Analog movement. The one thing that is a bummer about PC, if stuff like problem solving and upgrading is not a problem to you, is the lack of a standardized analog movement. We have "wasd" (usually) The freaking NES had that precise movement, and consoles today have a fully analog 360 degrees stick.

 

[Entitled]

How did that argument lose ground? Plugging my console into my TV with a controller is a lot easier than doing that with my PC. Also you never have to worry about compatibility issues, you put a game in and it works. I use both and I prefer my console since I don't have to spend hours fiddling with it to get it to work.

The problem I have with the argument is that I can't really differentiate it from the argument that a bicycle is better than a Corvette because it's easier to pick up and ride.

Let me set it up this way: If someone came up with a machine that never crashed, never had hardware compatibility options, and never needed updating, but still did the exact same thing as a PC, then I would call it more convenient than current PCs. But if you made a "PC" that had no modding support or changeable hardware, then it wouldn't be "easier to use" in any real sense; instead, it would just be lacking features. If consoles could offer what the PC does but do it in an easier or more reliable way, then it would be a point on their side. But just taking out something and saying, "See, now it's more accessible!" strikes me as the worst kind of positive spin on a blatant negative.

Yes, I agree with that. To use a maybe even better analogy, it's like saying that movies are "better" than books, because they take less time, and you don't have to focus on words, have a complex vocabulary, or use your imagination, you can just relax and watch.

Yes, all of these are true, and they prove why movies are more CONVENIENT than books, but convenience doesn't equal quality.

Note, that I'm not saying that books are better than movies either, convenience has it's rightful place. But any kind of statement about how that convienience gives it an ADVANTAGE, would be the the worst kind of anti-intellectual posturing, by shunning more knowledge as some elitist niche for obsessive fanboys, and glorifying ignorance as "normal, and reasonable level of skills, from us, normal and reasonable folks".

I, as a PC gamer, can have better graphics than you through a series of hardware upgrades, and more complex and diverse gameplay than you, through genres that utilize mouse and keyboard settings, modding, and having an open platform that doesn't lock out any developers.

You, as a console gamer might say that you don't want to get into gaming that seriously, and you are fine with more simplified gaming only, but by spinning that into how your platform is actually BETTER because the console publisher held back the graphics at a standard level, or locks out any modified or unauthorized game, to protect you from the dangers of freedom, you are promoting your own lack of knowledge as something desirable, while it is just that: a lack of knowledge.

 

[Joccaren]

There is one thing I never see used as an argument, although in my opinion is a huge deal within gaming.
Analog movement. The one thing that is a bummer about PC, if stuff like problem solving and upgrading is not a problem to you, is the lack of a standardized analog movement. We have "wasd" (usually) The freaking NES had that precise movement, and consoles today have a fully analog 360 degrees stick.

This is usually not bought up as you can plug a controller into the PC and get said movement.
Also, the mouse could likely be configured to run as an analogue movement controller [Hell, it is for Jets in BF games, and to some extent helicopters]. Of course that would reduce aiming in FPS, so maybe plug a joystick in instead, as they're another option.
In general WASD movement I haven't found to be greatly less precise than with an analogue stick, except in racing games. This is likely partially due to necessity - as the games that rely on purely WASD for movement generally don't need more - and the fact that in games like FPS, the mouse - a more precise controller than an analogue stick - is used to determine facing, and WASD are just for which direction you want to strafe/walk, whilst the mouse is your turning.

 

[Bvenged]

Really, if you know what you're doing, the console has no advantage over the PC.

HOWEVER, the "PC 133T" seem to forget that not everyone has their knowledge. Yeah, it's real easy to build a computer...if you know how to build a computer.

I for one know nothing about graphic cards, cooling systems, power source, "insert computer part #32115 here". I don't know how to tell if the game will run on my system. For someone like me, plugging a 360 in, plugging it into the internet to download a patch, and then playing my game is far simpler than dealing with the issues a PC brings to the table.

Could I learn the PC stuff? Probably but I like my console and I don't feel like doing the work to figure out a PC. I have the odd STEAM game but consoles are just my primary source of gaming.

BAM, there's why consoles are still used so much, and will continue to be used for a very long time.

I game on both, but predominantly on console because that's where my friends are at; they play consoles because they simply don't want to learn everything about PC's and they don't want to blow a fortune at an average computer at PCWorld or Alienware.

I also can't afford a decent gaming computer, so there's my second reason (but not really an advantage) to gaming on console. Just because I have a shitty computer and play mostly on console, doesn't stop me from playing old PC games such as RCT2/3, UT2004 or The Movies every day though, does it? So what "gamer" am I in this stupid 2-sided war the internet's pointlessly waging?

 

[RedDeadFred]

Exclusives (more that I care about anyway)

Cheaper and no upgrading

WAAAAY more portability

Play with friends split screen

Relax on the couch

Oh and last but probably the biggest reason of all: NO DRM!!!!

 

[Myndnix]

Consoles have games that the PC doesn't. And vice versa.
I never understood why so many people boil the debate down to hardware strength. It's about playing video games. Shouldn't what video games you can and cannot play be the important part? Or are there really that few people left who think video games are important when it comes to video gaming?

 

[VoidWanderer]

The main advantage consoles has is that you do not have to worry about if your console can run it.

PC users have to know IF their computer can play it. Console players chuck the disc in and play.

 

[RedDeadFred]

even minimum settings on a PC looks and plays better than a Console game.

Sorry but that's complete bullshit. I play games primarily on consoles but my laptop is good enough to run most games on minimum settings. Now all of the games I play on PC are PC exclusive so I can't draw an exact comparison but minimum settings on pretty much every game I've played looks almost last gen. Seriously, SC2 on minimum looks like really bad claymation.

 

[Scrustle]

When you put a game in you can be sure that it will actually fucking run properly (99.9% of the time) instead of having to deal with the annoying bull shit you get with PC gaming. People say consoles are just as a pain in the arse to use as PCs now, but that's so not true. I'd rather have to enter a code on every other game than find out I wasted all my money on some crap that decides it doesn't want to recognise my graphics card or crashes every time I do anything. That's only a small number of issues I've had to deal with.

And I think this may just be my laptop, but I've found that PC gaming is very loud. Whenever I run a game, even if it's something like Minecraft with low graphical intensity, it sounds like there's a tornado in my room with the cacophony my computer makes. Even my 360 only makes a fraction of the noise my laptop does.

Now I know someone will tell me all my problems are because I have a useless laptop and I'm a retard who can't maintain it, but I call bull shit. I'm sorry if I don't want to have to get a computer engineering degree to be able to play a game. And I know I shouldn't really be having the problems I am running games on this thing. It's supposed to be a middle range laptop, but it turns out it's fucking useless. The specs seem competent enough, but of course nothing in PC gaming is that simple. I'd much rather just be able to stick a disc in a console that has insignificantly worse graphics than the PC version and have it play properly than having to deal with all this shit. The ironic thing is that my computer still can't run shit if I make the games look like arse because it's so useless. I'd rather spend an extra £5-10 on a game that actually works than all the crap that comes with PC gaming.

But these are just my own experiences. If you haven't had problems then good for you. But just because you haven't doesn't mean that mine aren't valid. I actually envy you. I wish I was able to do PC gaming with ease. There are loads of games I'd love to be able to play, but they're only on PC.

 

[Xerxesrogue]

There is one thing I never see used as an argument, although in my opinion is a huge deal within gaming.
Analog movement. The one thing that is a bummer about PC, if stuff like problem solving and upgrading is not a problem to you, is the lack of a standardized analog movement. We have "wasd" (usually) The freaking NES had that precise movement, and consoles today have a fully analog 360 degrees stick.

This is usually not bought up as you can plug a controller into the PC and get said movement.
Also, the mouse could likely be configured to run as an analogue movement controller [Hell, it is for Jets in BF games, and to some extent helicopters]. Of course that would reduce aiming in FPS, so maybe plug a joystick in instead, as they're another option.
In general WASD movement I haven't found to be greatly less precise than with an analogue stick, except in racing games. This is likely partially due to necessity - as the games that rely on purely WASD for movement generally don't need more - and the fact that in games like FPS, the mouse - a more precise controller than an analogue stick - is used to determine facing, and WASD are just for which direction you want to strafe/walk, whilst the mouse is your turning.

Yes, you can use a controller, or other hardware, like joystick or a gaming pad, but that means either you need to own a console already, or buy additional hardware, which is not necessarily compatible with games, more than half a decade old. I just see it as an advantage to be able to walk in games, without having to push an extra button, or buy more hardware. This is not as big a deal in most FPS games, but in some 3rd person and platformers, I find it a bit clunky.
An example can be my skepticism to buy Dark Souls on PC, when I already own it on PS3, because I am going to play it on the PS3 controller anyway, and I am unsure whether the other advantages (1080p, vertical sync, and no lag issues, primarily) is weighing up for it, making it worth an additional purchase.