WHY pc gamers?
- Thread starter bfgmetalhead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
ok, i admit that i may have cut some corners when i posted that, what i mean is that Complexity is a hard but effective way to achieve depth. If you fail in making a game complex its just unnecesaily complicated and non streamlined. I havnt actually played Okami by the time im writing this so i cant really debate you on that one(however i wanted to point out that unless i have misunderstood this thread, we are talking about depth in gameplay and mecanics. not story or character) but i can give you an example of what i mean. Magic: The gathering is a deep game because its a complex game. The cards rewrite the rules by wich the game is played. There is so much to learn about it and so many ways to play. That results in depth. also, the redstone wireing in Minecraft, a very simple game. one simple redstone wireing rule: torch outputs (1) unless input from another level of hight is (1) then it outputs (0). however this simple mecanic makes complexity that lets you make awesome things.moretimethansense said:
Okay, I'll give you that gameplay depth is different from story depth, but I still say that complexity doesn't make something better in and of itself.Circusfreak said:
Also Magic certainly has a lot of depth, but I have to say I always found it a fairly simple game to play.
I can't comment on Minecraft as I've yet to play it.
Perhaps it would help if we defined our terms.
For me complexity is number crunching, it's many things happening simultaniusly and it's having to keep multiple things in mind at any given time.
Depth, to me, is having the ability to expolre the possibillities, it is finding different ways to do things, it's having no best option and it's being more than you'd see on first glance.
To me these are two different concepts, they aren't necesserily mutualy exclusive, nor do they automatically go hand in hand, you can have something that's complex, but shallow as a kiddie pool.
And you can have something with near infinate depth, that is so simple a child could do it and still get by.
Finally
I'd highly recomend that you fix that, sooner rather than later.
PCs allow me to play games about a parallel universe where the second (and third and fourth) world wars were conflicts with the Allies, including Germany and excluding the Soviet Union, on one side and the Soviet Union on the other where both sides have access to such outlandish weaponry as Men in electrically charged suits that threw bolts of Lightning from their hands, mind-controlled giant squids, transforming robots and cyborg bears that can be launched at the foe from a cannon. These points alone make me a firm proponent of the PC who also enjoys their Xbox.
Before anybody points out that Red Alert 3 was also available on Xbox, then the PC allowed me to play that game in such a way that was enjoyable. Console strategy games are a fucking mess.
Before anybody points out that Red Alert 3 was also available on Xbox, then the PC allowed me to play that game in such a way that was enjoyable. Console strategy games are a fucking mess.
You know, there's quite a few threads saying PC gamers are arrogant, but none about consoles. Sure, if we're talking about anyone using an Apple PC then arrogance is a given, but your average PC gamer really isn't that bad. I've played shooters on a console and enjoyed the experience, and I've played shooters on a PC and enjoyed it. More so. Actually I like, I played Darkwatch (which is amazingly fun btw) and some CoD 4/6. Also some Black Ops. Played CoD 6 on PS3 and X360, and between the two I preferred the PS3 version, and liked the PC one even more. Even though it is a console game through and through. I like the accuracy of a PC. My parents were those that hated video games, so I didn't play much till I moved out. And one of the first shooters I got a hold of was Quake 3, so my gaming experience is coloured by that game. It was very big on movement, so I like games that allow me to use that skill. Which is dodging rockets and generally being very good at getting from A to B whilst noscoping someone with a sniper rifle.bfgmetalhead said:
Consoles.. They don't let me do that. Sure, they're bouncy games. Play Morrowind then Oblivion, and BF2 then BF:BC2 and you'll see what I mean when I say bouncy. It's terrible man.. But bouncy doesn't equal good at moving. I'm quite capable of performing well on a console, but it feels flaky, I have less control compared to a PC game.
I simply prefer a PC for an FPS. Also a big fan of the RTS genre, from Europa Universalis III to Napoleon Total War to Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War and Red Alert 3. And have you tried playing an RTS on a console? It. Sucks.
Less buttons, so everything is dumbed down big time. Selecting units is a pain, getting them to simply move is hard, let alone attacking. So the PC wins again for me.
Action games. Well, this is one genre where the console wins. Playing Devil May Cry or Darkwatch on a PC is.. Interesting at least. Using a keyboard for DMC isn't exactly ideal. You _need_ a controller to be able to pull it off, especially on the harder difficulties. Which is why my brother sold the family PS2 and I now only have DMC on a PC. -.- Need console bad.. Must kill demons.. lol. Rachet and Clank, Little Big Planet, all console games which I wouldn't dream of having on a PC. Assassins Creed may fall into action/adventure, but I like that on the PC.
Point and click adventure games. I'm going to go with the PC again. I feel the PC is a more "intimate" experience, it's easier to get involved in the game. Also moving a cursor across the screen is much easier on a computer with stupid FPS sensitivity compared to a console. And accuracy, whilst not needed, is still appreciated. I'm sure you could put a point and click on the console, but I'd rather not play it. And seeing the people who use consoles, I doubt they'd play it either.
Racing games. Definitely console, that's wheel and pedals territory. Or more if you've got friends like mine, just not meant for the PC. I'll play one on the PC, especially the more arcade types, Burnout, Le Mans 24 Hour, Collin McRae rally. Old school games. Or those trickster games, forget the names though. But for any competitive playing or realistic games I prefer a console.
So FPS, RTS, Action/Adventure, Point and Click, Racing.. Brain lapse, can't think of any other genres atm. Puzzle? But that's good on any platform, even a DS will play Bejeweled ok. Sandbox? GTA is pretty good on the consoles, but try play Minecraft on them. MMO is definitely PC territory, especially if we're talking something like WoW. You simply can't play it without a keyboard, don't care what arguments you give.
So that's the majority of genres I prefer on a PC. I'll get a console in a few years when I'm no longer a student and can afford that amount of money, but in the meantime I'm sticking to my PC. That's not arrogance, simply the genres I prefer don't do so well on a console.
A PC is relatively cheaper (I spent 1200 on my PC 3.5 years ago, and the parts I got weren't that amount, more like 650/700). Nowadays you could pick it up for 500 including the new parts I put in and it plays most games alright. Sure, there's a few it's struggling with, and I'm not running on highest resolution, but it does ok. 500 compared to 300 for an X360 or 500 for a PS3. During a Steam sale I pay less for games. And my PC allows me to do stuff like run a virtual machine and code the OS, get an emulator and play the old Final Fantasy games (still not getting why they're great, need more playtime), hand in homework, do homework, etc.
It's simply the superior platform for the genres I play and what I want to do, and manages to get in my budget which is so low it's only barely above negatives. Not arrogance, mostly logic. Although the FPS superiority may be debatable depending on what you do.