june gloom on 2/10/2010 at 23:09
I've never thought of consoles as replacements for PC gaming. Quite the other way around, actually.
I have consoles for exclusives, console-native series that I enjoy, and games that simply work better on a controller.
It's pretty telling when I have more XBLA games on my 360 than I do 'full' games.
Koki on 3/10/2010 at 07:01
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I could have seen someone saying that 5-7 years ago, right now PC gaming has it pretty good imho.
what
Eldron on 3/10/2010 at 08:26
I'll blame alot of that on the tv's people use, there's really no priority for anyone to build tv's that can process signals in close to realtime when people mostly watch non-interactive stuff on them.
That and they all mostly have to upscale in the end because no tv's are actually 720/1080 in PIXELS, but usually a bit bigger.
My biggest pet peve of modern gaming that lag is.
242 on 3/10/2010 at 09:30
Quote Posted by Queue
I've only tried a console a couple of times, and have
HATED it. More specifically, I've hated the controller. My hands and fingers are simply designed for inappropriately touching myself under the table at Christmas and hitting keys on a keyboard.
For 3d shooters or rts a console controller is considerably less convenient than keyboard+mouse, yes. I currently have troubles with controls playing RE5 on PS3. But for many other games the controller actually is more convenient than kb+mouse, I'd say for majority of games, it's just more ergonomic.
And on PS3, at least, there is a solution now for games that require precise and quick aiming - the Move, not that ergonomic, but it works better than controller for shooters.
Queue on 4/10/2010 at 14:42
Quote Posted by dethtoll
To be fair, their PC ports have of late been a bit disastrous.
Exactly.
Plus, my PC is over eight years old. In that time, I've gone through four graphics cards (this last one costing over $250.00) more memory, additional cooling fans, a second power-surge/battery backup unit (so I don't fuck up my really nice LCD screen - that I can also plug into an XBox - when the power goes out) and a larger power supply. And it's
still a single core AMD. The last "new" game I've been able to play (beyond anything from The Adventure Company) was Hitman: Blood Money. All the really interesting newer games require dual-core, and many require an internet connection (which I refuse to do).
Now, looking at what I've sank into my current system, from purchase through upgrades, I'm somewhere in the ballpark of $2500.00. And it's still out of date. I haven't bought a new game, apart Doom3 to play TDM, in over four years (Blood Money came out in May of 2006).
For that kind of money, I could buy ten+ XBoxes, or eight PS3s and not have to worry about it.
june gloom on 4/10/2010 at 15:57
Quote Posted by Queue
Plus, my PC is over eight years old. In that time, I've gone through four graphics cards (this last one costing over $250.00) more memory, additional cooling fans, a second power-surge/battery backup unit (so I don't fuck up my really nice LCD screen - that I can also plug into an XBox - when the power goes out) and a larger power supply. And it's
still a single core AMD. The last "new" game I've been able to play (beyond anything from The Adventure Company) was Hitman: Blood Money. All the really interesting newer games require dual-core, and many require an internet connection (which I refuse to do).
This is your problem right there. Get with the fucking times, man. You don't need an insane supercomputer to play a good game from the last 4 years. I've been getting by on a Pentium D and 2GB RAM for years, though I've upgraded the videocard twice. And your refusal to play games that require internet activation is fucking hilarious when modern consoles are all
about the internet.
Queue on 4/10/2010 at 16:08
Only if you're interested in multiplayer, right? Which I'm not.
Yeeeesss, I could buy a new computer...God knows I need a twelfth one sitting around. Then a thirteenth...
Didn't we just go over the cost analysis of this all? How my original $800 system has now cost me $2500 to "keep with the times"?
Yup. Gotta get with the times.
Eldron on 4/10/2010 at 16:09
Quote Posted by dethtoll
This is your problem right there. Get with the fucking times, man. You don't need an insane supercomputer to play a good game from the last 4 years. I've been getting by on a Pentium D and 2GB RAM for years, though I've upgraded the videocard twice. And your refusal to play games that require internet activation is fucking hilarious when modern consoles are all
about the internet.
Guess this shows that with xboxes and ps3's they can just buy it, but with pc's people will do horrible economical and hardware choices due to not having knowledge about it.
It's just more easy with consoles.
With pc's people need to be smart and buy just under the best and re-use most hardware from their old computer, then they'll cut half the price and will be able to afford the next upgrade and still keep the computer they just bought for as long as they would've had a 10% faster computer.
Matthew on 4/10/2010 at 16:11
Ow, what happened with the four graphics cards? Did some burn out or something?
PS Don't be afraid to go fairly low-budget on stuff - for example, a year or so ago I picked up an Athlon X2 6000+ for silly money to replace my ageing 4200 +, and it's been a real shot in the arm for my system.
