I used to follow PC games a lot more than console games, but once I got my xbox, and as my PC has continually aged, I've been following console games considerably more. That'll probably change soon as I plan on buying a friends old Geforce 3 to replace my tnt2, and then I hope to get a spanking new laptop when I graduate in Dec (probably an even better video card by then). For the time being however, I'm more interested in my xbox -- must beat Morrowind -- though once that task is complete, I'll probably work on finishing up a few things on my PC like Serious Sam 2.

Tuan Jim

pc's do cost more, but you get alot more functionality, as i posted in the other thread, it is not limited to just gaming

and upgrading components is OPTIONAL, if you feel that your pc game is running acceptable to you, then why do you need to upgrade? warcraft 3 runs great on older pcs from what i hear, so if people want to play that way, then it works for them

ive had a pentium 3 -500 mhz processor with a geforce 2 mx for about 3+ years and it has performed great until recently when games really started strugglin, so i just built a new pc for about 700 bucks, should last me a while,but if i wasnt a huge pc guy, i prob wouldnt have done it at all

and josh: you keep on saying how graphics are the last thing on your mind, and everything else comes before it,maybe its just me but id prefer my games to play good and look good, otherwise i could just keep on playing duke nukem for the rest of my life, or populus, or simcity 1, etc etc

or fzero or star fox, etc etc

graphics are important, not more important than gameplay, but important

Let's not forget all the PC games that come with level editors and there is also the huge mod-community on the 'net (just look at Counterstrike for a good example of a user created mod).

Graphics are just an added plus in my mind. My point was PC games only look marginally better than the latest console games (higher resolution and more polygons etc.) which isn't a big deal to me. And definitely not enough for me to buy a new computer and a video card as I couldn't play anything relatively new on the PC I have now. Hell I don't even have a 3D card, just whatever piece of crap video card came with the computer.

But like I said, graphics aren't a big deal to me. I play games on my SNES and even systems older than that on emulators all the time.

The graphics on the newer systems are much nicer, but I find many of the older games to be more fun.

Made a change to the thread title to try and differentiate this thread from the one I just created, by splitting off and merging a couple other threads, talking about the video quality and it's merit in PCs vs. Consoles.

Let's try to keep this thread on general PC Gaming. If you want to discuss the video aspects specifically, please participate in this thread: Video: PC vs. Console (a split out and merged thread)

Thanks.

I've flip-flopped a few times from PC to console to PC and now back again. I'm sure I'll go back to PC's when a must have game comes out. I started on an Apple Macintosh 1993 (I won't go back further than that because everything I had before was bought by my parents and I was living at home) mainly for music. I played what limited games it had, but I was jealous of the PC because of all of the great games it had. I spent $3000 (my life savings at the time) on my Mac because I was serious about music, and at the time the PC couldn't touch it. Then I went to E3 in 1996 and saw all of the games coming out for the Playstation. Also, I went to my friend's house and checked out Resident Evil. So, I picked up a Playstation and stopped playing games on my Mac. Then I saw and played Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight multiplayer on a PC with 3D acceleration and was hooked. I built my first PC just for gaming (well, I used it for everything because it was way faster than my Mac). I became a PC gamer and my Playstation gathered dust. Last year I ended up giving my Playstation to my sister and her family and bought myself a Dreamcast. Since I was on a PC all day at my job I enjoyed sitting on my couch to play games after work. My PC and my Dreamcast lived in harmony, and I would play games on both. Then the unthinkable happened. My girlfriend got a Playstation 2 late last year. She got it for Gauntlet: Dark Legacy, but little did she know I would end up buying more games for it than she would. My PC and Dreamcast would be neglected as I was shifting more towards the PS2. I would still play PC games (mostly FPS), but as soon as I finished them I would go back to the PS2. When EB started the trade-in deal I traded in my Dreamcast (I'm very sad) for a Gamecube. I played on the Gamecube (I bought about 7 games) for about 2 weeks totally neglecting my PC except for Internet and Email. Then another unthinkable event happened. My girlfriend called me and told me a co-worker was selling his Xbox with 3 games and an extra controller for $230. Needless to say I bought it and about 4 other games. Now my PC is being totally neglected. I got Morrowind for my PC before I knew I was getting an Xbox and it was barely playable (slide show city). I got it for my new Xbox and have never looked back. I know it looks better and plays better on the PC if you have a high end machine, but the Xbox kicks butt all over my PC. Plus, I enjoy sitting in my home theater to play video games. For the cost of upgrading my PC to be able to play Morrowind I got an Xbox and 7 games. The only game I see that might get me to use my PC for gaming is Neverwinter Nights. I haven't had a chance to check it out because of Morrowind. My friend also got an Xbox and Morrowind because he's a bigger RPG person than I am, and his computer is worse than mine. He saw how it looked and played and had to get it. A few other friends also picked up an Xbox. I think people are seeing it as a viable cost effective substitute for PC gaming. None of them are RTS fans. I know FPS are better with a mouse and keyboard, but I can adapt.

Update: My girlfriend just called me to let me know she wants to pick up an Xbox and another copy of Morrowind today. She wants to be able to play Morrowind whenever she feels like it (which is all the time) and I don't blame her. Now we will both be able to play Morrowind at the same time, but we'll have to share the home theater.

I will say this, a console will always beat out a computer when it comes to sports and fighting games. I have always had more fun playing these games on a console.

well if you really wanted a fighting game, there is plenty on the pc. the button set up would be what you make of it. the number pad is just a bigger D pad. and graphics wise, it can rule.

then again I love 2-d fighters and hell, with online possibilities, you can network and play people online easy.

Well, the point being that there are barely any fighting games out for PC. And also, EA Sports is pretty much the only sports game developer for PC now. And they aren't even consistant with their PC releases.

for real
ea's pc offerings are just rehashed from the previous years console version

The consoles are the way to go for fighters, sports games, platformers, adventure games (Zelda, ED and ilk), and traditional RPGs (final fantasy and ilk). There's a better selection than on PCs and I think these game are better suited to a standard controller.

PCs are the way to go for First Person Shooters, Real Time Strategy Games, Online gaming (especially mmorpgs), and american style rpgs like Morrowind and Baldur's gate. There's a better selection of these than on consoles and the are better suited to a keyboard/mouse control setup.

So as gameplay goes, that's the fundamental pros and cons. All my gaming interest lies in the genres I listed under consoles, and I have no or little interest in the ones I listed under PCs, which is the main reason I've never gotten into PC gaming.

You're right - there's only been like 3 or 4 fighting games for the PC... One Must Fall and Mortal Kombat series and a few others... Sports games are in no short supply though. Hundreds of sports titles are available for the PC. You can choose from any number of a couple dozen different controller styles. The graphics are much better... but in the end, you're right - these two genres are more at home on the console than on the PC. For each genre you mention, I can name one that is more at home on the PC than on a console. Anyway - this argument is going to boil down to each person taking sides based on the type of games they like to play. My first love in gaming is First Person Shooters... then Adventure games (also a PC advantage)... then Survival Horror (Console advantage)... then racing (toss up). It all comes down to taste. Outside of that, arguments that consoles are catching up to PCs in terms of technology and whatever are just silly. The most powerful console out now - the Xbox - came out with hardware that was about half as powerful as the most powerful PC on the market at the time. When it was conceptualized, it was top of the line though. This has been historically true thoughout the lives of consoles. Computers will always be more powerful than the latest console. It's the nature of the beast.

Sorry, but PCs dominate as far as Adventure games go... let me know if you need me to cite a few hundred examples.

It depends on the type of adventure game. By adventure game I mean action RPG like Zelda or even something like Eternal Darkenss, not stuff like Myst, Escape from Monkey's Island and what not.

Adventure games in a console gamers vocabulary are different than adventure games in a PC gamers vocabular. By this I mean how they are referred to in magazines, not by Joe Six Pack. EGM calls Zelda an Adventure game, where as a PC mag would call something like that an Action RPG.

I don't recall the term "adventure" being used to describe those type of games before Tomb Raider came out.

As long as I can remember Zelda has been called an adventure game. Which would be since A Link to the Past as I didn't read any gaming magazines before then.

Adventure was used for Zelda, Illusion of Gaia and many similar games.

Zelda has always been an adventure game. Adventure is a very broad term. Super mario bros. series are adventure games. Along with Metroid, Sonic, and countless other console titles.

So good luck if you can name any PC adventure games that are actually better than Console adventure games (I can name more than a couple hundred).

edit: last statement directed towards Trigger. Not you, Aghama.

I see - so PC games magazines are written by and for Joe Six Pack and EGM is written by and for well educated hardcore gamers? Puhlease...

Adventure games were invented on the PC. They started as text based adventures before consoles even existed. They involved a rich story and simple graphics. The first console adventure game was Adventure for the Atari 2600. It was a block that went to find a key and open a castle gate and go through mazes... it was more like a first person shooter really. Over the years Adventure games evolved on the PC. There may have been a few Adventure games on consoles, but even if you lump in all the Zeldas and whatever elses - PC still has had 10 times more Adventure games than consoles have had and they are all way better too. Grim Fandango, Indiana Jones, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle, Bio Forge, Cyberia, etc... the list goes on forever...

These threads tire me out. I just don't think we're going to solve anything. Each platform has its pros and cons and likewise the platforms are attractive to different people.

Let's all just take an hour break and play some games and come back and talk about have much fun we had.

It mostly comes down to how you label your game genres. When you're trying to decide which has better "adventure" game, there seems to be many ways to define an adventure game.

Games like Super Mario, Zelda, Sonic etc trend to be called "platformers". Which I would define as games that you spend most of your time collecting things, running, jumping etc.

The games that Trigger is talking about (and correct me if I'm wrong) are the more puzzle oriented games like King's Quest, Grim Fandango etc. Which, if I recall correctly, were defined as adventure games from the get-go.

Consoles are getting to a point where there is very little separating them from High-end PC quality (other than NTSC TV limitations). The biggest difference comes in controllers and control schemes. It all depends on how you like to play your games, kicking back on the couch or hunched over the keyboard. PC's have a wider variety of controllers to choose from now too, so you're not totally confined to the keyboard.

I have consoles and a high-end PC, and I find myself on the PC 80-90% of my gaming time. Of course this depends on if I have friends over (which is where consoles rule) and what game is hot at the time. When Tony Hawk 3 came out my PC gathered dust, now I'm all over Neverwinter Nights so the console is getting lonely. I still tend to lean more towards the PC because I feel like there's more game variety there and I LOVE online gaming.

Both kinds of machines have their stong points, it really comes down to you're personal gaming preferences. What kind of games you like, what kind of control set up you prefer and if you want extras like online gaming and editors.

if your going to label things as collecting things games. you have to get rid of "FPS" and call doom, Wolfenstien and any other game with keys or items "Collecting thing games" since you do have to get the blue key, the red card and other small items of the such.

and to say either Kicking back on the couch or hunched over on the computer, your really not getting much more one sided. I don't hunch over on my computer, I have a very comfy chair. Hell, I post a lot, so I have to sit on something nice and relaxing. Hunched over on my computer is not something that I would want to do. and likewise, comfy couch or floor. I usually sit on the floor when playing console anyways. play better that way.

as for key boards vs. controllers. You have to remember, USB controllers are out there. You can simply buy one of those for a PC if you feel like getting a controller. and Unlike console systems where it comes a controller, which you might or might not feel all that great with (how uncomfotable is that xbox controller again?), you have your choice with pc to work on keyboard, or on a controller which you can buy for a decent price at any retail store.

As for PC's. the best thing with it is networking. Have a lan. you can have tons of computers networked together with little work and enjoy a multiplayer game without having to submit to having the image size lower (FPS on console that split the screen up).

as for "Adventure games" on PC. please, if you people don't realize that there is tons and tons of PC games that just are adventure games, then I really don't know whats wrong wth you. look at just Lucas arts stuff
Curse of Monkey Island
Escape from Monkey Island
Grim Fandango
Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine
Outlaws
Full Throttle
Max and sam
the many star wars flight sims

the home PC games might not have a icon character, but they have just about everything you can think of.

and to bring it to the side of this.. anything on a console, a PC and emulate it. so thus... what exactly does a console have that can make it better if everything it has can be used on PC?

So you believe that the primary focus of games like Doom and Wolfenstein is collecting keys as opposed to say, shooting Nazis and monsters? I guess I would disagree with that. I call them FPS because they're played from a first person perspective and your primary goal is shooting things. Seems simple enough to me.

Plug a console in. Turn it on. Stick in a game and start playing. Hmm...on a PC you have to install the game, download patches (seems like they're releasing patches before the game comes out nowadays), configure settings, start playing, reconfigure settings, etc. Sometimes if you're unlucky the game will not be compatible with your hardware (highly unlikely with a console) and you will have to wait until a patch is released that can fix it. These are just a few things consoles have that make it better even though everything can be emulated on a PC.

A PC is a utilitarian device and must be able to run a wide variety of software. A game console is a closed end system that is made for playing games.

Well, one thing that springs immediately to mind is that the developers are dealing with a fixed platform on consoles and thus are able to make better use of the available power instead of programming a game to the lowest common denominator so it will run on a majority of PCs. Consoles are also cheaper to buy than PCs. I happen to play both consoles and PCs but there are definite advantages to both.

karnblack: For the most part, it's hardly as bad as you're making it out to be. It takes about 2-3 minutes from when I open the box to the time I'm playing. Then again, I know ahead of time if my hardware is going to be compatible and I typically know what settings I can run the game at without problems.