Yes, but it manifests itself differently. Console games which have had their develpoment cycle interrupted prematurely tend to be just shorter, as opposed to buggy. The reason is that PC games need an extensive testing phase over multiple platforms/configurations to insure their compliance; console games need only work on one system, and are therefore much easier to debug. Robbed of time, a good long beta-testing session is often the first thing to go for a PC game.

---Um I soppose. I didn't realize that the PC market had gotten its way into everyone's home. Yeah... Seriously, though. I think if you look at the numbers more people will have a color TV then a PC.

But that's not the point. If you do own a PC feel free to try PC games. I was just saying, if you didn't own a PC or a console, console games would be a nice way to go to save on a "over" investment. So to speak.

I'm not going to even bother debating the utterly retarded and nonsense proposition that console games are better than PC games, and that the PC only has FPS games and strategy games (that's like saying console games only have fighters and platformers). But it is very naive to think that these consoles will graphically outshine PCs for very long. PG grpahics and hardware evolve at an astonishly fast rate, and have always ended up surpassing the current consoles that were supposedly much more powerful. Nobody thought PCs would graphically surpass the amazing N64 when it came out since Mario64 looked years ahead of anything on the PC. But guess what, they were wrong. Same with any other system. It may take a year, maybe two, but with faster and faster processors and newer graphics cards, PC game graphics will get better than the consoles.

And actually I will talk a bit about the gameplay of PC games, specifically FPS games. But I need to know what your definition of "first person shooter" is. One thing people need to understand is that just because two games have a first person perspective does NOT mean they are in the same genre. There are everything from fast-paced shooters(Quake) to more slow-paced realistic shooters(Rogue Spear, extremely different from Quake) to strategy games to adventure games to horror games to RPGs etc. Developers have discovered over the years that the first-person perspective is THE best for a large number of genres, thus many games of many genres use it, and arrogant...er, uninformed people such as some of you make stupid generalizations saying "they're all fps shooturz!!1". And the ONLY reason PC games take advantage of that and console games don't is because the keybord/mouse setup is the only game control setup that can effectively handle a first-person perspective. It may be alright for some fps games like Quake, but many other games that involve much more precision and need more buttons cannot be done right on a console controller (I tried playing Rogue Spear on the Dreamcast and PSX, and oh lord was it painful).
And really, anyone who says PC games only consist of "fps games and strategy games" obviously haven't browsed the PC section at a game store.

I could also get into other topics such as how PC gaming has innovated much more than console games over the years, but I won't even bother. I've been through it way too many times, including one 7 page-long debate on another forum a while ago, and quite frankly I'm tired of it.

oh one more thing
I have much more fun on my PC. Happy?

[Edited by tha_dvd_man on 03-18-01 at 08:41 AM]

Well said, DVD_Man.

It's the game play that matters not the graphics. I've never heard a pc gamer make any arguments against console games other than look at the jaggy egdes, the resolution sucks, etc. Who gives a f*ck, if you were a real gamer you wouldn't care. Games being fun to play is all that matter. Computer gamers are more concerned with keeping their system "up to date" every month and having the highest resolution, FPS etc. Unfortunately, PC developers cater to these people and many of the games are nothing more than eye candy.

It's the game play that matters not the graphics. I've never heard a pc gamer make any arguments against console games other than look at the jaggy egdes, the resolution sucks, etc. Who gives a f*ck, if you were a real gamer you wouldn't care. Games being fun to play is all that matter. Computer gamers are more concerned with keeping their system "up to date" every month and having the highest resolution, FPS etc. Unfortunately, PC developers cater to these people and many of the games are nothing more than eye candy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly which is why I play RPG's like Fallout or whatnot on a PC -- the graphics may not be top notch, but I like a game that lets me decide where I want to go and what I want to do rather than the (admittedly fun for a while) squaresoft cookie-cutter "RPG's". I didn't much like Baldur's Gate and some of the other D&D games but I think that's more due to the fact that I'm unfamiliar with the system and the way combat works -- I love the Fallout system and will definitely pick up Fallout: Tactics.

I also like consoles for fighting games -- I love my NGPC -- and there's no way that I'd play a fighting game on a keyboard -- it's tough enough trying my neogeo emulator right now.

Still, systems specs are a big issue, but not for the majority of gamers -- it's just that most of the gaming sites are run/sponsored by hardcore techies. Most of us buy a new system, keep it for a few years, with an occasional video or sound card upgrade or memory upgrade. Components are becoming cheaper. Mine wasn't top of the line when I bought it nearly 2 years ago, but I can still play any new game that comes out w/out a hitch (perhaps not at the highest resolution -- but so what -- Giants: Citizen Kabuto rocks at any detail level).

Personally I would argue the counterpoint to your statement that most PC games are eye-candy. I feel that way about console games most of the time. I mean I get irritated every time a PSX commercial comes up on tv because most of the time they never even show the gameplay, just the stupid FMV -- if you really want to advertise a game, show what the game looks like (N64 does a better job wrt this). Still, you get good games that come out on PC's and consoles -- groundbreaking and just plain fun -- and then you get loads of crap for both PC and consoles that get churned out by the lowest denominator.

IMO -- coming from my lesser experience with consoles -- I look at a magazine like Gamepro or something and it just looks like there's so much junk out there that they have to wade through to find a couple of pearls, while with PC's -- there aren't that many coming out continuously and that in general they tend to be higher quality. That's probably in part a biased opinion though, and also related to the fact that most PC games are developed in N.America and Europe, w/ almost none coming from Japan, while it's vice versa wrt console games.

I think i'm losing my train of thought. hope some of that made sense.

Tuan Jim

By writing this post you have entered into the debate.

This is true. But the cost of this "astonishly fast rate" of evolution will always come at a high price. Some people will always see this as a negative.

Well you're looking at this argument from the PC point of view. Looking at it from the console POV, it will take the consoles just a few years to exceed the graphics from the current PC cards. It's just an endless circle.

This will always be one's own personal opinion.

And I have much more fun with console gaming!

Gameplay matters, but graphics also matter. I am a real gamer and I care about image quality. I play a lot to Unreal Tournament and to Diablo 2 (Diablo 2 has terrible graphics but the gameplay is great). Why do you think new systems are released? Don't you expect new systems to have better graphics? If you don't care about image quality it is your problem, not mine. Stick with your VHS while I enjoy my DVDs: it is still the same movie (gameplay in games) but not the same image quality (which doesn't matter according to your post).

Graphics matter, but gameplay is the key. Good graphics can't make a crappy game better. I'd rather play a great NES game with crappy outdated graphics, than some crappy PC or next-gen console game with great graphics. I play games to have fun, not to be wowed by my top of the line computer geek system. As for dvd's, I'd rather watch a good movie on vhs, than a crappy one on dvd, it's the same concept. I got a dvd player to be able to get every movie in it's original aspect ratio, and to enjoy the extras. The enhanced image was just a secondary bonus for me. The improved image quality helps dvds and video games, but it doesn't mean sh!t if the content sucks. Developers need to focus on gameplay first, graphics second. Few PC developers do this, where as many console developers do. All pc has going for it is FPS and Strategy games which I hate, and network gaming, which the consoles can do now. Personally I don't care about multiplayer games anyway. I play games to unwind, and kill time. If I have friends coming over I can think of a million better things to do that sit on the couch and play video games. Consoles are superior at offering great one player games, so that's why I prefer them. People that like multi-player games are better off with pcs if they have a broad band connection. It's just a matter of preference, and pc games don't interest me at all.

The problem with console games is that they are mostly one shot affairs (you play it, you finish it, then what?), but most PC games have free downloads that can really expand the life of the game (additional levels, mods, etc.).

But I will say this, at least consoles don't have bugs.

Really, neither system is better than the other, and any discussions about it always end up being the your-system-sucks variety. Play what you enjoy, and who cares what others think.

edit-
wow christ this post is long...lots of quotes though.
-edit

PC graphics are usually ahead of console graphics for much longer than console graphics are ahead of PC graphics. It usually takes a year or two for PC graphics to catch up and exceed console graphics, and then it's just a matter of time until the new consoles come out, and that's usually quite a while.
It of course matters on the genre, but I've seen much, much more innovation in the PC gaming industry than in consoles. Take fighters for example, one of the biggest genres on consoles. Here's something I wrote about the fighting genre a while ago:

If fighting game developers want to make the same kinds of innovations in fighters that PC games have gone through, they'll need to do some serious overhauling. There are three areas where I need to see some REAL innovation: control, multiplay, and environment/interaction. In terms of control, fighting games thus far shouldn't even be classified as *fighting* games. I mean, the characters on screen are fighting, but what you're doing with the controller has almost nothing to do with fighting. Press a/b-a/back-back/d to do one move, press b+a/c/forward/jump/down-d/a to do another, press a+c/b-down for a counter-attack. Okay, WHAT THE F**K does that have to do with fighting? Developers need to figure out a far more realistic and intuitive means of controlling a character's actions. Perhaps find a way of using those Dual-Shock sticks to control the characters limbs, or design a whole new controller for the next generation of consoles, or SOMETHING. The control department in fighting games is in serious need of an innovative overhaul, it's been relying on the same control mechanisms as consoles two generations ago, and that's really hurting the genre in terms of intuition and realism. It needs to take the same step that PC fps games took with going from keyboard to keyboard/mouse plus the countless different derivations of that setup for different genres within "FPS", something that totally overhauled the genre, and that actually took advantage of the jump from 2D to 3D, something console fighters have yet to do.

Multiplay- simply put, do more with it. Make more *fighting* games (ie, stuff other than Powerstone), that have more than two characters fighting eachother. Think of the possibilities of four player free-for-alls, or even better, two-on-two fights. The ways you could interact with your partner and whatnot....so much room for innovation that has never been taken advantage of. Hell, make an online fighter and bring down the lag as much as humanly possible. For some reason I have a feeling it would be easier to do that with a fighting game.

Environment/interacion: personally, I was hoping DoA2 would be the first. Uh-uh. They should make fighting games with realistic and interactive backgrounds. Most outside-the-ring fights in real life would almost always involve the environment and what's in it (take a look at Jacky Chan ), yet in fighting games, you're just circling around an infinate plane. How unrealistic, how *old*.

In the end, gameplay in fighting games has primarily stayed the same with mostly superficial innovations throughout the years, and really needs to take advantage of current technology, and not just in graphics. Not saying fighters aren't fun (I love a good 2D fighter every once in a while), but innovation in the genre has just been stale.

But now take a look at FPS games. They have gone from simplistic games like Doom etc. to far more realistic, varied and sophisticated games that really take advantage of 3D graphics and span multiple genres. You can't say that about most, if any genres dominant on consoles.
You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Please give me examples that somehow can't be countered with all the graphically amazing yet shallow games on consoles.
I refer you to my last post. Saying the PC has nothing but FPS games and strategy games is just plain ignorant, and is like saying consoles have nothing but platformers and fighters. Fact is, besides perhaps some obscure genre that I can't even think of right now, the only genres the PC hasn't deeply penetrated are fighters and puzzle games, and even the PC has its own kind of puzzle games now that I think about it.

I'm not a console hater, though. I currently have a Dreamcast, Saturn, N64, and just sold my PSX, and some of my favorite games ever are console games.

[Edited by tha_dvd_man on 03-19-01 at 01:07 AM]

my response to this thread ?

IT'S ALL GOOD !

Look at all the PC games on the shelf in a store. There is a higher percentage of crappy PC Games than console games. For every Quake III, there are 10 crappy FPS's like Kiss Psycho Circus. The consoles have their fair share, especially the playstation, but the proportion is lower.

Apparently you were to "ignorant" to understand what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the only decent PC games were FPS and Stategy games. I was saying the only advantage PC has over consoles is in these genres. In my opinion consoles are better, or on par, with pc's in every other genre. I don't like FPS or Strategy games, I don't like playing multiplayer games, especially over the net, and I don't like having to upgrade my card every couple of years, when I can buy 1 console every 3-5 years and satisfy my gaming needs. It's a matter of preference. In my mind PC sucks because it doesn't offer the cream of the crop in the types of games I like to play (platformers, fighting, sports), and it's too much of a hassle to keep upgraded. It is much more costly than buying a new console every few years. I don't have as much time to play games anymore, so from now on with each generation of consoles, I'm going to pick only one to buy. I can't keep up with games on one console, let alone two or three. And I certainly have a bias against pc gamers because they're usually geeks that never finish games, and just brag about thier system specs, resolution etc. Who gives a f*ck. Fortunately you don't appear to be one of those types, and that appraisal was in no means aimed at you. I'm done arguing this though, I'll never buy another pc game, or believe that their better than consoles in anything but strategy, fps, and online games, all of which I hate. We'll just have to agree to disagree.