http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2696635,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,914356,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,197113,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,43362,00.html

http://www.dailyradar.com/reviews/game_review_1315.html

SORRY about the links, DVDtalk parsed em wrong. just highlight the whole line, copy, then paste it into the adress box.

You can edit your post and put [ url ] and [/ url ] around the URLs so it links them right.

-Matt

Commas are seen as a delimiter. It's the bizarre URLs that are causing the problem, nothing in the vBulletin code.

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/storie...696635,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filter...914356,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filter...197113,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/filter...,43362,00.html

http://www.dailyradar.com/reviews/game_review_1315.html

While some of them may look impressive (I've got DII), I think they could all be done on the next-gen consoles. I know Half-Life is coming for DC and PS2, and DII could be done on either system (granted you would need a mouse to enjoy...), as well as Black and White, and Gran Turismo 3 should match NASCAR. I have my doubts that the PS2 could handle Unreal II though... then again, I don't think my computer could handle it either (I really need to upgrade someday)!

It's just all about preference. I play games on my PC, and I buy most every console that comes out. If I have the choice between playing a game on my PC, or on my large TV with GREAT frickin speakers, I'll be choosing the latter (except for the FPS, of course ). Ever try playing Tony Hawk on the PC? Not too fun...

Consoles for me, mouse/keyboard control sucks IMO, and I'm much rather play on my 27" Wega than my 17" monitor. Plus all pc really has going for it are FPS and strategy games, and I'm not a big FPS fan and I hate strategy games. Online games suck too.

Why console games will always rule ...

REAL RPGs

Actually, I like a buncha PC games (Civ 2, ALpha Centauri, UT, Half Life, Sims), but a lot of these can be done on consoles. Further, like joshhinkle said, I prefer to be playing on a nice TV on comfortable furniture than my computer, which is like an office. And most online games aren't all that fun and I fear for my friends that are into Everquest and Asheron's Call. I didn't even find them all that fun ...

the problem with Next Gen consoles and why some of these games can NOT be done on them is the fact that they are basically crippled by the ancient display devices they are forced to use. Televisions.

All console games have a resolution of 640X480 INTERLACED at 60hz refresh rate.

that sucks.

I would much rather play Unreal II at 1280X1024 (or higher) noninterlaced with a nice refresh rate of 85 or above.

Ah! Now I know why I've never bought a console in my entire life. I only like FPS and strategy games.

Actually the next gen systems will not be limited in this fashion. Dreamcast can already hook up to a pc monitor. On a more advanced note Gabecube and Xbox will be able to ultilize HDTV progressive scan TV's (or lesser models). I'm sure a monitor box will be released too. So in effect, your thoughts on the matter are wrong. Sorry.

PS Also in effect, PC monitors are limited in Size compared to TV's. Give and take.

XBox will be fully HDTV compatible. The fact that a Dreamcast can be hooked to a monitor is irrelevant (my uncle used to plug in old Sega Genesis on a monitor, so nothing new there). Maybe I am wrong but I don't think that the Dreamcast really takes advantage of the monitor (can you increase the resolution or it is the same resolution that is used on a TV, my guess is the later).

Monitors are smaller but you are more near (nearer? sorry English is not my native language).

I like both types of games, but console games are better. I hate the fact that to play the latest PC games you usually have to upgrade your hardware.

Same resolution, but it looks much better. A monitor has a much sharper, high quality image, and it shows. You just have to make sure you have an actual VGA adapter, and not just some low-end converter thingy.

I guess us poor console gamers will have to make do with these lame games...


Zelda Gamecube


Gran Turismo 3 PS2


Too Human Gamecube


Metal Gear Solid 2 PS2

How would that work anyway? Would the system be able to detect whether a monitor, HDTV or traditional TV was being used? And more importantly, would the games be programmed then to actually increase in resolution to take advantage of the display? Or would the image merely be 'manipulated' to fit display without actually changing it from the standard 640x480? If they can't actually display in higher resolutions then that kind of misses the point.

Look at the top of the red car on the GT3! The old Need for Speed Porshe for PC looks much better (no big pixel, FSAA anyone???). The Metal Gear Solid 2 is also too pixelated IMO. The Zelda pic looks awesome! I guess the Gamecube and Xbox will be as good as PC image quality wise, the PS2 is definately inferior (anyone tried NHL2001 and Star Wars Starfighter? Those slowdowns and image freezes really shows that the PS2 lacks power IMO)

There is no reason for this topic. Believe it or not many people own and play games on both. PC gamers always bring up screen resolution which is the least important part of a game. Believe it or not gameplay is the most important part of a game. It this area consoles will always be the leader.

Gameplay is pretty good on the PC where I can go online and play Half-Life or Rainbow Six against other people.

Yeah, this is really a pretty pointless debate. Between their differing non-gaming uses, business models, and pricepoints, you can't really consider the PC and console markets competetive. Both are here to stay, and I, for one, am thankful.

For years Industry folks have been saying that PC and Console gaming will one day merge. (Hence MS entering the Xbox) I still feel that it is way to early for this to happen.

Anyhow, basically people have different tastes. Because, oh my gosh! we are human! There is no clear cut winner between the two. At least not today.

If you want to go by numbers console gaming easily takes top cake. But then again what does that really mean? A better gaming platform? Or is just because its cheaper and easier to play on?

The point is please, oh please stop debating the two. Believe it or not they both have good to them and bad. Both have helped the development and inovation of games. It's true that you most often find inovation in console gaming. However, development andrefining is seen in PC games more do to its ability to change quickly.

So please just drop the whole damn thing.

I have to disagree with dvdnaught.

PC games are not better then console games. Console games are not better then PC games.They both have their pros and cons. They both have a place WRT games playing. I play games on both my PC and my consoles and am happy they both exist.

I love how PC gamers never mention gameplay (except mouse/keyboard FPS combo) , or FUN when talking about their games. They just talk about specs. I have some friends that think PC games rule too, but all they ever do is constantly upgrade their graphics card and jump to the next "big" game as soon as it's released...they almost never even finish a single game because they want the brand new game with the best graphics all the time. I'm looking forward to DOOM 3, maybe Unreal 2, but that's it...same ol stuff anyways...

PC games only "rule" FPS and strategy games. And id take mario, zelda, street fighter, etc over any of these anyday. These games innovate each time by more than just graphics...Mario world to Mario 64, Zelda 3, to zelda 64...

I have always had every game system and a PC to play games on. I prefer the systems when people are coming over to hang out, but I prefer the PC for everything else. That includes all other multiplayer situations, such as me and my roomate (networked laptops in the living room while watching sports on our now-free TV), or me and anyone else online. The main social contact I have with friends from back home (and the others who also moved away like me) is the occasional game of Starcraft etc. I don't see these guys more than twice a year these days, but I'm still in constant contact with them, mostly through games and stuff.

I don't constantly upgrade my system, in fact I never upgrade my system. The computers I have used usually last me about 4 years, and they are clearly not just for games so there is no debating relative expense between my PC's and my game systems. If anything, I get a lot more value out of my PC. But overall, I'd have to agree with the wise people before me who are saying its better to have both and this discussion is not to useful.

When was the last time you read a post with someone saying:"Oh my gosh, games on a XXXXX as opposed to a XXXXX are better you are right. You completely changed my mind!"?

I think these discussions do little for anyone. If you consider yourself a gamer, you play games no real bias involved. Of course you will have you own opinoin, but if you a true gamer you won't have the attitude that XXXXX sucks and XXXXX rules. Its rahter childish.

If you are indeed a newbie gamer looking to invest in games its probally best to start with consoles. They are cheaper, and you can get a taste there.

I would disagree since most homes already have a computer and there are plenty of "cheap" PC games in the store bargain bins.

Are games rushed out for consoles like they are for PC's? My brother has had Starfleet Command II since it came out and he says Interplay forced the company that made the software to release before it was ready. He says it had many bugs which still haven't been fixed yet. Does this ever happen with console games?