Plus games for the PC are WAY cheaper than console. When they initially come out theyre pretty much equal, Ill agree but within a few months, PC titles slink down to the $19.95 rack. I see X-Box games sell for 60 bucks, then 50, then 40, then 35 and they STAY at 35 untill a new system comes out.
There's a flipside to this, in that console games hold up in resale value much better. When they get older, they're also generally easier to find used. BTW, you're also wrong about used game prices. It varies a lot from game to game, there aren't many that will stay at 35 for long. That's just the very high end games (like Halo, though Halo is also 20, brand new, now), and even then it's uncommon... Metal Gear Solid 3 is $10 for instance.
Helo said:
Ive had my PS2 since the year after it came out, works like a dream and I play it often
Helo said:
Im knocking BOTH of them, I dont like consoles
..what?
Helo said:
There is NO game in the world that a console can do that the PC couldnt do better
"The PC" is very vague. In general, for the amount spent on a console, you can not get a PC that can do the equivalent in graphics, especially true if you wait for price drops like I do. Graphics aren't a big deal though anyway.
And, yeah, they could make a kb/m compatible RTS for the 360. But what they could do doesn't really matter; it's what they actually do that counts.
If someone has the money to burn, PCs will always be tops for gaming because games are made on computers.
More important, to me, are the types of games I like are very often console exclusive. This is, in the end, what matters the most. It's also a major hassle to have a PC set up with the big TV, and that's usually unworkable with KB/M.
Helo said:
What RTS games do they have for console? The only one Ive seen (And have) is Kessen which is the closest thing to a Rome: Total War style RTS Ive seen for console.
There's been a few. Many are just inferior versions of PC RTS games. There's also Pikmin, which is unavailable for PC. Nothing like Rome though, it's more unique than that. Don't personally like it, but many do. Both StarCraft and C&C had console versions (the PSX version of C&C used a mouse, which is nice).
Helo said:
Then, in two years when you have to spend 300 bucks on a new system
TWO YEARS? If you're buying at launch, it's 5 years usually. PSX lasted 8 or 9. The NES lasted 12. Neo Geo AES lasted 15. But five looks to be the standard now.
Like I said, what you spent on the system, games, and the TV to play it on, I could buy a computer that is just as good and does twenty times more functionality-wise
....this is a silly statement. Most people already have a TV, just like you already have a computer monitor when you get a new computer.
You're also wrong. My 32" TV cost $200, the last console I bought cost $70 (GameCube), plus $15 for the memory card, and I bought it roughly 2 years after launch. For about $200, I could get a decent PC that will do most of the other stuff you've made reference to. I'm a cheapskate though. If you're patient and a cheapskate, like me, consoles are inarguably the cheapest source of recent games.
The graphics are probably equal to the 360 but the gameplay is WAY beyond the 360's scale of do-ability.
Also, Battlefield 2, a great example of a modern FPS. It was released for the PC and Ive played it, excelent game then I had the opportunity to play the console version.....huge disparites. The console version was extremely stripped down.
What couldn't be done, gameplay wise, on the 360? Keep in mind it can use USB KB/M.
As far as Battlefield 2's console version could have been done much better, but it got stripped down so it could run on the PS2. Try to get the PC version to run on 5+ year old PC hardware.
The Xbox could have had a much better port job than it got, but as has happened many times, they design it for the weakest link (PS2) then port it elsewhere.
Play F.E.A.R, that will obliterate your doubts.
He still has a point. The PC gets less games period than consoles do, and a lesser variety. Imagine you disliked strategy and shooters. If you don't favor those genres, the PC is a sorely lacking platform, especially in the past few years. Not that there's nothing - the PC does get ports of some console-centric releases (the Spider-Man games for instance), but it still doesn't get nearly as many as consoles do.
As a final ending note, I like both consoles and PCs for gaming. I played Half-Life mods online just a few hours ago. But, overall, I've had so many more bad experiences with PCs that I favor consoles now. I've never had a console break, perform extremely badly for no apparent reason, or become outdated too quickly.
