The ultimate system

[Rocketship-XM]

I think that it is time that you guys stop arguing over your PS2's and XBOX's and realize that the best gaming system in the world is the PC. There is nothing like it.

Graphically, it delivers. Higher resolutions with the capability to store vastly more textures makes it a powerhouse. The XBOX's KOTOR, while definitely a pretty game, was plagued by the "repeating faces". You would come across different people with the same faces throughout the game because the system simply couldn't store that many textures. That is not a problem on the PC.

In terms of games, the PC is unrivaled in it's extreme amount and diversity. First of all, it has flight simulations and real time strategy games, two genres that are almost non-existant on consoles. While console gamers revel in the few FPS's that they get, PC gamers are treated to a huge supply. The precise setup of the mouse and keyboard is what makes the difference in first person shooters. Although consoles are catching up, the PC still has far more MMO's than them. The PC also has an incredible amount of truly great games to call it's own-more than any other gaming platform, although I readily accept that that is probably an unfair argument. Ranging from the classics Half Life and Starcraft to today's stellar Call of Duty and Max Payne 2 to heavily anticipated titles such as Dues Ex 2, Half Life 2, or STALKER, the PC has a huge library of brilliant games.

In terms of online capabilities, the PC is unmatched. In fact, this is what seperates the PC from the consoles. Most PC games come with an online component of some sort, and games like Battlefield 1942 are incredible online, especially when playing on heated 64 player servers. Granted, I have never played XBOX Live or PS2's online component, but I don't think that they can support that many players on a server. But the thing about the internet with PC's is that it provides incredible value. Many games are modded into other games that are very, very fun. Counter-Strike, while not one of my personal favorites, is a perfect example of this. With a copy of Half-Life, you are also given, for free, the most popular online game of all time. Oh, and Team Fortress Classic and Day of Defeat, among others. Battlefield 1942 gives you the incredible Desert Combat. Gamers are also able to download extra, user-created maps, campaigns, and various other goodies that really extend the value of the game to another level. Sure, XBOX users can download an extra map for Splinter Cell, but PC users have been doing it for years, and for tons and tons of games. Another great thing about PC is the ability for you to download patches for your games, so that bugs can be fixed after release, something that many console games could benefit from. And then, there is America's Army and Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory. Two free games that are absolute "A" games. Enemy Territory was supposed to be an expansion pack for Return to Castle Wolfenstein but it was cancelled. However, the dev's liked the multiplayer and released it free, stand alone. How many times has that happened on consoles? America's Army is a truly stellar game for the PC, and it is free. This kind of value just isn't present on consoles.

I must say that I own a PS2 and use it for all my sports gaming, as that is one area where consoles are ahead of the PC. Except for Tiger Woods PGA, where PC gamers can download user-created courses to add to the experience. Of course, they can also create their own. But all in all, the consoles are better for sports gaming than the PC.

And so ends my declaration.

[Renzatic Gear]

I'd say that sports games on the PC are pretty strong, or are at least represented well...they might be better on the consoles, but at least they're good on the comps.

One genre that isn't, though, and never has been are fighting games. You might see a thousand ports from PC to consoles or consoles to PC, but you'll rarely ever see a single fighting game. The ones that do show up are usually crappy as all get out, too...cept for the port of Virtua Fighter, but it was so shoddy it wasn't even funny.

[Bob-the-Fish]

It also costs upwards of $2000 bucks to get a machine capable of running the best games that are being released. If you can't shell out the big bucks your stuck with a machine that runs games on the lowest resolution or one that doesn't run them at all. Even if your system can run the games of today, it will become obsolete within two years. If you aren't able to afford the newest $300 graphics card and memory upgrades you screwed.

The thing about consoles is you can pick one up and jump right into a game. It doesn't have to install and you never have to worry about your machine being able to run it. If it says Play Station 2 on the box it runs on your system. Not true with newer computer games.

I actually prefer the analog setup used on console FPS games to the mouse and keyboard. But that's just my opinion.

[Rocketship-XM]

I actually spent about $400 on my latest build. If you know what to buy, and you build your own, you can save a ton of money. And yes, with my computer I can play everything at max detail, except for that resource hog Halo.

[Renzatic Gear]

Same here. Cept for Halo I can play 99% of the games out there with nigh full-on effects enabled....and this is on a comparatively piddly Geforce 3 you can grab nowadays for about 100 clams.

I've been using this computer for about 2 years now, cost me a little over $500 to upgrade my old comp and haven't had to upgrade a single component since. My next upgrade coming up here soon will be even less than that..maybe about $300 or so to get it up to speed for when Doom III and STALKER come out. Truth be told I won't even HAVE to upgrade then cuz the GFIII will be able to handle em fairly decently...

The whole myth behind paying $2000 for a machine that will only run the latest games half the time is just that...a myth. I rarely have problems arise that take more than 10 seconds to fix, and in fact these latest batch of games that have come out recently run perfectly out of the box, no patching or anything required. It's true that you might have to sink a bit more time and money into a computer than you would a console, but the differences aren't as extreme as some people make em out to be.

[E.T.]

Rocketship-XM, many good points on why PC gaming can be good.
Im an out of the box gamer, so I enjoy a pre built custom spec'd machine. As such, I've been able to buy near top end units every three years for around $2k. I want to point out that I dont upgrade between systems [usually], & have been able to play current games till I upgrade to new system.
PC gaming has never been as stable/trouble free as they are now. XP os has really been a god send in that it practically eliminates freezes/ crashes.

Thats about $650 per year for a high end gaming system that does a multitude of tasks: CD audio/photo creation, DVD movie creation, photo manipulation/printing, financial & buisness record keeping as well as the ability toget online to download massive quantities of free game demos & numerous game mods that extend the life of games.

Re: costs, there no arguement that console gaming gives more bang for the buck....IF thats all you plan on doing w/your PC.
Gaming is but one task I use my system for, so the extra expense is warranted.

[ think the Xbox has got to be the biggest value [harware wise] in console gaming. If you strip away from the initial cost of $179, the cost of controller & two games, you come close to a system near $120!]

[folken001]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I'd say that sports games on the PC are pretty strong, or are at least represented well...they might be better on the consoles, but at least they're good on the comps.

One genre that isn't, though, and never has been are fighting games. You might see a thousand ports from PC to consoles or consoles to PC, but you'll rarely ever see a single fighting game. The ones that do show up are usually crappy as all get out, too...cept for the port of Virtua Fighter, but it was so shoddy it wasn't even funny.</div>

Actually, SF2 port on PC was rather well done from what I remember. And fighting genre on PC is quite popular in Japan. There are these games with mini female characters from anime series dueling out with each other. Have you heard of Queen of Hearts or Valkrie Fight?

[Rocketship-XM]

Oh, one other thing that I forgot to mention: The price of games. On consoles, sadly, the vast majority start out at $50. That is a lot of money for a game, and some are definitely warranted, but the majority? I doubt it. On PC you can get new games for much cheaper. I picked up Tiger Woods 2004 a week after it's release at Best Buy for $30! It'll be $50 on PS2 for at least 4 more months. Halo is $50 on XBOX, still. I bought it at Best Buy that same day for $40 for PC. Heh, it WAS on sale, but still.....I don't see the XBOX Halo on sale. There are a lot of great PC games that debut in the $40 price range. Too bad Call of Duty is going for $50. I think it's way too short for that price, especially when there are other games going for less.

[sjsharky]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I think that it is time that you guys stop arguing over your PS2's and XBOX's and realize that the best gaming system in the world is the PC. There is nothing like it.

Graphically, it delivers. Higher resolutions with the capability to store vastly more textures makes it a powerhouse. The XBOX's KOTOR, while definitely a pretty game, was plagued by the "repeating faces". You would come across different people with the same faces throughout the game because the system simply couldn't store that many textures. That is not a problem on the PC.

In terms of games, the PC is unrivaled in it's extreme amount and diversity. First of all, it has flight simulations and real time strategy games, two genres that are almost non-existant on consoles. While console gamers revel in the few FPS's that they get, PC gamers are treated to a huge supply. The precise setup of the mouse and keyboard is what makes the difference in first person shooters. Although consoles are catching up, the PC still has far more MMO's than them. The PC also has an incredible amount of truly great games to call it's own-more than any other gaming platform, although I readily accept that that is probably an unfair argument. Ranging from the classics Half Life and Starcraft to today's stellar Call of Duty and Max Payne 2 to heavily anticipated titles such as Dues Ex 2, Half Life 2, or STALKER, the PC has a huge library of brilliant games.

In terms of online capabilities, the PC is unmatched. In fact, this is what seperates the PC from the consoles. Most PC games come with an online component of some sort, and games like Battlefield 1942 are incredible online, especially when playing on heated 64 player servers. Granted, I have never played XBOX Live or PS2's online component, but I don't think that they can support that many players on a server. But the thing about the internet with PC's is that it provides incredible value. Many games are modded into other games that are very, very fun. Counter-Strike, while not one of my personal favorites, is a perfect example of this. With a copy of Half-Life, you are also given, for free, the most popular online game of all time. Oh, and Team Fortress Classic and Day of Defeat, among others. Battlefield 1942 gives you the incredible Desert Combat. Gamers are also able to download extra, user-created maps, campaigns, and various other goodies that really extend the value of the game to another level. Sure, XBOX users can download an extra map for Splinter Cell, but PC users have been doing it for years, and for tons and tons of games. Another great thing about PC is the ability for you to download patches for your games, so that bugs can be fixed after release, something that many console games could benefit from. And then, there is America's Army and Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory. Two free games that are absolute "A" games. Enemy Territory was supposed to be an expansion pack for Return to Castle Wolfenstein but it was cancelled. However, the dev's liked the multiplayer and released it free, stand alone. How many times has that happened on consoles? America's Army is a truly stellar game for the PC, and it is free. This kind of value just isn't present on consoles.

I must say that I own a PS2 and use it for all my sports gaming, as that is one area where consoles are ahead of the PC. Except for Tiger Woods PGA, where PC gamers can download user-created courses to add to the experience. Of course, they can also create their own. But all in all, the consoles are better for sports gaming than the PC.

And so ends my declaration.</div>

Been thru this before. Apples and oranges. Even though consoles are getting closer and closer to their PC cousins, they are still two very different animals.

Go ahead and enjoy your PC for gaming. I still prefer the ease of console gaming, plug the console into my TV, put in disc, play game. Oh forgot to mention that the TV was a Big Screen with 5.1 surround and I was sitting on my couch, feet propped on the coffee table.

Yes there are PC's that will connect to your TV, but I'm sorry to say only the most die hard gamers/multimedia freaks would even attempt to hook up their PC's to their TV's for gaming or otherwise, at this time. In the future, the lines between console and PC will definitely cross and you will probably not know one from the other, but that day has yet to come. I'm sure MS and Sony are working on it right now, though.

[Renzatic Gear]

Actually, SF2 port on PC was rather well done from what I remember. And fighting genre on PC is quite popular in Japan. There are these games with mini female characters from anime series dueling out with each other. Have you heard of Queen of Hearts or Valkrie Fight?

There was an SF2 port for the PC? Wow, I didn't know that.

But still, though it is sortakinda popular in Japan, those 2 games you mentioned (haven't heard of em by the way) probably aren't nearly as complex as some of the console biggies like Virtua Figher, Soul Calibur, or DOA3. It's all about the controller, every PC has a mouse and keyboard so 99% of the games will have a control scheme easy enough to use with those...It's almost impossible to play a fighting game with a keyboard and not many people actually have good controllers for their comps, so it won't be as popular a genre as games tailor made for the KB/M setup.

[joquito]

<div class=\"smallfont\">It also costs upwards of $2000 bucks to get a machine capable of running the best games that are being released. If you can't shell out the big bucks your stuck with a machine that runs games on the lowest resolution or one that doesn't run them at all. Even if your system can run the games of today, it will become obsolete within two years. If you aren't able to afford the newest $300 graphics card and memory upgrades you screwed.

The thing about consoles is you can pick one up and jump right into a game. It doesn't have to install and you never have to worry about your machine being able to run it. If it says Play Station 2 on the box it runs on your system. Not true with newer computer games.

I actually prefer the analog setup used on console FPS games to the mouse and keyboard. But that's just my opinion.</div>

Up until this current lot of games, the software companies made games for 2 generations old graphics cards. I have a PC I built for $600 a year and a half ago. It has a geforce 2 mx, integrated graphix card. Only until now do I need to upgrade to a current card. The Geforce 2 mx card was an outdated card when I built my PC.
The downside to PC gaming is that every player does not have the same system so games are graphically "watered-down" for the lowest common denomiator and aren't optimized for any particular system. You'll never see a game built to play to its full potential. In spite of all this, PC games can still be revolutionary.

[joquito]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>

Been thru this before. Apples and oranges. Even though consoles are getting closer and closer to their PC cousins, they are still two very different animals.

Go ahead and enjoy your PC for gaming. I still prefer the ease of console gaming, plug the console into my TV, put in disc, play game. Oh forgot to mention that the TV was a Big Screen with 5.1 surround and I was sitting on my couch, feet propped on the coffee table.

Yes there are PC's that will connect to your TV, but I'm sorry to say only the most die hard gamers/multimedia freaks would even attempt to hook up their PC's to their TV's for gaming or otherwise, at this time. In the future, the lines between console and PC will definitely cross and you will probably not know one from the other, but that day has yet to come. I'm sure MS and Sony are working on it right now, though.</div>

I have a 34" Widescreen HDTV. IT was built as a PC monitor with a TV tuner built in. I play PC games from my couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I also have DD 5.1. I use this to play Xbox as well as PC games. Currently, no consumer HDTV will look as good as a $250 PC monitor. Now granted size is an issue but No HDTV including mine can play a game at 1280X1024 @ 75hz.

The apples to oranges argument is a cop out. If you believe the two can and will converge then how can they be so different?

[no.1gamer]

My PC acts as my secondary gaming console to my GCN. I mostly enjoy playing console style games on my GCN such as Mario, Viewtiful Joe, Ikaruga and the like. (Although my favorite game, Metroid Prime is a PC style game IMO). I only play the popular mainstream games on my PC. Mostly RTS games because for some reason they do not make an appearance on any consoles.

The reason I enjoy the GCN more is because it's ease of use. You can argue that PC gaming is getting better but let me tell you the facts. I've been computer gaming since my Commodore Amiga. As long as you have a machine that can run word processors, surf the internet, create computer programs as well as a million and a half other functions you will never be able to game as "smoothly" as you will on a console. The slowest loading game I've ever played on my GCN is still faster than the fastest loading game I've ever played on a computer (any computer I've ever gamed on). And even if you do have a $3500 computer setup I still do not believe that you can install, save and load games faster than my GCN (so don't lie to me).

However, PC games are technically superior to console games. So if you have the patience and resources to partake in PC gaming you will be rewarded.

Consoles are better for multiplayer games in pretty much every aspect when compared to a PC. The PC is more of a single player gaming system. However the PC has the online capabilities that hopelessly overshadows consoles. I don't consider playing online games "multiplayer" because you're still playing by yourself. More than one person playing on the same TV using the same processor is what I consider "multiplayer gaming."

[Static_Fred]

<div class=\"smallfont\">
Consoles are better for multiplayer games in pretty much every aspect when compared to a PC. The PC is more of a single player gaming system. However the PC has the online capabilities that hopelessly overshadows consoles. I don't consider playing online games "multiplayer" because you're still playing by yourself. More than one person playing on the same TV using the same processor is what I consider "multiplayer gaming."</div>

But G@mer, don't you think that the online capabilities are the reason PC game developers don't have a "multiplayer" options? Its kinda pointless to have split-screen or whatever on your PC when you can just jump online, not to mention it's kinda hard to see on a sub 20 inch screen.

[Renzatic Gear]

Up until this current lot of games, the software companies made games for 2 generations old graphics cards. I have a PC I built for $600 a year and a half ago. It has a geforce 2 mx, integrated graphix card. Only until now do I need to upgrade to a current card. The Geforce 2 mx card was an outdated card when I built my PC.
The downside to PC gaming is that every player does not have the same system so games are graphically "watered-down" for the lowest common denomiator and aren't optimized for any particular system. You'll never see a game built to play to its full potential. In spite of all this, PC games can still be revolutionary.

lol, I think I've had this conversation before...

Computer games are usually about a full generation behind the latest and greatest hardware and DX upgrades, and always have the option to water down the graphics to play on any card or boost em up to play on more recent hardware.

UT2k3, and just about any FPS really, is a good example of this. You can tweak it so that it looks worse than most N64 games. Blurry textures, bad draw-in distance, crappy sound, no nifty-keen effects. But you can actually tweak the game to the point where it'll run like crap on all but the cutting edge of graphics cards. So you'll never see a game thats designed specifically to run at it's full potential, but you have the option to crank everything up to that if you've got a machine capable of running it.

It's called scaling..without it the computer games scene would've died out a long time ago.

[sjsharky]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>

I have a 34" Widescreen HDTV. IT was built as a PC monitor with a TV tuner built in. I play PC games from my couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I also have DD 5.1. I use this to play Xbox as well as PC games. Currently, no consumer HDTV will look as good as a $250 PC monitor. Now granted size is an issue but No HDTV including mine can play a game at 1280X1024 @ 75hz.

The apples to oranges argument is a cop out. If you believe the two can and will converge then how can they be so different?</div>

I dont know what you think is such a cop out? I specifically pointed out that I think the two shall meet in the future, but I still believe they are different enough now that they may as well be apples and oranges.

Case in point, Consoles are optimized for one thing, gaming. They are also designed to be easily connected to your TV. They do not need to be configured, they are an appliance. Computers are still very intimatdating for the average user. An appliance is not. A typical consumer wants to take an electronic toy home, plug it in and use it. They do not want to sit and configure the damn thing. This is where the future of consoles is headed, IMO, an appliance you can plug in to your TV, play high end games on, surf the web, get email, play online, etc. all preconfigured. Just select a "module", a la the Music Mixer for the Xbox, and install it.

The convergence of the two is not far off. When PC's have the simplicity of an appliance, that will be the day. Most people do not have the PC aptitude, as most of us here on this message board. We can argue all we want about what is better, its all personal preference, but in the end the masses want/need simplicity and IMO would prefer to be in front of their televisions doing it, at a nominal cost, without tedious/frustrating configurations.

[Tappy_Tibbons]

I've said it a million times...consoles and Pcs have thir own distict advantages, but what edges PCs out and consoels in for me are 3 valid points:

Standardization: you never know who you're playing on PC, they could have a 300MHz or a 3GHz and you'd never know the difference. Consoles, everyone is on the same standard and gameplay is all bandwidth dependednt.

Settings: Yup, call me crazy, but I'd prefer popping a game straight into a console and playing it 30 seconds later over having to tweak anything.

The "couch" factor: yea, you'll get this one over the rest....sitting in front of a 35" tv in my recliner is better than a 17" computer monitor.

[no.1gamer]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>

But G@mer, don't you think that the online capabilities are the reason PC game developers don't have a "multiplayer" options? Its kinda pointless to have split-screen or whatever on your PC when you can just jump online, not to mention it's kinda hard to see on a sub 20 inch screen.</div>

Multiplayer is a lot different than online play IMO. Multiplayer is for entertaining a room full of people. Online gaming is for entertaining yourself. It's just like an extension of playing with the AI programmed into the game. If you have 4 people you can't entertain them with a PC game. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Whaxx]

BAH! should I go on my rant how no PC games never take advantage of the HW, therefore the combo between the dev's for Xbox and it's capabilities make Xbox have the better looking games?
no,not today, I don't feel like typing too much.

[Glockstar]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I think that it is time that you guys stop arguing over your PS2's and XBOX's and realize that the best gaming system in the world is the PC. There is nothing like it.

Graphically, it delivers. Higher resolutions with the capability to store vastly more textures makes it a powerhouse. The XBOX's KOTOR, while definitely a pretty game, was plagued by the "repeating faces". You would come across different people with the same faces throughout the game because the system simply couldn't store that many textures. That is not a problem on the PC.

In terms of games, the PC is unrivaled in it's extreme amount and diversity. First of all, it has flight simulations and real time strategy games, two genres that are almost non-existant on consoles. While console gamers revel in the few FPS's that they get, PC gamers are treated to a huge supply. The precise setup of the mouse and keyboard is what makes the difference in first person shooters. Although consoles are catching up, the PC still has far more MMO's than them. The PC also has an incredible amount of truly great games to call it's own-more than any other gaming platform, although I readily accept that that is probably an unfair argument. Ranging from the classics Half Life and Starcraft to today's stellar Call of Duty and Max Payne 2 to heavily anticipated titles such as Dues Ex 2, Half Life 2, or STALKER, the PC has a huge library of brilliant games.

In terms of online capabilities, the PC is unmatched. In fact, this is what seperates the PC from the consoles. Most PC games come with an online component of some sort, and games like Battlefield 1942 are incredible online, especially when playing on heated 64 player servers. Granted, I have never played XBOX Live or PS2's online component, but I don't think that they can support that many players on a server. But the thing about the internet with PC's is that it provides incredible value. Many games are modded into other games that are very, very fun. Counter-Strike, while not one of my personal favorites, is a perfect example of this. With a copy of Half-Life, you are also given, for free, the most popular online game of all time. Oh, and Team Fortress Classic and Day of Defeat, among others. Battlefield 1942 gives you the incredible Desert Combat. Gamers are also able to download extra, user-created maps, campaigns, and various other goodies that really extend the value of the game to another level. Sure, XBOX users can download an extra map for Splinter Cell, but PC users have been doing it for years, and for tons and tons of games. Another great thing about PC is the ability for you to download patches for your games, so that bugs can be fixed after release, something that many console games could benefit from. And then, there is America's Army and Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory. Two free games that are absolute "A" games. Enemy Territory was supposed to be an expansion pack for Return to Castle Wolfenstein but it was cancelled. However, the dev's liked the multiplayer and released it free, stand alone. How many times has that happened on consoles? America's Army is a truly stellar game for the PC, and it is free. This kind of value just isn't present on consoles.

I must say that I own a PS2 and use it for all my sports gaming, as that is one area where consoles are ahead of the PC. Except for Tiger Woods PGA, where PC gamers can download user-created courses to add to the experience. Of course, they can also create their own. But all in all, the consoles are better for sports gaming than the PC.

And so ends my declaration.</div>

I'm sure my PC could be quite the gaming system... if I wanted it to be. And by that I mean, if I played some games on it. It's quite capable of playing them... it's just that... I'm not.

I can't kick back and put my feet up in this office chair and use the mouse and keyboard and see what's going on on the monitor all at the same time.

And besides that, I hate using a mouse and keyboard!

And what about my friends... where the heck are they supposed to sit?!?
And what "controller" are they going to use?!? I can't plug in two keyboards and mouses ( :confused: or is it that mice?) to my computer can I? We certainly aren't going to play with the same mouse at the same time, I'll tell you that!

And what about some of those genres that I like: platformers, fighting games, and light gun games? "The PC's" library is severely lacking in those areas right there, boy.

These are all things that I am not willing to give up, that's why I'm not a PC gamer. Now like I said, I could game on my PC - if I wanted too. But if I ever did, I figure that the PC would be, like, my quaternary system - even behind my GameCube.

No wait... check that...
the PC would be my fifth ranked system - behind my GBA!
:eek:

[joquito]

<div class=\"smallfont\">lol, I think I've had this conversation before...

Computer games are usually about a full generation behind the latest and greatest hardware and DX upgrades, and always have the option to water down the graphics to play on any card or boost em up to play on more recent hardware.

UT2k3, and just about any FPS really, is a good example of this. You can tweak it so that it looks worse than most N64 games. Blurry textures, bad draw-in distance, crappy sound, no nifty-keen effects. But you can actually tweak the game to the point where it'll run like crap on all but the cutting edge of graphics cards. So you'll never see a game thats designed specifically to run at it's full potential, but you have the option to crank everything up to that if you've got a machine capable of running it.

It's called scaling..without it the computer games scene would've died out a long time ago.</div>

That is partially correct. IF games are made behind the latest cards then I was correct in my previous statement. Sure one can make a good game look crappy but The grafical power of the Xbox is disputedly on par with an ATI radeon 8500. A $65 video card today. Thus not needing a Hi-end rig to play games with good results. Oh, yes I understand scaling and interpolation quite well.

[joquito]

<div class=\"smallfont\"><div class=\"smallfont\"></div>

I dont know what you think is such a cop out? I specifically pointed out that I think the two shall meet in the future, but I still believe they are different enough now that they may as well be apples and oranges.

Case in point, Consoles are optimized for one thing, gaming. They are also designed to be easily connected to your TV. They do not need to be configured, they are an appliance. Computers are still very intimatdating for the average user. An appliance is not. A typical consumer wants to take an electronic toy home, plug it in and use it. They do not want to sit and configure the damn thing. This is where the future of consoles is headed, IMO, an appliance you can plug in to your TV, play high end games on, surf the web, get email, play online, etc. all preconfigured. Just select a "module", a la the Music Mixer for the Xbox, and install it.

The convergence of the two is not far off. When PC's have the simplicity of an appliance, that will be the day. Most people do not have the PC aptitude, as most of us here on this message board. We can argue all we want about what is better, its all personal preference, but in the end the masses want/need simplicity and IMO would prefer to be in front of their televisions doing it, at a nominal cost, without tedious/frustrating configurations.</div>

I assumed the topic was limited to gaming experiences. I'm not telling anyone not to buy a console over a PC but comparing the gaming experience on each. Folks on this board treat PC gaming as the retarded counterpart to console gaming. Only in platformers and sports games have consoles forged ahead of PC gaming. Console gaming still lacks a formidable library of RTS, FPS, and Sims, not to mention online play.

I love my Xbox and the gaming I do on it. My PC picks up the slack where my console lacks.

[Jupiter_x]

<div class=\"smallfont\">I actually spent about $400 on my latest build. If you know what to buy, and you build your own, you can save a ton of money. And yes, with my computer I can play everything at max detail, except for that resource hog Halo.</div>


Hey I admit PC's are costly, I am also a PC owner!
However PC's can be used for so much more than just games, I use my PC for everything! Email, Internet, gaming, buring games, burning music, downloading, work related stuff,....I even create my own industrial music with music programs like Fruityloops and Cooledit...(I'm no pro, but I have recieved some compliments, I am told my tunes sound like Frontline Assembly, Ministry)........Anyways PCs just rock...plain and simple, they are so versitle!

I own the AMD 3000+ with a Radeon 9700! Sure I paid a good chunk for it! But Halo runs like stink on this baby...I'm talkin' not even a hiccup, exactly like the Xbox version (borrowed my friends XBOX with Halo and ran them side by side), and I have this game MAXED, 1024x768, FULL DETAIL!

Oh yeah my PS2 and Gamecube rock too!

[Jupiter_x]

<div class=\"smallfont\">[QUOTE=Tappy_Tibbons]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settings: Yup, call me crazy, but I'd prefer popping a game straight into a console and playing it 30 seconds later over having to tweak anything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey there Tappy!

In this day and age with most PC's and Windows XP, everything pretty much is either automatically setup for you or there is very little to setup and it usually takes only 10 seconds to do so. This applies to games as well...especially console ports or multi platform games like Blood Omen 2, Red Faction 2 etc, basically load up the game and go!

Take Halo on the PC for instance, this game was already set to go on full detail and set automatically to 1024x768 due to windows and the game detecting what I had inside my PC...in laments terms , I simply installed the game which took a whole 2 minutes and BAM the game was ready to play...oh yeah one more thing I have a wicked dual analog controller with rumble features for my PC as well and I can use that to play Halo if I want and all it takes is to go into the options and flik it on!
Sometimes I even hook my PC up to my TV...(yep this can be done)... and play it like a console!
Like I said in my last post I have a high end PC and Halo runs Flawlessly on full detail at the above stated resolution!

I do admit however that some of the older PC games or hardcore PC only games do need to be tweeked and so on!