PC Gamers: Refusal to buy consoles


Recommended Posts

Well how do you play RTS games with a gamepad? And then games ported to consoles from the PC like Half-Life 2 (someday supposedly coming to the xbox).

584960552[/snapback]

i know how

you dream about them, because they don't exist

i know how

you dream about them, because they don't exist

584960558[/snapback]

I know starcraft came out for the N64 and it sucked. I've heard about games like Age of Empires 2 that were supposed to be ported to consoles but I think they were cancelled.

starcraft on n64 was the only true rts they tried on consoles, and it failed miserably

edit

btw last post in this thread

584960573[/snapback]

lol, so true. Then theres an rts for the GBA... which I don't see being that fun to play myself.

Well how do you play RTS games with a gamepad? And then games ported to consoles from the PC like Half-Life 2 (someday supposedly coming to the xbox). Its just that some games just can't be designed for a console, unless consoles start using keyboards and mice by default.

584960552[/snapback]

Ok well I guess no one understandes what im saying so one last time I will say what im going to say Games made for the pc , it doesnt matter what gerne it is , is made to play with a keyboard , alot of people who say they dont a console is that controls are bad , but I belive you guys agree with me that If a games made for a console its made to play with a controller. Now if they port a pc game to a console they will make it so you can play with a controller its simple as that and when I say that they will make it so the game is very playable with a controller , and yes it wont be the same as a pc , it could be worse or it could be just fine.

OK you understand if they ever port games to console they will make it playable with a controller or they wont port it . RTS wont be on consoles anytime soon. Then again I can say fighting games wont be on the pc anytime sone but does anyone care no , Im very sure most people dont mind.

Ok well I guess no one understandes what im saying so one last time I will say what im going to say  Games made for the pc , it doesnt matter what gerne it is , is made to play with a keyboard  ,  alot of people who say they dont a console is that controls are bad , but I belive you guys agree with me that If a games made for a console its made to play with a controller. Now if they port a pc game to a console they will make it so you can play with a controller its simple as that and when I say that they will make it so the game is very playable with a controller , and yes it wont be the same as a pc , it could be worse or it could be just fine.

OK you understand if they ever port games to console they will make it playable with a controller or they wont port it . RTS wont be on consoles anytime soon. Then again I can say fighting games wont be on the pc anytime sone but does anyone care no , Im very sure most people dont mind.

584960582[/snapback]

You say that if a game is made for a console, it's made to play with a controller and if a pc game is ported to a console, it should be easily playable with a controller. That's not true. The game dictates what controls you should be using, not whether it's PC / Console. If the game plays well on a PC with mouse / keyboard, it would be played well on a console with mouse / keyboard (if that was allowed). I think you're trying to assume a few things that are true, but unfortunately, according to many people, are not.

My second point is: graphics do matter, not directly, but for comparison's sake. A game could have really crappy graphics (like doom 1) and it would still be an awesome game. That's because that game is...11 years old? Back then, our expectations were lower, and other games probably had comparable graphics. Comparable is the keyword. Nowadays, although many fans would still say it's a good game, for me, it's no longer such a good game since my expectations are higher and it's no longer comparable to other games made right now.

This topic is like asking a girl/guy (depends on your sexuality... :p ) if they want to have sex with you.

The pc girl/guy:

- They look better.

- They?re more popular.

- If you want to have sex with them you?ll have to spend some money.

- You most keep them up today or they will kick you.

- Playing a new game on an old pc is like having sex with an old woman; it?ll look crappy and everything will be slow but you?ll end up having an orgasm.

- Every time you're having "fun" with them some of your online buddies will interrupThe console girl/guy/guy

- They?re easy to pick.

- They?re not more popular than the pc girl/guy but you?ll find then everywhere.

- They?re way cheaper to keep than a pc girl/guy.

- They?ll never let you down even if there?s a new console girl/guy around.

- Playing a new a game on a console is like having sex with Carmen Electra, it doesn?t matter how many times you do it or how old she is, she will always be Carmen Electra.

- You can take them with you on an:rofl:.<:p /;)

:rofl: :p ;)

I love games, I own a PS2 (soon to buy the thin version as the laser on my old one is on the way out) PES4 (best game ever), I own a gamecube (zelda and pikmin rock) a couple of gameboy advance's (doesn't sound right but what the hell) and of course a PC.

I have been playing games on various formats for around 20 years (my first machine was the crazy atari (I think) machine which had 8 switches on it and only played pong sq_yellow_smile.gif) and have had almost every type (amstrad, spectrum, amiga, nes, snes, every sega system (yes even a saturn sq_yellow_laugh.gif).

So I think I am qualified enough to write this.

Consoles aren't designed to play RTS and FPS games, sure you can play dumbed down versions on them but what's the point.

I have completed numorus FPS on the PC but have yet to even get halfway through a FPS on a console, reason... you cannot aim with a controller.

Compare

Console

aim left..oh no moved to far...correct right...oh sh!t I have been killed

PC

move cursor to enemy and press button

There are great games for the consoles (see above for some of my favourites) most of the best games for consoles are platform/adventure based or driving but I prefer playing games on my PC just for the higher resolution, better graphics and variety of different methods to control games. Playing NFSU2, plug in my force-feedback wheel and off I go..playing Rome:Total way, keyboard and mouse...playing PES3, PS2 controller.

Oh one console I will never own and never will is an Xbox. I hate them with a passion..

1. They are the size of a small continenent.

2. The controller sucks.

3. It ruined Deus Ex:Invisable War

4. I already own an Xbox 8 anyway (it's called my PC)

There you go, I'm sure console fanboys will pick great holes in my statement but I don't care...oh am I'm sorry about the offtopic blasting of the Xbox (I really do hate them though sq_yellow_laugh.gif)

A question to you PC gamers. Why is it you'll spend hundreds upon hundreds for PC upgrades so you can play the newest PC game, but refuse to drop so much as $120 for a preowned console to play the newest PS2, GCN or XBOX game? You'll buy new memory and a new video card so you can play Half-Life 2 the second it comes out, but at the same time, you complain that not enough of the great console games are released for PC.

I got my PS2 a few years ago for ?200. It came with MGS:SOL. Since then, I have only purchased GTA:VC for it. Those are theonly> PS2 games I have. The next purchase will be GTA:SA this Christmas. My point is, loads of cash has been spent on these items, and what the hell for? I finished both games like over a year ago.

I think this is a very good topic because I think there are a lot of fanboys out there. Not just for not buying a console but for everything. I consider myself a gamer who has very little bias. I play PC games, and I have all the consoles (even the GBA SP). I play whatever games are best and I buy them for wahtever system. Some people just get too caught up in the fanboy bull****.

I don't feel like buying a console, because my friend has 3 Xboxs, 2 Playstation 2s, and 1 Gamecube. So whenever I want to play a console game I just borrow one of his.

The main reason I upgrade my PC isn't for games. I upgrade for flexability and work, but a positive side effect is my games run better. :p

I spend lots of money on both console and PC. And I play both often too....

- Madden 2005 Franchise on Xbox with my brother and his friends (We play our games almost daily)

- GBA (Not really a console, but another reason to spend money) I play Mario and Luigi Super Star Saga while I'm sitting around (No I still haven't beaten it, call me a retard if you like)

- Mortal Kombat: Deception on Xbox, stuck at Tanya. Can't beat her for the life of me. But I still try about every other day. :p

And I just recently upgraded my computer with a new motherboard and CPU (P4 3.0 Prescott) so I could play me some Half-Life 2, Doom 3, and World Of Warcraft which is on the way to my house right now thanks to EBGames (I can't friggen wait!). :)

I like having the best of both worlds. Gives me the oppertunity to enjoy titles I want to play now, right now!

If you can fund having an addiction to multiple consoles/PC gaming you can always find friends that own them and go play your heart out there. I'm sure they'd love the company.

Firstly, I spend more time gaming with my PC. I'm the first to admit that and I mainly play FPS games because I feel that a keyboard/mouse combo is far superior to a control pad - they're unusable to me because I've been a keyboard/mouse man for so long. I do play many other games though, covering most genres.

However, I own an Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube. I don't really play my Gamecube much but it does have some great games. All the consoles have their own batch of exclusive games that will never come out for PC and if you're a true gamer that appreciates games for what they are, then you'll want to own one of the consoles for those games. I bought my PS2 three years ago now and while I haven't used it that much up until recently (thanks to GTA SA) I'll admit that there's a decent selection of games out there for it. The way they look doesn't bother me - I don't play console games for graphics. I would rather play GTA on PC because of the graphics, but I'm personally too used to playing it with a control pad, although a mouse would help for a few missions ;) I have what I class as a high-end PC (A64 and GF6800U) but I still enjoy console gaming.

As far as the controller argument goes, I agree ... to an extent. I can't play FPS games on consoles because I hate using a pad to aim, but then I can't play GTA on PC with keyboard and mouse alone. Generally speaking, console games aren't designed to target the same audience that PC games are and that's where I feel the problem is. To be perfectly blunt, they're aimed at different age groups and that's why we're seeing this disparity here.

The true gamers would own all, appreciate all and see each platform's positive points though ;)

Why get a console when a PC can do everything a console can do and lots more!? I have never bought a console, and I plan to keep it that way. Here's why. If I buy a console now, I will have to throw it away in a couple of years and get a new one. If I buy a PC now, I can just upgrade it whenever I want. So if you put things down, PC comes cheaper.

oh and Liquid no offence have fun playing your stripped down versions of doom3 and hl2 on the xbox. and have fun aiming with the gamepad, in doom3 by the time you aim with the gamepad, you will loose your head in the game

584960312[/snapback]

nah, the've got auto-aim to save the day :whistle:

I play on everything, ps2, DC :wub: , N64 (perfect dark :wub: ) AND pc, And though pc is more costly, the beneifts are greater also, The knowledge and education you recieve from tinkering with hardware and OS's.

By far PC is far superior to consoles, But all are FUN its all bout personal preference, if you choose only console and not PC or vise versa your not any less of a gamer than the other.

i prefer a pc cuz: ive been using pcs for more than 15 years by now. consoles are limited, no real OS, work/office function, backup and buring function.

and don't tell me running lunx on an xbox is something similar.

if course consoles are good for a quick gameplay but that's about it.

consoles can't play svcds nor divx.

I can't stand the controls for console games - esp for first person shooter games. Besides, the little joystick rarely offers a reverted mode which is what I am used to.

PC games always seem more immersive and better looking. I don't mind spending more on pc upgrades as long as the games live up to their potential. I was disappointed with Doom3 and feel angry that I jumped on the bandwagon the day it was released. If I had waited for the reviews I would have learned it wasn't worth the money to buy the game and upgrade my hardware.

To me it's not about the money as much as it's about the quality of play. Console games tend to come up short every time.

To me it's not about the money as much as it's about the quality of play.  Console games tend to come up short every time.

584968139[/snapback]

That's too large a generalization. To an extent, I agree. There is a greater percentage of PC games that are better buys than console games because of the sheer amount of content, etc. But saying there are no quality titles for consoles is bull. They both have their fair share of classics.

Consoles are just more fun for me. They're more... I don't know. Sociable? I can't quite put my finger on it, but with PC games, even online, it's just you, while with consoles, they seem more based towards group play. Not all, but many.

And I know about the mod communities and how devoted they can be, but there are online console groups that can be just as dedicated, only for different aspects of the game.

I have a Mac, a couple PCs, and an Xbox. Since I got my Mac, it's what I use for everyday type stuff. I mainly play sports games and fighting games on the Xbox (though I do have Halo 2 and Fable). The PC is mainly used for FPS, RTS, and RPG games.

However, I do play Warcraft3 on my Mac instead of my PC :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!