Console or PC

[Nicholas-c Veteran]

This is a simple update for the old console or PC thread, That poll was started in 2004 and certainly my views have changed since then xD

So... Which do you prefer? Consoles or PC? Controller or KB/Mouse? ;)

Vote and be nice.

[Lost_Shadows]

Console + controller. There really is no other way.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Console & controller. Both 360.

[c3ntury]

PC all the way, better controls, in some cases better graphics.. and more games out there to play :D

[jnelsoninjax]

PC & keyboard/mouse, I have a gamepad, but never found a real use for it.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I really have no idea, I game on my PC and my 360, I use the controller for driving in GTA but the mouse for shooting, etc.

I suppose it's very situational, also I can't aim to save my life with controllers at the moment (thank god for auto-aim)

[BoneyardBrew Member]

PC with a keyboard and mouse.

I only use a controller/gamepad for racing games and the occasional fighter.

[Hedon]

Console + Controller is the way to go.

[Sethos]

Both and the ONLY controller I enjoy using is the 360 controller =)

[treemonster]

pc: mouse + keyboard/n52.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Console and Keyboard/Mouse.

[Lee G. Veteran]

I game solely on the PC and use keyboard and mouse.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

Im both.

I love my PC, and I love my PS3 Slim.

[bjoswald]

PC.

[Sulphy]

pc all the way for me... got a 360, and used it as a game thing for probably a total of 3 hours in 6 months.... the rest of the time, all i use it for is a connector to my media server....

[sbauer]

I have all three consoles, but I still think the PC is the champ.

[LiquidSolstice]

Console. Always.

Cheaper, no minimum requirements for games, ever.

Controllers with a solid ergonomic feel and vibration.

I don't need to use the system I depend on to get work done to play my games. Rather than spend 1100 on a gaming laptop or a custom built rig, I can get myself a small comfortable netbook with tons of battery life and a 360 with live and a couple games and I can be totally satisfied with both.

Oh yeah, none of this DRM bull$h1t for us either. guess what? I can play AC2 without an internet connection.

[_neutrino Veteran]

Personally I prefer PC gaming however, it comes to this.

If you have limited Money then chose a console being that there will be a constant stream of games for it that you know are going to work perfectly all the time. Whereas with a PC the newer the game is the less likely it is going to work on your computer without you having to purchase more and more hardware and updates for the PC so the Console is more cost effective over time.

[treemonster]

Personally I prefer PC gaming however, it comes to this.

If you have limited Money then chose a console being that there will be a constant stream of games for it that you know are going to work perfectly all the time. Whereas with a PC the newer the game is the less likely it is going to work on your computer without you having to purchase more and more hardware and updates for the PC so the Console is more cost effective over time.

this used to be true but not so much any more.

if your xbox dies on your but doesn't rrod and is out of warranty you have to buy another one + accessories for transferring the hdd.

then there are the newer titles such as rdr for example that i have heard of stuttering on the ps3.\

it's not like the ps1 days where the box lasted for years despite abuse and newer games looked even better than the old ones.

the consoles that are out now look dated.

also factor in that for MOST pc game titles requirements haven't risen much, and can be played at high to max settings on 3 year old rigs or even older alot of the time. for pc gamers it's totally optional to be on the bleeding edge. although there will always be pc titles that will require the latest and greatest.

[Hedon]

[LiquidSolstice]

this used to be true but not so much any more.

Uh, no, it's still quite true. A $300 360 does out of the box much more than a $300 desktop would as far as gaming goes. (duh)

if your xbox dies on your but doesn't rrod and is out of warranty you have to buy another one + accessories for transferring the hdd.

And if your computer dies you've lost all your data and you'll have to go through the hassle of repairing it and the hassle of trying to redo all your important documents. Or you can go to the many third part repair companies to fix either your Xbox or your PC(if it's hardware related) What's your point?

then there are the newer titles such as rdr for example that i have heard of stuttering on the ps3.\

That's shoddy programming or too much happening/too many objects being rendered on screen for the game engine to handle. This is a fact of life. It occurs on PCs too, fyi.

it's not like the ps1 days where the box lasted for years despite abuse and newer games looked even better than the old ones.

It is just like the PS1, the 360 has lasted for quite some time and will be around for longer, and newer games will ALWAYS look better than older games because of improved software technology and game engines. Perhaps you really just don't get this concept that not every game maxes out all the specs of the consoles? That engines and code bases need to be specifically tuned to utilize this?

the consoles that are out now look dated.

Excuse me? How do they look dated? Is because they're not blindingly glossy and aren't anally assaulted with blue LEDs and fans? Is that why? Because my matte black 360 Elite matches every other piece of my matte black computer setup?

also factor in that for MOST pc game titles requirements haven't risen much, and can be played at high to max settings on 3 year old rigs or even older alot of the time. for pc gamers it's totally optional to be on the bleeding edge. although there will always be pc titles that will require the latest and greatest.

So then, that $1k~ that your dropped on that PC is only good for three years of games, where as my $300 360 has been going strong for what, 4, 5 years now, and there are still smash hit titles coming to it that I can play?

*sigh* No offense, might want to rethink your arguments.

[treemonster]

Uh, no, it's still quite true. A $300 360 does out of the box much more than a $300 desktop would as far as gaming goes. (duh)

And if your computer dies you've lost all your data and you'll have to go through the hassle of repairing it and the hassle of trying to redo all your important documents. What's your point?

THat's shoddy programming or too much happening on screen for the game engine to handle. This is a fact of life.

It is just like the PS1, the 360 has lasted for quite some time and will be around for longer, and newer games will ALWAYS look better than older games because of improved software technology and game engines. Perhaps you really just don't get this concept that not every game maxes out all the specs of the consoles? That engines and code bases need to be specifically tuned to utilize this?

Excuse me? How do they look dated? Is because they're not blindingly glossy and aren't anally assaulted with blue LEDs and fans? Is that why?

So then, that $1k~ that your dropped on that PC is only good for three years of games, where as my $300 360 has been going strong for what, 4, 5 years now, and there are still smash hit titles coming to it that I can play?

*sigh* No offense, might want to rethink your arguments.

fanboy much? lolz

but seriously umm:

yes a decent PC costs at least $600, unless your flash gamer in which case a $300 pc will do fine.

not always true. it is easy to back up your important fuiles from your hdd to a dvd or usb flash drive once every six months, and if one part on your pc dies you aren't necessarily screwed for the rest of your PC.

well that defeats the arguments of consoles always playing the newst games perfectly doesn't it? rdr seems to play just fine on the technically inferor 360 at higher resolution and aa doesn't it?

you can;'t be serious. new games on the 360 haven't gained ANY graphical superiority compared to how the ps1 progressed back in the day. literally speaking early ps1 games looked liek crap compared to late ps1 games. 360 games have been maxxing out the capabilities of the console since day one. the games have looked liek crap compared to dx9 pc games for years.

wtf are you even talking about here? have you played a pc game since dx 9 came out? console games look dx8 90% of the time, and almost everytime i play them my second though is how much better they would look on a PC.

if you've only spent $300 ona single 360 then you're extremely lucky from what i hear. aside from the inconvenience of rrod and the costs involved, i've heard numerous reports of of non rrod 360 failures for years now forcing gamers to buy brand new boxes.

*sigh* No offense, might want to rethink your arguments.

[LiquidSolstice]

fanboy much? lolz

Nice way to start off, I now know that I'm arguing with a 15 year-old living in Mom's basement. I voted for Consoles, not specifically the 360. I happen to own a 360 because I like the controller and a few of the games better. Unless you want to call me a console fanboy, which is as retarded as me calling you an oxygen fanboy. By the way, you can quote me line by line by just highlighting part of my post and pressing that nice shiny "Quote" button. Us grown ups actually sometimes even manually type in the [ quote][/ quote]. Not that difficult. Try it, it'll make your garbage a lot easier to read and address.

but seriously umm:

yes a decent PC costs at least $600, unless your flash gamer in which case a $300 pc will do fine.

...A flash gamer? So you're comparing a $300 console that can play full blown 3D games with a $300 machine that's good for....Robot Unicorn Attack? Fantastic comparison. At any rate, For the cost of that $600 PC, I can get a 360 elite with a 23" HD monitor and a game, and still have enough left over to get a few months of Live. Very poor argument there, PCs may be better in some ways, but will never be price efficient. Let's also not forget that in the real world, adults buy Windows, not pirate it, so in $600, you haven't even factored in the price of a Windows 7 license. Unless you intend to game on Linux. Which, if you do, I have pity for you.

not always true. it is easy to back up your important fuiles from your hdd to a dvd or usb flash drive once every six months, and if one part on your pc dies you aren't necessarily screwed for the rest of your PC.

Completely true. Firstly, the "new" (I say "new" because they've been out for a long time now) Jasper chipsets cannot Red Ring (Or if they do it's very very rare), so the chances of complete XB failure are quite slim. And I say again, you can repair your Xbox just as easily in a third part repair shop as you can with a computer. On the topic of losing files any memory stick up to 16 GB will back up your save files on your 360 (not sure about the PS3). Some online games even store your data on their servers (COD, Rainbow 6) and any content your purchase on Live can be re-downloaded at any time on any console provided you recover your gamertag. Seriously, you're really reaching for thin air now; the point is if your PC crashes to the point where your files get ****ed, you've lost files and stability (temporarily) on a machine that you use for your real life. Us grown ups actually use our computers for big-boy things like writing up company reports and spreadsheets. So I say again, what's your point?

well that defeats the arguments of consoles always playing the newst games perfectly doesn't it? rdr seems to play just fine on the technically inferor 360 at higher resolution and aa doesn't it?

Consoles play their games perfectly when the dev has put in the time and effort to test, retest, and fine tune his or her code to ensure perfect operation on the Xbox. The upside to this is that he/she doesn't need to worry about multiple configurations, only the one that the 360 needs (or PS3, if the case calls for it). The PS3, compared to the 360's architecture, is vastly more complicated and new to developers, and most STILL haven't utilized all the cores of the PS3 or its full graphical potential, so I am not surprised that a PORT of a popular game plays better on a familiar console architecture. At any rate, those points still don't make much sense. I don't quite understand what you're trying to argue, I never said they'll always play the newest games properly, I simply said that hardware requirements are never an issue for the consoles. Whether or not they "stutter" has everything to do with how the game is coded and nothing to do with the hardware of the consoles.

you can;'t be serious. new games on the 360 haven't gained ANY graphical superiority compared to how the ps1 progressed back in the day. literally speaking early ps1 games looked liek crap compared to late ps1 games. 360 games have been maxxing out the capabilities of the console since day one. the games have looked liek crap compared to dx9 pc games for years.

Although I'm sure you'd love to think that, I don't think you've ever seen the difference between Gears of War 1 and 2. Or between Forza 2 and 3. And so on. I don't give a damn about dx9 or 10 or whatever irrelevant PC-exclusive technology you want to use, I'm not blind and I see a clear graphical improvement between games that first came out and games now. And like I said, you're so obssessed with dx8 this and dx9 that to the point that you really don't seem to understand not all games are equal. Games that were out for the original Xbox and moved to the 360 don't instantly look better because of the hardware. The actual graphical elements and resources used in the game need to be top notch and usually completely redone, the game engine needs to properly handle all the elements being rendered, and the physics engine (if applicable) needs to be able to cope with both. If those aren't' the case, then ANY game, console or pc, will look like crap.

...Every time you play a console game, all that goes through your mind is how they would look with DirectX? That's IT? Nothing else about the game interests you? I don't know if I should call that flatout pathetic, or just simply go with the fact you're biased to hell and back.

if you've only spent $300 ona single 360 then you're extremely lucky from what i hear. aside from the inconvenience of rrod and the costs involved, i've heard numerous reports of of non rrod 360 failures for years now forcing gamers to buy brand new boxes.

No, you've heard what you wanted to hear because you are a PC gamer and you probably just Googled "RROD" and assumed the number of results that came back equated the number of people. I myself have owned the same 360 since the start, and the same is the case with the 15+ people I regularly play with on Live. It's nto that difficult. I know people who have the original Non-Jasper chipsets and they're still doing fine (they keep their 360s well ventilated). At the same time, It's so damn easy for me to just shoot right back at you how many times I've read forum posts about games crashing people's computers or people having hardware failures with their PC. See how irrelevant that is?

[nub]

Whereas with a PC the newer the game is the less likely it is going to work on your computer without you having to purchase more and more hardware and updates for the PC so the Console is more cost effective over time.

I haven't upgraded my pc for a long time and still plays games fine.

Nice way to start off, I now know that I'm arguing with a 15 year-old living in Mom's basement. I voted for Consoles, not specifically the 360.

You're the one using defending a console.... What do you think a 15 year old is going to have a console or a gaming computer?

...A flash gamer? So you're comparing a $300 console that can play full blown 3D games with a $300 machine that's good for....Robot Unicorn Attack? Fantastic comparison.

He didn't even compare them...

And I say again, you can repair your Xbox just as easily in a third part repair shop as you can with a computer.

Not really.

ome online games even store your data on their servers (COD, Rainbow 6) and any content your purchase on Live can be re-downloaded at any time on any console provided you recover your gamertag. Seriously, you're really reaching for thin air now; the point is if your PC crashes to the point where your files get ****ed, you've lost files and stability (temporarily) on a machine that you use for your real life. Us grown ups actually use our computers for big-boy things like writing up company reports and spreadsheets. So I say again, what's your point?

Steam does the exact same thing.

give a damn about dx9 or 10 or whatever irrelevant PC-exclusive technology you want to use

Xbox uses directX thats why its called an "X"box. DirectX Box.

No, you've heard what you wanted to hear because you are a PC gamer and you probably just Googled "RROD" and assumed the number of results that came back equated the number of people. I

I've had an xbox die on me. I have friends whose xboxes have died. You are full of complete bull****.

I'm sorry, sir, but you are full of complete and utter crap. You attempt to insult the person and continue on to write line after line of ignorance and fabrications.

[LiquidSolstice]

I haven't upgraded my pc for a long time and still plays games fine.

And I'm ok with accepting that. The point I made in my last long post is that I *never* have to worry about system requirements. Not some of the time, not even occasionally, if there's a game coming out for the 360 that everyone is expecting and it will be amazing, my first thought is NEVER "oh, I might to need to beef things up a bit for that game". It's totally ok if you do, I'm just expressing the fact that I don't need to.