Message to all PC gamers

My name.

Apostrophes are not allowed, and Rasq'uire'laskar is one character over the 15-character limit.

sorry to hear that Ras.

anyway, this isnt the thread for "pc is better than console"(although, it seems to have turned into that)

yes, the pc seems to be the best type of gaming system there is, but I prefer the consol(for FPS games and some other genres)

it is really a personal opinion.

also, i didnt even know you could have mics for the computer

The point of a console is that the controller is more natural and can be played lYed back in a bed or chair or on the floor whereas with a computer you gotta sit up and need to be near the computer screen

The debate over witch one is better in general is all opinion with facts in certain areas but the side of the console is better is the side with most people who play games
Although majority doesn't make it true cause paper planes sucks and most people would say that song is awesome

Another PC vs Console argument.... joy.

Accuracy
Okay, first, control has nothing to do with it as you can ramp up sensitivity on nearly all games. I actually find the controller more accurate for me. Really, it all depends upon your preferences. Some have more control on the mouse, or with the controller.

Mood
The mood really doesn't have much to do with it either. Sure, the Console has a trigger, but does a trigger really feel like that? And would you hold a gun like that? The closest thing to holding an actual gun for shooters is the Wii, and we all know that the Wii sucks at shooters, so mood has nothing to do with it.

Downloads
DLC is easier and free on the computer, plus you have modding, but honestly, I don't mind paying $10 for a map pack. Not to mention, DLC is most commonly used in RTS games. You don't get hardly any DLC for FPS games (and RPG DLC is dirt cheap on the console, so that's not really an issue).

System Specific Games
Some console games (like Halo) don't come out on the PC at the same time. I've never heard of a game come out on the PC first, and then the console, only at the same time. However, many games you can only get for the PC or for the console (and many are console specific).

Communication
Communication is usually easier with a console, as not many people use keyboards to talk on consoles when they can just get a $15 mic. However, you can get mics for computers, it's just much less common (which results in less, more cluttered, and slower communication).

Cost
You do have to buy XBL, but it's not really that expensive. Other consoles, however, have free online capabilities. Your real concern is buying the high-speed internet, which you have to get for either system.

Viewing
You can have a big-screen monitor... but a big-screen TV with a console is much more common.

Comfort
Like Cheese said, you are usually on a couch, recliner, or bed when playing a console, compared to a computer chair for PC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really, in the end, you can't say one is better than the other. They each have their ups and downs. It mostly just depends upon the gamer.

Like I said, I like RTS games on the computer because of more micro-managing control and free DLC/modding, but I like FPS games on the Xbox because I'm more accurate and my screen is bigger (also improving accuracy). I'm pretty neutral with RPG games; I don't have any on the PC, but I wouldn't mind getting one.

Civ wrote:Okay, first, control has nothing to do with it as you can ramp up sensitivity on nearly all games. I actually find the controller more accurate for me. Really, it all depends upon your preferences. Some have more control on the mouse, or with the controller.

Hack into the game code and turn off aim assist. Then see how accurate you are.

Sure, the Console has a trigger, but does a trigger really feel like that? And would you hold a gun like that?

The trigger feeling is kinda cool... and the force feed back... but you can always buy a controller for pc... and get owned in multiplayer.

DLC is easier and free on the computer, plus you have modding, but honestly, I don't mind paying $10 for a map pack. Not to mention, DLC is most commonly used in RTS games. You don't get hardly any DLC for FPS games (and RPG DLC is dirt cheap on the console, so that's not really an issue).

With things like Steam and the evil Windows Live... DLC is starting to cost money for us too. You're right though, we do have modding. For either side, I think ten dollars, while affordable, is still way too much.

Some console games (like Halo) don't come out on the PC at the same time. I've never heard of a game come out on the PC first, and then the console, only at the same time. However, many games you can only get for the PC or for the console (and many are console specific).

PC gets nearly all the games that come out on xbox. Usually they come out a little later, but with more features. Most PC games are multiplatform.

Examples of mainly PC games that are multiplatform include: Anything by Valve, Farcry 2, Fallout 3, ect

go back 15 years, before the xbox came around... and everything was coming out on PC first

Civ wrote:Communication is usually easier with a console, as not many people use keyboards to talk on consoles when they can just get a $15 mic. However, you can get mics for computers, it's just much less common (which results in less, more cluttered, and slower communication).

It's not that people on the PC side can't get a 15 dollar mic, it jsut comes packaged in. I got a really great headset for my PC, and it only cost 20 dollars.

Still, as I have expressed, many people do not bother to buy mics. There's also a lot of people from non-english speaking parts of the world on PC games. There's a lot of germans and russians.

Civ wrote:You do have to buy XBL, but it's not really that expensive. Other consoles, however, have free online capabilities. Your real concern is buying the high-speed internet, which you have to get for either system.

lol, windows live originally cost 50 dollars a year. PC gamers rioted so much that they had to make it free.

Civ wrote:You can have a big-screen monitor... but a big-screen TV with a console is much more common.

Still, while a really nice TV might cost 1,500 or more, a really nice monitor only costs a little upwards of 300 for the most part. Monitors have significantly better resolutions than the highest quality televisions. TVs are bigger, obviously, but based on the fact that you're sitting close to a monitor... it's virtually the same.

Like Cheese said, you are usually on a couch, recliner, or bed when playing a console, compared to a computer chair for PC.

Well, I have a really comfy computer chair... so I'm ok. I like sitting all perched when I'm playing games. It keeps me alert.

One of the great things about PC gaming is multi-tasking. I can be playing a game, voice chatting in game, text chatting multiple people, browsing the web when I die through the ingame steam browser, and watching HULU on a second monitor all at the same time.

I don't know about you guys, but I bought a pretty comfortable chair. All it needs is that little recliner function.

Also, apparent size of the monitor is about the same as a medium-size TV. And I should point out that the graphics of the games on PC are much better, especially in the RTS genre. Compare StarCraft II to Halo Wars.
/graphics discussion.

Thank god for the rioters! Now I dont have to worry about windows LIVE payments!

Rasq wrote:I don't know about you guys, but I bought a pretty comfortable chair. All it needs is that little recliner function.

Same, "Sharper Image" FTW!

MY chair reclines a little, but I never really lean back except to stretch every once in a while. For the most part, I sit kinda perched on the end. The only thing that bugs me is that you can't lock the wheel in place... so it rolls away when I try to put my feet up

Rasq wrote:/graphics discussion.

lol, it's just too easy of a target.

I have to say, after being away from console games for a few months, seeing them at a friend's house kinda made me notice something. All the graphics on some of the newer console games seem to use some sort of visual trick. The character models and terrain is kinda smeary looking and glossed over. It doesn't look bad at a first glance, but if you haven't seen it for a while, it's really apparent. Left 4 Dead, skate 2, and CoD WaW seem to use this technique pretty strongly.

It's like some kind of trick. Bad company does it too, and I can't stand it's visuals. '


Here's an example http://www.busygamer.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/left4dead-mar1st.jpg

Notice how everything is less detailed... but more shiny and smeared

My chair is ok at Mum's (found it in a skip ) but I do wish it had arm rests. Dad's on the other hand I had to buy, and I don't really value chairs so I got a rubbish £30 one from Ikea. It's ok, but I can't stay there for more than two hours.

It's true that when I first moved from the PC demo of Left4Dead to the full game on xbox that I couldn't see a thing because it just looked... well worse. But the one thing that will always have me buy FPS console over Pc is the glory of splitscreen!! (damn you CoD4)

Lack of it is actually why I decided not to buy HaloWars (on top of the fact it really looked pretty mediocre). And why I decided to buy Fable 2 (which was stupid because 2 player was terrible on that game). Split screen usually means I can get my bro to go halfs too.

But I'm pretty sure we've been over the split-screen thing somewhere. before...

ReconToaster wrote:Hack into the game code and turn off aim assist. Then see how accurate you are.

No different. I don't aim straight, I sweep. Aim assist doesn't help with that.

ReconToaster wrote:It's not that people on the PC side can't get a 15 dollar mic, it jsut comes packaged in. I got a really great headset for my PC, and it only cost 20 dollars.

That definitely plays a roll, but I think most people buy mics for the console games because you can't type on it (plus, you don't have a keyboard), while with the PC, it'd be an expense for added convenience.

ReconToaster wrote:Still, while a really nice TV might cost 1,500 or more, a really nice monitor only costs a little upwards of 300 for the most part. Monitors have significantly better resolutions than the highest quality televisions. TVs are bigger, obviously, but based on the fact that you're sitting close to a monitor... it's virtually the same.

But, like the mics, it's an added expense for added convenience. Most people aren't going to shell out an extra $500 for an 24" HD monitor when they already have a 32" HD TV.

ReconToaster wrote:One of the great things about PC gaming is multi-tasking. I can be playing a game, voice chatting in game, text chatting multiple people, browsing the web when I die through the ingame steam browser, and watching HULU on a second monitor all at the same time.

Well... technically, you can just turn on your PC and do that while playing Xbox as well.

Cheese wrote:
It's true that when I first moved from the PC demo of Left4Dead to the full game on xbox that I couldn't see a thing because it just looked... well worse. But the one thing that will always have me buy FPS console over Pc is the glory of splitscreen!! (damn you CoD4)

I can't imagine the sheer scope of the marketing campaign initiated by Sony and Nintendo, all to convince console gamers that splitscreen actually works, and is better than playing on LAN.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:

Cheese wrote:
It's true that when I first moved from the PC demo of Left4Dead to the full game on xbox that I couldn't see a thing because it just looked... well worse. But the one thing that will always have me buy FPS console over Pc is the glory of splitscreen!! (damn you CoD4)

I can't imagine the sheer scope of the marketing campaign initiated by Sony and Nintendo, all to convince console gamers that splitscreen actually works, and is better than playing on LAN.

well, with splitscreen, you only need one xbox, one tv, and maybe two or three controlers.

with LAN, each person needs his or her own computer.

not saying either one is better, just saying how it seems to play out

Splitscreen is not better than LAN in terms of gaming, but you must admit it's easier for me and my bro to play, or me and my mates to nip over to mine and play in our frees.

Civ wrote:But, like the mics, it's an added expense for added convenience. Most people aren't going to shell out an extra $500 for an 24" HD monitor when they already have a 32" HD TV.

Well, the fact that my family has a nice TV is mostly because I lobbied for one for halo 3.

My dad does use it for sports now though.

Cheese wrote:Splitscreen is not better than LAN in terms of gaming, but you must admit it's easier for me and my bro to play, or me and my mates to nip over to mine and play in our frees.

Splitscreen is definitely easier... but as I've said, I've always dreamed of throwing a LAN party.

CivBase wrote:No different. I don't aim straight, I sweep. Aim assist doesn't help with that.

And while you're sweeping I'll be still alive. Still alive! Still alive.

But really, to argue that you can get high accuracy with a game controller is absurd. If you turn up the sensitivity, you can move from place to place faster, but it takes a lot of practice to master high sensitivity control. With a mouse, you have the control of low sensitivity and the motion of high sensitivity. And Civ, even when sweeping, auto-aim is helping you out. Try sweeping on a PC, and you'll find it isn't an effective strategy at all.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Try sweeping on a PC, and you'll find it isn't an effective strategy at all.

lol, that's because you have to lift up the mouse when you get to the edge of the mouse pad and put it back on the other side to continue moving, which throws off your aim.

civ = ignorant


I have never ever had that problem.

I do all the time on PC shooters.

Civ wrote:lol, that's because you have to lift up the mouse when you get to the edge of the mouse pad and put it back on the other side to continue moving, which throws off your aim.

It's not like you have to do 500 mouse revolutions just to turn around. It's not very often that it goes completely off the pad.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:lol, that's because you have to lift up the mouse when you get to the edge of the mouse pad and put it back on the other side to continue moving, which throws off your aim.

It's not like you have to do 500 mouse revolutions just to turn around. It's not very often that it goes completely off the pad.

Usually at least once when turning around, and when zoomed in it takes about 10... and don't even get me started on when you're using a scope.

This is true on all of my PC shooters.
Battlefield 1942/Vietname/2142, Battlezone 1/2, Medal of Honor: AA, and CnC: Renegade.

I think you just suck at using a mouse... which is pretty hard to do. When you turn around to your left, turn back around to your right. Do 180s, not 360s, and you'll be fine.

The only time I ever have to lift and replace my mouse is when flying an airplane or helicopter in games like Battlefield Vietnam, because I choose not to use a joystick. And Civ, honestly, you can't claim mouse pad limitations as an excuse why sweeping doesn't work, because God knows, if you are sweeping 180 degrees, you are wasting an entire clip on nothing. Sweeping is normally done across a very limited area, and with high sensitivity on a controller, most people would struggle to do so. The mouse can sweep and spin quite easily. And hey, worse comes to worse, you can fine tune your mouse sensitivity to better fit you.

I haz a mic, I just never use it...

cuz no one else does

Personally, when you have no internet connection for your console, splitscreen is better.

I also suck with a mouse when it comes to comp FPSs.(doesnt play enough of em to get any good at it.)

Generally I'm better with the mouse, but on Halo: CE I'm just miles better on the xbox. Maybe because it was designed for xbox or because it was a rubbish port. Either way, it was far easier.