Things starting to look bad for the Wii

What is Okami?

best Wii game EVAR

Which really doesn't say much for it...

PiEman wrote:Which really doesn't say much for it...

WIN!!!

NT wrote:
4. Up-to-date Comps cost a lot

Well that's just unfair. Fully up-to-date comps are far more technologically advanced than current-gen consoles.

If all you're looking for is 360 level visuals, you can probably get away with spending... 600-650 on a PC. That's more expensive, yes, but you also get a lot more out of a PC.

i'm just saying though.

it does in fact effectively null his argument.

My current comp's original price + shader 3.0 gpu was $560

i read the title of this and laughed and laughed and laughed

KristallNacht wrote:
1. its $60 a game

Not for PS3 it ain't. Which is the only console that has game quality comparable to a PC.

KristallNacht wrote:2. No consoles cost $500

Last I checked, PS3s were still retailing at that price. Not, of course, the cut-down ones.

KristallNacht wrote:3. Comp games are only $10 cheaper

And come with such better controls.
Also, you have access to the FULL LIBRARY of computer games ever released. No more "backplayability not supported". No more "This was released on a different console."

KristallNacht wrote:4. Up-to-date Comps cost a lot

But you are also paying for the most versatile platform on the market.
Think: Your computer is as much of a media center as the PS3. And it can go online and browse whatever, do whatever. You can do your homework, surf Wikipedia, charge and manage your iPod. You can mod games! You can talk to friends on forums!

So, you see, consoles are an aberration. They were fun and all, but so was trench warfare. Consoles are the past and we... are the future.

Actually, the PC tends to have the lowest quality games, since designers have to make the PC games scaleable to older computers, while console games can be made to that consoles limit.

And oddly enough, the PS3 actually doesn't have higher quality than the 360.


but, as we are clearly being completely biased with our arguments, a good alienware boutique computer costs a couple thousand, therefore making all computers more expensive than consoles.


srsly....


stfu

personally i prefer the controller to the keyboard, possibly because i'm more used to it, but i don't really have many pc FPS games...

I used to be console 100% because of all my PC games being picky or not working for random reasons. Controls will always be PC for me...

Then I realised all the best games I had were for PC.

Then I entered the mysterious world of modding... (not me, downloading other people's) and damn! They can actually make games better than the designers!

i think my computer will only be used for online type games untill there's a new point and click, or if they bring monkey island back in any shape or form.

KristallNacht wrote:
And oddly enough, the PS3 actually doesn't have higher quality than the 360.

PC actually tends to have the same games that are on consoles... only with more features and customizability.

PS3 games aren't more visually impressive because the Cell processor is EXTREMELY hard to develop for. As Gabe Newell will point out, developers have to re-write "every line of code" for the PS3 version.

NT wrote:Actually, the PC tends to have the lowest quality games, since designers have to make the PC games scaleable to older computers,

not really.... most Big PC games (that aren't MMOs or RTSs) have a console counterpart, and on a well fitted (not that expensive) computer, run at higher resolutions with visual features cranked up.

NT wrote: but, as we are clearly being completely biased with our arguments, a good alienware boutique computer costs a couple thousand, therefore making all computers more expensive than consoles.

That's not bias. That's just stupidity. Alienware computers are EXTREMELY over-priced. I think you know that.

KristallNacht wrote:Actually, the PC tends to have the lowest quality games, since designers have to make the PC games scaleable to older computers, while console games can be made to that consoles limit.

Please, wipe your mouth. You have a teensy little bit of bull**** left on your upper lip.

All console games are running on outdated hardware... except in the first year of the console's release.

Computer games are intended to run on the latest hardware, with options to tone down the graphics and physics to let it run on older computers. Look at the difference between Halo Wars and StarCraft II. (Or DoW II)

KristallNacht wrote:And oddly enough, the PS3 actually doesn't have higher quality than the 360.

Better hardware, but the hardware is harder to code for. If I recall correctly, there's no way in Hell that you'd get a game like MGS 4 to run on the Xbox.

KristallNacht wrote:but, as we are clearly being completely biased with our arguments, a good alienware boutique computer costs a couple thousand, therefore making all computers more expensive than consoles.

I'm just repeating Recon at this moment, but the Alienwares are the equivalent of the Ford Escalade among Mexicans: A highly overpriced status symbol.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:(Or DoW II)

you guys totally missed my points

and i have DoWII, not particularly atractive.


Only last year did they start making games that required shader 3.0. But Shader 4.0 has been out for almost a year already. So no, they don't make PC games for the newest hardware, they make it for over 2 generations back most of the time, since its meant to be SCALEABLE. And the whole resolution thing is a stacked question, because TVs can't output the same res as monitors.

NT wrote:you guys totally missed my points

No, I think I quoted almost all of them.

NT wrote:Only last year did they start making games that required shader 3.0. But Shader 4.0 has been out for almost a year already.

See, at first you complain that PC developers have to spend so much time adding in support for quickly evolving hardware, and now you're complaining that they're not proactive enough in supporting quickly evolving hardware...

It's good what these developers are doing. Not including support for pixel shader 4.0 is fine. It wastes development time on making your game take advantage of something that maybe a lot of the market does not have. Now, adding support for multiple cores is something that needs a bit of encouragement.

NT wrote:So no, they don't make PC games for the newest hardware

No, but that doesn't mean that if you buy a brand new GTX 290 you won't see a huge increase in performance. You're debating small, insignificant things, which are more about data resourcefulness on the processing side than anything.

PC games still look better than their console counter-parts.

i thought we already had a thread on a comp v console
srsly
stfu
yeah although NT is a crazy nazi i agree with him