# Console or PC?



## Grimblade (Apr 12, 2008)

Debate: Console side - Which is the better video game platform: Console or PC? - Video Game Consoles & Accessories - Helium - by Damian Brown

What do you guys think?


----------



## Lenny (Apr 12, 2008)

Being a console gamer, I'm going to say console. Specifically the PS3 (I didn't fork out £425 at launch because I dislike it, now did I?).

I think that games are more accessible on consoles - if you buy a console game, then you can take it home, pop it in, and play it. No faffing about having to install it (though most PS3 games do offer the option of an install to the PS3 hard drive, which will speed up load times), and the controls are pretty intuitive, as most games will follow the same button map. Compare this with a PC... you've got to have the right hardware to start with. Brilliant quote from Commonmind (near enough the same wording without having to go and check), with Crysis as the example - "Even God can't play Crysis on Very High settings!". I'm not shelling out £425 every six months so I can upgrade my PC to stay on top of the latest games. Also, aside from WASD (up, left, down, right - movement), very few games will follow the same control system - some may use space to reload, whilst others use space to jump, or crouch, or pause the game, or change weapon, or open the inventory, or fire weapon... and so on. With consoles, the same buttons are used for actions in most games - how many hundreds of games use X/A to jump, or R2/RT to accelerate in a racing game?

If I buy a PS3 game, then it's going to work on my PS3, whether it's a launch unit, or whether, eight years down the line, I buy a game bundled with a PS3. The hardware never changes (well, odd improvements such as 45nm processors to make it more efficient heat-wise etc - the core components stay the same, though), and the games are designed and developed with that in mind. The developers know what they can play with, so they build the game engines to make the use of the resources of the console (this is the same with every console known to man... well... no, that can be saved for later). With a PC, and I'll use Crysis as an example again, developers either go all out in development and build something that even God can't play and sacrifice their install base, or they sacrifice quality for a bigger install base - you've got to remember that it takes sales of hundreds of thousands of copies of the game before the developer breaks even and starts to make a profit (games these days cost millions of pounds/dollars to make - some of the top games have bigger budgets than Hollywood films!!), so they need to target a wide audience to recoup their losses.

Just to explain what happened with Crysis - it started out as DX10 only, requiring Vista, and ended up, at release, supporting DX9 and Windows XP, simply because the install base of Vista (and hence DX10), was pitifully small, and the number of people with hardware even close to the original recommended specs could be counted on one hand.

With a console game, developers don't need to worry about install base so much (obviously the number of owners of the console - for example, 12 million PS3 owners, or 18 million 360 owners - means that there are that number of people who can play the game with no worries, and thousands of people will buy a console each week), and so can work on the game knowing that their only limitation is the skill of their programmers, and how well they can make use of the power of the console.


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 12, 2008)

Now, while I consider myself a pretty devout PC gamer and an avid hardware enthusiast, I'm going to have to agree with almost every point Lenny has made and state that I also feel consoles are the superior platform...nowadays. 

PC's were inherently more powerful than consoles for many years and developers had the technical legroom to really push the boundaries so they could create new and unique experiences that simply weren't possible on another platform. As time went by that gap closed significantly and it's now possible to deliver similar experiences across both the console and PC.

Crytek has been working on bringing the newest version of their engine to consoles and have expressed the power of current gen hardware (specifically the PS3) is capable of producing visuals on par with what we've seen on high-end PC's. 

No doubt that we'll see a port of Crysis sometime soon (something Crytek thought impossible only a year ago and spoke very adamantly about).

Also, you just don't see any real innovation coming from the PC market anymore. Rather than producing the next big blockbuster title, everyone is more interested in reproducing the _last_ big one...cashing in on the other guy's cash cow, as it were. The industry has become stale and stagnant and the days of the Diablo 2's, the Planescapes, the Deus Ex's and the Theif's are long past. If it weren't for Half Life 2 and its respective pals, the platform would be pretty barren at the moment.


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 12, 2008)

And, let me just add this one little diplomatic P.S.: I believe, in the end, it comes down to software -- which I sort of insinuated in my post -- and whether or not it's enjoyable and delivers an experience worthy of the money which I've invested. Because a platform is nothing without its library. 

I'm a gamer; I play games - when someone asks me what I'm playing at the moment I don't answer them with the system I'm playing, but which game I'm playing. It just so happens that, at the moment, the console as a platform has been consistently delivering the more solid and rewarding experience. If that changed tomorrow, I'd change my opinion.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Apr 12, 2008)

I feel the same way. Which is one reason I despise platform exclusives. I would rather have a PS3 but then I miss out on the awesome games for other systems....


----------



## Grimblade (Apr 12, 2008)

Interesting.. well if you followed the link you'll know that I agree with the majority vote here. I'll always use both but for those that just want to play games a console is the only true path to take..


----------



## Lucien21 (Apr 12, 2008)

I play most of the my games on the console so I certainly would say that consoles are the prefered option these days.

However the PC is usually ahead in the technology department. Consoles are only really leading technologically for 6 months or so (if that). However that advantage comes at a price of constant updates.

Also I have still to be convinced that the consoles have come up with a better control system than the mouse and keyboard which is waay better and more accurate than the joypads.


----------



## Lenny (Apr 12, 2008)

I've just remembered a point I forgot to make in my post, which Lucien and Commonmind touched upon - PCs are ahead in the technology department. A few years ago, it was estimated that PCs were five years ahead of consoles tech-wise. I don't know the figure now, but I guess it'll be a year or two.

When Gears of War came out for the 360, I read reviews (but only to keep my 360 friends happy - they were this close to chaining me down and reading them out to me in scenes reminiscent of a Vogon poetry recital), and from the Games industry (who seem to be mostly console gamers), everything was really positive. Then I heard, on some podcast or other, a PC developer talking about it, and generally slagging it off. "Bump-mapping?" he said, "We've been using bump-mapping for years! Yet consoles are only just using it?!". Whilst PC games were using it and technologies beyond it, "bump-mapping" to console developers was something Geography nuts did to their wives.


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 12, 2008)

I would just like to point out, Lenny...



> they were this close to chaining me down and reading them out to me in scenes reminiscent of a Vogon poetry recital





> "bump-mapping" to console developers was something Geography nuts did to their wives.



...that you've met your comedic genius quota for the entire year. Grats on making me lol in real life; not many hold that honor


----------



## Fake Vencar (Apr 13, 2008)

PC all the way! I won't go into a long debate, but in 2 years time the consoles will all have to be replaced by new ones costing a bomb!


----------



## Lucien21 (Apr 13, 2008)

Fake Vencar said:


> PC all the way! I won't go into a long debate, but in 2 years time the consoles will all have to be replaced by new ones costing a bomb!


 
And you don't need to upgrade a PC then


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Apr 13, 2008)

I agree with Lenny on almost - almost everything he says however:-



Lenny said:


> - they were this close to chaining me down and reading them out to me in scenes reminiscent of a Vogon poetry recital


 
What's wrong with Vogan poetry? You know you're alive at a Vogan poetry recital; you certainly don't fall asleep like you do at those awful shakespear events and you can always get seats without pre-booking.

PC's are more advanced than games consoles for general purpose computing. They would probably be superb games platforms if the programs were written for a standard hardware configuration. Unfortunately it's rare that a PC has the same spec as another in the same town, let alone worldwide, so the poor old PC game writer has to include tests for the different variations as in :-

case(sound_card){

case SOUNDBLASTER: make_a_noise(SCREAM);
break;
case AVA: blurt_it_out(SCREAM);
etc 
every one of these tests is painfully slow compared to just- make_a_noise(SCREAM);

*Sadly* all this can be taken care of by an operating system. Windows being the main flavour of choice. As the underlying OS takes on more tasks and tweeks (not connected to, but greatly affecting performance -FAT versus NTFS disk format as a for instance) the games performance is reduced. The only cure being an upgrade in PC for the same performance. Test this if you dare, imagine loading Vista on a machine 4 years old - then imagine playing DOOM on that machine - impressive eh.

I often run DOS based programs on my PC. It's frightening how fast they run compared to the "good old days" of 386/486 yet the WORD still takes 5 seconds to think about loading a file under XP on the same machine (timing approx but you get the idea)

A games console removes all this uncertainty. The sound graphics and video driver is the same everywhere no if then or butts. Then add in the fact it was designed for graphics handling and games playing: there is no contest. I can still 'play' with Laura on the same console at the same speed 7,8,15,30 years from now on my PS2 as I did originally.


----------



## Lenny (Apr 13, 2008)

Fake Vencar said:


> PC all the way! I won't go into a long debate, but in 2 years time the consoles will all have to be replaced by new ones costing a bomb!


 
Ah, now that's where business plans come in.

Your statement is true concerning Microsoft and the Xbox - MS have adopted a five year busness plan. The 360 launched in 2005, and is now two and a half years into its lifecycle. So you can expect to see a whole new Xbox console in 2010.

Sony, however, have adopted a 10 year plan with the PS3. The PS1 and PS2 had five year plans (PS1 launched in 1995 and was replaced by the PS2 in 2000, which itself was replaced by the PS3 in 2006 - problems with development of the PS3 led to the PS2 having an extended life span, and indeed, it is still selling strong). We won't see the PS4 until 2016 at the very earliest.

As for Nintendo, I reckon they've also gone for a five year plan with the Wii.


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 13, 2008)

Actually, I feel, quite strongly, that Nintendo will announce and subsequently launch the next iteration of the Wii fairly soon. They've created a franchise with the Wii, as they had done with the NES, and with its low price point and high accessibility it's made quite a name for itself. A more powerful, slightly more expensive WiiNii (little Japanese pun there, sorry) would sell strongly and the higher price point would likely be forgotten about with a system that is capable of HD, visuals on par with PS3 and 360, and installed with a high capacity solid state drive.

I think we'll see an announcement as early as Q1 next year from Nintendo, and a new hardware release well before the next MS and Sony consoles.


----------



## Thadlerian (Apr 13, 2008)

I say PC. But only because I wouldn't be able to come to terms with myself on buying a big, expensive machine that can only be used for gaming.


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 13, 2008)

I would say; "It depends on the game and user interface."

FPS definitely PC, no game controller, that I have tried, can compete with the speed/accuracy of a mouse for targeting.

For character action games; Console as the game controller allows quick programming of moves.

Driving or vehicle simulations, with the appropriate interface (steering wheel/joystick etc.) PC,  If only a generic interface/controller & TV is used console.  

In all cases that I have so far tried; games that are ported from their native environment to operate on other devices are universally bad (in ported form), even when the parent game was great.

For group play I prefer a LAN made up of PCs.

Enjoy!


----------



## kaneda (Apr 13, 2008)

I'd say console.  Purely because of the fact that if it says "PS2" on the game you know that it will actually work on a PS2.  I've bought numerous games for my computer only for it to not work because my spec isn't up to much. 

Saying that though, 2 of the best games I've ever played have been on the PC...


----------



## Fake Vencar (Apr 14, 2008)

Lucien21 said:


> And you don't need to upgrade a PC then



Well, yes, but not buy a completely new one! That's a major benefit in itself


----------



## Lenny (Apr 14, 2008)

But how much does it cost to upgrade, Ven? With consoles, you spend £300 every five years, say. You can end up spending £300 every six months with a PC - new graphics card and more RAM alone can cost that much. Then you go for a new processor, which means you need to upgrade your mobo at the same time.

I paid about £850 for the components for my computer about a year and a half ago, and they were all old components (about six months old - the technology, not the physical objects). By March '07 (I built the PC in Sept '06), I'd spent another £300 on a new keyboard, mouse and graphics card, and in Sept '07 it was £100 for more RAM. This September I'm looking to build a whole new computer for about £3,000, simply because this one is getting so outdated.

I won't need to fork out a measly £500 for the PS4 (we'll be kidding ourselves if we think it'll be cheaper) until 2016. And until that point, I can buy game after game for the PS3, and they'll all work.


----------



## Connavar (Apr 14, 2008)

Consol is better for two reasons IMO.

1. More balanced game wise.  Different types of game.  PC is perfect if you like FPS,strategy games,WOW types of games.  PS1,PS2 gave more types of games that was interesting to me.

2.  You dont have upgrade your consol like the pc every few months to play the new games.  My pc playing friend has spend more money on his PC,graphic cards than 10 PS3 would cost.  As a kid you cant afford that, you go buy PS,sega or whatever and enjoy 1000s of time of gaming.


PC i play only really Football Manager series,Medevil War series.


----------



## Fake Vencar (Apr 14, 2008)

Lenny said:


> But how much does it cost to upgrade, Ven? With consoles, you spend £300 every five years, say. You can end up spending £300 every six months with a PC - new graphics card and more RAM alone can cost that much. Then you go for a new processor, which means you need to upgrade your mobo at the same time.
> 
> I paid about £850 for the components for my computer about a year and a half ago, and they were all old components (about six months old - the technology, not the physical objects). By March '07 (I built the PC in Sept '06), I'd spent another £300 on a new keyboard, mouse and graphics card, and in Sept '07 it was £100 for more RAM. This September I'm looking to build a whole new computer for about £3,000, simply because this one is getting so outdated.
> 
> I won't need to fork out a measly £500 for the PS4 (we'll be kidding ourselves if we think it'll be cheaper) until 2016. And until that point, I can buy game after game for the PS3, and they'll all work.



I'm well and truly beaten here so I yield! Consoles are better for playing games than the PC...in certain areas. I still find the PC to be the best place for any multiplayer games, certainly in the 1st person shooter genre


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 14, 2008)

If you plan ahead you don't need to upgrade a PC but once every 3 years, or so, and when you upgrade you can usually do it piece meal; memory here, vid card there, processor, sometimes mobo later. Yes; you will not get the ubermostbest performance or graphics (but they will be as good or better than a console). (I just put most of my surplus, newest old pieces (3 years old) into a junk box PC; it will run crysis (not at high frame rates or resolutions, but it is playable) and I expect that it will run Farcry 2 when it comes out, this fall.) 

The big down side to PCs is that you get a limited amount of good, new, game titles every year.

The big upside to PCs is that they are good for more than just gaming; word processing, video processing, home theater, music, reading, art, photographic processing, stock trading etc. etc. Trying to justify a PC for just gaming is a bit silly, IMO. (I actually cannot conceive of spending 3,000 pounds on a PC; you can almost certainly build the same identical machine for much less, even if you include phase change (refrigerated processors)).

I think that there is a major disconnect here; If one were to limit the resolutions and frame rates of a gaming PC to those of consoles and to make "hacking the box" the only way to upgrade then there would be little upgrade cost to the PC.  If on the other hand we were able to upgrade parts for consoles then people would spend the money (and complain) about the high cost of upgrading their consoles.

Finally; there is something about replacing my PC's innerds that just makes me feel good!

Enjoy!


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 14, 2008)

Happy Joe said:


> If you plan ahead you don't need to upgrade a PC but once every 3 years, or so, and when you upgrade you can usually do it piece meal; memory here, vid card there, processor, sometimes mobo later. Yes; you will not get the ubermostbest performance or graphics (but they will be as good or better than a console). (I just put most of my surplus, newest old pieces (3 years old) into a junk box PC; it will run crysis (not at high frame rates or resolutions, but it is playable) and I expect that it will run Farcry 2 when it comes out, this fall.)



This assumes a certain level of proficiency not inherent to the average Joe. And honestly, upgrading once every three years is going to mean a degradation in overall visual quality throughout the time frame in which you own that particular PC, something which contradicts the very essence of what it means to be a PC-gamer. Those may seem like opposing counter-arguments, but they're actually quite harmonious if you consider the point I'm trying to make.



> The big down side to PCs is that you get a limited amount of good, new, game titles every year.


Agree with you there.



> The big upside to PCs is that they are good for more than just gaming; word processing, video processing, home theater, music, reading, art, photographic processing, stock trading etc. etc. Trying to justify a PC for just gaming is a bit silly, IMO. (I actually cannot conceive of spending 3,000 pounds on a PC; you can almost certainly build the same identical machine for much less, even if you include phase change (refrigerated processors)).


Here's the thing, however, the justification in cost argument is always moot in that the cost is directly related to building a machine capable of playing games, and not doing all those other things -- which could be done on a PC that costs far, far less than what is implied for playing mainstream gaming software. In other words, a PC being able to surf the web and process words is about as relevant as being able to listen to music and watch DVD's on your PS3 - they're both irrelevant, albeit considerably nice, bonuses if the main purpose of the machine is to play games.

(Edit: I thought I should clarify, since the above is in agreement to your post but reads more like a rebuttal; what I mean by this is that in an argument of platforms, as a gaming device the PC requires a certain investment and that the normal argument presented in these situations is one of cost. Being that this argument is based on gaming platforms I both agree with you but need to point out that despite being able to build a PC for less the normal PC gamer is not normally concerned with what other functions his box is capable of but how well it performs doing the one thing he built it for -- gaming.)



> I think that there is a major disconnect here; If one were to limit the resolutions and frame rates of a gaming PC to those of consoles and to make "hacking the box" the only way to upgrade then there would be little upgrade cost to the PC.  If on the other hand we were able to upgrade parts for consoles then people would spend the money (and complain) about the high cost of upgrading their consoles.


This point is rather moot as it's completely hypothetical. The world doesn't work this way at current, and therefore there is no precedent and we cannot, in good conscience, make assumptions based on it or form points from it. 



> Finally; there is something about replacing my PC's innerds that just makes me feel good!
> 
> Enjoy!


As a very, very longtime hardware enthusiast I completely agree with you. I spent years devoting all my hard-earned money on components; I was a member of XS at its inception and if it weren't for me and a few other members of GameFAQ's (Kunark, Sheo and a handful of others) I'm convinced the PC hardware boards would still believe overclocking a buzzword for time-based interior design choices. However, during most of my days doing P4T mods, 1.6a overclocks and learning how to build cooling systems well before after market solutions had hit the market, I rarely, if ever, played games -- and the same thing went for quite a few hardware buffs. In other words, I still love replacing my PC's innards, but generally speaking the hardware crowd and gaming community can be so vehemently opposed to one another that using this as a basis for loving PC gaming borders on travesty.

...said with all due respect, of course.


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 14, 2008)

I,kind of, agree with most of the above.
It all come down to what you want;

An uber tech (uber expensive) dedicated piece of hardware, with an inbuilt technological obsolescence (If you want the best it will only be the best for a very limited time and to stay current means a large expenditure for peak of the curve hardware). Its very possible; but lets have no complaints about upgrade cost, or frequency!

A closed box that is state of the art for only a few weeks then is surpassed (obsolete) in terms of technology but has a manufacturer that a dedicated to a rather long product life. The penurious choice.

Or a technologically unexceptional PC that has a broad application base, gaming is secondary, but adequate.



> This assumes a certain level of proficiency not inherent to the average Joe.


 
I beg to differ; most people can do it but most people do not want to do it (a case of intellectual lassitude).

(BTW; Joes are exceptional!) 



> honestly, upgrading once every three years is going to mean a degradation in overall visual quality


 
Only compared to the state of the PC art. If compared to a console the graphic goodness will improve slightly (better drivers etc.) and the console will remain static.
One needs to ask the question; is gaming the fun part or are the bragging rights for machine benchies/stats more important. Don't get me wrong; there is a definite "Oh Wow" factor to gaming with good visuals but honestly, IMO, in the heat of combat there is no time to appreciate eye candy.

I too went from hardware to gaming however I have never been rabid or obsessed about either. At times overclocking has both allowed better gaming performance at no cost and been a source of hours of amusement, optimizing system parameters to get a slightly better clock or benchmark. 
Now I game when a new (good) one comes out and use a PC for other purposes, most of the time. (I admit it; I'm a soft core gamer, (and have never even benchmarked the current machine)) 

Must be gettin' old I guess...

Enjoy!


----------



## Lenny (Apr 14, 2008)

Happy Joe said:


> A closed box that is state of the art for only a few weeks then is surpassed (obsolete) in terms of technology but has a manufacturer that a dedicated to a rather long product life. The penurious choice.


 
I imagine that's a console you're describing? 

Which is why they're built to be sound for years. I'll use the PS3 as an example (though I think this post will turn into another "Why a console is better for games" post. Ah well.  ), and I'll specifically make two points: 1. Processor and 2. Blu-ray.

Sony marketed the PS3, and still do to an extent, as futureproof. Said futureproof technology was the reason why it took an extra year for it to come to the market - first there were problems with the Cell processor (bad yields because it was a cutting edge technology), and then the same happened with the Blu-ray diodes (same problems again).

The Cell processor is an eight-core processor that, boviously, can do eight things at once. I haven't seen a single PC, or website that sells PC components, selling a single eight core chip. Sure, there are motherboards that can take two Quad core chips, but it's not the same as one. It's going to be a while before we see eight core chips on the market - a bit more than a few weeks old before its outdated.

Because it's got an eight core chip (although, admittedly, only seven are used, with the eighth idle for backup), developers can spread the code over the cores, meaning one can handle AI, whilst another handles physics, a third on graphics, a fourth for other engines... and so on.  Developers don't have that luxury with PCs, and so must cater for the lowest common denominator - single core chips. Which is true of a majority software (there is very little out there which is tailored to work specifically on dual core or even quad core processors).

Then there's the Blu-ray drive. How many PCs come with these as standard? Sure, a few laptops do, but they cost an arm and a leg. The Blu-ray format is set to take over from DVD, eventually, after having come out of the dust thrown up by the format war alone. For games, this is fantastic. A single layer Blu-ray disc holds 25gb of data. A dual layer holds 50gb. Currently, prototypes for 100gb, 200gb, and 400gb discs are in the works. Just imagine a game packed onto a 50gb disc - the sheer quantity of hi-def video, audio and textures. And compare it to a DVD-9, which holds 8.7gb of data. A game on a DVD-9 has to be compressed mad styley, and even then you're not guaranteed to fit a game onto a single disc (look at Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey for the Xbox 360, for example. Both are about 50 hours long, I believe, and come on 3 discs and 4 discs respectively - a single Blu-ray disc each). As people become more used to hi-def content, a format that can cope with the sheer volume of data (usually in an uncompressed, lossless format) is needed... which Blu-ray is. Blu-ray will last for years, again being one of these technologies that won't be obsolete within three weeks.

---

Don't get me wrong, though. If I had a mysterious benefactor who gave me £10,000 pocket money every six months, I'd be building new PCs left right and centre... but not really for games. More for the hardware, and, to some extent, the bragging rights.


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 15, 2008)

Happy Joe said:


> I beg to differ; most people can do it but most people do not want to do it (a case of intellectual lassitude).
> 
> (BTW; Joes are exceptional!)



Note that I used the word proficiency, which implies that an individual has already made the necessary steps to become proficient. The average Joe is_ capable_ of building a PC, but that doesn't mean they're proficient in doing so. Understanding happens after application, not before, and even when it does happen prior to, based on research or garnering knowledge from others, one has then become proficient and therefore the above does not apply.

(and just so you know, I did just hit myself for the philosophical diatribe at the end)

In short: I stand by my earlier point. And though the average user is certainly capable, we're still assuming that they're ready, willing and able -- which isn't always the case. I often hear this argument on hardware message boards web-wide, and when the offending poster explains that they simply don't have the time, resources or the want to build their own PC they're met with the same original string of responses that put them on the defensive to begin with. Believe it or not, there's simply people in this world that don't want to bother with building and/or upgrading their PC.

Everyone is surely capable of changing their own oil, putting in a new starter and changing their own tires, and beside the dirty cost of admission, none are really too difficult or out of a normal individual's realm of understanding. Yet, mechanics everywhere strive on offering these types of services.

It's safe to say everyone can do anything but we shouldn't require them to (or assume they can) simply because we're already doing it and feel everyone should too.





> Only compared to the state of the PC art. If compared to a console the graphic goodness will improve slightly (better drivers etc.) and the console will remain static.


The dichotomy here is that a PC is being utilized to its fullest degree at the point which the software is getting released and a console's resources are generally only being tapped into when a particular piece of software is released for it. In other words, you _need_ to upgrade a PC when a new game is released, while the console developers will tell you with some degree of enthusiasm that their breathtaking game only uses "10% of the systems full capabilities." Point: the experience scales in the latter case and requires the user scale the hardware in the former. You need to upgrade the PC to maintain the fidelity -- the same isn't required in the console realm - and honestly, for that very reason, it almost isn't fair to compare the two.



> One needs to ask the question; is gaming the fun part or are the bragging rights for machine benchies/stats more important. Don't get me wrong; there is a definite "Oh Wow" factor to gaming with good visuals but honestly, IMO, in the heat of combat there is no time to appreciate eye candy.


That's really subjective and each individual will feel differently. I know guys I used to play QIII with who turned everything down to achieve the fastest possible FPS and so they could play without any hiccups. To each their own; my opinion is that in the heat of battle, that level of immersion is key and the graphics are a part of that experience -- which is a sum of all its parts.



> I too went from hardware to gaming however I have never been rabid or obsessed about either. At times overclocking has both allowed better gaming performance at no cost and been a source of hours of amusement, optimizing system parameters to get a slightly better clock or benchmark.
> Now I game when a new (good) one comes out and use a PC for other purposes, most of the time. (I admit it; I'm a soft core gamer, (and have never even benchmarked the current machine))


I'm slowing down myself, though I still tweak and optimize and run a good solid week of benchmarks and burn-ins before I call a new PC ready-to-use. I guess I'm still a bit OCD where the numbers are concerned. 



> Must be gettin' old I guess...



You and me both 

...and of course Joe's are awesome. I don't only play one on TV, but I'm a Joe in RL as well


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 15, 2008)

Lenny;
Given the limitations in high definition TV picture resolution/frame rate; does the cell processor (an admittedly superior number cruncher) make a game more enjoyable than an adequate computer (leaving out the rare and expensive Uber gaming rigs)?

I really can't say as I have only played a few games on the PS3 and haven't had the opportunity to do a head to head comparison; 

but we can look at the display;

The last time I looked high def 1080p TV was 1080 x 1920 resolution with 30 frames/sec NTSC (US) and 25 frames PAL (Europe), some blue ray players apparently put out 24 frames/sec. 
Personally, I think this is adequate for gaming but some folks maintain that much higher frame counts are highly desirable (I can't argue this one). 

Many PC monitors will meet or exceed the high def TV resolution so I would not expect to see much of a difference, picture wise, on a head to head PS3 vs a good (not uber) PC comparison. 

However the PS3 seems to use a chip that is similar to the old 7800 nvidia series video card for graphics. This is barely acceptable in todays PC gaming community (many/most would say it is long obsolete).

Overall if we are talking raw computing power the PS3 cell processor would have to come out on top of the PC.

This give me a picture of a great processor tied up by obsolete graphics hardware and a lack of applications (other than games).

It is interesting that Crysis is allegedly being ported to PS3 and this is considered by many the only console platform that has much of a chance to run it. It is also interesting that the CEO of Sony has referred to the PS3 as a computer not a console. People are using them to fold at home, and I would expect future inroads into the PC realm by this technology. (For PC prices ($425-$800+) you should expect more than just games and movies, IMO).

I do kind of like Blueray and when Sony satisfies its greed (when the price becomes reasonable for a combo burner, they are dropping) I will stick one in the PC. (Its an advantage of PCs that you can do this).

The number of cores is not really an issue for me on the PC since the applications to fully utilize multi threading are only slowly being implemented; even in games. This may be one reason why the Cell processor has not dominated the PC market - few applications may be capable of using it.

I have seen references to 6 and 8 core chip packages from both AMD and Intel (don't hold your breath, but maybe next year). 8 core, not single processor package, work stations have been available for at least a year, and I believe that at least one company is said to be making a server based on the (IBM, Toshiba, Sony) Cell processor.

Enjoy!


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 15, 2008)

> Note that I used the word proficiency


 
I think we, largely, agree... most people can become proficient with PC hardware (tuning takes more dedication than assembly) but don't want to, for whatever valid reason (their choice). (The exceptions being people, who want to poke their fingers inside but just can't seem to grasp the principles). (I use the term proficient to show that they are/could be (with interest, practice and study) good with the hardware but not necessarily master builders or master technicians, more of a journeyman level of competence, so to speak).

When I hear people complain about cost I tend to assume that they should be willing to do something about it; becoming self reliant is one way to control cost (but not very popular because it involves effort).



> You need to upgrade the PC to maintain the fidelity


 
True but fidelity maintenance or enhancement is not everyone's goal... some folks just want to play a game and as long as it doesn't look/perform too badly they are largely satisfied.

Different strokes for different folks... I guess!
Enjoy!


----------



## Connavar (Apr 15, 2008)

Im not a total newbie to fixing up my pc but i dont want to bother with that.


With new generation consols like PS3 who is becoming more like the strongest gaming pc out there is no need.  Specially when most famous PC games makes to consol these days.

Not that i care for pc games.   IMO there is no need to bother when you will get games like Oblivion,other pc games to your consol anyway.

Difference beteween consol and PC gaming is like the difference beteween Xbox 2 and PS3 you are the getting same games near the same quality that there isnt as big difference as before.


----------



## Commonmind (Apr 15, 2008)

Happy Joe said:


> Different strokes for different folks... I guess!
> Enjoy!



Definitely


----------



## Lenny (Apr 15, 2008)

Happy Joe said:


> Lenny;
> Given the limitations in high definition TV picture resolution/frame rate; does the cell processor (an admittedly superior number cruncher) make a game more enjoyable than an adequate computer (leaving out the rare and expensive Uber gaming rigs)?
> 
> I really can't say as I have only played a few games on the PS3 and haven't had the opportunity to do a head to head comparison;


 
I'm not a PC gamer, so I can't really make comparisons myself, either. The games I have played on the PC are things like the Guild Wars series, and I'm currently halfway through the original Half-Life.



> but we can look at the display;
> 
> The last time I looked high def 1080p TV was 1080 x 1920 resolution with 30 frames/sec NTSC (US) and 25 frames PAL (Europe), some blue ray players apparently put out 24 frames/sec.


 
For films, yes.

Films are filmed in 24fps, for some reason, yet most players output in FPS that aren't divisable by 24. So what they do, is repeat every 24th frame to make 25. Blu-ray players, however, output in 24fps (indeed, you can turn that option on and off on the PS3), making the film smoother. At higher definitions, you're much more likely to see a stutter every now and then because of the repeated 24th frame if your player isn't outputting in 24fps.




> Personally, I think this is adequate for gaming but some folks maintain that much higher frame counts are highly desirable (I can't argue this one).


 
Frame rate doesn't really bother me in games (for example, the 30fps vs. 60fps argument just passes me by), but I do see why higher framerates are desirable. Take any EA game that has been ported to the PS3. Yes, I'll let you choose any game out of every single one that's on the PS3, because they all have the same problems - the framerate goes up and down like a yo-yo on steroids. And it is noticeable. If you start at 30fps (which most EA games for the PS3 are), then it's a lot more noticeable when the oh-so-wonderful programming by the EA teams kicks in, and everything slows down because you decided to be silly and shoot an explosive barrel. Oh, sorry guys, I forgot that you can't program for toffee. I had the problem a lot in *The Orange Box *(which, for some insane reason, Valve gave to EA... maybe because Gabe Newell vomits everytime he hears the word"PS3") - a head crab leaps out at me, and suddenly I'm seeing the world in 3fps. This horrible four legged creature is slowly coing closer and closer, I raise my gun equally slowly, mash the fire button, then the head crab is past and the wall opposite looks like a dot-to-dot puzzle. Then everything slows down again and something bites the back of my head.

Now if the starting point were 60fps the slowdown would hit something like 30fps - yes, you'd see it slow down, but the game would still run at a normal speed.

And at 60fps, things just look better. 



> Many PC monitors will meet or exceed the high def TV resolution so I would not expect to see much of a difference, picture wise, on a head to head PS3 vs a good (not uber) PC comparison.
> 
> However the PS3 seems to use a chip that is similar to the old 7800 nvidia series video card for graphics. This is barely acceptable in todays PC gaming community (many/most would say it is long obsolete).


 
Based on, but not the same.

The graphics processor in the PS3 is called the RSX and, whilst it does draw from the old 7800 series cards, the architecture is a lot different, simply because it's in a console.

I don't know the specs, or the fuel consumption and revs per minute of the thing, but I do know it works, and it works a treat. Look, for example, at the first *Motorstorm* game. The graphics were mind-bogglingly good, and it was a launch title!! Take a look at *Uncharted: Drake's Fortune* - one of the prettiest games I've ever seen. *Metal Gear Solid 4 *is coming out in a couple of months, and that's got some amazing graphics. The GPU more than lives up to today's standards. To be honest, I think that *Drake's Fortune* looks nicer than *Crysis*... and it'll run on every PS3 without a problem, and with no slowdown.

Something else interesting is that processor can dedicate a core to graphics - not just the processing of them, but also as a kind of RAM... don't ask me how it works, because I haven't a clue.



> Overall if we are talking raw computing power the PS3 cell processor would have to come out on top of the PC.
> 
> This give me a picture of a great processor tied up by obsolete graphics hardware and a lack of applications (other than games).
> 
> It is interesting that Crysis is allegedly being ported to PS3 and this is considered by many the only console platform that has much of a chance to run it. It is also interesting that the CEO of Sony has referred to the PS3 as a computer not a console. People are using them to fold at home, and I would expect future inroads into the PC realm by this technology. (For PC prices ($425-$800+) you should expect more than just games and movies, IMO).


 
Ahhh, now we're getting to the hidden aspects that many people just glance over.

Did you know that any USB or bluetooth keyboard/mouse will connect to the PS3? So games such as *Unreal Tournament 3*, which support them, can be played using a keyboard and mouse. Then there's the fact that the PS3 browser (whilst admittedly not the best, still does the job, and is being constantly updated with the firmware updates) is a full browser.

Like a PC, you can swap out the HDD the PS3 comes with, a whack in a bigger one - a 5400rpm 2.5" drive, and you're sorted. You can use 7200rpm if you want, but it is actually slower. Then again, with 500gb 5400rpm drives which are cheap, why do you need to spend the extra money for a 7200rpm one?

And the feature that turns the PS3 into more than a games console (albeit one with top notch media capabilities) - the choice, from out of the box, to install a Linux distro. And if you want to really goferit, you can install Wine on your distro, and emulate, say, *Windows XP*.



> I do kind of like Blueray and when Sony satisfies its greed (when the price becomes reasonable for a combo burner, they are dropping) I will stick one in the PC. (Its an advantage of PCs that you can do this).


 
It's not just Sony, although they are possibly the biggest player in the Blu-ray Association. For example, the PS3 is the cheapest and most feature-rich Blu-ray player on the market, and I think the only one that can be updated with firmware for the latest Blu-ray features, such a BD Live, and BD Profile 2.0 (which will, amongst other things, allow you to rip Blu-ray discs to the PS3 HDD, and then put them onto the PSP and watch them on the go).

The PC drives are probably not regulated by Sony, to be honest. I haven't a clue why the prices are still so high (but then again, how much did DVD burners cost when they first arrived? I bet they werent cheaper than Blu-ray burners. I can remember when a DVD player cost £500!).



> The number of cores is not really an issue for me on the PC since the applications to fully utilize multi threading are only slowly being implemented; even in games. This may be one reason why the Cell processor has not dominated the PC market - few applications may be capable of using it.
> 
> I have seen references to 6 and 8 core chip packages from both AMD and Intel (don't hold your breath, but maybe next year). 8 core, not single processor package, work stations have been available for at least a year, and I believe that at least one company is said to be making a server based on the (IBM, Toshiba, Sony) Cell processor.
> 
> Enjoy!


 
It's IBM, I think. Toshiba have recently bought a huge majority of Sony's factories that manufacture the chips for nearly $1 billion (something like $895 million, I think - it was announced two days after Toshiba announced that they were discontinuing the HD-DVD format), in a deal which is designed to up the production of the chips, lower the costs, and eventually get the 45nm versions of the chips out into the market and also into the PS3.

IBM's next model of Supercomputer is apparently going to have something like 13,000 Cell processors, and about 10,000 of AMDs dual core processors.

Talking about servers and the cell processor, a lot of companies are actually buying PS3s and installing Linux on them for use in server farms. They're a lot cheaper than standard servers or similar power, yet work just as well.

An example of this is the servers for the PS3 online multiplayer game *Warhawk*:












---

I fear we may be taking this away from "Console or PC?" slightly... then again, I suppose we are arguing the finer points of the technology behind consoles and PCs.


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 15, 2008)

> I suppose we are arguing the finer points of the technology behind consoles and PCs.


 
Indeed! and we are entering a gray area as the PS3 could be used as and considered a PC with appropriate software (as you mentioned) but most people use it as a console.

The important thing is to enjoy gaming, on what ever platform.

Enjoy!!


----------



## edott (Apr 19, 2008)

I think most shooter games are better on console. most strategy games play better on the PC.


----------



## sarakoth (Apr 22, 2008)

I think more competitive gamers go for pcs while casual ones go for consoles (mostly Wii but also 360 or PS3)


----------



## sarakoth (Apr 22, 2008)

Connavar said:


> Im not a total newbie to fixing up my pc but i dont want to bother with that.
> 
> 
> With new generation consols like PS3 who is becoming more like the strongest gaming pc out there is no need.  Specially when most famous PC games makes to consol these days.
> ...



Many major competitive games are PC exclusive. Also, even an average home PC nowadays can match consoles in graphics.


----------



## Ranwulf (Apr 27, 2008)

I have to say console, for a surprising reason.

I think i have sensitive eyes or something and time on the PC kinda messes them up. I'd imagine distance from the screen would make it better, though I haven't exactly tested that.


----------



## Aes (Apr 28, 2008)

I'd have to say PC, because I can play (or will be able to eventually) just about everything on a console over the computer, as well as many computer-only games.

Besides, awesomeness like this is something you'll only find on a PC:

Immaterial & Missing Power

Or!

This is for real, I swear


----------



## Lenny (Apr 28, 2008)

Aes said:


> I'd have to say PC, because I can play (or will be able to eventually) just about everything on a console over the computer, as well as many computer-only games.


 
Welllll... EA games, yeah (but who seriously wants to?), and a majority of the 360 exclusive games because Microsoft like a bit of the green stuff (money!! Illegal minded fools). You won't find most of the Wii games on the PC, or the PS3 games on the PC - MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance, Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, the FFs, Heavy Rain, Eight Days. All brilliant games (from what's been shown, at least), which only owners of the Black Behemoth can play.


----------



## Aes (Apr 28, 2008)

Lenny said:


> Welllll... EA games, yeah (but who seriously wants to?), and a majority of the 360 exclusive games because Microsoft like a bit of the green stuff (money!! Illegal minded fools). You won't find most of the Wii games on the PC, or the PS3 games on the PC - MGS4, Killzone 2, Resistance, Motorstorm, LittleBigPlanet, the FFs, Heavy Rain, Eight Days. All brilliant games (from what's been shown, at least), which only owners of the Black Behemoth can play.


Oh, I'm referring to emulators with regards to console games on the PC, which could almost doesn't count because they're _technically_ still console games, but it's close enough.  I love my computer because it lets me still play these games even though the actual cartridges don't retain save data anymore, systems no longer work, etc.  Plus, with a console, it's a lot more difficult to be in charge of all the data than it is with files on a PC.  Score another set of points for PC. 

If we're strictly speaking about present-day games, then it's really tough to say.  PC if you enjoy competing with people on the internet, or console if you either like to single-player it, or compete with friends when they come over to your house.

It's really tough for me to choose between the two if this is the criteria. :/


----------



## Happy Joe (Apr 29, 2008)

> console if you either like to single-player it, or compete with friends when they come over to your house.


 
Except for those of us who LAN or maintain a network of computers/work stations for just this purpose; (Quake4, Doom 3, Serious Sam + friends+ beer on a bunch of PCs, or most other FPS; team, free for all or coop. Some RPGs are fun too Diablo2/LOD or Sacred for example). (Currently we can do Crysis on 3 of my machines).

I very much prefer group game play where everyone has their own monitor/viewpoint, I suppose than you could get a bunch of people to bring both consoles and TVs though (we used to do it a lot with CRT monitors and computers when LAN gaming, back in the stone age).

Enjoy!


----------



## A1R5N1P3R (May 28, 2008)

PC is ideal for MMO and RTS (for now).  But mouse is just too easy for aiming in FPS and is no challenge at all.  It's also a moneypit for upkeep, and for no good reason; just a scam between game dev and hardware companies to have us part with $$.  So I say Console.

Console gaming has Driving and Flying in the bag, then you add the RPG market, and the more imaginative shooters; ye Console is where it's at.


----------



## Commonmind (May 28, 2008)

A1R5N1P3R said:


> PC is ideal for MMO and RTS (for now).  But mouse is just too easy for aiming in FPS and is no challenge at all.  It's also a moneypit for upkeep, and for no good reason; just a scam between game dev and hardware companies to have us part with $$.  So I say Console.
> 
> Console gaming has Driving and Flying in the bag, then you add the RPG market, and the more imaginative shooters; ye Console is where it's at.





If mice and keyboard made everyone better at FPS games there wouldn't be the competitive industry there is today in multiplayer gaming. And you've obviously never heard of GTR2 or Flight Simulator X


----------



## Joel007 (May 28, 2008)

I have plenty of fun with both PC and console. 
In general for single player games, or multiplayer online I will use the PC. I tend to use the consoles to play games with other people in the same room.


----------



## Sylvetra_Snake (Jun 3, 2008)

edott said:


> I think most shooter games are better on console. most strategy games play better on the PC.


 
I prefer shooter games on the PC, they seem made for it as the mouse is so easy to use, way better than analogue sticks.  Strategy games are deffo built for the PC such as Dawn Of War and Warcraft etc.


----------



## Memnoch (Jun 3, 2008)

The Quake games and similar are good examples of where PC kicks ass compared to Consoles . . . Plus RPG n Strat games need the power of a PC


----------



## Armadillo-002 (Jun 6, 2008)

In general it depends as to what type of games you like and whether it will appear on that platform. They are however beginning to crosss over to each other platform more frequently as developers are looking to cash in on their franchises or look to gain more fiscal prudance. 

The type of games do tend to favour one format than the other, eg football manager or any other type of simulation will favour the mouse and keyboard while a racing game has much better control on a control pad rather than a keyboard. The tech spec *can be* an issue with most gamers, other than PC enthusiasts, who prefer changing hardware than a stable console. 

As for me, I have played on both PC and console, and it doesn't really bother me which format as long I can play on it without any trouble,


----------

