EPTConsole Gamers Get Killed against PC Gamers - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Uncle Leo
60 Posts
| ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:07 Ownos wrote: Did you really just say that? PC gaming costs relatively far more. And for the most part have caught up in the graphics department. Console machines are sold at a loss. Not they don't. A brand new xbox, which has last gen graphics, costs £200 for a standard console plus a hard drive, with 1 controller. On top of that you have to buy a HDMI cable if you want it to even compare to games that came out in 2005 with it's now 6 year old hardware. Usually for the social experience you have to buy a second controller too. Then you have to pay for xbox live. I mean if i look at what my friend has spent on it, he bought an xbox when it was first released, that cost him £300, then on top of that his xbox broke, forcing him to fork out another £200 for the new one, and im pretty sure most people who have had a first gen 360 have had to replace it by now. Then also most people i know bought a full hd tv just for their console for their room or w/e, thats alot more expensive than a pc monitor. And then of course you take into account that everyone has a pc or a laptop for work/play anyways, so we are just talking about the price difference between a normal pc/laptop and a gaming one. And lastly the fact that the games for the xbox more than make up for the "low" pricing of the console, as they can cost between £40-50 per game, which is just stupid. Ergo, a console is not a cost effective form of gaming at all. | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:33 Ownos wrote: Which will likely run better on the Xbox. Show me a PC build that is <= $200 that can run MW2 in 1080. Show me an xbox that tuns MW2 on 1080, i think you'll find they cheat and upscale it. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
 | ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:45 MerciLess wrote: I smoke people because of my fast reflexes not necessarily precision. Bring it on PC gamers do you mean you are fast at hitting the button that brings up your scope and auto locks on to the nearest target? ;p Seriously tho, I hate FPS on console unless i can hook up and keyboard and mouse. I hate CoD's stupid auto lock on feature as it makes people think they are better than they are, I assume its disabled for competitive games though... if its not.... well thats just lame. | ||
|
couches
618 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:44 UdderChaos wrote: Not they don't. A brand new xbox, which has last gen graphics, costs £200 for a standard console plus a hard drive, with 1 controller. On top of that you have to buy a HDMI cable if you want it to even compare to games that came out in 2005 with it's now 6 year old hardware. Usually for the social experience you have to buy a second controller too. Then you have to pay for xbox live. I mean if i look at what my friend has spent on it, he bought an xbox when it was first released, that cost him £300, then on top of that his xbox broke, forcing him to fork out another £200 for the new one, and im pretty sure most people who have had a first gen 360 have had to replace it by now. Then also most people i know bought a full hd tv just for their console for their room or w/e, thats alot more expensive than a pc monitor. And then of course you take into account that everyone has a pc or a laptop for work/play anyways, so we are just talking about the price difference between a normal pc/laptop and a gaming one. And lastly the fact that the games for the xbox more than make up for the "low" pricing of the console, as they can cost between £40-50 per game, which is just stupid. Ergo, a console is not a cost effective form of gaming at all. Not to mention xbl subscription. And replacing broken controllers for various reasons as well as batteries. lol I probably already posted in this thread before it was bumped but it's never fair to compare pc/console because they are on two totally different levels. | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:49 emythrel wrote: do you mean you are fast at hitting the button that brings up your scope and auto locks on to the nearest target? ;p Seriously tho, I hate FPS on console unless i can hook up and keyboard and mouse. I hate CoD's stupid auto lock on feature as it makes people think they are better than they are, I assume its disabled for competitive games though... if its not.... well thats just lame. Yup that's exactly what I mean. Faster than most other people. Problem? :D | ||
|
Trowabarton756
United States870 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:53 MerciLess wrote: Yup that's exactly what I mean. Faster than most other people. Problem? :D With my mouse+keyboard you won't even get close to me. Sniper headshot all day long  | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:56 Trowabarton756 wrote: With my mouse+keyboard you won't even get close to me. Sniper headshot all day long Eh I can always go stealth. But kinda pointless saying all this on TL ha. The only console game I liked sniping in was call of duty mw1. Spent alot of time getting to where i could already be lined up, barely tap the zoom trigger while at the same time holding steady breath, and shoot someone in the head, all within less than a second. MW2 and Black Ops have terrible sniping =[ | ||
|
Joementum
787 Posts
On January 26 2011 01:39 aike wrote: I think this article is talking about a real shooter game. Not something IGN describes like this... "Since this is a cross-platform game, the shooting is wildly imprecise when compared to games like Counter-Strike. If it were a matter of pinpoint reticule positioning, the PC gamers would undoubtedly dominate. As it's set up, the Xbox 360 gamers get an abundance of aim assists and sticky targeting and the weapons aren't particularly accurate. Unless you're using a sniper rifle, it seems somewhat random if your shots hit someone in the head, arm, or miss altogether, even with Smartlink enabling reticule tracking on PC. Unlike the generally well-balanced magic and tech abilities, the inaccuracies of the weapons make this aspect of your offensive arsenal less enjoyable. Weapon controls have been diluted to the point where PC and X360 gamers are on relatively the same footing, making the whole cross-platform competition more of a non-issue. " IGN is stupid. I played Shadowrun for well over 100+ hours on my 360 (only ~10 on PC) and PC gamers have a huge edge. Only one weapon in the game is inaccurate as hell like they describe.. The shotgun is accurate if used correctly. The rifle is the best weapon as long as you are crouched while shooting. The Rocket Launcher is pretty much useless, so that doesn't help either side. The Sniper Rifle is fine. IGN just doesn't know how to use it. I was getting head shots left and right with it quite easily. It is much easier on the PC by the way. The Katana is balanced on both sides. The pistol is quite accurate. Any decent console player could kill someone with one clip, but using it on the PC is so much better. The SMG is the only inaccurate weapon that IGN describes. Maybe they were being noobs and just using that constantly, but anyone that knew how to play the game could kill someone with a clip from the SMG. That's what it was put in the game for. And if you haven't tried Shadowrun, you're crazy. The game is great. I think I've had more fun playing Shadowrun than I have had playing Halo 3 or Halo: Reach and I've loved pretty much every Halo game. I'm a huge FPS nerd and Shadowrun is just... awesome. The best thing Shadowrun had going for it when I was playing it was that the community was largely an Xbox 360 community. There weren't many PC players on it and if there were, the PC players were usually hunted down, so we could get the 100 Opposite Platform kill achievement. | ||
|
Volshok
United States349 Posts
On January 26 2011 01:37 Let it Raine wrote: pc elitism is ill founded 90% of the pc gamers are just as terrible as 90% of the console gamers, but most terrible pc gamers consider themselves good because they play on the pc. as for cross platform, I think the only game that had this was shadowrun where console gamers dominated in it's short life span. Unfortunately that game is a poor example since it died off pretty quickly and most pc gamers didn't hear of it/thought it looked dumb. Plus you couldn't even take advantage of having more buttons on a keyboard, so it was kind of whatever. (I had the pc version myself, but I used my controller.) I think of the lack of good PC players had nothing to do with the skill set, it was just that the PC port of the game was fucking horrible. Everything from the menus, to the VoIP to.. just everything was atrocious. Remember how it only ran on Vista? Fucking lol. | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
The pc user will be frustrated by the horrible interface but will adventually get the hang of it and have no problem playing to the best of the inputs abilities while the console gamer will feel liberated at first then realize the lack of preparation he has for dealing with the faster pace of the game. I am not talking about casual people when i make this statement, obviously if your looking at trash gamers your going to get trash gamers. Another thing to notice is that in that entire article he never once discussed the defensive side of things. If you can move faster, jump around corners with more control, get behind a wall and get ready faster. All of these things are harder to do because of that stupid controller so basically all he has done is made it easier to die to bad aiming that you cannot even get out of the way of. | ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
| ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
A profound statement that would take a long time to expound upon but it is a huge wall on a number of different audiences. The technology illiterate/dumb The young(very young) The busy (parents for kids, older people who play games) The people looking for a local social experience(calling your buddies over for a game of cod easier on console) The benefits are not there for these markets. These people dont care if they are good or not. They dont care if their input device is destroying competitive atmosphere. The problem is the group of people who are kinda good at video games and go to console games and then start up arguments like these. Those people need to be on pc games as clearly they are a part of the demographic that cares about gaming competitively but they instead live in denial playing on a casual system. | ||
|
couches
618 Posts
On January 26 2011 04:44 chenchen wrote: I don't understand why anyone would play console games. Landing a couple hundred bucks for what's basically a computer that can only play games at low resolutions and crappy graphics that also requires a TV, IN ADDITION to playing for subscription to multiplayer services and poorly designed 60 dollar games . . . it just doesn't add up. I am primarily a pc gamer but the main reason is the social aspect of it. Having a group of friends over and playing 360 is pretty damn fun. It's pretty easy to set up right outta the box. Not everybody has the patience to deal with a gaming pc and it's nuisances. It's easy to understand when you aren't biased. | ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
And by no one I mean like . . the vast vast majority play PC games. It seems like the primary argument for console gaming is convenience, but is whatever convenience it provides worth the absurdly high prices and low quality? | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On January 26 2011 03:36 emythrel wrote: Show me a console that prefers gameplay over graphics. You can run MW2 on a PC just fine, its doesn't have to be in 1080p. Most pro pc gamers play with the settings as low as possible so their screen isn't cluttered by stuff that has no impact on gameplay. on xbox its like "ooh look at the lovely flowers everywhere" on PC its "show me who to shoot" Pc games are built with gameplay in mind, they add the nice graphics for those who can afford the gfx cards to use them, but they aren't important to the game Elitist much? You act as if you need to sacrifice one for the other. So your price point is based on the bare minimum computer specs. Yet no where near the capability of an Xbox. Cool fine you don't care about graphics, but don't delude yourself thinking it's even on the same level. On January 26 2011 03:44 UdderChaos wrote: Not they don't. A brand new xbox, which has last gen graphics, costs £200 for a standard console plus a hard drive, with 1 controller. On top of that you have to buy a HDMI cable if you want it to even compare to games that came out in 2005 with it's now 6 year old hardware. Usually for the social experience you have to buy a second controller too. Then you have to pay for xbox live. I mean if i look at what my friend has spent on it, he bought an xbox when it was first released, that cost him £300, then on top of that his xbox broke, forcing him to fork out another £200 for the new one, and im pretty sure most people who have had a first gen 360 have had to replace it by now. Then also most people i know bought a full hd tv just for their console for their room or w/e, thats alot more expensive than a pc monitor. And then of course you take into account that everyone has a pc or a laptop for work/play anyways, so we are just talking about the price difference between a normal pc/laptop and a gaming one. And lastly the fact that the games for the xbox more than make up for the "low" pricing of the console, as they can cost between £40-50 per game, which is just stupid. Ergo, a console is not a cost effective form of gaming at all. Last gen graphics? Really? The hardware isn't "6 years old" it's different kind of hardware it brings the cost down by specializing the machine. They are making crysis 2 for consoles and that game looks better than the first game that fried so many PCs. And PC games are being brought up in price too and before was only slightly cheaper ($50 brand new vs $60 brand new). Except now part of that doesn't go to royalties and the developers get to pocket it themselves. And the cost of a TV? Most people already have a TV. Are you really factoring in broken equipment too? OK motherboard fries, OK new CPU, ram, and board $200+. Show me a PC set up that can run at the specs as an Xbox. None of this "I play at lowest settings" nonsense. | ||
|
couches
618 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:10 chenchen wrote: Well I mean . . in Korea and China, almost all gamers are casual gamers (not very many forum browsing, hardware obsessing, trend following PC nerds there), and no one plays console games. And by no one I mean like . . the vast vast majority play PC games. It seems like the primary argument for console gaming is convenience, but is whatever convenience it provides worth the absurdly high prices and low quality? Console gaming also seems to have better mainstream marketing in the states. At least from what I've seen. You always hear about parents buying a 360 or PS3 for their kids for christmas. It's the "in" thing to do. I doubt people buying into console gaming are going to be super picky about the lower quality graphics. Or you know, they'd get a pc. They're shopping for a different gaming experience and with different reasons in mind. | ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:16 Ownos wrote: Elitist much? You act as if you need to sacrifice one for the other. So your price point is based on the bare minimum computer specs. Yet no where near the capability of an Xbox. Cool fine you don't care about graphics, but don't delude yourself thinking it's even on the same level. Last gen graphics? Really? The hardware isn't "6 years old" it's different kind of hardware it brings the cost down by specializing the machine. They are making crysis 2 for consoles and that game looks better than the first game that fried so many PCs. And PC games are being brought up in price too and before was only slightly cheaper ($50 brand new vs $60 brand new). Except now part of that doesn't go to royalties and the developers get to pocket it themselves. And the cost of a TV? Most people already have a TV. Are you really factoring in broken equipment too? OK motherboard fries, OK new CPU, ram, and board $200+. Show me a PC set up that can run at the specs as an Xbox. None of this "I play at lowest settings" nonsense. PC gamers typically buy quality games so they don't buy a new game every week, which "zomg hardcore dude bro" console gamers do. And PC gamers have the option of playing a myriad of high quality free to play games that far outstrip most console games in terms of gameplay quality. | ||
|
nira
United States116 Posts
On January 26 2011 05:16 Ownos wrote: Last gen graphics? Really? The hardware isn't "6 years old" it's different kind of hardware it brings the cost down by specializing the machine. They are making crysis 2 for consoles and that game looks better than the first game that fried so many PCs. And PC games are being brought up in price too and before was only slightly cheaper ($50 brand new vs $60 brand new). Except now part of that doesn't go to royalties and the developers get to pocket it themselves. And the cost of a TV? Most people already have a TV. Are you really factoring in broken equipment too? OK motherboard fries, OK new CPU, ram, and board $200+. Show me a PC set up that can run at the specs as an Xbox. None of this "I play at lowest settings" nonsense. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q318/roadkill117/1295984471356.jpg) k buddy | ||
| ||
