Console Gamers Get Killed against PC Gamers - Page 8

On July 27 2010 03:26 OneFierceZealot wrote:
why are you guys hating on consoles so much? consoles are 1/3 the cost of a pc and are just easy as fuck to use. hmm why spend 12 hours downloading a game to my pc when i can just pop in a game right out of the box onto my 360. The only 2 things a mouse has over a controller is its moves faster and is more accurate. OK. cool thats good for WANTING TO BE THE BEST THATS EVA BEEN. but controllers have these awesome things called "triggers" so that you actually feel like shooting instead of pointing and clicking. and to be honest it feels more natural to move around worlds with a controller rather than the awkward as fuck w/a/s/d keys. just my thoughts.

On July 27 2010 03:43 yakitate304 wrote:
I'd say that it's easier to be good when gaming on the PC. I play Modern Warfare 2 on the 360, and recently played it on my friend's PC... It's just so much easier, I was pretty much dominant in the games I played. Sniping was a joke. I like the challenge and precision/dexterity required by using the dual analog system. I have about 4 Prestiges on my 360 account so I've obviously logged some serious minutes on it, and yet I sat down at the PC version for the first time and had some of the most dominant rounds I've ever played. Point & Click just seems way to easy. Also, I feel that the console style is a much more organic, instinctive style of play. Even in "hectic" situations, I always felt calm/safe when I was playing the PC version - there was no sense of panic/difficulty even when stuff was exploding around me or bullets were flying past my head. I never really felt like I was in the game, I always felt that I was just clicking something like playing one of those Flash reflex games. Even after some 12+ days spent playing MW2 on the console, I still get pulled into the game, and I think a lot of it has to do with the controls. Shooting a gun and hitting someone 50 yards away isn't supposed to be easy, and headshotting a prone opponent from 200 yards with a sniper isn't supposed to be easy. I feel like the PC gives too much of a crutch, which takes my head out of the game because I never feel like I'm in danger of have anything difficult to do. With the console I need to focus not just on finding a good spot/vantage point/route, but also on having precise aim. It's much more realistic, IMO.

So yes, if you put a team of console controller users against a team of mouse & keyboard users, of course the mouse users are going to win. It's easier to get to "X" level of skill with that setup.


I also prefer the social aspect of the console, but that may just be because the majority of my friends play games on consoles.

On July 27 2010 03:32 TiNk3R wrote:



Those are mighty exaggerations. I personally like the freedom involved. It may be 1/3 of the cost (assuming you dont know how to build your own, because otherwise a pc would be far cheaper), but I can do 10x as much with it. I'm an IT guy so I guess I am biased as I like to take charge and do things my way, and not let a console guide me into thinking I'm good.

On July 27 2010 03:44 SC2Phoenix wrote:
Omg the reaction time on the AWP shot is absrud....

On July 27 2010 03:51 St0rmRush wrote:

Just raise the difficult when playing with mouse+keyboard and your problem is solved. =D

On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote:


And you aren't exaggerating when you say that ?

Even considering a few extra gadgets for your xbox360/ps3, you'll get in the 350-400$ range maximum. I've been building "gaming pcs" for over 10 years and never came close to that for a pc that could run games on high settings smoothly(which is close enough to a console's default quality settings usually). Let's be honest, a gaming PC setup is rarely under 900-1000$ (The PC, monitor and accessories).

I only play consoles when I have a few friends over. A LAN party is fun but certainly not as simple and straight forward as this : Give controller to friend, put NHL2010 in console, play.

Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way.

On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote:


And you aren't exaggerating when you say that ?

Even considering a few extra gadgets for your xbox360/ps3, you'll get in the 350-400$ range maximum. I've been building "gaming pcs" for over 10 years and never came close to that for a pc that could run games on high settings smoothly(which is close enough to a console's default quality settings usually). Let's be honest, a gaming PC setup is rarely under 900-1000$ (The PC, monitor and accessories).

I only play consoles when I have a few friends over. A LAN party is fun but certainly not as simple and straight forward as this : Give controller to friend, put NHL2010 in console, play.

Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way.

On July 26 2010 23:53 theSAiNT wrote:


You're totally missing the point.

Everybody agrees with you that it's hard to aim on a console. But it's an artificially imposed difficulty which to many people is unwarranted because a better solution exists.

To add to the many analogies already out there, it's really hard to play starcraft using your feet. Nobody will disagree. But it's a pointless endeavor when hands exist. Starcraft is a lot easier with hands.

You could even go so far as to create a professional league you had to play with your feet. You could even argue it's more 'skilled' than the league which allows hands. But to me, it's a waste of time. In the same way that 'competitive' Halo is a waste of time.

On July 27 2010 04:05 yakitate304 wrote:
It's hard to raise the difficulty when playing against other people online. I suppose I could tell them "play better", or maybe wear an eyepatch to reduce my vision...

On July 27 2010 04:34 Runnin wrote:
I've posted this like 8 times now but you must not have read the rest of the thread. Sports have all sorts of "artificially imposed difficulties" yet are very successful despite a lot of them having the same premise (get the ball/puck into the goal/zone). Starcraft, as another person mentioned, has the artificially imposed difficulty of 12 unit grouping caps. How can you willfully ignore "artificially imposed difficulty" in games you do enjoy while hating on the same thing in console games? Half of this community posts about how MBS and infinite group sizes in SC2 as reasons the game is worse than BW, yet all it is is the removal of artificial difficulties.

BTW there's a professional soccer league where you have to play with a stick and on ice skates and only get 6 players. Some people think it's more skilled than the league without the ice. Hockey is a monumental waste of time.

On July 27 2010 04:12 ZeaL. wrote:


I think he means that if you build your own, it should be far less than 3x the cost of a console. And if you are including the price of a monitor shouldn't you include the price of a TV? Decent TV $$$$ > Monitor $$. Also, a PC lets you do stuff besides game.

That said, I think consoles have a place. It is faaar easier to just grab a controller and have some fun if friends are over rather than lug a bunch of pc's/laptops and set up a LAN. PC for competitive gaming and console for party time IMO.

On July 27 2010 04:54 Yeidan wrote:


If that's what he meant specifically I misunderstood.

I still stand by my point that buying a gaming PC is a much bigger investment than a console. Who doesn't already have a somewhat-good TV in his house to plug a console into ? A TV can also do more than play games and usually every house has one for its "Watch TV and movies" nature. A console plugs right into it. A computer monitor usually is invested when looking to buy that gaming rig, for every gaming PC I've build for friends, they wanted to have a monitor to go with it (that isn't statistically relevant, but buying a monitor with your PC isn't too uncommon.)

Also, not to get into a debate to see who can make the cheapest gaming PC, but if you aren't pirating your OS liscenses, I can't see how you can get a PC at 500$ when just windows and your average video card is easily 350-400$ by itself.

On this note, off I am to play some NHL2010 with some friends up until 10 and then gamestop midnight launch here I come. :D

On July 26 2010 23:53 theSAiNT wrote:


You're totally missing the point.

Everybody agrees with you that it's hard to aim on a console. But it's an artificially imposed difficulty which to many people is unwarranted because a better solution exists.

To add to the many analogies already out there, it's really hard to play starcraft using your feet. Nobody will disagree. But it's a pointless endeavor when hands exist. Starcraft is a lot easier with hands.

You could even go so far as to create a professional league you had to play with your feet. You could even argue it's more 'skilled' than the league which allows hands. But to me, it's a waste of time. In the same way that 'competitive' Halo is a waste of time.

On July 27 2010 00:19 Ruthless wrote:
I am sure you can argue that there is mental strength in lining up the joystick and hitting shoot as you said above, but I feel that the PC model makes for much more strategy and dynamic play by not requiring you to focus so much on just moving the cursor around the screen.

On July 27 2010 00:19 Ruthless wrote:
The problem I have with this is that I think it is only more difficult to hit a large slow moving target because of physical handicaps imposed by the equipment instead of someones mental ability. Humans can keep up with a smaller faster moving target if the equipment allows them to manipulate the environment properly. I personally think games are all about mental strength. Sure both activities are quite difficult, but the PC I feel frees you to truly test that strength on the game and not on overcoming the limitations of a small range of motion.

On July 27 2010 04:01 Yeidan wrote:


Both my PC and 360 have different purposes for me and I like it that way.