PDA

View Full Version : Consoles=teh suck



Sojourner
19-09-2005, 13:32
Why am I seemingly the only person in the world who hates consoles?

As far as I can see, you get what you pay for. The graphics are rubbish. The controls are rubbish. The storylines are weak. The gameplay is repetitive. I can honestly say that, apart from multiplayer Tekken, and Grand Theft Auto, I've never played a console game I've enjoyed.

FFVII. Rubbish.
Halo. Rubbish.
Armoured Core 3 - the most recent one. Rubbish.
Devil May Cry. Rubbish.
This Year's Football Cash-In 4. rubbish.
Soul Calibur. Rubbish.
Metal Gear Solid - all of them, as I recall. Rubbish.
Soul Reaver. Rubbish.

And I'm not an anti-games person. I play and enjoy a load of PC titles. I love Rome, Battlefield 2, Half-Life, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Civ, Rise of Nations and Eve Online.

Is it me, or them?

Anaxagorax
19-09-2005, 13:40
No, you're not the only one :)

Consoles are for children's games and dumped-down weak versions of PC games. Serious gaming(!) requires a PC.

:) Anax

Jet
19-09-2005, 13:43
The first game that came to mind that wouldn't work on a PC was Mario Kart.

4 people playing on the same TV in the same room is something rarely found on the PC.

bertcom1
19-09-2005, 13:49
Fallout and Eve Online are great. They help me stay thin by preventing me from getting up to have food.

Consoles are good for two or four player games where you are all in the same room and can taunt each other in person. The best games for this are simple things like wrestling, (MTV celebrity deathmatch is pretty funny) or other non-serious games like Timesplitters.

Console games usually either work or they dont, theres not the same techno-madness-compatability-insanity that accompanies PC gaming, stupid stuff like a game crashes if you have a virus checker running, which sucks for online games.

Single player console games are not all that great, unless they are humourous in nature.

Otherwise, PC games are more entertaining for me anyway.

Vault 13 4 teh win!!!11!eleven

hairyman
19-09-2005, 14:00
Yeah, with a few honourable exceptions (FFVII & X, MGS) single player console games suck. No depth, plot, strategy or feeling beyond looking at (occasionally) pretty cut scenes and mashing the x button.

x-esiv-4c
19-09-2005, 14:07
Consoles merely offer a different type of gaming. Some games are better suited for the PC like the fallout and BG series but I think the Silent Hill series is much better on console then PC.

It depends what games you buy.

Rik Valdis
19-09-2005, 14:12
I will agree that there is no point to consoles as soon as a deathmatch appears as brilliant as Golden Eye, still the most fun 'have some mates round and have a laugh' game ever invented on any system.

hairyman
19-09-2005, 14:15
Oh yeah, no doubt that for multi player action consoles rule. Golden Eye, Tekken, numeruos football games... I guess really they're more arcadish and geared towards two players than PCs.

Kargos Bloodspit
19-09-2005, 14:17
Consoles have a pick-up and playability about them that PC Games dont have. Nevermind the fact that its only a fraction of a cost of a PC (or at least a decent gaming one).

Controllers are easier to use than a keyboard.

Snoozer
19-09-2005, 14:34
I only play multiplayer games (and zelda) on consoles, there is nothing like having your friends over and playing Mario Cart (or any other game) and just having fun.

For single player games, like RPG's I use a PC.

:D

Sojourner
19-09-2005, 14:39
Controllers are easier to use than a keyboard.

Matter of opinion. Quite apart from the fact it isn't possible to put your thumb in two places at once...

Arnizipal
19-09-2005, 14:53
That's why most people have two thumbs ;)

Inquisitor Engel
19-09-2005, 15:03
To me, the PC sucks. Why? Because improvements in games require improvements in hardware that cost an insane amount of money, and it happens very, very often.

A good gaming PC, even factory made will cost you at least $1500, whereas a Console will cost you around $400. The games improve on their own, with developers finding new, innovative ways to use the hardware. The console remains the same, and needs to be replaced or upgraded about half as often as a computer does.

And the trailers for games on the X-Box 360 and PS3 are so far blowing anything I have ever seen on a PC away, and those are in game shots. ;)

But then again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not a console elitist. Just because you don't share my opinion doesn't mean you're wrong.

Happy gaming, no matter what you play on. :)

Bubble Ghost
19-09-2005, 15:26
FFVII. Rubbish.
Halo. Rubbish.
Armoured Core 3 - the most recent one. Rubbish.
Devil May Cry. Rubbish.
This Year's Football Cash-In 4. rubbish.
Soul Calibur. Rubbish.
Metal Gear Solid - all of them, as I recall. Rubbish.
Soul Reaver. Rubbish.

That list. Rubbish.

:p

This is a serious 'personal taste masquerading as fact' issue. The graphics are only "rubbish" because this console generation is nearing its end (PCs always overtake console technology during a generation, only to be leapfrogged again when the next batch of consoles come out), the controls aren't rubbish at all, and saying the gameplay is repetitive is a generalisation that has absolutely nothing to do with the format.

There's a very broad difference in design ethic between PC and console titles. Where PC games seem to attempt to be as real as possible, console titles make more use of abstraction and artificial devices. It's due to a slight difference in target audience. There's two ways of spinning this difference:

1) Console games are dumbed down for idiots.

2) PC games are played by nerds with nothing better to do.

Take your pick, they both amount to nothing but the fact that console games don't go to such lengths to hide the fact that they're games, and are often designed to be played in shorter sessions. This doesn't mean they're dumb or boring. I'm a "serious gamer" and a bit of an entertainment snob as well if I'm honest, but while I do like PC games as much as anything else, I'm not of the school of thought that considers only strategy titles and first-person shooters to be proper games. This issue appears to stem mostly from a personal preference for game genres, rather than either PCs or consoles having innately better games than the other.

nurgle_boy
19-09-2005, 16:10
i prefer PC's, but its just preferance really.
i find them esier to use, and just with a beter games selection (you have the web as well!)

i use my PS2 to play games like GTA, and the odd bit of FF, but apart from that, almost never.

and the fact that you can get emulators for the PC, and effectivly have a pc full of consoles! (if the graphics suck ass, and theyre slower, and less acurate.)

since i dont have any nintendo consoles (but a broken snes), i run an N64 emulator, and a GBA one.

not as good as the real thing, but theyre good to play some of those games that you cant get ahhold of!..


all of mine are perfectly legal as well... :angel: ;) :angel:

Sojourner
19-09-2005, 16:26
Fair enough on the differences of opinion but there is one thing I'm picky on; that of controls.

With a game controller you get better at using them through practice, as with any system. However, I think a keyboard-mouse setup is innately easier to use where accuracy is required or preferred. With your mouse hand, you have a much greater degree of control because you use most of your arm and three fingers to manipulate the buttons. On your keyboard hand, you have four digits placed perfectly for W-A-S-D-Space and the keyboard can accept (I believe) three at once, comapred to it being fairly difficult to push more than one or two action buttons at a time on most controllers.

Bubble Ghost
19-09-2005, 16:34
Fair enough on the differences of opinion but there is one thing I'm picky on; that of controls.

With a game controller you get better at using them through practice, as with any system. However, I think a keyboard-mouse setup is innately easier to use where accuracy is required or preferred.

A keyboard and mouse combo is great for the afforementioned strategy games and FPSs. But try a third person perspective title or a fighting game, for example, and it's worse than useless. Games develop that suit the input devices.

Rykion
19-09-2005, 16:35
I've been playing home videogames since the early 80's. I've had just about every console system available in the US. I've also always had a mostly up to date computer since the early eighties. Truthfully, which is better is simply a matter of taste.

Computers have the graphics edge within 6 months of a new console release, but if you bought your computer a year earlier you have to upgrade for it to help you. Even having an up to date gaming PC is no guarantee that a game will play well. You have to hope that the developers didn't optimize the game for a different CPU, videocard, soundcard, etc. that you don't own. You also have to hope that when you update drivers, performance on games you already own doesn't get killed. A mouse is great for precise control, but it makes shooters too easy without super AI or vast numbers of AI opponents. Console thumbsticks actually take time to learn, and give a more realistic control for shooters.

I do find that I like a higher percentage of computer games, but I've found over the years that console games have become more complicated. Computer games built up complexity through the eighties to early nineties, but through the last 10 years computer games have become more simplistic. I suspect during the next generation of consoles, or the one after, there will be very little difference in the complexity of PC games versus console ones.

Zark the Damned
19-09-2005, 16:38
I'm one of the group that enjoys both Console AND PC games.

I find Console games tend to be easier to pick up and play for short bursts, and multiplayer/party games work far better on a console.

However, I enjoy the sheer depth of PC Games, and I must admit that mouse/keyboard is by far the best combination of keys for 1st person shooters.

Jet
19-09-2005, 16:40
Sojouner: what if you want to move forward but slightly left. Console controls have become fully analogue, in terms of directional movement. The double stick setup with triggers is in my opinion one of the best setups atm.

Jedi152
19-09-2005, 16:41
Look at it this way: Consoles don't cost 2 grand to start with, and then have to be upgraded every 6 months just to play the latest games.

I prefer PC games, but i simply cannot afford to keep up with new processor speeds etc.

So until i become rich, i'll stick to consoles.

Strikerkc
19-09-2005, 17:02
Well I've certianly enjoyed both over the years, they're just for different things.

Games like Dawn of War, Star Craft, Guild Wars, EverQuest, Fallout, etc. Play best on PC's if for nothing more than the interface. You also don't really have to worry about the graphics requirements of Everquest type games needing constant updates, since any add ons are meant to work with previous versions, and fully new games are only every other year or so.

Racing, driving, fighting, dog fighting, games, and to a certain extent shooters(exceptions like couterstrike and rainbow 6 style things), are often more enjoyable on counsole becuase they require a slightly more intimate conection to the game (you can control a dog fight with two triggers and two thumb sticks better than a mouse and keyboard).

So I use both. Halo, battle front, kung-fu-chaos, and spider man get the xbox. Guild Wars, Dawn of War, C&C games, and RPG's get my PC.

Sojourner, you just seem to be playing games you don't like ;). I don't care for 3/4 of those games and I still get plenty of use out of my consol (even pull out my N64 every now and then).

Kaze
19-09-2005, 17:43
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Gran Turismo 4 I'll give you some credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Metal Gear Solid 3 I'll give you some more credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats God of War I'll give you even more credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Zone of the Enders 2 I'll give you a bit more credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Virtua Fihgter 4 you're my hero.

Seriously, this discussion shouldn't even exist. Console games and pc games should be "married", not "divorced". In a PC you can't get the gaming experience you get in a console. Besides it is far more expensive. In a console you can't get the "intelligent" part of games (read strategy games).

However, I'll always be a console gamer, simply due to the extreme dedication and pride that some software houses put in their games, Konami for MGS3 and Polyphony for GT4 as an example. They don't launch games just to make money, unlike some companies like EA.

Rykion
19-09-2005, 18:12
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Gran Turismo 4 I'll give you some credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Metal Gear Solid 3 I'll give you some more credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats God of War I'll give you even more credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Zone of the Enders 2 I'll give you a bit more credit.
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Virtua Fihgter 4 you're my hero.

The original X-com beats all of those games. Of course, since it is a matter of opinion, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. ;) I prefer X-men Legends, Halo, Knights of the Old Republic, Star Wars Battlefront on consoles compared to any of those games.

Consoles are quite good at "intelligent" games. Most developers just go for the quick buck of mediocre action games though.

Mouldsta
19-09-2005, 18:13
One of the other reasons is simplicity - you know that a console game you buy will work. Hands up who's had to play a PC game in 800x640 because otherwise it's unplayable?

Another example from my own experience is Battlefield 2 - I looked at the requirements, and as my PC is quite up to date then I met all of them. And then in tiny print, what graphics cards it supports - mine isn't one of them.

Do I fancy buying a brand new graphics card to play one game? Not really, so I'll play it wen i get around to upgrading my PC in about a year's time. Now on the other hand, when I go out and buy Burnout: Revenge on friday, I won't have to look at the box at all - if it says X-box then it'll work at full speed in it's best resolution on my X-box, with no slowdown, pop up or anything like that.

I like PC games for strategy and FPS, but I won't touch any other type of game with a stick on PC - it's virtually unplayable.

On another note, while the mouse is perfect for aiming, the keyboard is.....clunky at best. There's no subtelty, and can lead to uncomfortable finger positions - trying to jump, crouch (to fit through a window), go forwards and sprint all at the same time can lead to a finger version of twister. At least on consoles the buttons are right under your fingers

Kaze
19-09-2005, 19:00
The original X-com beats all of those games. Of course, since it is a matter of opinion, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. ;) I prefer X-men Legends, Halo, Knights of the Old Republic, Star Wars Battlefront on consoles compared to any of those games.


Those games were just an example to show that this discussion is absurd. Just like if anyone said that PC Games suck compared to those in consoles, I'd just ask if they can find a console game that can beat Ground Control 2 or the Homeworld series. It's pointless to argue. They complete each other and I certainly, as a gamer, couldn't live without both of them.

Rykion
19-09-2005, 19:11
Those games were just an example to show that this discussion is absurd. Just like if anyone said that PC Games suck compared to those in consoles, I'd just ask if they can find a console game that can beat Ground Control 2 or the Homeworld series. It's pointless to argue. They complete each other and I certainly, as a gamer, couldn't live without both of them.

I know that was why I used old winky here. ;)

I believe that consoles could dominate in strategy games, if developers put their minds to it.

jazzdude78
20-09-2005, 03:00
Am I the only one who finds it odd that almost all of the games the first poster listed are strategy games
and of the games on console one of them is also for the PC

The fact that a good console strategy game is basically relegated to something like FF tactics is
the genre he enjoys the most is basically nonexistent on Consoles
and some of the RPGs (FF7/Fallout/Baldurs Gate) are on both PC and console, and Halo is on the PC as well and Half life is availible on a console i think
at least counter strike is anyway

Strikerkc
20-09-2005, 03:15
... Half life is availible on a console i think
at least counter strike is anyway

Not jsut yet I don't think, in a mor two if I recall (for xbox certainly any how).

Alco Engineer
20-09-2005, 03:33
I have both and I play my xbox far more often than my PC. Becacuse I'd rather sit on my bed with a controller in my hand than sit in my study on a crappy little chair playing games. And I've played (and own) GTA3 on both and the xbox versions better IMO. The playability of the controller (Sure I know you can get x-box controller converters for PC) and you just can't drive by in the pc while driving at high speeds (or even at all) because the buttons are all too far apart. I did find placing headshots with the mouse easier but it took a bit of the challenge away from the game.

I also play Knights of the old republic which is great on xbox (haven't played PC version) but I imagine very little difference. And I imagine cost is the big difference. I payed AU$300 for my xbox which gets a fair bit of use and AU$1500 for my PC which I use less (My GF uses it for work and I use it on the net occasionally but I do most of my net surfing at work. Broadbands just faster).

So I wouldn't play Dawn of War or Civilisation on Xbox, but that doesn't mean PC is better for all games either.

Wintermute
20-09-2005, 06:53
Not jsut yet I don't think, in a mor two if I recall (for xbox certainly any how).

Half-Life was released for the PS2.

Half-Life 2 is due for release on the X-Box. However the early reports of this version are poor [according to Edge magazine].

Lord Balor
20-09-2005, 07:36
I can't Play Street Fighter 3 on Computer, nor can i play Dawn of War on the X-box. The console allows me to pick up and play relatively fun games for short bursts while the computer allows for a more through session with 'intelligent' games. I find myself more attracted to the console because realisticly speaking, i don't have the time for such prolonged gaming hours due to work, university and social constraints. It's just a matter of time and taste really...

Helicon_One
20-09-2005, 21:30
If you can tell me of a PC game that beats Gran Turismo 4 I'll give you some credit.

GTR.... Richard Burns Rally.... RFactor.... Live For Speed.... F1 Challenge 99-02.

How much credit does that get me?

Tim

Ozorik
21-09-2005, 12:05
The gaming genres that I like best; RTS, FPS and RPGs, particulary MMORPGs (got to love the tide of anacroynisims) only really work on the PC. Admittedly I havent played that many console games recently but I dont feel compleled too. RPGs may be popular on consoles but to my mind the well known ones at least are crap, aside from KOTOR and that was too linear. Even GTA, supposedly one of the best games ever made was fairly boring, entertaining enough fora while but I havent even bothered to finish it.

It does seem to me that console games tend to be dumbed down over their PC versions. This is highlighted when games have a dual PC/console development, just look at the reaction to dues ex 2.

Im sure this post will attract flmaes but this is my opinion on the matter.

ironduke
21-09-2005, 16:27
I will agree that there is no point to consoles as soon as a deathmatch appears as brilliant as Golden Eye, still the most fun 'have some mates round and have a laugh' game ever invented on any system.

The best game ever, ever (repeat till life ends as we know it) the only thing that kept me going through two years of boarding school also i absolutly owned anybody at it.

I don't like the loading times on PC's, admitadly there is the same on the consoles but i can tolerate but i hate moving the mouse around and pressing keys on the keyboard it requires too much hand eye co-ordination. I only like the final fantasies and first person shooters other than that i like strategy games on the PC. These don't belong any where near the console.

grey_painter
21-09-2005, 19:37
This is abit of a hoffelnosh really.:p

Strategy and FPS as were said before many times are easier to play with the mouse keyboard set up.

Thirdperson action games, fighting or anything that requires alot of complex character movement (I'm thinking of Tony Hawk games) are easier and in my mind more satisfying with a controller. I just feel it easier to get into a fast paced game with my hands around that piece of plastic so I don't have to move all the way across a keyboard for a vital command, its an inch away from my thumb. Much less concious thought.

Might be my imagination but bad bugs are more common in PC games because of the reliance on patchs. Though could be the patchs that highlight all the bugs I would otherwise miss...

bertcom1
21-09-2005, 20:30
I have a slight suspicion that the Internet has resulted in PC games becoming progressively lower quality, since the net makes it so much more easy to fix problems.

Years ago, the games I was playing on my 486, like Doom and X-Wing and so on I could play for hours on end with not a single error. Lately, the games I am playing on this computer crash out too often for my liking, and the computer heats up so much that it needs huge fans.

Compared with my PS2, which I have had for a considerable time, I have never had a game crash out on me.

Its almost like PCs are regressing in ability, to levels of reliability of the early valve computers. Its ridiculous. The Integrated Circuit and the Microprocessor were supposed to be better than valves because they didnt need the cooling systems that valves did. Now in order to run cool enough, you need fans that make such a racket that you cant hear anything else.

Balseraph
22-09-2005, 01:05
The original X-com beats all of those games. Of course, since it is a matter of opinion, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. ;) I prefer X-men Legends, Halo, Knights of the Old Republic, Star Wars Battlefront on consoles compared to any of those games.

Consoles are quite good at "intelligent" games. Most developers just go for the quick buck of mediocre action games though.

Well any old Amiga era title is automatically cooler than modern games because of retro funk. Ignoring that X Com/ UFO Enemy Unknown is the coolest strategy title from that time. ;) ;) :angel:

ironduke
22-09-2005, 10:56
They have brought a new one out recently haven't they of xcom series a revamped version of the enemy unknown?

Ozorik
22-09-2005, 11:52
No, that was a different game by another developer titled UFO:aftermath. It runs along similar lines to the earlier ufo games but doesnt quite reach their level probably due to an eratic difficulty curve and it becomes a bit samey after a while. Im looking forward to the sequal though. X-com appears to be dead these days although the gallop brothers are behind laser squad: nemisis which is basically a play by email verson of x-com.

BorisGT
22-09-2005, 13:08
Consoles are for children's games and dumped-down weak versions of PC games.


Ever play Manhunt?

Rykion
22-09-2005, 14:13
There is a game for the Gameboy Advance called Rebelstar: Tactical Command. People describe it as a mix between X-com and a RPG. The graphics look like a "cutesy" X-com, and the website even says "from the makers of X-com."

I find it ironic that the latest unofficial sequel to one of the greatest strategy games ever has come out on a hand held console.

Jo Bennett
22-09-2005, 14:48
Ever play Manhunt?

Isn't that the one of the most recent ones to have the tabloid press up in arms? I'm pretty sure those are all aimed at children, they're like the alcopops of the gaming world. :p

I much prefer my PC to consoles. I think the whole upgrading every 6 months is overblown. My PC is around 3 years old and still plays everything I want it to play, and does a great deal more besides. It cost me GBP1200 back in 2002. The important thing is to buy wisely. There are some things that will cost a hell of a lot more to buy separately and will last you longer than others. Main thing is graphics cards, another is speakers and monitor. You can usually add another step or two to your processor fairly cheaply, and ram will cost less and less the longer you wait. Sound cards you won't notice much difference unless you're an expert, bog standard DVD-ROM does for most purposes.

The other issue of course is that I am a geek and like tinkering with my PC.

Samoth
22-09-2005, 14:55
AOE2 actually came out on the ps2. Not sure how that went. Having tried to play counter strike on xbox though, it isnt nearly as good as on pc, and that is entirely due to the "speed"of the controllers sticks, and the lack of accuacy that you just dont get with a controller compared to a mouse.

But seriously, when fewer fast movements are needed, why exactly wouldn't rts games go well on consoles? I need a mouse more-so to play counterstrike than generals, but guess which one is on xbox?

And on yet the other hand (Jeez, I've got quite a few :p) I can play halo just fine on the xbox, but struggle a little on pc. Go figure.

lord_blackfang
22-09-2005, 15:22
PC all the way.

Sure, the PC costs more than a console. But guess what? You need a PC anyway. So it's not "PC or console" but "PC or PC+console."

And while consoles offer better multiplayer options on a single machine, there's nothing quite like a 8 (or more) player LAN party, esp. with the superior games the PC offers.

Bubble Ghost
22-09-2005, 15:31
I hate FPS games on the PS2 and Xbox (not so much the Gamecube) because of the horrendous, wibbly-wobbly analogue sticks. With Nintendo's ones you can feel resistance to guage how far away you are from the X and Y axes so it's a little easier - it's easy to just move the stick horizontally or vertically without a little bit of diagonal by accident - though it's still not ideal.

Plus I'm left handed, which means I usually have to swap the move and look stick funtions over - which in turn means I can't move and jump at the same time when I'm playing Halo unless I take my left hand off the look stick and move it across to the face buttons. I am actually physically unable to play Freedom Fighters on the PS2 because of this, since the combination of wobbly joystick, counter-intuitive camera orbit and having to use my right hand means I can't get my head around the look stick, and just end up running around like a headless chicken trying to aim the camera until I die.

Give me a mouse any day. Or an N64 joypad, those things absolutely rocked. Left hand look and shoot with trigger, right hand move with C buttons. Those were the days. *sigh*

Cheesejoff
22-09-2005, 18:42
What's wrong with the XBOX's analogue sticks? I find that for moving they are far superior to a kb+m, but for aiming precision you need a kb+m. I wouldn't say PC has all the better games, sure it has most of them but there's still Halo, GR2, Forza Motorsport, and a bunch of other quality titles on XBOX. The PS2, however, is another matter....

SAMAS
23-09-2005, 13:56
Yeah, with the PS2, you get God of War, Katamari Damacy, Devil May Cry, Front Mission 4, Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, Zone of the Enders 2: the 2nd Runner, Xenosaga, Ratchet & Clank, Virtua Fighter 4, Guilty Gear(also for Xbox), R-Type: Final, and Gradius V, among others. :D

What I prefer about consoles is that they have really good games across several genres, while all the best PC games tend to be in only two or three genres every year: Mostly First Person Shooters and MMORPGs, with the occasional Real-Time Strategy game. Ever so often, an RPG gets into the mix.

The PS2 list, on the other hand, gives me Third Person Action, Platform Shooter, Turn-Based Strategy, Tatical RPG, Console RPG, Classic Shmups, 2D Fighter, 3D Fighter, Zero-Gravity Mech Combat, and whatever the hell Katamari Damacy is.

I really don't have much place for most PC games. If I want to Level Grind, I can go all the way up to Level 5000 in Disgea, then Transmigrate and do it all over again, and be even stronger the second time around, and I can still get enemies that can give me a challenge.

And I really don't need that many games that give me half a gun bouncing around the lower right corner of my screen as I shoot guys in darkened buildings.