• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

consoles suck

haha604 said:
However the variety of PC games on offer is relatively limited.
As I was reading this, I was thinking the exact opposite, to me the variety on console games seemed limited.
I believe I have this perception because I think the pc / console question comes down to personal preference (what type of games you like for example) and what you are used to.
 
^ In terms of sheer variety, consoles have the PC beat hands down. There isn't even really a competition there. For my PS2 I have games like Katamari Damacy (which is absolutely brilliant, I suggest everyone with a PS2 buy it), Parappa the Rappa 2, Viewtiful Joe, Armored Core 3, SSX3 etc. - so that list includes a game in which you roll a sticky ball around and try to get stuff stuck to it, a rhythm game starring an animated dog, a super high-tech side-scrolling platformer, a mech-battle game, and a fast paced free-roam snow-boarding game. The games are completely idiosyncratic, and games like Katamari Damacy are just outright bizarre. There is unarguably a huge amount of variety there.

So in my PC collection, I have about a dozen FPS games that vary from each other only in terms of weapons and terrain, probably another dozen strategy games that also really only vary from each other in terms of weapons and terrain, about a dozen motorsports games that vary in vehicle and track selection, and a small collection of pretty traditional sports games. The Sims 2 is really the only non-archetypal game out of the bunch. Most of them make pretty big leaps in terms of graphical complexity, but in terms of gameplay they do virtually nothing. None of the games stray from inherent tendencies in their respective genres; none of them make anything more than miniscule steps towards challenging or evolving their respective genres.

However, if I were to try to explain a game such as Katamari Damacy, I wouldn't even know where to start. Classifying it in terms of genre is practically impossible - it is such an intensely original game that strictly defining it is nearly impossible. Another good example is Viewtiful Joe - at its core it's a traditional side-scrolling platformer; however, the amount of sheer creativity in it completely evolves the entire genre.

I agree with Haha604 that it is nice to have balance between console and PC gaming, but over the course of the last few years PC game developers have become so profit-driven that nearly all creativity and passion has been sucked out of the industry. All you get every month is a few dozen new games perpetuating forms and archetypes that haven't been new or exciting for 5-10 years. However, every month there are numerous console games released that may only get very limited releases and don't make much profit, but are developed by companies filled with a passion to create intensely fun and creative gaming experiences. There is nothing even remotely comparable that has come out for PC in quite some time.

Sorry for the rants in this thread, but this is sort of my area of expertise. :)
 
zenon said:
you roll a sticky ball around and try to get stuff stuck to it, a rhythm game starring an animated dog, a super high-tech side-scrolling platformer, a mech-battle game, and a fast paced free-roam snow-boarding game
This is kind of my point I guess, none of these types of games generally interest me, in my mind, I lump them all together as "a bunch of arcade games" (BTW, I have hundreds of side-scrollers and the like for PC).
What interests me is FPS and (car / plane) simulator games, so from that perspective PC has more variety.
I wasn't trying to say that PC games have more variety as a "fact", I was trying to say that based on your personal preference, either a console or a PC is going to suit your needs better.
 
ever since i played 007 with 4players on a tv (53") i've had to wear
glasses. its simply too small.

i'm not sure if u guys realize, that, a max res on the tv is less than 800x600...
if u're running at those resolutions on a console/tv and a pc/monitor next to it at, oh, say 1600x1200 u'll just feel ridiculous trying to covince me that consoles are
even worth considering.

oh yeah, any game u have on a console, i have on pc. cuz i'm 8) like that
 
yea, you are the definition of 8)

haz
 
bahnstormer said:
oh yeah, any game u have on a console, i have on pc. cuz i'm 8) like that
Is that a challenge, because I guarantee I have console games you have never even heard of! And is that supposed to be a tongue in cheek statement, or do you think that is true. Because if so, that statement is almost as retarded as the one you started the thread with. :|

And about the resolution, I played hundreds and hundreds of hours of Goldeneye on N64 (I assume that is what you are talking about) and it didn't effect my eye-sight at all. Arguing about resolution in a PC versus console debate is a bit ridiculous anyway. Any good console game is built around having lower resolution - they don't involve small text or extremely fine details. You shouldn't be sitting in front of your TV squinting to see fine details. Poorly designed console games (like a lot of the FPS ports) have fine details and text that should never be in console games, but that is just the result of stupid game developers and by no means can be found in the majority of console games.

Oh, and here is a history lesson on consoles you probably didn't know. The Dreamcast can be hooked up through a first-party VGA adaptor to a standard PC monitor. Many Dreamcast games supported this feature, and were output to the PC monitor at an extremely high resolution.


ESPNSTI said:
What interests me is FPS and (car / plane) simulator games, so from that perspective PC has more variety.
That makes sense then - in the post I was replying to you said that console games have a limited variety, but if you are talking about FPS games and simulators, then that would be right. I'm glad there is a lack of FPS games on consoles though - I think it's pretty much a waste of time trying to fumble with a controller to play an FPS when you could play them on a PC with a mouse and keyboard.

ESPNSTI said:
(BTW, I have hundreds of side-scrollers and the like for PC)
How many of those were developed for PC and how many are MAME style emulations? I'm going to bet that all of them are emulated. There have been side-scrollers developed for PC in the past, but virtually none have been made within the last 10 years.
 
zenon said:
Arguing about resolution in a PC versus console debate is a bit ridiculous anyway. Any good console game is built around having lower resolution - they don't involve small text or extremely fine details. You shouldn't be sitting in front of your TV squinting to see fine details. Poorly designed console games (like a lot of the FPS ports) have fine details and text that should never be in console games, but that is just the result of stupid game developers and by no means can be found in the majority of console games.
I see this as a drawback of a console / tv, not of the game itself.
To me higher resolution makes the game feel more alive.
I'm sure consoles will catch up once HDTV is more common.

zenon said:
ESPNSTI said:
(BTW, I have hundreds of side-scrollers and the like for PC)
How many of those were developed for PC and how many are MAME style emulations? I'm going to bet that all of them are emulated. There have been side-scrollers developed for PC in the past, but virtually none have been made within the last 10 years.

I wasn't counting MAME, but yes they're all old.
 
bahnstormer said:
i'm not sure if u guys realize, that, a max res on the tv is less than 800x600...

Some XBOX games already support 720p. You just need a HDTV to make use of it. And personally I don't think playing a game at 1600*1200 versus 1280*1024 makes much of a difference on a small PC monitor.

I would guess that you haven't touched any console games for a long time because some of them look really good from normal TV viewing distance.
 
haha604 said:
I would guess that you haven't touched any console games for a long time because some of them look really good from normal TV viewing distance.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I always found myself having to get closer to my 32" tv when playing GT3 if I wanted to get good times, and from that closer distance, the lower resolution is quite visible.
 
ESPNSTI said:
haha604 said:
I would guess that you haven't touched any console games for a long time because some of them look really good from normal TV viewing distance.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I always found myself having to get closer to my 32" tv when playing GT3 if I wanted to get good times, and from that closer distance, the lower resolution is quite visible.

If you get too close you can see the blemishes. What I mean is sitting 4 to 5 feet away from the TV. At that distance console games such as Onimusha 3 and Viewtiful Joe look great, provided you use component video.

XBOX games that support HD don't really have this problem though. I played Outrun 2 at a friend's house and even up close the graphics are very clear. He has a 30" Widescreen CRT HDTV and it made a very noticeable quality difference from another normal 27" he has.
 
didnt read the whole thread but to answer your question:

High Definition TeleVision

basically instead of regular tv which has a resolution (just like the computer) of 800x600. you can pay more for a tv with up to 1072x760 or something like that

in the states the lowest price is about $6000 which i think is about 2500 pounds
 
HDTV is high definition television. Besides offering higher definition it also scans images progressively, line by line. Just think of HDTV as a bigger PC monitor, because both scan images in the same way. You can get a 30" CRT HDTV for around CAD$1000.
 
Don't think I've ever heard of or seen one of them b4 - perhaps didn't take off in this country. Either that or I've been hiding under quite a few rocks of late
 
mike_tseng said:
in the states the lowest price is about $6000 which i think is about 2500 pounds
What kind of HDTV are you thinking of?
You can get it at much lower prices (albeit not at the highest HDTV resolution).
HDTV has several standard resolutions, among which are:
1080i (or 1080p) which is 1920x1080 pixels (i = interlaced, p = progressive).
720p which is 1280x720 pixels.
 
i have a hdtv compatible 53" hitachi
only thing is you need a convertor (hd box)
to up the signal (which u have to buy a hd cable or
staellite)
 
Top