I9300 vs XBOX 360 - Page 4

excuse me i meant all three (not da revolution tho )

Alright, you pushed a couple of my buttons with this one. :-)

I don't even play racing games, but off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen titles for the PC, so your implied statement that the PC has no decent racing games is incorrect.

There is not a single genera that the console covers but the PC doest, unless you're talking about Mario Brothers, and that you are welcome to.

And I have to tell you, a statement like "consoles actually have better games than the PC" is like saying, "Blue is better than red." It's as subjective of a statement as you can possible make. I'm not trying to bash, but please don't state opinion or perception as fact. It's disinformation and it's counterproductive.

Again, if you have no need for a nice computer, don't buy one. If you want an inexpensive device to play games on, get a console. There's not much else to it.

-Doc

Bottom line is, yes PC gaming is "better" but not 2000$ better.

Agreed!

Yeah, spending the coin needed to get a good gaming PC, especially a laptop, is not wise if you don't have other uses for the system.

Someone mentioned "justifying" getting a gaming laptop, and I believe that as soon as you have to justify anything, you're automatically wrong. :-)

I use the hell out of mine for all kinds of stuff, and I like to play games on it to boot.

-Doc

I used to film/edit wedding videos maybe i should get back into that and "justify" keeping my laptop, it woudl also "justify" another gig of ram lol

I'm on the same boat as most of you, i love my i9300 to death but its worth so much, i really need to use it to its full extent, otherwise i'm just being stupid and can enjoy "gaming only" on an xbox360.

as soon as i get my 9300 set up and transfer all my files to it, my desktop is going in my dads office. i will be using my 9300 as my main pc, so i dont need to justify a thing.

yeah i've pretty much stopped using my desktop altogether too...

I just happened to run out of games to play the other day and I kind of panicked. "Holy crap, I'm wasting my video card! Hurry up and release something new, Game Industry!"

-Doc

My XPS is my computer. I used to build a new game rig every year back when I had a real job. Now that I never know if I'm going to live anywhere for more than a year, and moving from one island to another makes it impossible to move a desktop around, I've completely switched to a laptop.

I love my computer. The power and capacity of today's laptops finally make it possible to leave the desktops behind.

-Doc

You couldn't be more wrong. Consoles have much more fighting, platform, survivor horror, sports, japanese RPGs, etc games than PC. PC has more FPS, RTS, MMOs, and western RPGs.

Console is better, esp on my 57in HDTV and 5.1 surround system. Altho I do have a gaming laptop, I rarely play games on it. I bought it, just in case I ever wanted to play games on it. I have BF2, guild wars, doom3, BF, etc but I never play them.

The problem I have with PC games is that there is not a big variety. I mean how many FPSs are truly unique? Consoles have a much better variety of games than PCs. Look at the Doom series. They have all been the same game from Doom to Doom3. The only difference is the graphix.

Regarding console games, it takes time for developers to learn to code on a system. For example compare a console's launch games to its 2nd and 3rd generation games. It takes years to develop great games.

I'll give you the one-off anime fan fodder and fighting, platform, and other "arcade" games. Survivor horror? As in Silent Hill and such? PC has lots of those. Sports? EA sports offers 24 games for consoles and "only" 11 for PCs. 11 titles hardly means that PC's only have FPS, RTS, MMO's and RPG's.

And don't get me started on playing games on large screen home theaters. I sold my used 140" projection system with 7.1 and bass shakers mounted in every seat for more than most people will ever spend on new stuff. (My previous life was a little over extravagant at times. 14 motorcycles, anyone?) As cool as it was for movies, I preferred my PC for games. Personal taste I suppose.

-Doc

I agree with that, the developers focus too much on the primary markets so it gets stale at times. My point, however, is that the games on a PC can be much more complex, as is seconded by my friend who worked on FEAR.

And Doom 3 is not fair to mention! It does represent the ultimate in disappointment since it was in fact Doom 1 with new graphics. That fruit is much too low to pick for this thread. :-)

According to the people I know at MS in the XBOX group, the real ramp-up time for better games on a console is the marketing strategy that I already mentioned. Sorry, but that one is a fact.

Think of it this way: Why would PC game developers be able to make games that stomp all over the current technology, but console developers take a lot more time to get good at programing for hardware that doesn't change? See? There's no logic in the idea of them "getting better" unless they're just not good programmers, which of course is not the case.

EDIT: OF course there is SOME innovation, but NOT the way people think... it does not actually explain the better games over time.

-Doc

this is my 1st "gaming pc" and i think ive decided pc over xbox now. titles like fear and hl2(yes i know its on xbox) have completely changed my gaming mind.

I think they both have their place, and many people have both. I just don't care for the "arcade" feel of most console games, that's all. Personal taste.

But having played so many PC games is what makes me notice that "arcade" feel. So that must mean something.

-Doc

Thats the problem, PCs only has EA sports. 2K Sports are superior to EA crap. There are way more survivor horror games on consoles than Silent Hill. What I am saying is that PC gaming main advantages are in FPS, RTS, MMO, and western RPGs. But the next-gen consoles will have those games too. There are many PC FPS, RPG, and MMOs that are coming to consoles. One huge advantage PCs will always have over consoles is mods and total conversions.

Regarding TVs, the next-gen consoles are designed for HDTVs and surround sound. That was not the case in the past with consoles, esp not PS2.

True to a point. The problem with most FPS games is that the only thing that is "more complex" is the grafix. Once you get over the "wow factor", the game is still the same old crap, the same old lame AI, etc. The truly innovative games, like Descent series, are too "complex" for the average PC gamer. They want more doom, quake, etc foolishness by the "greatest developer ever" carmack and co.

That is true for PC gaming too. But with every console there is a learning curve. As you get more familiar with a console, you understand how to optimize code on it. The problem with PC gaming is that the hardware changes so much developers don't learn how to optimize the code. Hence you have tons of patches for buggy games. M$'s directX has kinda helped things.

OK, again you are talking grafix. There is more to a game than that. All you get is YAFPS (yet-another-FPS) with pretty grafix. But the game play is the same. Even then you have to spend another $500 to see the "cool graphics". Or you get games like the latest BF2 add-on which is unplayable on many PCs but they add a new vehicle or two...

What you don't understand is that PC games can be developed according to directx specs then optimized for a particular card. With console development, they have to use development kits provided by the console maker. If Sony, M$, etc is late with the dev kits, that can seriously delay a game. Developers also have to wait to get the hardware to test their game on too. Since PCs normally have more RAM than consoles, games can be more sloppily coded, plus they can always release bug fixes over the net. Thus PC game developers never really learn to fully optimize their games on PCs since the hardware changes at least once per year. Then the games also have to be able to handle different resolutions, graphic settings, etc.

Not all FPS games are JAFPS. Actually, only a few of them are. Most have enough innovation in their gameplay to be worth playing. As a matter of fact, with one or two exceptions, the PC game market didn't start to stagnate until consoles became more popular and the software houses started developing more for the lowest common denominator to make a quick buck. Tomb Raider 6, Unreal 2, Call of Duty 2, Ghost Recon 2, Medal of Honor Pacific Assault, etc... all total shite compared to the game play of their predecessors because they were all built from the ground up for the console market. The PC gamers are being abandoned for an easier buck. So saying that the last couple years of PC games have been crappy without acknowledging WHY that has happened, is not very straight-forward.

I use the example of Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter a lot because Red Storm has stated that the game is for the PC, and that the gameplay experience will be much richer and more involved that it will be in the console port because consoles just don't measure up to the PC in control and functionality. So, no. When I say that the games can be more complex, I'm talking about the experience of playing them, not how they look. If anything can be accused of being nothing more than a GPU in a box, it's a console.

Clearly you can see my frustration with the Walmartizaton of the PC game industry. Thank god there are still holdouts who are still focusing on developing more immersive and interactive game experiences instead of easier to write, watered down versions for a console.

-Doc

i dunno guys, seems like by the time Unreal 3 Engine games comes out we'll all be scrambling to upgrade our laptops because it doesnt run properly (30fps+)

while xbox360 owners will pop it in and play in 60fps+ goodness.